# Crossbred dogs...



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

I was reading around on a couple of things and came across a post an another forum slamming people who buy crossbred dogs basically saying its a waste of money and if you are happy with a "mutt" you should only get it from a shelter. 

I just think this is a bizarre thing to say? Two of my three dogs are mixed breed and I bought. I chose not to adopt because if I did I would have had a dog that was unsuitable to my lifestyle. I chose dogs crossed with breeds which I could handle. If I had gone to my local shelter I could have picked between staffie mixes and terrier breeds, great dogs, but totally would not have fitted into my household. 

I can see the point about not lining the pockets of BYB but I wanted a choice of the dog I ended up with, not only what was available at the shelter at the time and which I wouldn't have been able to provide the right care for. I wanted pug mixes because I wanted the sweet, easy going nature of the pug but preferred to have a dog with less exaggerated features. Is this not an acceptable reason to choose to buy a mixed breed?  

Thoughts?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

were the parents of your dogs health tested, for the recommended things for the breeds?


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> were the parents of your dogs health tested, for the recommended things for the breeds?


I know for certain that one of my crossbred dog's parents were tested, yes. The other I'm not so sure about if the mother was.


----------



## LittleHolly (Jun 15, 2015)

I understand where your coming from, i have 2 pomchis (pomerainian x chihuahuas) believe it or not i was actually looking for a shih tzu or a shih tzu x thats until i saw and met my holly, i feel bad for lining her breeders pocket but dont regret her. I think some cross breeds are fine aslong as health conditions are considered on both sides of the dogs. I didnt want to rescue due to having 2 small children and didnt want to risk getting an untrained dog or a dog with behavioural issues so i chose to get a puppy so i coukd train from day 1. I do get why people would want others to rescue though but sometimes p3ople cant rescue or dont feel they have a rescue dogs best interest. I would however like to rescue in the future regardless of issues but this will be when my kids are older so i have more time to work with the rescue.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nothing wrong with mixed breed from health tested partents, but it does annoy me when people say they purchased such and such a cross because they wanted the temp of x breed but not the health issues? The nature of a cross means you can't guarantee the temp or health! If you get from unhealth tested parents you run the risk of getting all the health issues and none of the temp! Annoys me when people assume all rescues have issues and are a risk!

Also there are already breeds out there with Pug like temps without the health issues?


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

LittleHolly said:


> I didnt want to rescue due to having 2 small children and didnt want to risk getting an untrained dog or a dog with behavioural issues so i chose to get a puppy so i coukd train from day 1. I do get why people would want others to rescue though but sometimes p3ople cant rescue or dont feel they have a rescue dogs best interest. I would however like to rescue in the future regardless of issues but this will be when my kids are older so i have more time to work with the rescue.


This is the way I feel too (minus the small children!!) - I felt I would be doing a disservice to a shelter dog at this time in my life. I have adopted in the past which was very rewarding and wonderful to give an older dog a second chance. But I don't currently have a living situation which could support a staffie mix or larger breed dog which is mostly what is available at the shelters in my area. I feel like a dog has to be able to fit in with your lifestyle otherwise it's unfair on everyone involved, including the dog.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> feel like a dog has to be able to fit in with your lifestyle otherwise it's unfair on everyone involved, including the dog.


If you went to a good rescue they would only give you a dog that was able to fit in with your lifestyle!

There are 1000's of dogs in rescue who would cause you no more issues than any mix breed puppy.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Jeez i wish people would get the whole rescue dogs dangerous with small children or come untrained or have behavioral issues or that no puppies are ever born in rescue
despite what people believe, in their ignorance, these days more dogs are handed in due to family breakups, bedroom tax, having to move homes where more and more landlords are refusing pets or work commitments , than are real strays
Many many of those dogs are well trained and beloved pets that have no issues whatsoever

Back to the subject tho
*ANYONE *who is stupid enough to pay more for a mongrel [cos at the end of the day that *IS* what they are] than you would for a purebred, is happy enough to take a pup where there is no evidence of *BOTH* parents having had all the health tests that are required by each breed club before breeding [not just a vet saying theyre healthy] has no breeder back up for life, including taking back at any age or for any reason, doesnt come having had at least its first injections, 4 weeks insurance, 5 yr pedigree of *BOTH *parents so you can trace the lineage and health, deserves to be parted from their money
however the ones who suffer are *ALWAYS* the dogs, because the more idiots that line the pockets of these merchants of misery, the more dogs will be bred


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Round here, a pretty middle class area, named crossbreeds are status symbols, & their owners consider them superior to your run-of-the-mill unidentifiable mutts because they have a cute name & they paid a big wad of cash for them.

My crossbred dog is pretty unhealthy so that throws the 'hybrid vigour' theory out the window for me, you really don't know what you are going to get heath or temperament wise, or which breed traits will be prevalent.

I also think, like with the more popular or fashionable purebreds, it's a minefield to find a decent breeder.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Nothing wrong with mixed breed from health tested partents, but it does annoy me when people say they purchased such and such a cross because they wanted the temp of x breed but not the health issues? The nature of a cross means you can't guarantee the temp or health! If you get from unhealth tested parents you run the risk of getting all the health issues and none of the temp! Annoys me when people assume all rescues have issues and are a risk!
> 
> Also there are already breeds out there with Pug like temps without the health issues?


I agree when people talk about crossbreeds being healthier because it is such a gamble. I guess I've been lucky with the temperament of my crossbreeds, they are a good mix of both breeds and everything I wanted. Of course not all is down to genetics. I suppose what bugged me most about what I read was the suggestion that if you don't want/mind not having a purebred dog you must adopt. Adoption is not always so easy and that has nothing to do with some people's assumptions that rescues all have issues, it's simply sometimes a case of not being in a position to take on whatever is available at the shelter. I have adopted in the past and all has been well. But mostly what is available at the shelters in my area are staffies and terriers and this kind of dog is just totally unsuited to my lifestyle.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

There's not a problem at all with cross breeds, loads of us here have crosses, the problem is that many crosses now, especially with smaller breeds are the actual breeder themselves. 
Many don't bother their backsides health testing and come up with a new 'designer breed' that is very attractive to potential buyers. Leaving aside the health issues that may occur (cross breeds or good old fashioned mongrels years ago may well have been healthy dogs but the story is very different now) unless you are purchasing a pup from someone who is really health and temperament testing, one of these pups may well come from a very slick set up, with glossy, cleverly worded websites or adverts, but behind closed doors is a poor bitch that is used to churn out litter after litter until they are of no worth. 
If you can get a cross breed pup from an ethical breeder, fill your boots I say but speaking as an owner of a cross breed (who I got as a pup from a rescue) you will NEVER be guaranteed a certain temperament or look.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

simplysardonic said:


> Round here, a pretty middle class area, named crossbreeds are status symbols, & their owners consider them superior to your run-of-the-mill unidentifiable mutts because they have a cute name & they paid a big wad of cash for them.
> 
> My crossbred dog is pretty unhealthy so that throws the 'hybrid vigour' theory out the window for me, you really don't know what you are going to get heath or temperament wise, or which breed traits will be prevalent.
> 
> I also think, like with the more popular or fashionable purebreds, it's a minefield to find a decent breeder.


Are you secretly standing at my school gates, SS?? Unless a dog is either a puppy or a cute ball of fluff, no one is interested and children who frankly should know better as they are 9/10 years of age edge round past a quietly sitting Labrador like it's Satan whilst shouting ' oh, DOG!' Do parents not teach children to walk calmly past dogs in this day in age?? Sorry! Derailing rant!


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

mrs phas said:


> Jeez i wish people would get the whole rescue dogs dangerous with small children or come untrained or have behavioral issues or that no puppies are ever born in rescue
> despite what people believe, in their ignorance, these days more dogs are handed in due to family breakups, bedroom tax, having to move homes where more and more landlords are refusing pets or work commitments , than are real strays
> Many many of those dogs are well trained and beloved pets that have no issues whatsoever
> 
> ...


It's not always a case of not adopting because of assumed risk or issues though. I could never cope with a staffie. It just wouldn't suit what I can offer and therefore it would be ridiculous of me to be hellbent on rescuing a dog only to have to return it because I had taken on an unsuitable breed. And in my area, I'd say around 90% of shelter dogs are staffies. That's just the area I live in. I'm sure it's different all around the country.

I wasn't aware that people were paying more for crossbreeds than they are for purebred dogs. That seems a bit insane. But also I think requiring the assurance that the breeder will take the dog back at any age is a bit OTT, that's just my opinion. I do however agree that parents should be health checked. I think there's a big difference between someone unscrupulously breeding from their pet dog to make a bit of extra cash, and someone thinking through all eventualities and ensuring proper planning before deciding to produce crossbred puppies responsibly.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> mostly what is available at the shelters in my area are staffies and terriers and this kind of dog is just totally unsuited to my lifestyle.


So I guess for me it comes down to either be willing to wait for a dog that suits you or travelling to get the right dog?

I know what dogs I wanted, I knew the health issues involved in the breed and I researched and travelled for both breeds to get them! I waited near 6 years for Cian....and travelled to Birmingham from Belfast to get him. Belfast to London for KT, Belfast to Cork for Eric!

I hand on heart couldn't buy a cross breed, I can't see any reason too, it wouldn't sit well with me. Plenty of dogs with Pug temps, and loads of cross breeds in rescue needing homes! I would chose a rescue every time for a cross breed, or find a ethical breeder of a breed who also match my lifestyle.


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

Aahlly said:


> I wanted pug mixes because I wanted the sweet, easy going nature of the pug but preferred to have a dog with less exaggerated features.


Would you have been happy with the exact opposite? The nature of whatever other breed was involved in the cross but all the exaggerations of the pug? What advantage did you gain over going to a pug breeder working to lessen exaggeration or a breeder of the other breed?

There are definitely some breeds which could likely benefit from some careful outcrossing to reduce problematic conformation or eradicate health problems (like the LUA dalmatians) but the solution to over-exaggeration isn't random first crosses between totally disparate breeds with little to no understanding of canine conformation and no, or few, health tests in place.

I've not yet seen a breeder of crosses who genuinely seems to be working towards a long term reduction in either health problems or exaggerated conformation.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> But also I think requiring the assurance that the breeder will take the dog back at any age is a bit OTT, that's just my opinion. I do however agree that parents should be health checked. I think there's a big difference between someone unscrupulously breeding from their pet dog to make a bit of extra cash, and someone thinking through all eventualities and ensuring proper planning before deciding to produce crossbred puppies responsibly.


Health tested not checked its two very different things!

All ethical breeders should support puppies for their life, and should take dogs back what ever the age! They produced them they are responsible for them throughout their life!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I have two bought crossbreeds too,. Both were bought when I was less knowledgeable about finding good breeders. With Missy, I was young, mourning the loss of my previous dog and just jumped at the first ad I saw that my mum agreed to. Totally not the right way to go about finding a puppy, but it happened, and 13 years later she's still with us, and happy and healthy.Ty's breeder was somewhat more responsible, and I did know slightly better, but again it was a case of going with pups my mum agreed to. 
Our previous dog to that was a rescued boy from my dad's workmate whom I adored! Then, before getting Missy we did try another rescue. She was an EBT x and we met her in her foster home, fell in love, was told she would suit us well and that she was brilliant with everything. But sadly once living with us she was extremely difficult and showed alot of FA behaviours that frankly scared my mum half to death. Taz was lunging at visitors, growling at anyone who approached, snapping at our cats, and went to bite my dad one night on his return from work. I was 17 and felt out of my depth and unsupported in wanting to try and help her, so she was sadly returned to rescue. My mum didn't want another rescue after that and hence the arrival of Missy & Ty.

Anyone so much for that rambling on. But I have no issues with people buying crossbred pups, although now I do know what I do, I couldn't support any old breeder who is not breeding to the same standards a good purebred breeder is. I think the whole 'designer' dog craze has made buying crossbreeds more unacceptable IMO as its seen as 'just' a money making ploy. However I have seen really good breeders of Labradoodles, and some Cockerpoos and Cavapoos etc, they're out there, it's just harder to find them. I do think there is some dismissive attitudes towards people wanting to buy crosspred pups though and its always thrown around that the only concern is money etc. I just think you need to be more careful in picking and choosing a breeder of crossbred pups, that's all.


----------



## LittleHolly (Jun 15, 2015)

mrs phas said:


> Jeez i wish people would get the whole rescue dogs dangerous with small children or come untrained or have behavioral issues or that no puppies are ever born in rescue
> despite what people believe, in their ignorance, these days more dogs are handed in due to family breakups, bedroom tax, having to move homes where more and more landlords are refusing pets or work commitments , than are real strays
> Many many of those dogs are well trained and beloved pets that have no issues whatsoever
> 
> ...


I do understand where your coming from but a lot of rescues are also very strict in who they re home to i know this is in the dogs best interest but i bet a lot of loving homes gets turned down. I actually used to foster rabbits for a rescue and home check as well and they were very strict the amount of people i had to turn down because of hutch size etc. and couldn't take someone word for it when they said they will be out exercising 8 hours a day every day' which really just meant they scrapped the rescue idea when getting turned down and went to a petshop anyways and lined their pockets instead.

However i don't regret at all getting my holly shes a cross breed and I loved her the second I saw her picture I did pay more then what id have expected for a cross breed though. Benji my 2nd cross breed was 9 months when I got him and his owners couldnt take him with them I recently found out im his 3rd home! which is hard to believe because hes such a good dog (80% of the time) lol they put a price up for him but did homechecks and decided out of everyone we were the better home and she gave us him for free (although I made her take some money)

I have them both insured and ready finacially if any health issues pop up.

I would never recommend their cross breed and always tell people their a cross breed if they ask what they are as I wouldn't want to promote buying a Pomeranian x chihuahua.

The rescues around me are also full of staffies and lurchers and neither breed would have suited us as a family  I would however consider rescueing eitehr of these breeds in the fitire though as I have no issue with either just I had to find something suitable for my lifestyle right now.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> So I guess for me it comes down to either be willing to wait for a dog that suits you or travelling to get the right dog?
> 
> I know what dogs I wanted, I new the health issues involved in the breed and I researched and travelled for both breeds to get them!
> 
> I hand on heart couldn't buy a cross breed, I can't see any reason too, it wouldn't sit well with me. Plenty of dogs with Pug temps, and loads of cross breeds in rescue needing homes! I would chose a rescue every time for a cross breed, or find a ethical breed of a breed who also match my lifestyle.


I can see where you're coming from absolutely. And I guess some of my decisions you could say came from naivety on my part! I had very low hopes at the time that the kind of dog I wanted would come up as a rescue though. It's interesting to learn other points of view on this subject, I know it can be a little touchy. Dogs are such a personal thing and people, rightly, have strong opinions.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Aahlly said:


> . I chose not to adopt because if I did I would have had a dog that was unsuitable to my lifestyle. I chose dogs crossed with breeds which I could handle. If I had gone to my local shelter I could have picked between staffie mixes and terrier breeds, great dogs, but totally would not have fitted into my household.





Aahlly said:


> I know for certain that one of my crossbred dog's parents were tested, yes. The other I'm not so sure about if the mother was.





Aahlly said:


> Of course not all is down to genetics. I suppose what bugged me most about what I read was the suggestion that if you don't want/mind not having a purebred dog you must adopt.


I fancy popcorn!


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I have no different issues with crossbreeds than I do with pedigrees 
I have bought puppy cross breeds, I have rescued pedigree and rescued puppy crossbreed
I have issue with poor breeding practice 
In my opinion (purely opinion no factual evidence) 85% of all breeders are substandard. In crossbreeds this rises to 95%.
There are dogs of all shapes, sizes and temperaments in rescue. I have had a calm, relaxed, child and animal friendly Bicton Frise and a hyper, bouncy, bitey yorkie cross from rescue.
The crossbreeds I bought from a breeder I was niave and knowing what I know now about dog welfare, BYBs, puppy dealers, health tests, good breeding practice etc I wish I'd never lined their pockets with the money to encourage them to carry on.
I adore dogs of all shapes and sizes, I despise people who breed dogs unethically


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Health tested not checked its two very different things!
> 
> All ethical breeders should support puppies for their life, and should take dogs back what ever the age! They produced them they are responsible for them throughout their life!


It's 11.09pm. The health check/tested thing was a slip of the typing fingers LOL!

I guess this would be a difference of opinion regarding breeder responsibly. I wouldn't expect a breeder to take back any pet that I had taken on and was very surprised that this was part of a contract I signed when I bought my cats. It was just something I had genuinely never considered before. I have regular contact with two of the three breeders of my dogs who are very willing to offer up any advice I may need. But calling them and asking them to take them back if I ever felt the need or had a change in circumstances? It's just not something I would expect them to do. Wether they would be willing is another question.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> I fancy popcorn!


LOL


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> I can see where you're coming from absolutely. And I guess some of my decisions you could say came from naivety on my part! I had very low hopes at the time that the kind of dog I wanted would come up as a rescue though. It's interesting to learn other points of view on this subject, I know it can be a little touchy. Dogs are such a personal thing and people, rightly, have strong opinions.


It's not touchy as such, it more to do with unethical breeding, it is fantastic if you can get a wonderful ethical breeder of either a pedigree or a cross breed, both are few and far between.

I am very lucky to have found breeders where health and temperament is top of their list.

But I think the issue is people want want they want and want it now! Take for example you liking Pugs, with time and research you would have found a breeder who health tested Pugs who weren't extreme, you might of had the wait or travel but you'd of got that dog! I don't know what your Pug cross is but have seen loads that look like already established breeds out there?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> It's 11.09pm. The health check/tested thing was a slip of the typing fingers LOL!
> 
> I guess this would be a difference of opinion regarding breeder responsibly. I wouldn't expect a breeder to take back any pet that I had taken on and was very surprised that this was part of a contract I signed when I bought my cats. It was just something I had genuinely never considered before. I have regular contact with two of the three breeders of my dogs who are very willing to offer up any advice I may need. But calling them and asking them to take them back if I ever felt the need or had a change in circumstances? It's just not something I would expect them to do. Wether they would be willing is another question.


They should without question, no good breeder wants to see their dogs in rescue or being passed from pillar to post.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LittleHolly said:


> I would never recommend their breed and always tell people their a cross breed if they ask what they are as I wouldn't want to promote buying a Pomeranian x chihuahua.
> .


They aren't a breed they are pom x chi's.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Aahlly said:


> It's not always a case of not adopting because of assumed risk or issues though. I could never cope with a staffie. It just wouldn't suit what I can offer and therefore it would be ridiculous of me to be hellbent on rescuing a dog only to have to return it because I had taken on an unsuitable breed. And in my area, I'd say around 90% of shelter dogs are staffies. That's just the area I live in. I'm sure it's different all around the country.
> 
> I wasn't aware that people were paying more for crossbreeds than they are for purebred dogs. That seems a bit insane. But also* I think requiring the assurance that the breeder will take the dog back at any age is a bit OTT,* that's just my opinion. I do however agree that parents should be health checked. I think there's a big difference between someone unscrupulously breeding from their pet dog to make a bit of extra cash, and someone thinking through all eventualities and ensuring proper planning before deciding to produce crossbred puppies responsibly.


well then i wouldve suggested [had you come to me] that you look further afar for a dog that would have suited your homelife. In fact i know very few rescues that wouldnt find you a best fit, simply because they dont want to set the dog up to fail
so you may have been turned down by many rescues AND had to wait many months 
but ce la vie, in your case
can i just point out its not health *checks* that should be done before *ANY* breeding takes place but also health *tests*
as for the expectation of a *GOOD* breeder [which, if i went to a breeder at all, i would surely seek out] to take back one of their dogs at any age or for any reason, thats the very _least_ that *ANY *good breeder would have in their contract
you havent met or sought out any good breeders I would imagine, from your emboldened bit [by me]


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> It's not touchy as such, it more to do with unethical breeding, it is fantastic if you can get a wonderful ethical breeder of either a pedigree or a cross breed, both are few and far between.
> 
> I am very lucky to have found breeders where health and temperament is top of their list.
> 
> But I think the issue is people want want they want and want it now! Take for example you liking Pugs, with time and research you would have found a breeder who health tested Pugs who weren't extreme, you might of had the wait or travel but you'd of got that dog! I don't know what your Pug cross is but have seen loads that look like already established breeds out there?


I agree that they are few and far between. But you know, we're talking several years ago when I bought the dog so it's partly a case of live and learn. I wasn't particularly aware that there are breeders out there working towards reducing the exaggeration in the pugs. I had met many pugs through attending shows and speaking with breeders and also meeting with people locally who own these dogs and while I love many things about these dogs, I did not like the overly flattened faces and the breathing problems that accompany. And so, on the advice of well meaning friends I chose a crossbred puppy. And I suppose I got lucky. She's a wonderful companion and a fantastic friend. I guess the crux of it is, breeders should quit jumping on the bandwagon of designer breeds and breed responsibly but what I'm also trying to say is that this doesn't necessarily mean the dog must be purebred. I feel it's a little unfair to expect people to rescue when in reality that simply doesn't suit everyone for a variety of reasons.


----------



## LittleHolly (Jun 15, 2015)

Meezey said:


> They aren't a breed they are pom x chi's.


oh shucks... you knew what I meant   haha worded wrongly :Bag


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

mrs phas said:


> well then i wouldve suggested [had you come to me] that you look further afar for a dog that would have suited your homelife. In fact i know very few rescues that wouldnt find you a best fit, simply because they dont want to set the dog up to fail
> so you may have been turned down by many rescues AND had to wait many months
> but ce la vie, in your case
> can i just point out its not health *checks* that should be done before *ANY* breeding takes place but also health *tests*
> ...


I can assure you I would have been turned down by *ALL* rescues and that's nothing to do with my ability to care for a dog but because of their standards which are at times unrealistic. They shoot themselves in the foot sometimes. My one purebred dog came from a very good breeder but I still would *NEVER* expect her to take back my chihuahua if times got tough for me because I think *PERSONALLY* that this beyond the call of duty. The dog in *MY* responsibility. And as I stated in an earlier post, I was actually surprised when I signed contracts for the purchase of my siamese and oriental cats that they would be taken back by the breeder if need be as it's just not something I had ever thought of before. But then you learn something new every day.

And it's always interesting to learn others points of view on things like this!


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Aahlly said:


> I guess the crux of it is, breeders should quit jumping on the bandwagon of designer breeds and breed responsibly


you'll find breeders , using the term correctly, never have jumped on the bandwagon of designer mongrels [none of them are breeds, they are just mongrel dogs, mutts, mixed breed whatever]
its the merchants of misery [ i do prefer that term over byb, maybe we should all adopt it, as that is what they truly are] that have done that and their pockets are lined, in the main, by those that are too impatient to wait for a good well bred pup, want a cheap dog, must have the 'in thing' and dont give a flying fig where that dog comes from, or how many of the litter have been destroyed, because, do you realise, yes that is a fate facing many pups that are born to these MoM, so as to get the best looking, highest price possible
and guess what, those MoM dont spend money on taking those poor grade pups to the vet for destruction, that digs into their profits, Ill let you figure out the many different ways they use, that doesnt cost a penny

btw, Yes I agree rescuing isnt for everyone, but then owning a dog isnt either

edited to add this isnt aimed at anyone personally its just part of the discussion and, whilst i know we are all, now, educated in this area [i respect dogs have already been part of the family for some time] other new members may not be and its important they know the gory facts of so called designer dogs


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> They should without question, no good breeder wants to see their dogs in rescue or being passed from pillar to post.


Yes, of course they wouldn't. I suppose for me personally it's not something I ever would consider or thought of before to be honest as I'm not the kind of person to pass the dog on if anything happened to me. I have measures in place for any time I would not be able to care for my dogs anymore and they would involve family and friends. I wouldn't have even thought of contacting the breeder especially years down the line. But then everyone is different and have different support networks.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> I agree that they are few and far between. But you know, we're talking several years ago when I bought the dog so it's partly a case of live and learn. I wasn't particularly aware that there are breeders out there working towards reducing the exaggeration in the pugs. I had met many pugs through attending shows and speaking with breeders and also meeting with people locally who own these dogs and while I love many things about these dogs, I did not like the overly flattened faces and the breathing problems that accompany. And so, on the advice of well meaning friends I chose a crossbred puppy. And I suppose I got lucky. She's a wonderful companion and a fantastic friend. I guess the crux of it is, breeders should quit jumping on the bandwagon of designer breeds and breed responsibly but what I'm also trying to say is that this doesn't necessarily mean the dog must be purebred. I feel it's a little unfair to expect people to rescue when in reality that simply doesn't suit everyone for a variety of reasons.


So again getting a cross breed from an ethical breed is fine, again they are few and far between, breeders will only stop jumping on the band wagon of breeding "designer breeds" when people stop demanding them and people stop accepting low standards from breeders! And the mind set of I want what I want and I want it now isn't there!

My four cats, 3 dogs all come with contracts stating they go back to breeder! My rescue cats and dogs came with contracts stating they go back to rescue! It's responsible! It's not to much or over the top! All my dogs and cats chips have their breeders details on there.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

mrs phas said:


> you'll find breeders , using the term correctly, never have jumped on the bandwagon of designer mongrels [none of them are breeds, they are just mongrel dogs, mutts, mixed breed whatever]
> its the merchants of misery [ i do prefer that term over byb, maybe we should all adopt it, as that is what they truly are] that have done that and their pockets are lined, in the main, by those that are too impatient to wait for a good well bred pup, want a cheap dog, must have the 'in thing' and dont give a flying fig where that dog comes from, or how many of the litter have been destroyed, because, do you realise, yes that is a fate facing many pups that are born to these MoM, so as to get the best looking, highest price possible
> and guess what, those MoM dont spend money on taking those poor grade pups to the vet for destruction, that digs into their profits, Ill let you figure out the many different ways they use, that doesnt cost a penny
> 
> btw, Yes I agree rescuing isnt for everyone, but then owning a dog isnt either


Yes it is horrendous that there are people out there like that. That's no way to treat a living creature. I guess I'm naive and ignorant and I thank you for educating me. I'm sad that rescuing isn't for me (at this time in my life as I have rescued in the past) but I sure am glad that owning dogs_ is_ for me!


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> So again getting a cross breed from an ethical breed is fine, again they are few and far between, breeders will only stop jumping on the band wagon of breeding "designer breeds" when people stop demanding them and people stop accepting low standards from breeders!
> 
> My four cats, 3 dogs all come with contracts stating they go back to breeder! My rescue cats and dogs came with contracts stating they go back to rescue! It's responsible! It's not to much or over the top! All my dogs and cats chips have their breeders details on there.


It's really great that the breeders/rescuers of your animals hold that responsibility for the lifetime of the animals. It's one of the many things that this forum has taught me should be an expectation which I hadn't realised previously.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I own a crossbreed but she was from a byb and I didn't even think about it at the time.

I have no problem with people owning a crossbreeds but I hate these stupid designer names! They're all mutts! People make it sound like mutt is a horrible word, it isn't, that's what they are and I'm proud to own a mutt!

For future though I'd only get another mutt from a rescue instead of funding thepockets of a byb.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I've no issue with people responsibly crossbreeding, I have no issue with them asking the same price as a well-bred pedigree either. People doing no research into the dog they buy and breeders throwing any two dogs together to make a dog with a cute name I do.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

can i just say here and now, before anyone brings it up, cos we all know there are some pedants on this fantastic forum
we all know that, all breeds of dogs started out as crossbreeds, and that ,there wouldnt be the diversification of breeds, from gt danes to chihauhuas, without humans intervening in the first place
but
we all also know that, whilst there are dogs in rescues, unwanted, being treated cruelly etc, there is no need to 'create' new breeds or give good old fashioned mutts fancy names, except to make money

Breeding should only ever be for the good of the breed, not to line a pocket or please a friend


----------



## magpie (Jan 3, 2009)

I think good breeders should be supported and bad breeders avoided, regardless of whether they are breeding pure breeds or cross breeds. There are few enough of the former without dismissing a chunk of them simply because they happen to be breeding crosses.

And I think calling people 'stupid' for buying crossbreeds or telling them they should get a rescue instead, only serves to alienate those people.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Aahlly said:


> But calling them and asking them to take them back if I ever felt the need or had a change in circumstances? It's just not something I would expect them to do. Wether they would be willing is another question


If they _wouldn't_ be willing, that is an indication right there to walk away. A breeder SHOULD care and always be ultimately responsible for any animal they caused to be created. That animal remains the breeder's responsibility, forever.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

magpie said:


> I think good breeders should be supported and bad breeders avoided, regardless of whether they are breeding pure breeds or cross breeds. There are few enough of the former without dismissing a chunk of them simply because they happen to be breeding.


Trouble is, it seems that people breeding so called designer cross breeds are not doing it for the good of the next generation, it appears to be about money. I know there are now ethical, health testing breeders of the poodle X out there, but it's rare. People still see puppies as commodities, it seems, having watched Watchdog this week.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

So just out of interest I've looked at the Many Tears website, they home to people all over the country not just local to them (We have 3 dogs from them and live 3-4 hr drive away). Some are at the centre in Wales but many are in foster homes around the country. Here are just a few of the young dogs they have available at the moment

A 15 week old Westie pup - elderly gent couldn't cope with.

A litter of 7 week old Westie cross pups.

A one year old Springer Spaniel.

A litter of 7 week old lab cross pups.

4 10 month old Collies.

A 9 and a 10 month old Cavichon pup.

A 3 month old Bichon pup (this one has a heart murmur though)

A litter of 5 month old medium sized cross breeds.

A 12 week old blue merle collie.

2 3 month old Pug X Bichon pups.

A 6 week old Westie pup with one eye smaller than the other.

Those are just a few on the first few pages I looked at  they also had 3/4 yr old Jugs whatever they are.

Not sure how anyone can say they can't find a suitable pup in rescue these days. Indie our rottie found herself in rescue at 8 weeks of age after her owner decided a new born baby and a rottie pup were too much hard work. Had she not been there at the time we were looking we would either have waited or gone for one of the hundreds of slightly older rotties languishing in rescue around the country - would have travelled to Scotland if necessary from the south coast.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

mrs phas said:


> Jeez i wish people would get the whole rescue dogs dangerous with small children or come untrained or have behavioral issues or that no puppies are ever born in rescue
> despite what people believe, in their ignorance, these days more dogs are handed in due to family breakups, bedroom tax, having to move homes where more and more landlords are refusing pets or work commitments , than are real strays
> Many many of those dogs are well trained and beloved pets that have no issues whatsoever


Wish I could rep you 
I too am frustrated with this myth that rescue dogs are somehow damaged goods and the only safe way to have a dog around kids is to raise the dog from puppyhood.



LittleHolly said:


> I didnt want to rescue due to having 2 small children and didnt want to risk getting an untrained dog or a dog with behavioural issues so i chose to get a puppy so i coukd train from day 1.


So, like I said above, this is a total myth.
I know you guys are sick of me using Bates and Lunar as examples, but both came to us as older dogs (Bates estimated 8 months, Lunar probably 8 years), and I could not have asked for better dogs with kids.

Dogs who like kids (as opposed to just tolerate them) are born, not made. 
If you could see the difference between a dog who truly enjoys small humans and a dog who has learned to tolerate them, you would see what I'm talking about.
Breez, who we raised as a pup likes 'her' kids and she is happy to interact with other kids because she has a long history of positive associations with children, but there is a definite difference in how she perceives kids and how Bates does.

When you get an adult dog from a *good* rescue who has fostered the dog with knowledgeable owners and had competent in-home behavior assessments of that dog, you know what you're getting. You know the temperament and personality that you're dealing with and if that temperament and personality are compatible with your home and family.

Puppies are not the tabula rasas everyone thinks they are, they are a product of their genes and first 8 weeks with their mom and siblings and the environment they were raised in. And you may not see the results of those genes and that environment until the pup reaches maturity.

As for the general question about cross breeds, no, it's not the breeding of crosses that's an issue. It's the breeding without being responsible about it that's the issue, and that can happen with pure breds as well as crosses. 
OP, I notice you're not sold on the breeder taking responsibility for the puppies they produce for life by committing to taking pups back for any reason. 
Why would this not be a breeder responsibility? Even the most responsible of owners might fall on hard times, might get ill, or god forbid die. Why wouldn't a breeder want to be involved in making sure one of the puppies they produced is okay and in good hands? A friend of mine went through a divorce and ended up needing to rehome one of her dogs, the breeder was informed and involved the whole way through and is in contact with the new owners and a valuable source of support for them as they transition the dog to the new home. 
Good rescues do this as well. 
I know many breeders who drive across the country to collect or help dogs they have produced, both the dam owner or stud owner. It's called being responsible. I can't imagine expecting anything less of a breeder.

All the breeders I know and respect can name every pup from every litter they bred, tell you what their personalities were like as pups, and tell you where they are now, and if they have since died, what they died of and how old they were. Again, that's what responsible breeding looks like and if more people expected that of breeders we wouldn't be in the pet overpopulation crisis we are in now.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

lorilu said:


> If they _wouldn't_ be willing, that is an indication right there to walk away. A breeder SHOULD care and always be ultimately responsible for any animal they caused to be created. That animal remains the breeder's responsibility, forever.


You misunderstood me. I meant that I would never ask nor expect it, not that they wouldn't potentially be willing.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Nothing wrong with mixed breed from health tested partents, but* it does annoy me when people say they purchased such and such a cross because they wanted the temp of x breed but not the health issues*? *The nature of a cross means you can't guarantee the temp or health!* If you get from unhealth tested parents you run the risk of getting all the health issues and none of the temp! Annoys me when people assume all rescues have issues and are a risk!
> 
> Also there are already breeds out there with Pug like temps without the health issues?


SPot on! All the ads say "you get the best of both these breeds" - how do they think they can guarantee that? What if you're dog has the worst of them? The energy drive of a beagle with the breathing difficulties of a pug, for instance? Or they put two high prey/high energy breeds together - patterdale x poodle are starting to appear (and of course, ANYTHING crossed with a poodle is hypo-allergenic, isn't it!) - so you have a huge prey drive and high energy possibly coupled with the patterdale independence and need to work (to the point of insolence) and the poodle's outstanding intelligence and need to be occupied (patties are bright too). This won't be an easy dog - but you _migh_t be lucky - it _might_ be hypoallergenic. Possibly.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Seems like the one point we all agree on then is responsible breeding with health tested parents!
Personally I love my little chiweenies (and if calling them that made anybody cringe or loose their lunch then good! bwa ha ha!!). Admittedly Hannah came from a BYB coz I didnt know what to look for at the time and I fell into the trap of falling of love with her straight away but Alfies parents had the appropriate tests. Just bad luck I suppose that my BYB pooch has a wonderful temperament and my 'responsible' dog has a few bats in his belfry.

I get where Aahlly is coming from too. I wouldnt get any rescue to rehome to me given my working hours and frankly I wouldnt expect them too, even though my dogs cope fine with it. Also I looked at my crossbreed because I loved mini Dachshunds but was worried about spine problems, crossing them with Chihuahuas (a breed I already know and love and who are compatible in their personality with Daxies) seemed like a good choice. Maybe instead of looking down our noses at 'designer crossbreeds' and how popular they are becoming we should be encouraging good breeding practices and some sort of official standing for them, all breeds come from somewhere after all and I know my chosen cross is hugely popular in the States.

Besides which its more then a little offensive to have people tell you that people only get 'cute' crossbreeds as a status symbol or they are all lining the pockets of BYBs (both mine were half the price that their breeds would of cost which I thought was fair seeing as how I was only getting half the dog!!LOL).


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Well, what people what to spend their money on is their choice. But when we are talking your average pet owner, those choices are often born out of ignorance and lies spouted by breeders - the 'Doodle' obsession being the classic example of that. The number of people who claim these dogs are hypo-allergenic, rare, don't suffer from any health problems, don't shed, have perfect temperaments and come fully trained is staggering. All while charging a grand per pup for the privilege of putting their Cocker Spaniel/Lab/Golden etc to a Poodle.

Ethical cross breeding of course has it's place, but the vast majority of pups being churned up by the pet market don't fall into that category. You can also say the same of purebred breeds, too. It's the lies that wind me up the most in the crossbreed market.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Meezey said:


> It's not touchy as such, it more to do with unethical breeding, it is fantastic if you can get a wonderful ethical breeder of either a pedigree or a cross breed, both are few and far between.
> 
> I am very lucky to have found breeders where health and temperament is top of their list.
> 
> But I think the issue is people want want they want and want it now! Take for example you liking Pugs, with time and research you would have found a breeder who health tested Pugs who weren't extreme, you might of had the wait or travel but you'd of got that dog! *I don't know what your Pug cross is but have seen loads that look like already established breeds out there*?


And I've seen pug crosses that look just how pure bred pugs looked a hundred years ago, before the bulging eyes and total lack of a muzzle became the vogue. I'd rather support a breeder producing those than what the purebreds have been turned into, everything else (health tests and breeding conditions) being equal.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> And I've seen pug crosses that look just how pure bred pugs looked a hundred years ago, before the bulging eyes and total lack of a muzzle became the vogue. I'd rather support a breeder producing those than what the purebreds have been turned into, everything else (health tests and breeding conditions) being equal.


If they are doing it ethically fine but very few are! For me I struggle to understand why people say I want this breed without that bit, then get a cross breed, because you can not say that you will only get the bit you wanted? If you are set purely temperament get a different breed? If it's looks there are breeds out there already who look exactly like the crosses Pugs produce?

There are very few people who breed Pug crosses to look like they used to, great if you can find them. I wouldn't support anyone who put two dogs together purely to make money cross or pure breed.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Never have I ever, nor will I ever pay for a cross breed dog whilst thousands languish in kennels across the country...and the ones that find themselves in a rescue are normally the lucky ones.
I could not care any less what others wish to spend their money on, but the only way a breeder will receive money from me, is if they have a true purpose for breeding and go above and beyond when it comes to testing and raising the litter.

If more people actually had a clue about how genetics and conformation actually works then I may have a different stand point, but the fact is that the vast majority of breeders just throw dogs together with the hope that it will work out


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

I have nothing against crossbreeds as such, just a problem with how and why they are bred in the first place in a lot of instances that to me is the issue.
Many especially the designer popular crosses, are bred by unknowledgeable breeders for profit alone, with no health testing on parents and often not even looked after, raised and socialised correctly. A lot of the reasons given for not needing health testing is that cross breeds don't need it because they are not inbred and don't have the health problems that pedigrees do. Often another source is an owner of a dog deciding to breed and although they may at least be raised in the home and from the rearing and socialisation side its better, again its often without knowledge, proper research and without health testing prior to breeding.

The problem is that a lot of breeds have the same genetic problems and congenital defects so can still pass them on, so being a cross wont save the pups from such health issues. Crossing certain breeds that already have issues due to conformation, can still cause conformation issues in a cross and crossing certain breeds can make them worse still in some instances. What annoys me even more personally is the price that is charged for some of these crossbreeds too, especially as they don't come from health tested stock and often come from dubious sources.

In all honesty if you are going to get a crossbreed from sources like this you are better off just getting a cross from a reputable rehoming centre, or rescue like the labradoodle trust or doodle trust as its now been renamed as the now rescue and rehome labradoodles, goldendoodles and all the poodle crosses now too, purely because the needs arisen because as often comes with popularity so does higher numbers of ones in rescue.
That way at least the donation fee is going to be used for the good of dogs and is money to keep the homes or rescue organisations going so other unwanted dogs can come in and have a chance.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I had someone yesterday try to claim you could cross extremely brachy dogs and get one that isn't bad :-/. The idea of crossing pugs with something like jrts or poodles just makes me feel sorry for the dogs. All that energy trapped in the body of the worst pugs in the worst case scenario


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classifieds/1014259-super-quality-f1-puggles-doncaster.html

So health tested parents! Great breeders right? Breeding to eliminate the health issues in Pugs? Looks and sounds great...... £1000 a pup or £1200 or if they are smaller £850, or left over £650, pups available ALL year round, pups advertised one litter ever month, now why does puppy farmer spring to mind! But hey as long as they don't have bulging eyes and no muzzle all is good?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Meezey said:


> http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classifieds/1014259-super-quality-f1-puggles-doncaster.html
> 
> So health tested parents! Great breeders right? Breeding to eliminate the health issues in Pugs? Looks and sounds great...... £1000 a pup or £1200 or if they are smaller £850, or left over £650, pups available ALL year round, pups advertised one litter ever month, now why does puppy farmer spring to mind! But hey as long as they don't have bulging eyes and no muzzle all is good?


Looks like they also breed gundogs & labradoodles...


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Meezey said:


> http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classifieds/1014259-super-quality-f1-puggles-doncaster.html
> 
> So health tested parents! Great breeders right? Breeding to eliminate the health issues in Pugs? Looks and sounds great...... £1000 a pup or £1200 or if they are smaller £850, or left over £650, pups available ALL year round, pups advertised one litter ever month, now why does puppy farmer spring to mind! But hey as long as they don't have bulging eyes and no muzzle all is good?


and this brings it back to what I wrote in my first post
you can buy a well bred, 5 gen ped, fully health tested show class pug for around or not much more than that price
and the same in beagle for around the middle price

so why would anyone, but a fool, pay those kind of prices for a mutt?


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> I had someone yesterday try to claim you could cross extremely brachy dogs and get one that isn't bad :-/. The idea of crossing pugs with something like jrts or poodles just makes me feel sorry for the dogs. All that energy trapped in the body of the worst pugs in the worst case scenario


I would not have anything crossed with a JRT or a poodle simply because those are not breeds of dogs I feel I could adequately provide for. I agree and think that's these are very foolish crosses. I wish breeders would take crossing breeds more seriously and think through the actual end result and how suitable two dogs are to be bred together. But then people breeding their family pet to make a bit of extra cash don't care...


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classifieds/1014259-super-quality-f1-puggles-doncaster.html
> 
> So health tested parents! Great breeders right? Breeding to eliminate the health issues in Pugs? Looks and sounds great...... £1000 a pup or £1200 or if they are smaller £850, or left over £650, pups available ALL year round, pups advertised one litter ever month, now why does puppy farmer spring to mind! But hey as long as they don't have bulging eyes and no muzzle all is good?


Are there honestly people out there who would spend this sort of money on a crossbred puppy ?!


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Aahlly said:


> Are there honestly people out there who would spend this sort of money on a crossbred puppy ?!


The way it works, I think you will find, is that people buy what they want too - something about it being their money, and they will do as they please.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> Are there honestly people out there who would spend this sort of money on a crossbred puppy ?!


Yep, and from puppy farmers too and have the attitude of the poster above, that it's their money and they can do what they want with it! Unfortunately that's where people have the issue with cross breeding, most do it to make money, and most puppy farmed dogs are these "cute," mixes, but as long as people get what they want sod the welfare of the dogs, they got their puppy that's all that matters!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

miljar said:


> The way it works, I think you will find, is that people buy what they want too - something about it being their money, and they will do as they please.


Yes and sod the welfare of the dogs.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I see no reason for well bred dogs to be sold at different prices, be they cross or pedigree.
If the same time, effort and attention to conformation, genetics and health tests then the price should be the same.
However my thinking is with a KC registered Dam and sire you can verify this information and be reassured that the bitch and stud aren't being over bred, what health tests have been carried out, that they have not been in bred etc (although I understand they could be used for non KC registered puppies or information falsified)


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Aahlly said:


> Are there honestly people out there who would spend this sort of money on a crossbred puppy ?!


Yes, there are plenty who would. If you look on those types of websites you will see plenty of people selling them for over £1000.

Quick example here for £1250, or £1500 if they wish to breed from them: http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classif...pe-labradoodles-pra-clear-all-sold-dover.html

Now to fair, both parents apparently have some health tests which is good, but how anyone can justify charging up to £1500 for mongrel puppies (these are Labradoodle x Cockerpoos) is to me is utterly astonishing.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Fleur said:


> I see no reason for well bred dogs to be sold at different prices, be they cross or pedigree.
> If the same time, effort and attention to conformation, genetics and health tests then the price should be the same.
> However my thinking is with a KC registered Dam and sire you can verify this information and be reassured that the bitch and stud aren't being over bred, what health tests have been carried out, that they have not been in bred etc (although I understand they could be used for non KC registered puppies or information falsified)





labradrk said:


> Yes, there are plenty who would. If you look on those types of websites you will see plenty of people selling them for over £1000.
> 
> Quick example here for £1250, or £1500 if they wish to breed from them: http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classif...pe-labradoodles-pra-clear-all-sold-dover.html
> 
> Now to fair, both parents apparently have some health tests which is good, but how anyone can justify charging up to £1500 for mongrel puppies (these are Labradoodle x Cockerpoos) is to me is utterly astonishing.


Wouldn't even pay those prices for a pedigree!!!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Aahlly said:


> I know for certain that one of my crossbred dog's parents were tested, yes. The other I'm not so sure about if the mother was.


then you lined a byb's pocket, and poorly bred dogs will continue to be bred. Sad for all involved Imo. Nowt wrong with a mutt, but if acquiring from a pup the very least you can do is make 100% sure the breeders dogs are health tested.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Meezey said:


> Wouldn't even pay those prices for a pedigree!!!


I doubt I would either


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Fleur said:


> *I see no reason for well bred dogs to be sold at different prices, be they cross or pedigree.
> If the same time, effort and attention to conformation, genetics and health tests then the price should be the same.
> However my thinking is with a KC registered Dam and sire you can verify this information and be reassured that the bitch and stud aren't being over bred, what health tests have been carried out, that they have not been in bred etc (although I understand they could be used for non KC registered puppies or information falsified)*





Meezey said:


> Wouldn't even pay those prices for a pedigree!!!


No, nor would I, unless it was a very well bred giant breed or similar that does tend to go for those prices.

The pricing of many of these crossbreeds just baffles me and I do not understand how they can justify it. Well, actually I do understand how the breeders can justify it - many have very sneakily tapped into as mentioned earlier the middle-class status symbol market.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Aahlly said:


> Are there honestly people out there who would spend this sort of money on a crossbred puppy ?!


Not only are there people out there, but there's a LOT of them, hence the high demand for poorly bred crosses from puppy farms & backyard breeders.

Not to mention they have different prices for different & 'rare' colours, with rare or unusual colours commanding more money. There is simply no need to charge more for a puppy just because it's a different colour, it costs the same as more recognised colours to breed & rear. It's just greedy breeders.

& different prices for dogs & bitches (bitches being higher because of the 'money making' potential- IMO that's a good way to tell an unethical breeder, as their mentlity only sees the cash potential of the progeny.

This isn't exclusive to cross breeds I might add, there's a lot of unethical purebred breeders out there with 'sliding scale' prices.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

labradrk said:


> Yes, there are plenty who would. If you look on those types of websites you will see plenty of people selling them for over £1000.
> 
> Quick example here for £1250, or £1500 if they wish to breed from them: http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classif...pe-labradoodles-pra-clear-all-sold-dover.html
> 
> Now to fair, both parents apparently have some health tests which is good, but how anyone can justify charging up to £1500 for mongrel puppies (these are Labradoodle x Cockerpoos) is to me is utterly astonishing.


I see a lot of BYBs & PFs that have got wise to the fact buyers are more savvy, so they'll do the odd token health test here & there, usually the cheaper ones, to make themselves appear more conscientious.

With that cross (F2b Labradoodle x F1cockapoo) you are potentially doubling up on a lot of deleterious recessive genes. The average puppy buyer isn't going to know this & may be purchasing a ticking timebomb of heritable health problems


----------



## LittleHolly (Jun 15, 2015)

I can honestly say that is the most I have ever seen a puggle being advertised for! its ridiculous! I've seen a couple puggle ads around my area and all have been around £300 however none mention any health checks or anything on the parents. I paid £300 for my chi x pom which I know is high for a mutt just couldn't put her back down.

I'm actually shocked at the price of the crosses people are posting links to. I did a search myself in my area within a 50 mile radius and the crosses here are between £100-£300 with 1 £525 on for shihpoos


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

I don't really care how much money someone chooses to spend buying a dog.

Whilst I may struggle to see the point of many of them I can't really object to someone breeding crosses providing they're breeding as ethically and responsibly as possible; a well thought out cross with a clear goal in mind, carefully chosen breeding stock, all necessary health tests done on both parents, a willingness to take responsibility of puppies they breed throughout their lives, etc.

I do think that anyone getting a dog (regardless of whether they're rescuing, buying a puppy, privately rehoming, whatever) has a responsibility to do so in a manner that isn't contributing to, or helping to perpetuate, unethical breeding practises or welfare crises.

Unfortunately as long as there are enough people who don't see (or choose not to see) how their actions impact the world of dogs a whole there will be the breeders there churning out litter after litter random crosses/breeding for "rare" colours with no thought to conformation, health or temperament/producing dogs so exaggerated they can longer function as dogs to meet the demand.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

SingingWhippet said:


> I don't really care how much money someone chooses to spend buying a dog.
> 
> Whilst I may struggle to see the point of many of them I can't really object to someone breeding crosses providing they're breeding as ethically and responsibly as possible; *a well thought out cross with a clear goal in mind,* carefully chosen breeding stock, all necessary health tests done on both parents, a willingness to take responsibility of puppies they breed throughout their lives, etc.
> 
> ...


There doesn't seem to be much thought into this aspect at all- are the dogs for active families, more sedentiary lifestyles, working or sport?

I can understand crossing gundogs or breeding for lurchers to make a working dog, or collies & kelpies for sport, but breeding purely as a companion is a massive grey area.

Nothing against breeding for a purely pet market, but labradoodles for example are a high energy dog, often have a high maintenance coat, are large & mud magnets.

They are often described in adverts as 'non shedding' (even though they usually do), which automatically attracts the more house proud among buyers (I know a lot of people who are put off GSDs because they don't want hair everywhere, so it stands to reason that non shedding may be in a buyer's criteria if they don't want to be hoovering several times a day), though non shedding doesn't equate to 'doesn't make a mess'.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I think its an issue of responsible versus irresponsible breeding, rather than crossbreed versus pedigree.

There are good, bad, mediocre and downright ugly breeders in both groups.

I think a little knowledge in genetics and health is useful when comparing though.

Buying a pedigree I consider health testing to be vital. There's no way I would consider a pedigree pup without appropriate health tests with good results - and not the bare minimum some breeders do. Pedigree breeds are more prone to certain problems because they are pedigrees, being closely related the chances of doubling up on unhealthy genes is high. That said I am also concerned about inbreeding, and like to check coi etc. I would probably not go for a heavily linebred pup with high coi because I don't personally agree with it or feel its worth the risk.

Crossbreeds are slightly different. Many existing health tests are for recessive conditions. In other words pups would need to inherit a copy from both parents to suffer the disease. If the other breed does not carry the same disorder caused by the same gene there is actually no need to do that health test because the pups simply can not be affected. 

Of course this only works for f1s, any f2 or cross to cross breedings would be a risk and require testing.

For conditions that are more complex testing is more important. Joint problems are the obvious example - if I was buying a small cross I would wanting patellas jlooked at, for medium or large breeds hips and preferably elbows too.

Conformation is alsoworth considering, as is general health, and these things can cause problems not picked up by a few health tests. Take the popular small brachy breeds - you can find breeders producing nice moderate, unexaggerated dogs with no health tests, and supposedly great breeders who do every test available but still produced extreme phenotypes with crap tails, no nostrils etc.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> There doesn't seem to be much thought into this aspect at all- are the dogs for active families, more sedentiary lifestyles, working or sport?
> 
> I can understand crossing gundogs or breeding for lurchers to make a working dog, or collies & kelpies for sport, but breeding purely as a companion is a massive grey area.
> 
> ...


And of course if they are lucky enough to be non shedding, it means trips to the groomers every 6-12 weeks, depending on coat type. My dog groomer, who breeds/shows Standard Poodles, says that Poodle crosses keep her in business. She's apparently gets them on a near enough weekly basis, from owners who have allowed the coat to grow for a year, resulting in a matted mess and a dog that needs completely shaving. A lot of these owners are not getting the memo that non shedding breeds have high maintenance coats


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Some of the doodle coats are worse than purebred poodles and those can be bad enough if you don't keep on top of them. People want the fluffy doodle look and don't realise that it takes a lot of work. I've seen a lot of groomers saying that most who come in are matted


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Bum I hadn't finished...

In some breeds the exaggerations are so extreme and so common the only way to get a moderate dog is a cross.

Crosses can also improve general health by reducing the effects of inbreeding depression, like tendencies towards cancer and allergies, short lifespan etc.

Long story short, done right cross breeding can be extremely ethical, health conscious and good for the dogs. But (and its a big but) finding the truly ethical breeders doing it properly for the right reasons is bloody hard! But then, finding a truly great pedigree breeder isn't easy, and in some breeds seems nigh on impossible.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Aahlly said:


> You misunderstood me. I meant that I would never ask nor expect it, not that they wouldn't potentially be willing.


I did not misunderstand you. The fact that you would "never ask or expect" paints you in a very poor light as a potential purchaser of an ethical breeder's pups. The breeder expects, requires, that an animal they bred be returned to them. It would be breaking contract for you not to do it. I am not a breeder but based on your attitude, if I were, I would not sell to you.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> Looks like they also breed gundogs & labradoodles...


Someone call Watchdog!



Nicky10 said:


> Some of the doodle coats are worse than purebred poodles and those can be bad enough if you don't keep on top of them. People want the fluffy doodle look and don't realise that it takes a lot of work. I've seen a lot of groomers saying that most who come in are matted


My friend is a groomer, the salon is at the yard where our horses are, so I see a lot of the dogs she grooms. She leaves the matted hair for the owner to see, not that they seem to care, because the same dog comes back with matting a couple of months later. Meanwhile, the skin underneath then has issues from being unable to have air to it ever. The owners are always saying how they groom their dogs! Like, really?!


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Aahlly said:


> You misunderstood me. I meant that I would never ask nor expect it, not that they wouldn't potentially be willing.


Unfortnately that's part of the problem. Buyers don't know to expect this of breeders, they don't know how many responsible breeders there are out there who do keep track of all the puppies they produce and maintain responsibility for them, so they don't require it of breeders and breeders get away with being less than responsible.
Why shouldn't a breeder be able to tell me all about each of the litters they have bred, where those pups are, what kind of dog they matured in to, how they are doing now, what they died of, etc., etc.? Isn't all that highly relevant to their breeding program?



catz4m8z said:


> I get where Aahlly is coming from too. I wouldnt get any rescue to rehome to me given my working hours and frankly I wouldnt expect them too, even though my dogs cope fine with it. Also I looked at my crossbreed because I loved mini Dachshunds but was worried about spine problems, crossing them with Chihuahuas (a breed I already know and love and who are compatible in their personality with Daxies) seemed like a good choice. Maybe instead of looking down our noses at 'designer crossbreeds' and how popular they are becoming we should be encouraging good breeding practices and some sort of official standing for them, all breeds come from somewhere after all and I know my chosen cross is hugely popular in the States.


Nobody is looking down their noses at crosses. Bates is a mutt and he's an awesome dog. The dogs are not the issue, the irresponsible breeding is the issue, the puppy buyers not setting high standards for who they buy from is the issue.

And yes chiweenies are popular in the US, bred by puppy farms galore. I'm not sure what that proves at all.

Here's how genetics works: Say you're trying to produce a dachshund without back problems. Let's use the stew analogy. You have a stew with carrots, and you want to produce a stew without carrots (back problems). So you mix your stew with carrots with a stew without carrots. Guess what? You still have carrots. You may have fewer carrots, but they're still in the stew. And now you've also mixed in celery which you may or may not want.

What genetic health testing along with the good breeder practices I was explaining above does, is that it identifies the carrots. Either through testing or through keeping up with the dog for the life of the dog, or both. Things like bloat are multi-factorial. Genetics I'm sure plays a role, but so does environment. If there is a breeder out there who has identified which of their dogs are not bloating and then going back and examining their lines, they are doing valuable work towards eliminating bloat in those lines, as well as figuring out what causes it to begin with. 
This is what responsible breeding is about. It's not "just" producing healthy dogs, but really researching and examining the lines and paying attention to what they are producing. 
Simply mixing two breeds does nothing to ameliorate issues within a breed.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

I have nothing against cross breeds (maybe the price some charge for!) but for me there is no guarrentee that one crossbreed will look/act like another so it puts me off actively seeking one out from a breeder.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

mrs phas said:


> Jeez i wish people would get the whole rescue dogs dangerous with small children or come untrained or have behavioral issues or that no puppies are ever born in rescue
> despite what people believe, in their ignorance, these days more dogs are handed in due to family breakups, bedroom tax, having to move homes where more and more landlords are refusing pets or work commitments , than are real strays
> Many many of those dogs are well trained and beloved pets that have no issues whatsoever
> 
> ...


Most dog owners must be stupid then as very few litters whether pedigree or crossbreed have health tested parents. And why would you want the pup to have its first injection, that can be a pain in the neck if your vet uses a different vaccine.



Fleur said:


> I see no reason for well bred dogs to be sold at different prices, be they cross or pedigree.
> If the same time, effort and attention to conformation, genetics and health tests then the price should be the same.
> However my thinking is with a KC registered Dam and sire you can verify this information and be reassured that the bitch and stud aren't being over bred, what health tests have been carried out, that they have not been in bred etc (although I understand they could be used for non KC registered puppies or information falsified)


I had my name down for a cockerpoo from a breeder who bred working labs and cockers and she sold all her pups for the same (very reasonable) price as she said they all cost the same to rear. Very sensible I thought.

As for breeders taking back pups, not sure about that. It is very nice to think that at least some breeders would help out in an emergency but not every breeder is able to and in some cases it would not even be a good idea. Both my current dogs have breeders that did take back a puppy when the owners changed their mind for stupid reasons. One of them I am sure would still take back a dog or help rehome it though there is not contract but the other is not in a situation to as both her her and her husband's health has altered and they have moved to a small house with a small garden. I never have and never would buy from a breeder that had a contract as when I buy a pup it is mine and solely my responsibility.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

It's not just the Doodle obsession that worries me, it's the desire to create the 'biggest and the best' guard dog which makes my blood run cold. Take Bear's breed for example - Caucasian Ovcharka.

Within this year I have seen CO x Akita, CO x German Shepherd, CO x Malinois eek, CO x newfoundland, CO x Shiba Inu... All of which were described as the 'ideal family dog'. 

Just imagine the size, strength and independence of the Caucasian crossed with the sharpness and brains of the Malinois in the hands of an inexperienced dog owner who was looking for the 'ideal family dog'. Terrifying.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Pappychi said:


> It's not just the Doodle obsession that worries me, it's the desire to create the 'biggest and the best' guard dog which makes my blood run cold. Take Bear's breed for example - Caucasian Ovcharka.
> 
> Within this year I have seen CO x Akita, CO x German Shepherd, CO x Malinois eek, CO x newfoundland, CO x Shiba Inu... All of which were described as the 'ideal family dog'.
> 
> Just imagine the size, strength and independence of the Caucasian crossed with the sharpness and brains of the Malinois in the hands of an inexperienced dog owner who was looking for the 'ideal family dog'. Terrifying.


I'm quite concerned at the sudden popularity of these dogs as well, I hope they don't become the next must-have status dog.

Although these dogs won't be as eager to please as most bull breeds & will definitely not be as forgiving of abusive handling, so it probably won't be a long lasting trend.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I never have and never would buy from a breeder that had a contract as when I buy a pup it is mine and solely my responsibility.


In this day and age, contracts are necessary to protect the dogs. 
A gal I know breeds working-line GSDs. She sold a bitch pup under contract which included that she would be spayed and never bred. The breeder allowed the owners to decide when would be best to spay her. At 7 months she got pregnant with an "oops" litter. The breeder found out through the grape-vine, investigates and sure enough, it was true. She contacted the owners in part to help with the whelping and raising of the puppies, but they refused to get back with her. A year later the bitch had another "oops" litter. At this point the breeder drove out there herself and collected the bitch - which she legally could as her contract protected her. The bitch is now spayed and staying with the breeder. She also has temperament issues that are part of why this dog was sold as a pet to a pet home to be spayed.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I find it strange when people who are concerned about welfare of all dogs are considered to be "looking down their noses" when it comes to crosses, all well and good people ripping pedigrees to shreds but some how concern about the breeding practice's of cross breeds is snobbery?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> In this day and age, contracts are necessary to protect the dogs.
> A gal I know breeds working-line GSDs. She sold a bitch pup under contract which included that she would be spayed and never bred. The breeder allowed the owners to decide when would be best to spay her. At 7 months she got pregnant with an "oops" litter. The breeder found out through the grape-vine, investigates and sure enough, it was true. She contacted the owners in part to help with the whelping and raising of the puppies, but they refused to get back with her. A year later the bitch had another "oops" litter. At this point the breeder drove out there herself and collected the bitch - which she legally could as her contract protected her. The bitch is now spayed and staying with the breeder. She also has temperament issues that are part of why this dog was sold as a pet to a pet home to be spayed.


I think contracts are the exception though. Most breeders would not even consider a contract and those breeders that do must know they are not worth the paper they are written on. Ok, so your breeder friend took the dog back. I very much doubt if she was legally entitled to but this is just the reason I would never sign a contract. I will do exactly what I want with my own dog and I am not going to have anyone tell me otherwise and have to get into a battle over it. I would certainly not let a breeder take my dog away, I would call the police and get them arrested if they tried. Has there actually ever been a court case over a contract to prove if there is any legality. There certainly is not when you sell a horse. It is quite common to put stipulations on a sale, such as the previous owner wants first refusal if the horse is ever sold, but I think it is generally accepted that in legal terms once money has changed hands you have no say whatsoever in the horse. A dog or horse is simply property in the eyes of the law and if you sold a washing machine you could not stipulate what temperature it was used at - surely no difference if it went to court.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Oh, and can I just address one more thing?
People who say rescues are too picky or that they wouldn't qualify for a rescue. Or breeders too for that matter. I hear a lot of complaints about breeders refusing to sell dogs because of X, Y, Z reasons.

If a breeder or a rescue doesn't think you're the right home for that dog, you should probably listen, and not just go out and find someone who will supply you with that kind of dog.

There is a 7 month old working-line GSD that many forum members know who is in rescue right now.
I was one of the posters who questioned what breeder would sell a dog like this to this home, and was also one of the ones told off for being negative or whatever. 
There is a reason why good breeders and good rescues are very selective about who their dogs end up with, and it has nothing to do with judging the owner or being snobby, and everything to do with wanting what is best for the dog.
Note the dog in question is in rescue, not taken back by the breeder. Yet again rescue has to pick up the pieces where breeders fail. I have a huge issue with this. That breeder should have never sold that dog to that home and having done so, that breeder should have been available to that home to help pick up the pieces when it didn't work out.
Granted I have no way of knowing if the breeder was just blown off by the owner and now that the dog is in rescue the breeder will find out and take the dog back. All I know is that I saw the dog in question on a rescue page as "under assessment". 

And BTW, being rejected by a rescue or breeder doesn't mean you're not the right home for *any* dog, it just means that what the breeder or rescue has at the moment doesn't suit your needs. Keep looking, keep an open mind, re-evaluate your needs, or be more self-aware of your needs. Be more realistic. Don't go for the "sexy" dog like a working-line GSD, go for what suits your needs and your family at that point in life. The working-line GSD will still be there when your needs change.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Meezey said:


> I find it strange when people who are concerned about welfare of all dogs are considered to be "looking down their noses" when it comes to crosses, all well and good people ripping pedigrees to shreds but some how concern about the breeding practice's of cross breeds is snobbery?


I got called a 'pedigree snob' the other day on a Facebook page, for showing concern about dubious breeding practices.

*Looks around at her crossbreed & mutts*

O-kaaaaay.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I think contracts are the exception though. Most breeders would not even consider a contract and those breeders that do must know they are not worth the paper they are written on. Ok, so your breeder friend took the dog back. I very much doubt if she was legally entitled to but this is just the reason I would never sign a contract. I will do exactly what I want with my own dog and I am not going to have anyone tell me otherwise and have to get into a battle over it. I would certainly not let a breeder take my dog away, I would call the police and get them arrested if they tried. Has there actually ever been a court case over a contract to prove if there is any legality. There certainly is not when you sell a horse. It is quite common to put stipulations on a sale, such as the previous owner wants first refusal if the horse is ever sold, but I think it is generally accepted that in legal terms once money has changed hands you have no say whatsoever in the horse. A dog or horse is simply property in the eyes of the law and if you sold a washing machine you could not stipulate what temperature it was used at - surely no difference if it went to court.


Contracts are the norm with the people I associate with, and they're dawn up by lawyers who specialize in this sort of thing, so they very much are worth the paper they're written on and then some. 
And god I hope someone would come and take a dog away from you if you were showing signs of turning her in to a breeding machine. Not yet 2 years old and already had two litters? On what planet is this okay, and what breeder wouldn't care if this was happening to one of their dogs?
Maybe if more people cared or bothered about the dogs they produced, we wouldn't have pure bred dogs being bred to death in puppy farms....


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

ouesi said:


> There is a 7 month old working-line GSD that many forum members know who is in rescue right now.
> I was one of the posters who questioned what breeder would sell a dog like this to this home, and was also one of the ones told off for being negative or whatever.
> There is a reason why good breeders and good rescues are very selective about who their dogs end up with, and it has nothing to do with judging the owner or being snobby, and everything to do with wanting what is best for the dog.
> Note the dog in question is in rescue, not taken back by the breeder. Yet again rescue has to pick up the pieces where breeders fail. I have a huge issue with this. That breeder should have never sold that dog to that home and having done so, that breeder should have been available to that home to help pick up the pieces when it didn't work out.


Ah bugger, that didn't take long did it?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Contracts are the norm with the people I associate with, and they're dawn up by lawyers who specialize in this sort of thing, so they very much are worth the paper they're written on and then some.
> And god I hope someone would come and take a dog away from you if you were showing signs of turning her in to a breeding machine. Not yet 2 years old and already had two litters? On what planet is this okay, and what breeder wouldn't care if this was happening to one of their dogs?
> Maybe if more people cared or bothered about the dogs they produced, we wouldn't have pure bred dogs being bred to death in puppy farms....


Contracts are standard here for dog's and cats from goods breeders and rescues, if you don't get a contract chances are your dealing with a puppy farm or byb.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Oh, and can I just address one more thing?
> People who say rescues are too picky or that they wouldn't qualify for a rescue. Or breeders too for that matter. I hear a lot of complaints about breeders refusing to sell dogs because of X, Y, Z reasons.
> 
> If a breeder or a rescue doesn't think you're the right home for that dog, you should probably listen, and not just go out and find someone who will supply you with that kind of dog.
> ...


Hmmmm, I think I know who you mean.

I had a feeling it wouldn't end well, despite all the gushing & justification, & the butthurt when said member got given advice she didn't agree with.

Another dog let down because the owner's put their own wants ahead of the dog's needs (& not the first time with this particular person).


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> I got called a 'pedigree snob' the other day on a Facebook page, for showing concern about dubious breeding practices.
> 
> *Looks around at her crossbreed & mutts*
> 
> O-kaaaaay.


I get called similar on a great dane forum. Yes I have a pure bred great dane. I also have a wonderful mutt and have had many wonderful heinz 57s over the years. All rescues and rehomes and side-of-the-road specials


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

SingingWhippet said:


> Ah bugger, that didn't take long did it?


Nope, didn't even make it a year  But we were all a bunch of negative, pessimistic meanies...
@simplysardonic summarizes it best....


simplysardonic said:


> Another dog let down because the owner's put their own wants ahead of the dog's needs (& not the first time with this particular person).


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

SingingWhippet said:


> I don't really care how much money someone chooses to spend buying a dog.
> 
> Whilst I may struggle to see the point of many of them I can't really object to someone breeding crosses providing they're breeding as ethically and responsibly as possible; a well thought out cross with a clear goal in mind, carefully chosen breeding stock, all necessary health tests done on both parents, a willingness to take responsibility of puppies they breed throughout their lives, etc.
> 
> ...


Well said. Have some virtual green rep!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Contracts are the norm with the people I associate with, and they're dawn up by lawyers who specialize in this sort of thing, so they very much are worth the paper they're written on and then some.
> And god I hope someone would come and take a dog away from you if you were showing signs of turning her in to a breeding machine. Not yet 2 years old and already had two litters? On what planet is this okay, and what breeder wouldn't care if this was happening to one of their dogs?
> Maybe if more people cared or bothered about the dogs they produced, we wouldn't have pure bred dogs being bred to death in puppy farms....


My next pup is coming from someone who is a lawyer by trade. So I'd like to think he knows a thing or two about the legalities of contracts and their worth!

I have never heard of a reputable breeder that does not sell their puppies by contract.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I think contracts are the exception though. Most breeders would not even consider a contract and those breeders that do must know they are not worth the paper they are written on. .


I know I'm speaking almost exclusively about the show world here - and, as I have said on other threads, the show world breeders are less than 1% of all pedigree breeders - but I do not know anyone who breeds who would sell a pup without a contract. Similarly, I would always expect to be bound by a contract when buying a pup.

Even if the breeder endorses the pups' registration, the Kennel Club will not enforce that endorsement unless there was a contract of sale signed by the purchaser in which it sates they have had the ensorsements explained to them and willl abide by them.

As for taking pups back - I have known breeders who have taken pups back becaue they felt they were not being looked after rproperly - and I would not hesitate to do so myself for any pup I have bred. In other words, no-one would get a pup from me if they did not agree to and sign a contract.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Oh, and can I just address one more thing?
> People who say rescues are too picky or that they wouldn't qualify for a rescue. Or breeders too for that matter. I hear a lot of complaints about breeders refusing to sell dogs because of X, Y, Z reasons.
> 
> If a breeder or a rescue doesn't think you're the right home for that dog, you should probably listen, and not just go out and find someone who will supply you with that kind of dog.
> ...


So sad, can only hope others will learn from this but doubt it somehow.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So sad, can only hope others will learn from this but doubt it somehow.


Sad and incredibly frustrating, because there is a seemingly endless supply of breeders more interested in money than in who their dog is going to who will continue to supply owners with dogs regardless of if it's in the dog's best interest or not.

And then rescues get a bad rap for refusing to rehome dogs to owners who don't have the best track record.

A co worker was complaining about rescues the other day, her last 3 dogs (yes that is THREE dogs) were run over in the road in front of her house because apparently only small dogs can be "inside" dogs and apparently keeping an outside dog contained is too difficult. 
So then they decide they want an inside dog, which of course must be non-shedding, so they go to a poodle rescue. Poodle rescue interviews them, finds out the last 3 dogs were pancaked in the road, declines to adopt them a dog. 
She has an issue with the rescue turning them down, "it's like they're punishing us for being honest." No, it's like they're protecting their dogs from getting flattened in the road.

So they go to the local puppy mill that has every kind of small doodle there is. Get a tiny toy poodle thing at 6 weeks no less, and unsurprisingly have a hell of a time potty training the dog or teaching her any sort of bite inhibition. So now they have an inside dog who lives in the kitchen or in a crate and gets walked maybe once or twice a week.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I really wish there was an obvious answer to the problem of crap breeding all round. I'd love to see a total end to mass puppy farms, and a reduction at the very least in byb's (or a wide overal improvement).

But puppy buyers are at the crux of it. Sure you find the odd person who wants a litter for whatever reason and doesn't mind giving pups away for free to family and friends, but in the majority of cases if breeding a litter cost more money than it made they wouldn't bother. 

If puppy buyers simply refused to buy from the worst breeders they would stop breeding pretty sharp! They only exist because they have a market.

But as so many people seem happy to buy pups from unknown sources (usually puppy farm bred), or from crap conditions, or with no health testing etc I can't see it ending any time soon :-(


----------



## Lovemydoodle (Mar 27, 2013)

I have a labradoodle ( most may cringe) but I made sure both her parents where health checked etc iv had no problems with her , I had a pedigree again both parents tested but had health problems... I personally don't see anything wrong with either as long as everything is done right ...


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

It's all very well to sit in judgement and say that rescues refuse people for good reason, but when you know a family who turned out to be excellent dog owners, but had been turned down by every rescue in the area, because they lived in a flat, then that view appears a little limited. Sure, if someone has 'a bad track record' regarding pet welfare then rescues should be very careful, but in many cases this certainly does not apply. It is more the case of living conditions not fitting the rescue's (or the assessor's) ideal.

I stand by my comments made in other threads, that rescues need to have a more flexible criteria for 'judging' future pet owners, and that should start with using assessors from a wide range of backgrounds so they are not simply looking for _their_ opinion on what constitutes an 'ideal adopter'.
Because there are many families (and single people) out there who would make excellent pet owners, but are not given the opportunity to show this, being turned down without question.

And it's all very well to say "just because rescues have turned you down, that doesn't mean that you should immediately look elsewhere for a dog", as if all those who turn to other means to find a dog to give a home to are just 'impulse shoppers' who 'must have a dog now', as that is often not the case at all.

When people have done all their research (including into their own means of looking after a pet) over a long time, and have shown that they will be able to care for a dog and give it a good life, to tell them "Well, the rescues have turned you down, so you will just have to give up any idea of dog ownership" will not work in many cases, and I fully understand why.

Someone has just mentioned a case here that many of us know about and comments have been made without checking reasons for what has happened. I prefer not to comment further on that without knowing the full details.

This forum is filled with loving pet owners, but sometimes the overall view of those who do not agree with the consensus is judgmental without empathy.
I would bet that there are many reading this forum who would love to comment on this thread and others, but will not, for fear that they will be made to feel in some way unworthy because of the views they hold, or because their experience of pet ownership does not fit the ideal.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

silvi said:


> It's all very well to sit in judgement and say that rescues refuse people for good reason, but when you know a family who turned out to be excellent dog owners, but had been turned down by every rescue in the area, because they lived in a flat, then that view appears a little limited. Sure, if someone has 'a bad track record' regarding pet welfare then rescues should be very careful, but in many cases this certainly does not apply. It is more the case of living conditions not fitting the rescue's (or the assessor's) ideal.
> 
> I stand by my comments made in other threads, that rescues need to have a more flexible criteria for 'judging' future pet owners, and that should start with using assessors from a wide range of backgrounds so they are not simply looking for _their_ opinion on what constitutes an 'ideal adopter'.
> Because there are many families (and single people) out there who would make excellent pet owners, but are not given the opportunity to show this, being turned down without question.
> ...


I think you have misunderstood/misinterpreted those posts, certainly mine.
It's not about fitting an ideal, there is no such thing as an ideal dog owners.

It is however about putting the needs of the dog first. The dog does not get a say in what home they end up in, someone has to be looking out for the dog's best interest.

When an owner repeatedly shows a pattern of behavior, I'm going to pay attention. When there are one, then two, then three dogs killed in that home, then I'm going to judge. 
When there is one then two "oops" litters on a dog who is less than 2 years old, then I am going to judge. 
When there is one, then two, then three animals given up for being too difficult to care for only to be replaced with another, more complicated animal who is then too given up, I'm going to assume that one too was too difficult to manage. And I may be wrong, but the story of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind. Yes, it may be legitimate reasons for rehoming this time, but the previous pattern of behavior leads me to judge.

If that makes me a judg-y judgerpants oh well. I care deeply about the dogs and what happens to them, and I'm sick to death of being told I'm a meanass with no human compassion. (Especially given that on threads in general I show compassion for humans and get attacked for it.) I have plenty of compassion, but I'm also not an idiot. And if you show me a repeated pattern of behavior, I'm going to assume that pattern will continue until I have resounding proof otherwise.

And maybe I'm being a snob here, but IMHO getting a dog should not be as easy as going to the store, saying "that one" and taking the dog home. Dogs require effort, getting one should require effort too. 
If a rescue rejects you there should be a conversation there. Not just "oh well, rescues are too precious with their dogs and I'm not good enough." A simple "why not" might reveal that there aren't any dogs right now but perhaps this rescue here might have the right one for you, or maybe an offer to foster, there are all sorts of ways people can participate with rescues and develop a relationship. 
If rescues are strict with their requirements, it's usually because they have been burned in that area before. If they don't adopt to families with kids it's probably because they have a history of things not working out with families with kids. That doesn't mean they won't ever at all, plenty of rescues will take applications on a case by case basis. And yes, there are also those rescues who really do shoot themselves in the foot. But by and large they're simply trying to protect the dogs they're trying to help. A little more understanding and empathy for what rescue volunteers have to deal with is in order too it seems.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I know I'm speaking almost exclusively about the show world here - and, as I have said on other threads, the show world breeders are less than 1% of all pedigree breeders - but I do not know anyone who breeds who would sell a pup without a contract. Similarly, I would always expect to be bound by a contract when buying a pup.
> 
> Even if the breeder endorses the pups' registration, the Kennel Club will not enforce that endorsement unless there was a contract of sale signed by the purchaser in which it sates they have had the ensorsements explained to them and willl abide by them.
> 
> As for taking pups back - I have known breeders who have taken pups back becaue they felt they were not being looked after rproperly - and I would not hesitate to do so myself for any pup I have bred. In other words, no-one would get a pup from me if they did not agree to and sign a contract.


This is exactly my point - maybe 1 percent of litters sold have a contract. It is so few it is not really relevant to most dog owners.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

This whole thread says more about puppy buyers than it does breeders.

The whole "designer" crossbreed thing started in Australia (*apparently*) when a guy was asked for a possible solution to someone needing a guide dog but who had allergies to dogs. He obliged & bred a crossbreed that retained the intelligence & trainability needed for a guide dog with the non shedding, non allergenic coat (in some cases)

Being a crossbreed no-one was interested but as soon as he gave these dogs a name the demand was incredible.... everyone wanted one of these new breed dogs.
The dogs he crossed? You'll probably have guessed, a Labrador & Poodle... the name he gave them? Yep 

Be it a Labradoodle, Cockerpoo or whatever, the market determines what sells & people shallow enough to buy a dog just because of it's "breed/name" are the major factors in the unending rise of crossbreeds with interesting names. There are no morals in business, just profit & while the public are willing to buy there will be people willing to supply.
Some don't care where their puppy comes from as long as it is a fashionable "breed"


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I think you have misunderstood/misinterpreted those posts, certainly mine.
> It's not about fitting an ideal, there is no such thing as an ideal dog owners.
> 
> It is however about putting the needs of the dog first. The dog does not get a say in what home they end up in, someone has to be looking out for the dog's best interest.
> ...


I deliberately didn't quote your post because my reply was not simply referring to your statements, but to other attitudes here as well.
And I did say that if there is evidence of a bad track record then that should definitely be taken into account.

So I'm not attacking you in particular for being a ' judg-y judgerpants' (in fact I would never have thought of that term ). But what I am saying is that this forum can be judgmental at times. But when we read deeper, we will often find that many members have dogs which do not come from rescues or from health testing breeders, but many members will keep quiet about this, or feel that they must apologise for their past indiscretions.

Of course I agree that it is the dog's best interest that is paramount, whether a rescue dog, or a dog from a breeder, but I also get the feeling that this is not always the case: more unrealised snobbery in some cases.
When your home is visited by a rescue volunteer, the whole family is on edge as the visit is very important to them (and if it isn't, then obviously something isn't right), especially as, in many cases, they have already met and bonded with the dog they wish to adopt. To then be told that they do not fit a rather unwieldy criteria is harsh indeed and doesn't allow for much soul searching as in 'what things can we put right?'.

Yes, of course I understand that empathy works both ways and that we need to understand the feelings of the rescue volunteer, but equally, the rescue volunteer needs to be open to different types of families and situations, but many of them are not.

But I don't think I misunderstood your post, or the other posts here, certainly not any more than you have misunderstood mine.
Perhaps it's just the case of experiences differ.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

"some don't care where their puppy comes from as long as it is a fashionable breed"

Completely agree, and indeed that's the problem. Of course it is equally true in pedigree breeds, you only have to look at the huge surge in badly bred pugs, French bulldogs and Chihuahuas to see that.

Sadly good breeders seem to be the minority. I once spent several hours pouring through champdogs and comparing total number of breeders listed to those that come up if you specify health testing in the search. The results were abysmal :-(


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Meezey said:


> I find it strange when people who are concerned about welfare of all dogs are considered to be "looking down their noses" when it comes to crosses, all well and good people ripping pedigrees to shreds but some how concern about the breeding practice's of cross breeds is snobbery?


I dont think its that at all. Has anybody ripped pedigrees to shreds in this thread??
Alot of us are crossbreed owners here and some of us didnt even get them via rescue but purposely looked for a particular cross, probably for the same reason that pedigree owners had for their own breeds (traits and lifestyle for example). So far this thread has been quite harsh and flippant about the kind of 'idiot' who pays thousands for a fluffy genetic Frankenstein of a dog who will either moult, run you ragged or just be totally unsuitable in every way...that is if its leg doesnt fall off on its first walk coz of bad breeding practices!:Hilarious
*sigh*nm, Im just going to hug my filthy mugbloods and be very thankful that I have them!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Colette said:


> *"some don't care where their puppy comes from as long as it is a fashionable breed"*
> 
> Completely agree, and indeed that's the problem. Of course it is equally true in pedigree breeds, you only have to look at the huge surge in badly bred pugs, French bulldogs and Chihuahuas to see that.
> 
> Sadly good breeders seem to be the minority. I once spent several hours pouring through champdogs and comparing total number of breeders listed to those that come up if you specify health testing in the search. The results were abysmal :-(


And as long as it requires minimal time & effort to get it 

And who cares if it dies young from being poorly bred, it would save the hassle of getting rid of it once it's old & ugly & no longer the breed of the moment


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

silvi said:


> But when we read deeper, we will often find that many members have dogs which do not come from rescues or from health testing breeders, but many members will keep quiet about this, or feel that they must apologise for their past indiscretions.


Why?
No one can be faulted for not knowing. None of us is born knowing everything there is to know about the pet overpopulation crisis and responsible breeding and rescuing. 
Maya Angelou says "Do the best you can until you know better, and when you know better, do better."

It's when people DO know better, yet choose to go to a BYB or puppy farm anyway because they just can't be bothered to do the work to develop a relationship with a breeder or rescue. 
Or when they are told left and right by breeders and rescues that a high energy, high needs dog is probably not the wisest choice for you, or if you have a house full of cats a greyhound with hunting instincts may not be the smartest move, but they refuse to accept the realistic input and pursue that breed anyway. And then the forum do-gooders congratulate them on their new puppy and call the rest of us skeptics unforgiving judgmental jerks who drive people away from the forum. 
It gets old, and dogs get passed from pillar to post. And when you see it over and over and over again, there are points where you do end up just snapping about it.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> Round here, a pretty middle class area, named crossbreeds are status symbols, & their owners consider them superior to your run-of-the-mill unidentifiable mutts because they have a cute name & they paid a big wad of cash for them.
> 
> My crossbred dog is pretty unhealthy so that throws the 'hybrid vigour' theory out the window for me, you really don't know what you are going to get heath or temperament wise, or which breed traits will be prevalent.
> 
> I also think, like with the more popular or fashionable purebreds, it's a minefield to find a decent breeder.


Erm no it doesn't. 
Hybrid viggur = increased heterozygosity = a decreased risk of an organism being affected with genetic defects. 
It does not mean no risk at all. 
And it can be effected by factors such as how closely related the breeds in the cross are to begin with. 
The F1 offspring of a malamute x iwh, are likely to experience more of an increase in heterosis than say the F1 offspring of an iwh and a deerhound.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Tazer said:


> Erm no it doesn't.
> Hybrid viggur = increased heterozygosity = a decreased risk of an organism being affected with genetic defects.
> It does not mean no risk at all.
> And it can be effected by factors such as how closely related the breeds in the cross are to begin with.
> The F1 offspring of a malamute x iwh, are likely to experience more of an increase in heterosis than say the F1 offspring of an iwh and a deerhound.


I did say it threw it out the window for me, not that it doesn't exist 

The dog in question is a Rottweiler x Sibe, so I'd say a fair bit of heterosis there. His issues are manily conformation related, but he does have season al allergies


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> And as long as it requires minimal time & effort to get it
> 
> And who cares if it dies young from being poorly bred, it would save the hassle of getting rid of it once it's old & ugly & no longer the breed of the moment


I think this applies to any owner who just wants a fashionable breed, crossbreed or pedigree. I know round my way its any type of bulldog that is currently being bred with no regard for anything but a fast buck.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> then you lined a byb's pocket, and poorly bred dogs will continue to be bred. Sad for all involved Imo. Nowt wrong with a mutt, but if acquiring from a pup the very least you can do is make 100% sure the breeders dogs are health tested.


Which BYB pockets did I line? What's sad for all involved? I'm certainly not sad.



lorilu said:


> I did not misunderstand you. The fact that you would "never ask or expect" paints you in a very poor light as a potential purchaser of an ethical breeder's pups. The breeder expects, requires, that an animal they bred be returned to them. It would be breaking contract for you not to do it. I am not a breeder but based on your attitude, if I were, I would not sell to you.


Lucky it wasn't you selling to me then... It's strange to me that taking responsibility for my dogs for the duration of their lives makes me a bad owner...


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Aahlly said:


> Which BYB pockets did I line? What's sad for all involved? I'm certainly not sad.
> 
> Lucky it wasn't you selling to me then... It's strange to me that taking responsibility for my dogs for the duration of their lives makes me a bad owner...


Who said that you wanting to take responsibility for your dogs for the duration of their lives makes you a bad owner?

The point is that any reputable breeder will ask that the pup be returned to them if, for any reason, you were unable to keep it.

Your stance, that you wouldn't return the pup to the Breeder but rehome it yourself would have ruled you out as a buyer when I was breeding I'm afraid.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> It's strange to me that taking responsibility for my dogs for the duration of their lives makes me a bad owner...


No one has said, or even implied that...not even close.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Aahlly said:


> Lucky it wasn't you selling to me then... It's strange to me that taking responsibility for my dogs for the duration of their lives makes me a bad owner...


Wow that's not at all what has been said...
Are you deliberately misunderstanding or do you really not understand the importance of a breeder keeping up with the dogs they produce for the life of that dog?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Meezey said:


> http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classifieds/1014259-super-quality-f1-puggles-doncaster.html
> 
> So health tested parents! Great breeders right? Breeding to eliminate the health issues in Pugs? Looks and sounds great...... £1000 a pup or £1200 or if they are smaller £850, or left over £650, pups available ALL year round, pups advertised one litter ever month, now why does puppy farmer spring to mind! But hey as long as they don't have bulging eyes and no muzzle all is good?


£1,000? A thousand pounds??? ONE THOUSAND GREAT BRITISH POUNDS FOR A _*MONGREL*_?????!!!!!!!

Gawd orlmitey!

And I notice that while the ad was placed a day ago, and they clam that their very popular in-demand puppies are almost all reserved, the litter is over 4 months old . . .

. . . doesn't make them sound very popular to me


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Who said that you wanting to take responsibility for your dogs for the duration of their lives makes you a bad owner?
> 
> The point is that any reputable breeder will ask that the pup be returned to them if, for any reason, you were unable to keep it.
> 
> Your stance, that you wouldn't return the pup to the Breeder but rehome it yourself would have ruled you out as a buyer when I was breeding I'm afraid.


If you read previous posts I have stated that I would not return a dog to the breeder, but have family and friends in place for if anything happened to me and was no longer able to care for my dogs. I would rather my dogs went to people who they know and have known since they were tiny, than be returned to someone they haven't seen since a few months after they were born.



StormyThai said:


> No one has said, or even implied that...not even close.


Read the posts I quoted. It was implied.



ouesi said:


> Wow that's not at all what has been said...
> Are you deliberately misunderstanding or do you really not understand the importance of a breeder keeping up with the dogs they produce for the life of that dog?


Why on earth would I try and deliberately misunderstand people? And no, I don't understand that importance. I've been very attacked on a thread that I began to start an interesting discussion. A few members have come here and written posts that have become very personal which I am taken aback by. There have been some very interesting points and I have learned some things about contracts which I didn't before which I appreciate. I do not mind in the slightest when people disagree, I enjoy learning new things and love to hear about the other side of the coin. What I do not enjoy is people making personal statements about my choices which they have no context for and having never laid eyes on me and my dogs. You can tell me all you like that no-one is getting personal and I am being touchy but when members post that they would never sell me a dog and that reading between the lines, I am irresponsible and do not have my dogs welfare at heart, then that stings.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> Read the posts I quoted. It was implied.


No, you are reading into things that are not there.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> No, you are reading into things that are not there.


LOL Okay then...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> LOL Okay then...


Seriously...not one single person has implied that you are a bad owner for taking responsibility for your dog.
Breeders are allowed to refuse to sell you a dog, that doesn't mean they think you are a bad owner, it just means that they don't think you are the right owner for one of their dogs.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Aahlly said:


> If you read previous posts I have stated that I would not return a dog to the breeder, but have family and friends in place for if anything happened to me and was no longer able to care for my dogs. I would rather my dogs went to people who they know and have known since they were tiny, than be returned to someone they haven't seen since a few months after they were born.
> 
> Read the posts I quoted. It was implied.
> 
> Why on earth would I try and deliberately misunderstand people? And no, I don't understand that importance. I've been very attacked on a thread that I began to start an interesting discussion. A few members have come here and written posts that have become very personal which I am taken aback by. There have been some very interesting points and I have learned some things about contracts which I didn't before which I appreciate. I do not mind in the slightest when people disagree, I enjoy learning new things and love to hear about the other side of the coin. What I do not enjoy is people making personal statements about my choices which they have no context for and having never laid eyes on me and my dogs. You can tell me all you like that no-one is getting personal and I am being touchy but when members post that they would never sell me a dog and that reading between the lines, I am irresponsible and do not have my dogs welfare at heart, then that stings.


And you don't think the Breeder has known your pup since he was tiny?

When I had carefully, and I mean carefully, bred a litter, delivered them, slept with them, watched over them like a hawk, weaned, wormed and socialised them for eight weeks, I vetted and chose new owners very carefully indeed. My pups only went to what I thought were 'five star' homes.

If, for whatever reason, the new owner had to part with one of my pups, I wanted them back here, so that I could rehome them as carefully as I had the first time.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Don't confuse proper breeders with some geezer who see's easy money!

It takes work to improve a breed... it takes none to make money from the ignorant/gullible public.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Aahlly said:


> And no, I don't understand that importance.


Fair enough. 
I have tried to explain below why it is so important for breeders to keep up with the dogs they produced. Forgive me for being lazy and just quoting myself. 


ouesi said:


> OP, I notice you're not sold on the breeder taking responsibility for the puppies they produce for life by committing to taking pups back for any reason.
> Why would this not be a breeder responsibility? Even the most responsible of owners might fall on hard times, might get ill, or god forbid die. Why wouldn't a breeder want to be involved in making sure one of the puppies they produced is okay and in good hands? A friend of mine went through a divorce and ended up needing to rehome one of her dogs, the breeder was informed and involved the whole way through and is in contact with the new owners and a valuable source of support for them as they transition the dog to the new home.
> Good rescues do this as well.
> I know many breeders who drive across the country to collect or help dogs they have produced, both the dam owner or stud owner. It's called being responsible. I can't imagine expecting anything less of a breeder.
> ...





ouesi said:


> Unfortnately that's part of the problem. Buyers don't know to expect this of breeders, they don't know how many responsible breeders there are out there who do keep track of all the puppies they produce and maintain responsibility for them, so they don't require it of breeders and breeders get away with being less than responsible.
> Why shouldn't a breeder be able to tell me all about each of the litters they have bred, where those pups are, what kind of dog they matured in to, how they are doing now, what they died of, etc., etc.? Isn't all that highly relevant to their breeding program?


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Seriously...not one single person has implied that you are a bad owner for taking responsibility for your dog.
> Breeders are allowed to refuse to sell you a dog, that doesn't mean they think you are a bad owner, it just means that they don't think you are the right owner for one of their dogs.


You cannot tell me how to interpret posts. What was written was personal and inappropriate. Of course breeders are allowed to refuse to sell me a dog, I would respect that. But I would be very surprised that the grounds for refusal would be I would rather the dog go to my sister if I were no longer able to care for it than return to a breeder who the dog may have had no contact with for several years. That is very bizarre.



Sweety said:


> And you don't think the Breeder has known your pup since he was tiny?
> 
> When I had carefully, and I mean carefully, bred a litter, delivered them, slept with them, watched over them like a hawk, weaned, wormed and socialised them for eight weeks, I vetted and chose new owners very carefully indeed. My pups only went to what I thought were 'five star' homes.
> 
> If, for whatever reason, the new owner had to part with one of my pups, I wanted them back here, so that I could rehome them as carefully as I had the first time.


That's great that you're so devoted to your dogs. I respect and admire that. However, I as the owner of the dog would much rather, if anything happened to me, have my sister take care of my dog, or my best friend of many years, both of whom have a relationship with the dog, have seen her grow from a tiny puppy and who she recognises and loves, rather than a breeder who possibly hasn't laid eyes on the dog for many years. I hope you can see where I'm coming from? If I was forced to notify the breeder, via a contract that I could no longer care for the dog and he/she swooped in and collected the dog I would heartbroken. You have to see the whole picture. The breeder does not own my dog, I do. Therefore I will make decisions about what what happens to her that I feel would be in her best interests.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Fair enough.
> I have tried to explain below why it is so important for breeders to keep up with the dogs they produced. Forgive me for being lazy and just quoting myself.


I appreciate you taking the time to put those quotes together and I think it's interesting to get another point of view that's not my own. That's really the reason I enjoy using a forum, to hear other opinions and learn. But as I have said above, in reply to another member, if I couldn't care for my dog anymore I would never even think to tell the breeder. I would have my dog be cared for by my sister or best friend who both have a good relationship with my dog, have cared for her at times over the past four and a half years, who she recognises and loves. I would rather she go with them than someone who hasn't laid eyes on her, except for sporadic updates and exchanged pictures now and then. I just think it's bizarre to expect me to change my mind over this and suddenly accept that if I can't care for my dog anymore she would have to be returned to a person who is essentially, a stranger to her over and above going to live at a home that is already familiar to her with people she knows and trusts.

The other side of it is, she is my dog. I don't want someone else having any control over what happens to her. That's my decision. Perhaps some people aren't so responsible, but I would hope that the majority would be. The last thing I would want would be someone breathing down my neck as I make choices for an animal that it my responsibility, and in my mind, mine alone. I know what's best for her and what she would be comfortable with and I truly wouldn't want to be made to feel like her fate was out of my control due to a contract I signed when she was 8 weeks of age. I've cared for her for four and half years and we've been through a lot together. It's, in my opinion, quite frankly not the breeders business to vet who I would decide to place her with should anything horrific happen to me.


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

Sweety said:


> And you don't think the Breeder has known your pup since he was tiny?
> 
> When I had carefully, and I mean carefully, bred a litter, delivered them, slept with them, watched over them like a hawk, weaned, wormed and socialised them for eight weeks, I vetted and chose new owners very carefully indeed. My pups only went to what I thought were 'five star' homes.
> 
> If, for whatever reason, the new owner had to part with one of my pups, I wanted them back here, so that I could rehome them as carefully as I had the first time.


I was at a whippet show last weekend the breeder of my dogs were there Peter has not seen his breeder since June and Phoenix has not seen them since he was a 16 week old pup when he came to us but both of them went straight to their breeder and knew who they were.

I have 2 crossbred first is Willow who is mostly italian greyhound with a small amount of whippet he was given to us by a friend after I lost my greyhound William she knew we wanted an IG but most breeders will not let unknown people have them unless they are BYB with poorly bred stock. Willow was the result of an accidental mating after his sire climbed a 6ft fence to get at her bitch

The second is Lily who is a chihuahua cross yorkie we got her after my OH decided he would like a chihuahua. We could not have a rescue because my dogs are all entire and have to be because I show them and most rescues insist that all resident dogs are neutered.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Can I just mention as well for those who say they have been turned down by rescues because of something like living in a flat, working part time or having un neutered dogs it is always worth trying different rescues such as breed specific rescues (who also often have crosses) as they can be more flexible.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Aahlly said:


> I appreciate you taking the time to put those quotes together and I think it's interesting to get another point of view that's not my own. That's really the reason I enjoy using a forum, to hear other opinions and learn. But as I have said above, in reply to another member, if I couldn't care for my dog anymore I would never even think to tell the breeder. I would have my dog be cared for by my sister or best friend who both have a good relationship with my dog, have cared for her at times over the past four and a half years, who she recognises and loves. I would rather she go with them than someone who hasn't laid eyes on her, except for sporadic updates and exchanged pictures now and then. I just think it's bizarre to expect me to change my mind over this and suddenly accept that if I can't care for my dog anymore she would have to be returned to a person who is essentially, a stranger to her over and above going to live at a home that is already familiar to her with people she knows and trusts.
> 
> The other side of it is, she is my dog. I don't want someone else having any control over what happens to her. That's my decision. Perhaps some people aren't so responsible, but I would hope that the majority would be. The last thing I would want would be someone breathing down my neck as I make choices for an animal that it my responsibility, and in my mind, mine alone. I know what's best for her and what she would be comfortable with and I truly wouldn't want to be made to feel like her fate was out of my control due to a contract I signed when she was 8 weeks of age. I've cared for her for four and half years and we've been through a lot together. It's, in my opinion, quite frankly not the breeders business to vet who I would decide to place her with should anything horrific happen to me.


I think this is fair enough if applicable (rehoming with family).

But if that were not an option, I am sure you can see why good breeders have contracts in place. To ensure their dogs go to appropriate homes rather than be passed around. This is particularly important with dog breeds with above average needs - case point as mentioned earlier in the thread, with the young working line German Shepherd puppy owned by a member that is now sadly in rescue.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Aahlly said:


> I appreciate you taking the time to put those quotes together and I think it's interesting to get another point of view that's not my own. That's really the reason I enjoy using a forum, to hear other opinions and learn. But as I have said above, in reply to another member, if I couldn't care for my dog anymore I would never even think to tell the breeder. I would have my dog be cared for by my sister or best friend who both have a good relationship with my dog, have cared for her at times over the past four and a half years, who she recognises and loves. I would rather she go with them than someone who hasn't laid eyes on her, except for sporadic updates and exchanged pictures now and then. I just think it's bizarre to expect me to change my mind over this and suddenly accept that if I can't care for my dog anymore she would have to be returned to a person who is essentially, a stranger to her over and above going to live at a home that is already familiar to her with people she knows and trusts.
> 
> The other side of it is, she is my dog. I don't want someone else having any control over what happens to her. That's my decision. Perhaps some people aren't so responsible, but I would hope that the majority would be. The last thing I would want would be someone breathing down my neck as I make choices for an animal that it my responsibility, and in my mind, mine alone. I know what's best for her and what she would be comfortable with and I truly wouldn't want to be made to feel like her fate was out of my control due to a contract I signed when she was 8 weeks of age. I've cared for her for four and half years and we've been through a lot together. It's, in my opinion, quite frankly not the breeders business to vet who I would decide to place her with should anything horrific happen to me.


A good breeder though would *want* to know if you could no longer care for your dog. They would be there to offer support to your sister should she need it, they would stay in touch with your sister, and if, heaven forbid, something were to happen to your sister, they would be there for the dog.

And you are a responsible owner. But what if you weren't. What if, like the other example I used, you were breeding your bitch back to back and pumping puppies out of her to her detriment? Shouldn't a breeder care what happens to their dogs once they leave their home?

It's not about taking control away from responsible owners, it's about taking responsibility for the dogs you produce for the life of those dogs.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

I sincerely hope not 

Sadly towards the end the 'breeder' was selling them for around the £200 mark just to get shut by the sound of it. I often wonder where they are and what they're doing now.

If I had been a little more reckless and a little more led by my heart I think I would of brought the lot and rehomed them myself. You can't save everyone though


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> I appreciate you taking the time to put those quotes together and I think it's interesting to get another point of view that's not my own. That's really the reason I enjoy using a forum, to hear other opinions and learn. But as I have said above, in reply to another member, if I couldn't care for my dog anymore I would never even think to tell the breeder. I would have my dog be cared for by my sister or best friend who both have a good relationship with my dog, have cared for her at times over the past four and a half years, who she recognises and loves. I would rather she go with them than someone who hasn't laid eyes on her, except for sporadic updates and exchanged pictures now and then. I just think it's bizarre to expect me to change my mind over this and suddenly accept that if I can't care for my dog anymore she would have to be returned to a person who is essentially, a stranger to her over and above going to live at a home that is already familiar to her with people she knows and trusts.
> 
> The other side of it is, she is my dog. I don't want someone else having any control over what happens to her. That's my decision. Perhaps some people aren't so responsible, but I would hope that the majority would be. The last thing I would want would be someone breathing down my neck as I make choices for an animal that it my responsibility, and in my mind, mine alone. I know what's best for her and what she would be comfortable with and I truly wouldn't want to be made to feel like her fate was out of my control due to a contract I signed when she was 8 weeks of age. I've cared for her for four and half years and we've been through a lot together. It's, in my opinion, quite frankly not the breeders business to vet who I would decide to place her with should anything horrific happen to me.


I find it very sad that people complain about byb and puppy farmers! But then don't seem to have relationships with their dogs breeders? Good breeders are not just someone who you send a few pictures too, you wouldn't feel the way you do about it if you had a relationship with your breeder? Which most people don't get if they see an ad meet a pup then take it home!

If you research dogs and breeders you usually end up on a waiting list, you could wait a few years for the right puppy, over that time you build a relationship with your breeder, they help you chose the right puppy for you and your situation, they are a guiding hand throughout your puppies life, someone to turn to for help and support if needed, someone who likes to hear about their puppies, meet them again, get tagged in your pictures, someone who will always be there if needed,they would have no problem with your dog going to friends or family, after all you have a relationship with them so would knows your wishes, and if your sister couldn't take your dog nor your friend they would be there to make sure your dog didn't end up in a pound or rescue! It's the difference between a good breeder and a poor breeder of pedigree or cross breeds, they care about the lives they create for the whole life of the dog or cat, not just for 8 weeks or till cash has passed hands!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Aahlly said:


> I was reading around on a couple of things and came across a post an another forum slamming people who buy crossbred dogs basically saying its a waste of money and if you are happy with a "mutt" you should only get it from a shelter.
> 
> I just think this is a bizarre thing to say? Two of my three dogs are mixed breed and I bought. I chose not to adopt because if I did I would have had a dog that was unsuitable to my lifestyle. I chose dogs crossed with breeds which I could handle. If I had gone to my local shelter I could have picked between staffie mixes and terrier breeds, great dogs, but totally would not have fitted into my household.
> 
> ...


That is your choice. There will always be those who consider their own desires more important than the welfare of animals so you will not be alone in that.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> That is your choice. There will always be those who consider their own desires more important than the welfare of animals so you will not be alone in that.


May I ask what you mean by this?


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> I find it very sad that people complain about byb and puppy farmers! But then don't seem to have relationships with their dogs breeders? Good breeders are not just someone who you send a few pictures too, you wouldn't feel the way you do about it if you had a relationship with your breeder? Which most people don't get if they see an ad meet a pup then take it home!
> 
> If you research dogs and breeders you usually end up on a waiting list, you could wait a few years for the right puppy, over that time you build a relationship with your breeder, they help you chose the right puppy for you and your situation, they are a guiding hand throughout your puppies life, someone to turn to for help and support if needed, someone who likes to hear about their puppies, meet them again, get tagged in your pictures, someone who will always be there if needed,they would have no problem with your dog going to friends or family, after all you have a relationship with them so would knows your wishes, and if your sister couldn't take your dog nor your friend they would be there to make sure your dog didn't end up in a pound or rescue! It's the difference between a good breeder and a poor breeder of pedigree or cross breeds, they care about the lives they create for the whole life of the dog or cat, not just for 8 weeks or till cash has passed hands!


That's great if that's what you want, but I'm sure not all owners would expect, require or want this kind of relationship. I personally wouldn't be comfortable signing a contract that required me to have this sort of relationship with a breeder.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> That's great if that's what you want, but I'm sure not all owners would expect, require or want this kind of relationship. I personally wouldn't be comfortable signing a contract that required me to have this sort of relationship with a breeder.


I want a good responsible breeder, so for me its part of having a great breeder someone who care about a dog for life. Sadly one of the issues dogs have is people just want to do what they want rather than do what is right by the dog.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Aahlly said:


> May I ask what you mean by this?


I mean that you chose to put your own desires above the well being of the pups being bred by going to a byb.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> I mean that you chose to put your own desires above the well being of the pups being bred by going to a byb.


Okay thank you for clarifying. I hope that judging me from afar has had some benefit for you. Otherwise we have simply wasted each others time.


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Eeek, I started reading through this and just totally got lost off so here is my two cents!

1) Rescue dogs are not bad with children, I HATE that people assume this and use it as an excuse not to go to a rescue. I have four 2nd hand dogs all of which adore children and were child tested before I adopted them.

2) Rescue dogs will fit into your lifestyle , however... like a puppy it takes time and patience. You can't buy a puppy one day and then start leaving it for 1/2/3/4 hours the next... same with a rescue dog. 

I'm not a " I hate all breeders" type of person, it's my personal preference to go to rescues just as it is other peoples preference to go to a breeder. I just wish people would do their homework and stop using naff excuses as to why they didn't try a rescue. 

Shelby was 11 weeks old when handed into rescue, she's a husky x malamute ( again another cross that is churned out over and over again by BYB's )


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Aahlly said:


> That's great if that's what you want, but I'm sure not all owners would expect, require or want this kind of relationship. I personally wouldn't be comfortable signing a contract that required me to have this sort of relationship with a breeder.


This is where the learning curve comes in.

Until you realize what IS possible as far as a relationship with a breeder, you can't understand what is possible and why that is more desirable than just buying the puppy and never keeping up with the breeder.

Just looking at it from the breeder point of view - why wouldn't you want to keep up with the dogs you have produced forever? What if one developed a rare disease, wouldn't you want to know that exists in your lines and adjust the breeding program accordingly. What if one of your dogs ended up in the wrong hands, wouldn't you want to know that and take care of the dog? Why wouldn't a puppy buyer expect that of their breeder?

Aahlly, don't you have a dog with really bad hips (forgive me if I'm confusing you with someone else), someone bred that dog that way, and is probably continuing to produce diseased dogs because they a) don't care and b) have no clue their dogs are turning up sick. Is this the sort of behavior you want to support in a breeder?


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

ouesi said:


> This is where the learning curve comes in.
> 
> Until you realize what IS possible as far as a relationship with a breeder, you can't understand what is possible and why that is more desirable than just buying the puppy and never keeping up with the breeder.
> 
> ...


All good points. I guess I have a lot to learn.

And yeah that was me. I informed the breeder of the situation. I didn't need to have a relationship with her to know that was the right thing to do. Although, I was aware that the mother wasn't part of the regular breeding program and was neutered after the litter. I believe she's now been placed in a pet home. It was a long story with that puppy involving unscrupulous people further up the line. Poor lad is a poor lad no longer though LOL!! You wouldn't even know the little guy had one hip as he bombs about the park haha!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Aahlly said:


> All good points. I guess I have a lot to learn.
> 
> And yeah that was me. I informed the breeder of the situation. I didn't need to have a relationship with her to know that was the right thing to do. Although, I was aware that the mother wasn't part of the regular breeding program and was neutered after the litter. I believe she's now been placed in a pet home. It was a long story with that puppy involving unscrupulous people further up the line. Poor lad is a poor lad no longer though LOL!! You wouldn't even know the little guy had one hip as he bombs about the park haha!!


I'm very glad your dog is doing well now.
And I'm very glad you contacted the breeder and they are no longer using that bitch, but there it goes right back to responsible breeding doesn't it?
What if you had not contacted that breeder? Shouldn't that breeder have known where their puppies ended up and how they were doing? Isn't that something that a responsible breeder should be doing in addition to thorough health testing? 
Not all things are testable. If the breeder is not keeping up with the puppies, how do they know what issues (or not) are cropping up in their lines? And not just health issues, temperament too. What about breeds prone to OCD behaviors or excessive fearfulness? Shouldn't breeders know what kind of dogs their puppies mature in to so that they know how best to continue those lines?
This is what I mean about keeping up with puppies being integral to a responsible breeder's program. If they're not keeping up with puppies, they're missing a huge piece of the big picture of what they are producing.

Again, it's not about maintaining "control" over the dogs, but being knowledgeable about what is in their lines and what they are producing.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I'm very glad your dog is doing well now.
> And I'm very glad you contacted the breeder and they are no longer using that bitch, but there it goes right back to responsible breeding doesn't it?
> What if you had not contacted that breeder? Shouldn't that breeder have known where their puppies ended up and how they were doing? Isn't that something that a responsible breeder should be doing in addition to thorough health testing?
> Not all things are testable. If the breeder is not keeping up with the puppies, how do they know what issues (or not) are cropping up in their lines? And not just health issues, temperament too. What about breeds prone to OCD behaviors or excessive fearfulness? Shouldn't breeders know what kind of dogs their puppies mature in to so that they know how best to continue those lines?
> ...


I can absolutely appreciate what you're saying and I get it. I feel this thread has been made terribly personal with many comments made about me personally which I did not appreciate. At the end of the day, I'm doing the best I can. However, I am glad for the opportunity to understand another way of doing things.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Aahlly said:


> I can absolutely appreciate what you're saying and I get it. I feel this thread has been made terribly personal with many comments made about me personally which I did not appreciate. At the end of the day, I'm doing the best I can. However, I am glad for the opportunity to understand another way of doing things.


Well I'm happy to read that you are gaining awareness 

I wouldn't take things personally, really. We're all simply looking out for the dogs' best interest. The more you know, the better able you are to make choices that will benefit all dogs. We are all learning here, so it's all good really.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

My pug cross yorkie has a lovely nature. She is beautiful. I hope she has no health problems in her life that are caused by lack of testing. Time will tell. She has had a hernia and a phantom pregnancy, which a health tested pedigree could have had so nothing to note there.
She does have a underbite which is down to being a crossbreed but its small and doesnt cause problems.
I love her and her character is amazing. Doesnt shed like a yorkie, nature of a pug but not the squashed nose which is great because she runs around and walks for ages without breathing problems. She is 50\50 between the 2 breeds. Ive been lucky and so has she.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Aahlly said:


> I can absolutely appreciate what you're saying and I get it. I feel this thread has been made terribly personal with many comments made about me personally which I did not appreciate. At the end of the day, I'm doing the best I can. However, I am glad for the opportunity to understand another way of doing things.


I said it was a popcorn thread...

@Aally, I was as ignorant as you are of a lot of things when I joined the site, especially in terms of responsible breeding. I was amazed that's there are/were breeders who would move mountains to get their puppy back from bad owners, and even remember reading a thread about the process of a loving, responsible breeder (who sadly doesn't seem to be with us anymore) driving through the night because she believed her boy was to be used as a stud dog with or without her consent.

Now, I got both of my dogs through the pound - the byb of the rescue world. It was a simple, cheap and effective way to get a dog, but when I went back for Milly, I was glad to see that the volunteer still recognised Max after a good 7 or 8 years (although tbf, he is rather distinctive).

The pound's attitude was simple - with Max, the contract (and yes, even with the local pound, there is/was a contract in place) decreed that if we couldn't keep him, for whatever reason, he was to be returned to the pound. With Milly, that proviso was.shortened to just a 3mth cooling off period...

Now, that suits me right down to the ground, because if I ever had to rehome The Mutts ... Well, at this stage in his life, I wouldn't even try to rehome Max - if family couldn't/wouldn't take him, I'd do the responsible thing and pts... Milly would go to a rescue I know of locally that advises owners to keep hold of their dog/s until another loving home is found for them, or,.if the dog HAS to go, will foster them out, rather than let them languish in kennels.

For Dog #3, I know what I want - I want a male (black) pedigree poodle, ideally a puppy, but age isn't important to me (colour in brackets because the dog doesn't HAVE to be black - just the colour dog I se in my minds eye). I want an intelligent dog that doesn't shed - not because I'm houseproud, but because it might stop my dad insisting that my skin problems all boil down to the fact I have a dog who moults "24/7" (which is one hell of an exaggeration, because he doesn't - just twice a year as his summer/winter coats come through). My first stop for my poodle (when I'm ready to get him) - will be breed rescue, but that won't stop me from researching the 3 breeders I now know about locally.

You may say that your dogs are your responsibility for life and that you have plans in place if something happens and you can no longer keep the dogs with you - ie, family and friends. I would hope that my dogs are treated like the family members I consider them to be by my own human family, so I understand your sentiment, but realistically, your friends /sister have their own lives which may or may not include taking on your dog, and, while it would be nice and while you would hope they'll do that for you, it's not really fair of you (or me) to put that kind of pressure on them. Looking after your dogs while you go on holiday or when you (talking from.personal experience here) go into hospital is entirely different from taking the dog on permanently, so what you're saying, in effect, is that, because you want 100% responsibility and final say over who gets your dog/s, is that a) you expect your family/friends to pick up the pieces YOU left and b) you want the "right" to add to the rescue crisis. Whether you intend to say that or not, that IS what you're saying, simply because you want the "right" to choose what happens to your dog/s without their breeders being involved.

Now, you might say that you've already spoken to your sister/friend and that they've promised you they'll look after your dogs for you if you had to give them up or if something happened to you ... Do you realise just how many BYB saunter into the breeding section and say that it's OK that they're having an "oops" litter because "all their family and friends have said they'd love a puppy from.my dog" - then when the pups are on the ground, suddenly interest fades away and the poor pups end up in rescue at 8wks, or listed amongst the Freeads. It could happen to your dogs too. What is promised when a pet owner is healthy, able bodied and shows no sign of that changing, isn't worth the breath it takes to utter it. The only time you know if a promise was meant wholeheartedly and steadfastly, is when the smelly brown stuff hits those whirling blades.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> I said it was a popcorn thread...
> 
> @Aally, I was as ignorant as you are of a lot of things when I joined the site, especially in terms of responsible breeding. I was amazed that's there are/were breeders who would move mountains to get their puppy back from bad owners, and even remember reading a thread about the process of a loving, responsible breeder (who sadly doesn't seem to be with us anymore) driving through the night because she believed her boy was to be used as a stud dog with or without her consent.
> 
> ...


I would add to this that with the best will in the world sometimes relatives and friends are unable to fulfil their promise to take your dog/puppy because _their_ circumstances have changed. They have a baby, change job/home, develop an illness - we can none of us predict what will happen of course, but having a breeder who is prepared to take the dog back in the event of your not being able to find a good and reliable home with someone you and the dog know (yes - I agree with you that this would be my ideal choice, too), is an absolute Godsend in taking a weight off your mind. (Appreciate that breeders become ill etc too - but it is another lifeline that can be offered to your dog.)


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> I can absolutely appreciate what you're saying and I get it. I feel this thread has been made terribly personal with many comments made about me personally which I did not appreciate. At the end of the day, I'm doing the best I can. However, I am glad for the opportunity to understand another way of doing things.


Sorry if you think it's been personal, I'd shrug it off, random people and all that 

I think for me I often come across as a bitch about it as its frustrating! People can't see past their own dogs, as long as their dog is fit healthy and loved they think all is okay! It's also the fact that many even long term members who should know better then go and meet people for the first time, and pick up a puppy they have never met nor have they seen pup with parents , in a carpark! Or when someone gives up a dog for being high energy then goes and gets an even higher energy dog despite people advising them not too then it also ends up in rescue, or people getting cute dogs off free ads then the forum spending days to secure a rescue space because they didn't want it after a day only for them to give it to some ransomer. There will always be bad breeders when people ( not saying you) want what they want and want it now with no strings.

Sometimes it's hard not to be jaded and frustrated by it all. We all my mistakes, my first GSD I got at 5 weeks from a byb, he was my soul dog, I loved him to bits have a tattoo of him on my back, he never had a health issues until DM took him at 13, best dog ever  but would I do it again? Nope never, that breeder popped out litter after litter back to back matings after Sheikhs litter, swore I'd never line an evil shites pocket like that again  its just soul destroying knowing people know all this but still buy from the closest cheapest byb with the cutest puppies


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> I said it was a popcorn thread...
> 
> @Aally, I was as ignorant as you are of a lot of things when I joined the site, especially in terms of responsible breeding. I was amazed that's there are/were breeders who would move mountains to get their puppy back from bad owners, and even remember reading a thread about the process of a loving, responsible breeder (who sadly doesn't seem to be with us anymore) driving through the night because she believed her boy was to be used as a stud dog with or without her consent.
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to tell me your story and to warn me about what may happen to my dogs in the future.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Aahlly said:


> Which BYB pockets did I line? What's sad for all involved? I'm certainly not sad.
> 
> Lucky it wasn't you selling to me then... It's strange to me that taking responsibility for my dogs for the duration of their lives makes me a bad owner...


IMO if your dogs parents are not owned by someone who health tests as standard, then they are a BYB. So you as the customer lined their pockets


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

@Aahlly please don't take posts personally 
So many members are passionate about dog welfare and ethical breeding
You sound like me, I bought my first dog nearly 9 years ago (sadly he is no longer with us) and I chose a crossbreed for exactly the same reasonings you. He was a beautiful dog and I was very lucky.
But since finding this forum and subsequently rescuing an ex-breeding bitch which came from a Back Yard Breeder. kept caged for 5 years, grossly overweight, scars from being attacked by the stud dogs, deformed ribs from being kicked, she probably had 10 litters. When people came to view puppies she was bought into the house, everything looked perfect set up, nice family dog having one litter etc.
I shed many a tear for the Dam and stud of our original boy and all the other dogs kept like this to supply the public with 'instant' puppies and to give the Breeders and puppy dealers a constant income.
No one has anything against your individual dogs - everyone has everything against bad breeding.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Sorry if you think it's been personal, I'd shrug it off, random people and all that
> 
> I think for me I often come across as a bitch about it as its frustrating! People can't see past their own dogs, as long as their dog is fit healthy and loved they think all is okay! It's also the fact that many even long term members who should know better then go and meet people for the first time, and pick up a puppy they have never met nor have they seen pup with parents , in a carpark! Or when someone gives up a dog for being high energy then goes and gets an even higher energy dog despite people advising them not too then it also ends up in rescue, or people getting cute dogs off free ads then the forum spending days to secure a rescue space because they didn't want it after a day only for them to give it to some ransomer. There will always be bad breeders when people ( not saying you) want what they want and want it now with no strings.
> 
> Sometimes it's hard not to be jaded and frustrated by it all. We all my mistakes, my first GSD I got at 5 weeks from a byb, he was my soul dog, I loved him to bits have a tattoo of him on my back, he never had a health issues until DM took him at 13, best dog ever  but would I do it again? Nope never, that breeder popped out litter after litter back to back matings after Sheikhs litter, swore I'd never line an evil shites pocket like that again  its just soul destroying knowing people know all this but still buy from the closest cheapest byb with the cutest puppies


I can see where you're coming from. It's hard not to get heating when it's a subject so close to your heart. I think that in my situation (although I wouldn't go so far as to say I got my dog from a BYB. More someone who, however misguided this may be, wanted to have one litter from a much loved family dog to enable them to keep a puppy also) it's hard not to feel attacked. As I said, I'm doing the best I can in the time I'm in now. All I can do it take on board what other members have said and when people get personal it's frustrating and pointless as we're talking of choices I made several years ago.

I think it can be hard for the average pet owner to understand enough to see past their own dog TBH. Life can be tough and there are many things to get irate about in the world. And when you're only one person it can be difficult, to see how your actions could make a difference.

I really appreciate you telling me the story of your GSD. I wish TBH that you had done that earlier as it's often easier to listen to advice from someone who says "hey I made a mistake and learned from it" rather than someone who appears to be sitting on a high horse, judging. I can see exactly why you feel the way you do now because it happened to you.

Al I can do now is go forward with what you all have told me.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Aahlly said:


> I know for certain that one of my crossbred dog's parents were tested, yes. The other I'm not so sure about if the mother was.





Lexiedhb said:


> IMO if your dogs parents are not owned by someone who health tests as standard, then they are a BYB. So you as the customer lined their pockets


To repeat myself, one of my dogs the parents were tested.
The other dog, the father was and I'm not certain the mother was. This was due to an odd circumstance under which the breeder even came to have the bitch but that's a long story.

I hope you're gaining something out of trying to catch me out and make me feel guilty. I would hate to think we had wasted each other's time.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> IMO if your dogs parents are not owned by someone who health tests as standard, then they are a BYB. So you as the customer lined their pockets


Bit of a generalization there, not all breeds have recommended specific disease tests. 
In some cases the tests themselves have questions over how accurate, or useful they actually are. 
You can test a dobermann for a specific gene associated with DCM, the test comes back clear/normal, only for the individual to be diagnosed with, or die of DCM anyway at a later date, possibly after being used for breeding. Just as an example. 
It isn't always that simple with disease testing and just because a breeder does test doesn't actually make them an ethical one by default, nor does not testing automatically make someone a byb. If only it were as black and white as you appear to imply.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I'm very glad your dog is doing well now.
> And I'm very glad you contacted the breeder and they are no longer using that bitch, but there it goes right back to responsible breeding doesn't it?
> What if you had not contacted that breeder? Shouldn't that breeder have known where their puppies ended up and how they were doing? Isn't that something that a responsible breeder should be doing in addition to thorough health testing?
> Not all things are testable. If the breeder is not keeping up with the puppies, how do they know what issues (or not) are cropping up in their lines? And not just health issues, temperament too. What about breeds prone to OCD behaviors or excessive fearfulness? Shouldn't breeders know what kind of dogs their puppies mature in to so that they know how best to continue those lines?
> ...


Of course all that is true but you do not need a contract to do so. When Candy went blind in one eye with a cataract at 2 years old the first thing I did was phone her breeder. He offered to take her to the specialist vet for me as I live so far away (I refused obviously but it was a lovely gesture) and he was as relieved as me when it turned out not to be a hereditary cataract. I became close friends with Toffee's breeder and even though she has moved 600 miles away we still chat on the phone regularly and we have visited her. I have had other dogs where I have kept in contact with the breeder and I have had some where I have not. I have had private rehomes where I have kept in contact with the previous owner and others where I have not.

I think there are far too many people (not you Ouesi) who spout a mantra about BYB because they have read the opinions of a handful of enthusiasts who actually do not give a true idea of normal breeding practices in this country. Get out there and get real experience before you give out opinions.

My idea of a good breeder who has a chance of selling a puppy to me is someone who has a bitch that is much loved, healthy and a family pet first and foremost with pups that have been reared well, socialised and given a bit of individual care and the breeder shows some knowledge about the individual pups and about the breed. Yet according to the 'experts' on here my perfect breeder would be a byb because they do not show their dogs, they are not big in the dog world, they do not have a huge waiting list and they maybe do not health test. I have twice had pups from show breeders. One was very under socialised which showed all her life. The other was totally unsocialised which did not show up ever in her life and a few years later he had all his dogs removed by the RSPCA and was banned from keeping dogs. On paper both were good breeders.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

wow, this thread escalated quickly!
Can I just say well done Aahlly, for bearing the brunt of everybodies bile and hatred of BYB breeders with grace and a thick skin!! Im sure you take wonderful care of your dogs and I think we can all agree that BYB breeders are bad mm'kay??


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Hmmm, tbh I would keep an eye on the shelters until I saw a dog I wanted (which wouldn't be hard). Everytime I look at a shelter, I could choose a dog...or 3!
I wouldn't actively go out and find a breeder of a Jack cross Chi, no. I love Muttly's mixes and I would never have considered a terrier before him, but I'm converted! I would like his mix again, which I could probably find in a shelter at some point.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

Blitz said:


> Of course all that is true but you do not need a contract to do so.


It doesn't matter to me if you (general you) need a contract or not. All I know is that none of the breeders I know and respect as ethical breeders would ever sell a dog without a contract.



Blitz said:


> My idea of a good breeder who has a chance of selling a puppy to me is someone who has a bitch that is much loved, healthy and a family pet first and foremost with pups that have been reared well, socialised and given a bit of individual care and the breeder shows some knowledge about the individual pups and about the breed. Yet according to the 'experts' on here my perfect breeder would be a byb because they do not show their dogs, they are not big in the dog world, they do not have a huge waiting list and they maybe do not health test.


To me that sounds like a very simplistic view of what is a good breeder. 
I see it as a continuum. Where there are horror show puppy mills on one end, and the best of the best dot every i, cross every t breeders who produce outstanding dogs on the other end. Not every breeder is going to be perfect on paper, but you would hope to educate buyers more towards the responsible/ethical end of the continuum than the puppy mill end.

Showing is not the be all and end all, and showing alone is not necessarily an indicator of a responsible breeder. Nor is a waiting list for that matter, or even health testing. As already mentioned on this thread, BYB have gotten wise to buyers asking for health tests and some will do a cursory hip x-ray on the dam and call it good. Well in things like HD that are multi factorial, multi generational, one x-ray on one parent means very little. As opposed to a breeder who has generations of tests compiled and studied, so that when an anomaly does show up in the lines there is the data to actually make some use of the information.

To me a good breeder is like a jigsaw puzzle where you not only have all the pieces, but they fit together in a recognizable picture. They're not just jumping through hoops to tick boxes on a good breeder checklist, but they are being purposeful about what they do and compiling the information they need to constantly improve themselves and their dogs. 
Those breeders are out there.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> It doesn't matter to me if you (general you) need a contract or not. All I know is that none of the breeders I know and respect as ethical breeders would ever sell a dog without a contract.
> 
> To me that sounds like a very simplistic view of what is a good breeder.
> I see it as a continuum. Where there are horror show puppy mills on one end, and the best of the best dot every i, cross every t breeders who produce outstanding dogs on the other end. Not every breeder is going to be perfect on paper, but you would hope to educate buyers more towards the responsible/ethical end of the continuum than the puppy mill end.
> ...


yes, those breeders are out there luckily because that means that those that want to use them can. But they are very rare in the bigger picture and it would be a sad world if only those that could buy pups from those breeders were able to have a puppy as they could presumably only supply a tiny proportion of the puppy market. Of course if all other breeders disappeared there would be no rescues either so dogs would become a very rare commodity. I certainly do not think that ignorant dog owners or puppy farmers should be allowed to churn out unhealthy puppies but the vast majority of litters advertised for sale come from the better breeders but not on the scale of perfection that some would like to see

I am firmly of the opinion that every puppy farm should be closed down and every idiot that is breeding the latest status dog or breeding anything with absolutely no knowledge of whelping and rearing pups should be stopped but I also think that would leave a lot of breeders who do not fit the bill for the enthusiasts but certainly do for the average owner.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

Blitz said:


> but the vast majority of litters advertised for sale come from the better breeders but not on the scale of perfection that some would like to see


Sorry but I hugely disagree with this. 
The vast majority of purebred dogs being produced - at least in this country, are being produced by people who have no business breeding at all who have no clue about temperament, intelligent puppy rearing practices... every cringeworthy post in the breeding forum where you can't believe this is actually real, that it must be a wind-up? That's the reality for I'd say easily 60% of litters born in this country, another good 20% (or maybe more) are puppy mills. That leaves 20% well bred, and of that 20% probably 5 to 10 are those exceptional breeders. 
I'm happy with educating buyers towards that 20%.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> yes, those breeders are out there luckily because that means that those that want to use them can. But they are very rare in the bigger picture and *it would be a sad world if only those that could buy pups from those breeders were able to have a puppy* as they could presumably only supply a tiny proportion of the puppy market. Of course if all other breeders disappeared there would be no rescues either so dogs would become a very rare commodity. I certainly do not think that ignorant dog owners or puppy farmers should be allowed to churn out unhealthy puppies but the vast majority of litters advertised for sale come from the better breeders but not on the scale of perfection that some would like to see
> 
> I am firmly of the opinion that every puppy farm should be closed down and every idiot that is breeding the latest status dog or breeding anything with absolutely no knowledge of whelping and rearing pups should be stopped but I also think that would leave a lot of breeders who do not fit the bill for the enthusiasts but certainly do for the average owner.


There are hundreds of pups available in rescues around the country - both pedigree and cross breeds, I listed loads a few pages back in just one rescue.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> There are hundreds of pups available in rescues around the country - both pedigree and cross breeds, I listed loads a few pages back in just one rescue.


and we cant all rescue.....


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> There are hundreds of pups available in rescues around the country - both pedigree and cross breeds, I listed loads a few pages back in just one rescue.


A lot of people either can't or do not want to rescue. I often look through rescue sites and have yet to see a single dog I would actually want to own. I am sure a lot of people are as fussy as me. And a lot of people are refused by rescues.

But if all the less good breeders disappeared then there would not be dogs in rescue and so huge numbers of potential dog owners would never get a dog - which in some cases might be a blessing of course but a lot of good dog owners would not be able to get another dog.

I would never deny that there needs to be a lot of education on how to buy a pup but I still think that the aspirations of a few on here (that are then parroted by the less knowledgeable) are not sustainable and that sights need to be lowered to the well reared pet litters.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> But if all the less good breeders disappeared then there would not be dogs in rescue


Does that not speak volumes to you? Because it sure does to me.

And I slightly disagree. I think, even if the puppy farms and BYB all disappeared and stopped breeding, I think there would still be some rescues, even if they were only council-run pounds. Like some has been said earlier, even good, ethical, 5* breeders who do everything right and are in it for the right reasons, are only human at the day's end, and circumstances do change, even with the best will in the world, so I don't think ALL.rescues would go out of business, but there would sure as day be a lot less of them - and NO rescue crisis.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

labradrk said:


> But when we are talking your average pet owner, those choices are often born out of ignorance and lies spouted by breeders - the 'Doodle' obsession being the classic example of that. The number of people who claim these dogs are hypo-allergenic, rare, don't suffer from any health problems, don't shed, have perfect temperaments and come fully trained is staggering. All while charging a grand per pup for the privilege of putting their Cocker Spaniel/Lab/Golden etc to a Poodle.


The resident bully at my doggy day care is a Labradoodle. I was really very surprised, although I shouldn't be - as you say, just because they are marketed as having lovely temperaments, doesn't necessarily mean that it's true


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> and we cant all rescue.....


I didn't say everyone could I was answering this point made by Blitz

" it would be a sad world if only those that could buy pups from those breeders were able to have a puppy"

that there are other options. I do believe many who say they are not acceptable to rescues would be if they were prepared to a) wait for the right dog b) were prepared to look at several different rescues rather than just their local one - especially breed rescues as they tend to be more flexible and c) were more open minded about the type of dogs you can find in rescue.



Blitz said:


> A lot of people either can't or do not want to rescue. I often look through rescue sites and have yet to see a single dog I would actually want to own. I am sure a lot of people are as fussy as me. And a lot of people are refused by rescues.
> 
> But if all the less good breeders disappeared then there would not be dogs in rescue and so huge numbers of potential dog owners would never get a dog - which in some cases might be a blessing of course but a lot of good dog owners would not be able to get another dog.
> 
> I would never deny that there needs to be a lot of education on how to buy a pup but I still think that the aspirations of a few on here (that are then parroted by the less knowledgeable) are not sustainable and that sights need to be lowered to the well reared pet litters.


:Jawdrop seriously, you have not seen a single do you would want to own. That makes me very sad especially given the shameful figures released by the dogs trust last week

" New statistics have revealed that in the last 12 months more than 47,500 were abandoned in council pounds, unclaimed by their owners.

In total 102,363 stray and abandoned dogs were handled by UK local authorities and 5,142 were put to sleep - equating to 14 a day".

14 dogs a day put to sleep is utterly disgraceful for a nation of dog lovers. I hope the day comes when all but the best breeders disappear and rescues are no longer needed but until that day comes I would urge everyone to at least consider offering a space in their home to a dog that might otherwise be killed. As for lowering sights I think they need to be raised not lowered and I hope and pray one day we have a government brave enough to legislate on it.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Many tears have some lovely gsd x collies needing home currently. They're all lovely. If only Bigby was a few years older


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> The resident bully at my doggy day care is a Labradoodle. I was really very surprised, although I shouldn't be - as you say, just because they are marketed as having lovely temperaments, doesn't necessarily mean that it's true


In all honesty I've not met an out & out nasty natured one, but I've also not met any that seem to take any notice of their owners' attempts at recall & come barrelling rudely up to other dogs expecting the other dog to be OK with it


----------



## kare (Sep 8, 2014)

I have to admit I know "better" but was still unable to get all I would ideally want from a breeder when I got my pup.
I wanted a working lines retriever, and with the true pure working lines I did find it hard to find a litter reared in the home. They are simply not, in the majority, reared as you would rear a pet, they are reared as a working dog. I think overall I get from a the deal a far healthier "fit for function" dog though, so the compromise was mine to make.

I did find a litter or two weaned in the homes but for one I turned them down as the food the mother and pups was exposed to was of such a poor quality I was too concerned to take a pup, the other turned me down on meeting my older working lines as she was not the the barrel shape they found desirable and healthy in THEIR working lines.

But the majority of my desires were met, a family run kennels, with kids interacting with the pups and noise and activity around. Health tested parents healthy active gun dogs, weaned onto a mainly meat diet and we remain in contact through Facebook with the breeders.

....and she is met often by the local gundog trainer and he would have her in a second she is so keen to be what she was born to be... all in all I am happy.



Hanwombat said:


> Many tears have some lovely gsd x collies needing home currently. They're all lovely. If only Bigby was a few years older


Still have the retriever cross I was looking at the other week  Thinking she has some rottie in her

<editted, I meant my dog was NOT barrel shaped


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Meezey said:


> Yep, and from puppy farmers too and have the attitude of the poster above, that it's their money and they can do what they want with it! Unfortunately that's where people have the issue with cross breeding, most do it to make money, and most puppy farmed dogs are these "cute," mixes, but as long as people get what they want sod the welfare of the dogs, they got their puppy that's all that matters!


I think I saw a couple of people on this thread say "I felt bad giving my money to these bybs, but hey, I got my puppy". Obviously not bad enough to not buy it though


----------



## kare (Sep 8, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> I think I saw a couple of people on this thread say "I felt bad giving my money to these bybs, but hey, I got my puppy". Obviously not bad enough to not buy it though


People say frequently they "rescued" their dog from nasty nasty conditions...No, you freed up a space for the next pup to be put through that pain and trauma


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> I think I saw a couple of people on this thread say "I felt bad giving my money to these bybs, but hey, I got my puppy". Obviously not bad enough to not buy it though


I'm not going to judge them for that though because despite everything I say and everything I believe in I'm not 100% sure that put in the position where it was hand money over and save some poor little sole (like one member on here did because the b----ard BYB was going to drown the pup) that I would be strong enough to walk away. I would never knowingly go to a BYB or a puppy farm but what I would do in a face to face situation I don't know. In my younger days I'd have kicked them where it hurt and took the puppy but these days I try to stay within the law


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

A question that I always find myself asking in these kind of topics is if BYB stopped tomorrow & we all sought out rescues as is being implied, what would happen to crossbreeds in general over a period of years? They'd simply cease to stop being bred surely? Because of course we wouldn't have 'random' breeding's with the absence of BYB's, and rescues would be at an all time low as new dog owners would seek them out. So, are people saying they'd be happy for crossbreeds to simply stop existing? Or, what is the alternative? What are 'good' reasons to breed crossbreeds bar working dogs? Should we rather be educating on appropriate ways in which to find crossbred litters and set the same standards and welfare that is set for purebred breeders? Some kind of body of registry/club...something official to be able to refer to when seeking out crossbreeds. There needs to be tighter regulations on what is mandatory to breed from any dog IMO, and that should apply equally to those breeding crossbreeds, but at the same time dismissing any breeding of crossbreeds as nothing more than the result of money hungry breeder's/owners whom have no care for the welfare of their dogs is not helpful and is a rather blanket statement too.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Aahlly said:


> To repeat myself, one of my dogs the parents were tested.
> The other dog, the father was and I'm not certain the mother was. This was due to an odd circumstance under which the breeder even came to have the bitch but that's a long story.
> 
> I hope you're gaining something out of trying to catch me out and make me feel guilty. I would hate to think we had wasted each other's time.


I have absolutely nothing to gain, other than hoping folk do the right thing with regards to breeders. You cant say you don't want to/ didnt line BYB breeders pockets when, despite circumstances beyond your control etc etc that is exactly what you did. I'm not saying you'd do it again, im not trying to catch you out. Nowt at all wrong with a cross breed


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Dogloverlou said:


> A question that I always find myself asking in these kind of topics is if BYB stopped tomorrow & we all sought out rescues as is being implied, what would happen to crossbreeds in general over a period of years? They'd simply cease to stop being bred surely? Because of course we wouldn't have 'random' breeding's with the absence of BYB's, and rescues would be at an all time low as new dog owners would seek them out. So, are people saying they'd be happy for crossbreeds to simply stop existing? Or, what is the alternative? What are 'good' reasons to breed crossbreeds bar working dogs? Should we rather be educating on appropriate ways in which to find crossbred litters and set the same standards and welfare that is set for purebred breeders? Some kind of body of registry/club...something official to be able to refer to when seeking out crossbreeds. There needs to be tighter regulations on what is mandatory to breed from any dog IMO, and that should apply equally to those breeding crossbreeds.


Nowt wrong with breeding cross breeds "properly" to be pets....... nothing wrong with that at all


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

There is also a big difference in what people consider a 'good' breeder - for some it's a breeder that shows, works participates in a sport or activity, health tests, looks into genetics and the inbreeding coefficient, socialises puppy to the world around, only breeds when they want a puppy or someone close to them etc 
For others it's some of that and others it is what they consider a 'pet' bred family dog raised in an 'average' home.
What I think everyone agrees on is that knowing where your puppy has come from, double checking everything the breeder tells you, understanding the reasons behind the breeders decision to breed, avoiding free adds, never going to view a litter until they are sure the breeder is someone they want to deal with (95% of people will not be able to walk away from a cute puppy and this is what the bad breeders and puppy dealers rely on) and seeing puppies with their mum is a step in the right direction,
Sadly a lot of people are like me and don't realise their mistake until it's to late - but as long as we learn then we can make a difference.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Tazer said:


> Bit of a generalization there, not all breeds have recommended specific disease tests.
> In some cases the tests themselves have questions over how accurate, or useful they actually are.
> You can test a dobermann for a specific gene associated with DCM, the test comes back clear/normal, only for the individual to be diagnosed with, or die of DCM anyway at a later date, possibly after being used for breeding. Just as an example.
> It isn't always that simple with disease testing and just because a breeder does test doesn't actually make them an ethical one by default, nor does not testing automatically make someone a byb. If only it were as black and white as you appear to imply.


Not implying it is black and white at all - I mean you can not test for each and every possible genetic disorder under the sun, and we have all heard of the pup that was from uber amazeballs parents, with everything done exactly right to be sickly, and die young of something or another, just there has to be a "best practice", and to say "well not all health tests show everything up, so I wont bother, isnt best practice however you look at it.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I see no problem with crossbreeds, if they're bred ethnically and not just to pocket for somebody.

Though I hate it when somebody says they have a goldendoodle etc... its a mutt! Nothing wrong with a mutt at all, I have a mutt and she is the bestest dog ever ( in my eyes ) but she is a mutt, I am not sure why people hate that term? Sounds better than the stupid 'designer' names some of these 'mutts' gets given.

I'd love a rescue one day, I am constantly looking on rescue sites everyday, even though I shouldn't really as I am not in the situation to have more than 2 currently. I will still use ethnically pedigree breeders as there are some breeds I'd like to own one day whom rarely end up in rescue but I'd also still love a lovely rescue dog to share my life with as well..


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Just looking at Many Tears ( again ) I am sad to see that they require males to be neutered at 6 months old. I know they don't want any unnecessary litters but looking at their lovely litter of GSD x collies they have currently, 6 months is just far too young


----------



## kare (Sep 8, 2014)

Hanwombat said:


> I see no problem with crossbreeds, if they're bred ethnically and not just to pocket for somebody.
> 
> Though I hate it when somebody says they have a goldendoodle etc... its a mutt! Nothing wrong with a mutt at all, I have a mutt and she is the bestest dog ever ( in my eyes ) but she is a mutt, I am not sure why people hate that term? Sounds better than the stupid 'designer' names some of these 'mutts' gets given.
> 
> I'd love a rescue one day, I am constantly looking on rescue sites everyday, even though I shouldn't really as I am not in the situation to have more than 2 currently. I will still use ethnically pedigree breeders as there are some breeds I'd like to own one day whom rarely end up in rescue but I'd also still love a lovely rescue dog to share my life with as well..


I do find something helpful in the made up names

All mutts as they say are not created equal
A health tested mutt between a working golden retriever and a working flat coat retriever, and i would have your arm off yelling "shut up and take my money"
A health tested mutt between a cocker and a poodle and I would have it on my wish list in reserve for when I am a little older and want a small dog

A mutt between a Sled dog breed and a GSD and, as a pet for me, I would not touch it with a barge pole....from the other side of the canal!!


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Hanwombat said:


> Just looking at Many Tears ( again ) I am sad to see that they require males to be neutered at 6 months old. I know they don't want any unnecessary litters but looking at their lovely litter of GSD x collies they have currently, 6 months is just far too young


I don't know about Many Tears but the rescue I got Ludo from stipulate this in the general terms, however they do use discretion after a long chat and meeting me they were happy for me to neuter at a time I felt appropriate with him being a small breed we agreed by approximately 18 months, they do insist that all dogs are neutered at some point and I do agree with this when it comes to 'protecting' rescue animals unless there is a medical reason not to.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I would only ever buy another crossbreed from a rescue.. otherwise its a pedigree from an ethnical breeder.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Fleur said:


> I don't know about Many Tears but the rescue I got Ludo from stipulate this in the general terms, however they do use discretion after a long chat and meeting me they were happy for me to neuter at a time I felt appropriate with him being a small breed we agreed by approximately 18 months, they do insist that all dogs are neutered at some point and I do agree with this when it comes to 'protecting' rescue animals unless there is a medical reason not to.


 Thats good!

I entirely understand why rescues do it.. but 6 months is just so young. I'd like to think that a rescue like Many Tears could also be convinced to allow a longer time until they're neutered.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Dogloverlou said:


> A question that I always find myself asking in these kind of topics is if BYB stopped tomorrow & we all sought out rescues as is being implied, what would happen to crossbreeds in general over a period of years? They'd simply cease to stop being bred surely? Because of course we wouldn't have 'random' breeding's with the absence of BYB's, and rescues would be at an all time low as new dog owners would seek them out. So, are people saying they'd be happy for crossbreeds to simply stop existing? Or, what is the alternative? What are 'good' reasons to breed crossbreeds bar working dogs? Should we rather be educating on appropriate ways in which to find crossbred litters and set the same standards and welfare that is set for purebred breeders? Some kind of body of registry/club...something official to be able to refer to when seeking out crossbreeds. There needs to be tighter regulations on what is mandatory to breed from any dog IMO, and that should apply equally to those breeding crossbreeds, but at the same time dismissing any breeding of crossbreeds as nothing more than the result of money hungry breeder's/owners whom have no care for the welfare of their dogs is not helpful and is a rather blanket statement too.


I agree - breeding crossbreeds should be done to the same standards we expect of a good pedigree breeder - I love crossbreeds/mutts/Hienz57's 
Probably not a great example (as I know there was some controversy on the forum about it) but take a dog like Pudsy who won Britains Got Talent - deliberately breed (and I believe bred from) for agility - lots of real mix ups are used in activities so I think they will always be about as long as they are wanted.
But educating buyers and owners about what is considered 'good' breeding practice is key.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Dogloverlou said:


> A question that I always find myself asking in these kind of topics is if BYB stopped tomorrow & we all sought out rescues as is being implied, what would happen to crossbreeds in general over a period of years? They'd simply cease to stop being bred surely? Because of course we wouldn't have 'random' breeding's with the absence of BYB's, and rescues would be at an all time low as new dog owners would seek them out. So, are people saying they'd be happy for crossbreeds to simply stop existing? Or, what is the alternative? What are 'good' reasons to breed crossbreeds bar working dogs? Should we rather be educating on appropriate ways in which to find crossbred litters and set the same standards and welfare that is set for purebred breeders? Some kind of body of registry/club...something official to be able to refer to when seeking out crossbreeds. There needs to be tighter regulations on what is mandatory to breed from any dog IMO, and that should apply equally to those breeding crossbreeds, but at the same time dismissing any breeding of crossbreeds as nothing more than the result of money hungry breeder's/owners whom have no care for the welfare of their dogs is not helpful and is a rather blanket statement too.


You must be reading a complete different thread to me, then, because that is not the impression I get at all. I find, despite the fact we're discussing crosses, that ethical breeding practices should be promoted, and unethical breeding practices condemned, regardless of whether the breeder is breeding crosses or pedigrees.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

catz4m8z said:


> and we cant all rescue.....


I don't care if people don't want to rescue (I think it's more of a "don't want" issue than a can't - if you really had your heart set on rescuing a dog in need there is a way, and I would be happy to help with that). But I'm fine if people don't want to. 
What I'm not okay with is blaming rescues being picky for a choice to line the pockets of a less than ethical breeder. 
What I'm not okay with is lining the pockets of less than ethical breeders period.

Like I said earlier, caring for a dog requires effort. Acquiring one should require effort as well. 
And yes, in my case it's hypocritical of me to say that because some of our dogs were dogs that literally showed up in our lap and we kept, but in general, deliberately going out and getting a dog should involve some sort of effort on the part of the buyer. Not just going with whoever has a puppy available and happens to be close by which is how many people seem to get their dogs.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Hanwombat said:


> Thats good!
> 
> I entirely understand why rescues do it.. but 6 months is just so young. I'd like to think that a rescue like Many Tears could also be convinced to allow a longer time until they're neutered.


I'm afraid not, you have to sign a contract agreeing to have males and females neutered at 6 months and since I got Indie from them as a pup (she was spayed at 6 months) I think they now also require a letter from your vet stating that they will undertake the operation. I'm assuming that some owners tried to say vets didn't agree with early neutering as a way of delaying. In some ways it puts me off having another pup from them but there again you could take on an adult and have no way of knowing at what age it was neutered as is the case with both of my boys although I know Colt was done by them and he was over a year old at the time.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm afraid not, you have to sign a contract agreeing to have males and females neutered at 6 months and since I got Indie from them as a pup (she was spayed at 6 months) I think they now also require a letter from your vet stating that they will undertake the operation. I'm assuming that some owners tried to say vets didn't agree with early neutering as a way of delaying. In some ways it puts me off having another pup from them but there again you could take on an adult and have no way of knowing at what age it was neutered as is the case with both of my boys although I know Colt was done by them and he was over a year old at the time.


Thats a real shame - from learning that I don't think I could adopt a puppy from them ( I don't mean I was going to ) but if I was looking in the future, I just can't justify a dog being neutered that young. As you say, with an adult rescue, you may not know when they're neutered, I'd still consider an adult as if they're neutered already then its done and dusted sadly, but I just don't think I could take a 6 month old puppy to the vets to be neutered / spayed.. its just wrong in my eyes.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

Hanwombat said:


> Just looking at Many Tears ( again ) I am sad to see that they require males to be neutered at 6 months old. I know they don't want any unnecessary litters but looking at their lovely litter of GSD x collies they have currently, 6 months is just far too young


When I looked at them, a few years ago I must add, they also stipulated that they wouldn't home to people who have entire dogs. They might have changed that criteria now, I hope they have.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> What are 'good' reasons to breed crossbreeds bar working dogs? Should we rather be educating on appropriate ways in which to find crossbred litters and set the same standards and welfare that is set for purebred breeders?


Um... I'm pretty sure that's what I and others have been doing - educating people on how to find ethically bred litters be they crossbreeds or purebreeds. Ethical is ethical, and responsible is responsible regardless of whether you're breeding horses, rats, or dogs, purebred or mutts. 
"Good" reasons to breed vary as much as what a "good" breeder looks like. It's a whole big picture and the whole thing has to fit in together and make sense together. 
I'm fine with not showing as long as the dog is tested in some way by an outside source. 
My friend who breeds CAS has no need to show her dogs (though she does sometimes for fun), but they all go to working homes and she keeps track of them, how they mature temperament-wise, their working styles, what stock they're on, if they work well in with other dogs, what breeds they do well with etc. She is being very purposeful about her program and producing dogs responsibly. None of her dogs go to pet homes, and all are sold on a contract. If she felt crossing in other types of LGDs made sense in her program I would respect that based on the work that she puts in getting to know exactly what she is producing. 
Meanwhile another CAS breeder may be showing and health testing out the wazoo, but selling to pet homes and paying zero attention to temperament. On paper this breeder may seem okay, but IMHO they're not.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Tazer said:


> When I looked at them, a few years ago I must add, they also stipulated that they wouldn't home to people who have entire dogs. They might have changed that criteria now, I hope they have.


They'd say no to me then if that was the case.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Tazer said:


> When I looked at them, a few years ago I must add, they also stipulated that they wouldn't home to people who have entire dogs. They might have changed that criteria now, I hope they have.


No they haven't.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I also wonder where people look for dogs if they think show and working homes don't treat their dog's as pets first and foremost. All my dogs breeders treat their dogs as part of the family first and foremost, if they didn't I wouldn't of got a pup off them no matter how much I wanted one or how cute I thought they were. My dogs are pets first and foremost, I chose them as my companions, my family, we just have pets my partner shows? If they never see a ring again I wouldn't care neither would their breeders. Nor would they care if their dogs never saw the ring again. They are still ethical breeding health dogs with fantastic temps for the right home be it show, pet or working.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No they haven't.


That's a shame. 
I can understand why rescues feel they need to castrate dogs before they are rehomed, but it's stipulations like that I can't agree with. 
Excludes what might otherwise be a perfect home for a dog or puppy. 
Thankfully there are other rescues for people to go too.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No they haven't.


Sadly Many Tears is a rescue off the cards for me, for future, then if they won't rehome if there is a dog who is entire.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Meezey said:


> I also wonder where people look for dogs if they think show and working homes don't treat their dog's as pets first and foremost. All my dogs breeders treat their dogs as part of the family first and foremost, if they didn't I wouldn't of got a pup off them no matter how much I wanted one or how cute I thought they were. My dogs are pets first and foremost, I chose them as my companions, my family, we just have pets my partner shows? If they never see a ring again I wouldn't care neither would their breeders. Nor would they care if their dogs never saw the ring again. They are still ethical breeding health dogs with fantastic temps for the right home be it show, pet or working.


The breeder I got Bigby from first and foremost loves all her dogs as pets/children. Out of all of the puppies that were bred, 4 of them have gone on to showing ( including a male pup she kept ) Bigby well I am hoping to do a little showing with but it isn't something that is a massive interest to me and then one of Bigbys brother lives on a farm. She couldn't care less if I didn't show Bigby - as long as he is happy, healthy and enjoying life that is all what matters. She was so fantastic as well when she happily took Bigby back for 9 weeks when I had a relationship breakup, but that is what you'd expect from a ethical breeder.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Again with rescue it's about looking for a rescue that is ethical and suits you.

I fostered for an Irish GSD rescue with 4 entire dogs, and home checked for many rescues for dogs and cats and the resident dogs being entire wasn't an issues. I got turned down by a breeder for a male pup because I had 3 entire males at the time. I didn't spit my dummy out, her puppy her rights to think it would not be suitable for another male, she's one of my mates then too, still is.


----------



## magpie (Jan 3, 2009)

Hanwombat said:


> Though I hate it when somebody says they have a goldendoodle etc... its a mutt! Nothing wrong with a mutt at all, I have a mutt and she is the bestest dog ever ( in my eyes ) but she is a mutt, I am not sure why people hate that term? Sounds better than the stupid 'designer' names some of these 'mutts' gets given.


Oh dear! I'm afraid I call my cockapoo... a cockapoo! 
If someone is asking me what he is, it's generally because they are interested, so me saying 'mutt' wouldn't be very helpful. And cockapoo is less of a mouthful than cocker-spaniel-crossed-with-a-miniature-poodle!

I have nothing against the word mutt though, I have one of those too and I always describe him as a fuzzy little mongrel


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Hanwombat said:


> The breeder I got Bigby from first and foremost loves all her dogs as pets/children. Out of all of the puppies that were bred, 4 of them have gone on to showing ( including a male pup she kept ) Bigby well I am hoping to do a little showing with but it isn't something that is a massive interest to me and then one of Bigbys brother lives on a farm. She couldn't care less if I didn't show Bigby - as long as he is happy, healthy and enjoying life that is all what matters. She was so fantastic as well when she happily took Bigby back for 9 weeks when I had a relationship breakup, but that is what you'd expect from a ethical breeder.


Only Cian is shown regular for his litter, and from this litter think only the two she has kept will be shown. Still is one of the most ethical breeders I have met and only wants the best home for her puppies what ever they do or don't do.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

magpie said:


> Oh dear! I'm afraid I call my cockapoo... a cockapoo!
> If someone is asking me what he is, it's generally because they are interested, so me saying 'mutt' wouldn't be very helpful. And cockapoo is less of a mouthful than cocker-spaniel-crossed-with-a-miniature-poodle!
> 
> I have nothing against the word mutt though, I have one of those too and I always describe him as a fuzzy little mongrel


A cocker spaniel cross poodle doesn't sound like a mouthful to me  

Each to their own obviously  Its just my opinion


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Only Cian is shown regular for his litter, and from this litter think only the two she has kept will be shown. Still is one of the most ethical breeders I have met and only wants the best home for her puppies what ever they do or don't do.


Cians breeder is very good and clearly cares about all her lovely puppies


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

I can't speak for Many Tears, but I work with several rescues here who are very strict about policies like having a fenced yard, or not having intact dogs in the home. 
You know what? They are also flexible if the person with an intact dog is someone who has bothered to form a relationship with the rescue and not just demanding they adopt them a dog 

For example, there are a few breeders who also foster, transport, evaluate, and volunteer in other capacities for a very large great dane rescue here on the east coast. These breeders obviously also have intact dogs in their homes. These breeders have never had their dogs show up in rescue, and if they do, they are quick to take care of them. These breeders would have no problems adopting from this rescue despite their intact dog policy.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I don't care if people don't want to rescue (I think it's more of a "don't want" issue than a can't - if you really had your heart set on rescuing a dog in need there is a way, and I would be happy to help with that).


well, I work 12 hour shifts so my dogs are alone for 13 hours! I doubt any rescue worth their salt would rehome a dog to me under those circumstances and I wouldnt expect them to. Even though my dogs have no SA and are fine with this arrangement (also get my company 5 nights and 7 days a week) I understand why it makes me unsuitable to rescue. When I no longer work stupid hours then I would love to rescue but until then me and my crossbreeds and pedigrees are quite happy!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Tazer said:


> That's a shame.
> I can understand why rescues feel they need to castrate dogs before they are rehomed, but it's stipulations like that I can't agree with.
> Excludes what might otherwise be a perfect home for a dog or puppy.
> Thankfully there are other rescues for people to go too.





Hanwombat said:


> Sadly Many Tears is a rescue off the cards for me, for future, then if they won't rehome if there is a dog who is entire.


Quite a lot of rescues do want other dogs in the home to be neutered but I found when I had an entire male rottie and was looking for a bitch that breed rescue were fine as the bitch was spayed before coming to me anyway.

With regards to neutering at 6 months that is pretty standard for a lot of rescues these days and like I said earlier how do you know what age any adult rescue was neutered at. I would still rather give a home to one of their pups and swallow my very large reservations about early neutering than line the pockets of a BYB. If I were to consider going to them again I would hope that having had 3 dogs from them if I explained the orthopaedic problems we had with Indie which "could" have been linked to having her spayed so young that they might consider us and allow us to wait until the dog was older but if they wouldn't I would respect their decision too.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

This thread actually really saddens me.
For me it shows the difference between dog "likers" and dog "lovers"


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> This thread actually really saddens me.
> For me it shows the difference between dog "likers" and dog "lovers"


Absolutely agree - I wanted to say something similar but couldn't find the right words.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> This thread actually really saddens me.
> For me it shows the difference between dog "likers" and dog "lovers"


Im proud to be a dog liker!! Sounds like there is way too much expectation involved in being a dog 'lover'!:Hilarious


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> This thread actually really saddens me.
> For me it shows the difference between dog "likers" and dog "lovers"


Exactly. Saddens me, more so when people find it amusing.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> well, I work 12 hour shifts so my dogs are alone for 13 hours! I doubt any rescue worth their salt would rehome a dog to me under those circumstances and I wouldnt expect them to. Even though my dogs have no SA and are fine with this arrangement (also get my company 5 nights and 7 days a week) I understand why it makes me unsuitable to rescue. When I no longer work stupid hours then I would love to rescue but until then me and my crossbreeds and pedigrees are quite happy!


Did I remember correctly and you work nights so those 13 hours are overnight?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> Im proud to be a dog liker!! Sounds like there is way too much expectation involved in being a dog 'lover'!:Hilarious


I didn't put anyone into any group, but if you wish to put yourself there then have a blast...Personally I strive to be the best in all areas of life


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Puppies generally get rehomed quick in rescues and I personally wouldn't want to get a young dog that has to therefore be neutered at 6 months old, you said it yourself @rottiepointerhouse that it put you off a little perhaps getting a puppy in the future from Many Tears.

I know with adult rescues you don't know when they're neutered.. well sometime you do.. but by then its done and dusted and I haven't had to deal with taking a young dog to be neutered - so that wouldn't put it off.

I wouldn't line the pockets of a byb breeder though if I didn't get a puppy from a rescue? Not sure why its implyed that is what people would do?

I learnt from getting Io from a byb, as have many MANY members on this forum whom have done the same. For future I'd only get a puppy from a rescue or a ethical breeder... and if I ever was to obtain another crossbreed it would be from a rescue.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Hanwombat said:


> Puppies generally get rehomed quick in rescues and I personally wouldn't want to get a young dog that has to therefore be neutered at 6 months old, you said it yourself @rottiepointerhouse that it put you off a little perhaps getting a puppy in the future from Many Tears.
> 
> I know with adult rescues you don't know when they're neutered.. well sometime you do.. but by then its done and dusted and I haven't had to deal with taking a young dog to be neutered - so that wouldn't put it off.
> 
> ...


I don't think I implied that the only options were a rescue pup or a BYB I said that *I* would rather take a pup from Many Tears even if it meant I had to go against my reservations about early neutering than line the pockets of a BYB. Thats not saying those are the only options just that out of those two I would choose the former  It has put me off having another pup on that sort of contract but I wouldn't hesitate to take another adult dog from them. I don't get the fascination with pups personally and don't intend on having another by choice (only got Indie as a pup because my OH wouldn't agree to bringing an adult rottie in as he thought it might upset the boys, he was wrong but the compromise we reached was to have a rescue rottie pup instead).


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't think I implied that the only options were a rescue pup or a BYB I said that *I* would rather take a pup from Many Tears even if it meant I had to go against my reservations about early neutering than line the pockets of a BYB. Thats not saying those are the only options just that out of those two I would choose the former  It has put me off having another pup on that sort of contract but I wouldn't hesitate to take another adult dog from them. I don't get the fascination with pups personally and don't intend on having another by choice (only got Indie as a pup because my OH wouldn't agree to bringing an adult rottie in as he thought it might upset the boys, he was wrong but the compromise we reached was to have a rescue rottie pup instead).


Yeah - I'm a little the same. It was actually quite nice getting Bigby at 4 months old.. because although still a puppy, its amazing how much a difference 8 weeks makes - I ideally would much rather take on a young rescue dog over 12 months old, I mean with some breeds I like I would most likely have to get a puppy as its rare they end up in rescue / adults need a home.. but if I would rather get a adult rescue dog BUT I still love looking at rescue puppies


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Although thinking about if further @Hanwombat if I was looking for a specific breed puppy such as you mentioned earlier and they were there in that rescue looking for a home then I would probably just accept that I have to have the pup neutered at 6 months whether I like it or not because whoever adopts the pup is going to have to have it done so the pup is going to be neutered at 6 months whether its by me, by a different owner or by the rescue. In Indie's case if I hadn't taken her because of the spaying rule and she had gone to someone else who couldn't afford to insure her or manage her post op care after all her operations then I wonder what would have happened to her. Probably been PTS by some members of this forum.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Although thinking about if further @Hanwombat if I was looking for a specific breed puppy such as you mentioned earlier and they were there in that rescue looking for a home then I would probably just accept that I have to have the pup neutered at 6 months whether I like it or not because whoever adopts the pup is going to have to have it done so the pup is going to be neutered at 6 months whether its by me, by a different owner or by the rescue. In Indie's case if I hadn't taken her because of the spaying rule and she had gone to someone else who couldn't afford to insure her or manage her post op care after all her operations then I wonder what would have happened to her. Probably been PTS by some members of this forum.


 True - I never really thought about it that way 
I'd love for my next dog to be a rescue, though this isn't something I'd consider for a few more years but it would be lovely to bring home a lovely rescue doggy. It was very dishearting though when I reserved a border collie back in March, had been there 3 times with Io for visits, to then by told they'd rehomed him to someone else as they'd already had a homecheck. That was annoying and upsetting.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Hanwombat said:


> Yeah - I'm a little the same. It was actually quite nice getting Bigby at 4 months old.. because although still a puppy, its amazing how much a difference 8 weeks makes - I ideally would much rather take on a young rescue dog over 12 months old, I mean with some breeds I like I would most likely have to get a puppy as its rare they end up in rescue / adults need a home.. but if I would rather get a adult rescue dog BUT I still love looking at rescue puppies


That couple of months does make a huge difference but it can be bad as well as good. I have had 2 at that age, one I bought from a show breeder and the other was a rescue. Both were very nervous due to their upbringing and so with both I had a lot to get over that would not have existed at 8 weeks.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Blitz said:


> That couple of months does make a huge difference but it can be bad as well as good. I have had 2 at that age, one I bought from a show breeder and the other was a rescue. Both were very nervous due to their upbringing and so with both I had a lot to get over that would not have existed at 8 weeks.


Luckily Bigby was very well socialised / had been to shows / was used to alsorts of noises. He can be a little sensitive now, but hes been back and forth between houses bless him because of my relationship break up but he is getting there. Though they're generally a sensitive breed anyways.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Did I remember correctly and you work nights so those 13 hours are overnight?


yes...so its fine for my dogs but I wouldnt expect a rescue to rehome a dog under those circumstances. I have no problem with that and hope that I can rescue some day. 



StormyThai said:


> I didn't put anyone into any group, but if you wish to put yourself there then have a blast...Personally I strive to be the best in all areas of life


Not meaning to be funny but it probably is true TBH. Whilst I love my own dogs to bits Im fairly indifferent to other peoples! I never get the urge to 'squee' over dogs down the park or stroke a strange dog. I suppose that does make me a liker rather then a lover!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> Not meaning to be funny but it probably is true TBH. Whilst I love my own dogs to bits Im fairly indifferent to other peoples! I never get the urge to 'squee' over dogs down the park or stroke a strange dog. I suppose that does make me a liker rather then a lover!


Whereas I'm the one who ends up sitting with the dog at a party, and the one straining over (or under) fences just to pet the dog


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

catz4m8z said:


> Im proud to be a dog liker!! Sounds like there is way too much expectation involved in being a dog 'lover'!:Hilarious


You know... I wasn't going to say anything, but seeing as you're so flippant about it, I guess you really don't care so what I have to say won't bother you.

Your dogs live a life of crate and rotate because you can't get two of them to not fight, so there is obviously some stress going on there. Then you admit that they're alone 13 hours a day, so that's additional crate time since they can't be out together. So we're talking over 13 hours in a crate for some of your dogs?

It is really too bad you didn't get your dogs from a decent breeder because that could be a source of support for you or at least the dogs so they wouldn't have to live like that


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

catz4m8z said:


> I never get the urge to 'squee' over dogs down the park or stroke a strange dog.


I don't either, but I do care deeply about dogs in general, the future of dogs in society, and individual dogs getting their needs met.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

ouesi said:


> You know... I wasn't going to say anything, but seeing as you're so flippant about it, I guess you really don't care so what I have to say won't bother you.
> 
> Your dogs live a life of crate and rotate because you can't get two of them to not fight, so there is obviously some stress going on there. Then you admit that they're alone 13 hours a day, so that's additional crate time since they can't be out together. So we're talking over 13 hours in a crate for some of your dogs?
> 
> It is really too bad you didn't get your dogs from a decent breeder because that could be a source of support for you or at least the dogs so they wouldn't have to live like that


Read @catz4m8z in her reply to RPH - she works nights and that is when the dogs are crated mostly.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

silvi said:


> Read @catz4m8z in her reply to RPH - she works nights and that is when the dogs are crated mostly.


No it's isnts catz4m8z has two dogs who don't get on so they are crated even when she is there, hence crate and rotate ,which she has openly said on the forum and expressed her own concerns about how long they are crate!

Silvi I really do admire that fact you are always willing to see the good in people and situations, it really is admirable, guess I am so jaded my concern is always the welfare of the dogs!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Maybe I've missed a few posts (and this thread is now very long...), but I don't like the way this thread has turned into the case that those who agree with everything written by the experts on the forum are seen as 'dog lovers' while those who question some of the things being said are only 'dog likers'.

A few of the people answering this thread I would definitely think of as 'dog lovers', but because they have the audacity to question forum 'accepted truths', they are demoted to 'likers' instead.
Very strange for a welcoming forum which prides itself on good debate.

There are people on here who didn't know any better than the rest of us until they read several threads about breeding, but now, all of a sudden, they are 'dog loving' experts because they repeat what others say, while anyone who makes a joke about their dogs that they love dearly are described as 'flippant'.

Give me strength!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Meezey said:


> No it's isnts catz4m8z has two dogs who don't get on so they are crated even when she is there, hence crate and rotate ,which she has openly said on the forum and expressed her own concerns about how long they are crate!
> 
> Silvi I really do admire that fact you are always willing to see the good in people and situations, it really is admirable, guess I am so jaded my concern is always the welfare of the dogs!


Maybe you won't now you have seen my following post.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

silvi said:


> but I don't like the way this thread has turned into the case that those who agree with everything written by the experts on the forum are seen as 'dog lovers' while those who question some of the things being said are only 'dog likers'.
> 
> !


I never said that, nor did I imply it!


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Meezey said:


> No it's isnts catz4m8z has two dogs who don't get on so they are crated even when she is there, hence crate and rotate ,which she has openly said on the forum and expressed her own concerns about how long they are crate!


Ive also said that half the time they chill out in their crates even when it isnt their turn to be in there! But then people only tend to read and retain what they want to...


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

The problem I think about "dividing" the forum into "likers" and "lovers" is that it makes members question which "camp" they belong to, especially when those who divide the forum don't then elaborate what defines each "camp". We all have different standards and ideas about what is acceptable and what is not.

Likewise, I'm wondering now.whether I've become an overnight "expert" or come across that way.

Is it really necessary to label people in this way?

Frankly, I don't care if someone thinks I'm a lover or a liker, "overnight expert" or not. I'm not labelling myself or making myself fit in a convenient box for the sake of some members. I know I have a lot to learn, and yes, a lot of it is from this forum, but considering that when I joined the forum I didn't even believe in ethical breeders and was very much of the mindset of "don't buy while shelter dogs die", that's a complement to the high calibre of the forum.

However, that certainly doesn't mean that I'm a pushover or forum star pupil or anything. I don't use the forum as some sort of pet owners Bible, I will actually go further afield and read up some.more.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> Ive also said that half the time they chill out in their crates even when it isnt their turn to be in there! But then people only tend to read and retain what they want to...


I went and reread the thread before posting Adam is crated for the time you are out working, then you rotate them hence one of them is still crated while you are there and crate and rotate. That's why I personally found it a bit in bad taste to be so flippant about it, dogs being crated for up to 13 hours and then some isn't ideal, but you know that so not sure why you chose to stick your neck out about it and make it "funny".


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Surely we all agree here that crossbreed breeding is fine if done responsibly? So none of us are actually in disagreement. So seems a shame if the thread would spiral into people feeling offended and/or feeling negative in general.



LinznMilly said:


> You must be reading a complete different thread to me, then, because that is not the impression I get at all. I find, despite the fact we're discussing crosses, that ethical breeding practices should be promoted, and unethical breeding practices condemned, regardless of whether the breeder is breeding crosses or pedigrees.


Well, that's the joy of forum debates - all having different thoughts and opinions on the responses made etc.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> Maybe I've missed a few posts (and this thread is now very long...), but I don't like the way this thread has turned into the case that those who agree with everything written by the experts on the forum are seen as 'dog lovers' while those who question some of the things being said are only 'dog likers'.
> 
> A few of the people answering this thread I would definitely think of as 'dog lovers', but because they have the audacity to question forum 'accepted truths', they are demoted to 'likers' instead.
> Very strange for a welcoming forum which prides itself on good debate.
> ...


That's not how I've read it all all Silvi. The comment made about dog lovers and dog likers didn't say forum members fell into either group just that the thread shows the difference between dog likers and dog lovers and yes some of the comments made by some members do make me sad and suggest they put their own needs first and foremost and that isn't aimed at anyone in particular and I don't believe @StormyThai aimed the comment at anyone in particular although one member put herself in that camp it was not implied by anyone else. Who are the experts on this forum anyway? surely we all have different areas of knowledge or things we feel a bit more qualified to comment on than others. Personally (as you will know from general chat) I don't give a flying fig whether my opinion is in line with other peoples and whether I am the lone voice making a point. If its what I think and what I feel I say so and if its not I don't care who posted it I will say I don't agree


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Meezey said:


> not sure why you chose to stick your neck out about it and make it "funny".


yup, thats totally my fault....I do try and bring threads back to being more light hearted if people are getting too serious and (Im sure unintentionally) offensive. I would apologise but, lets face it...none of us really care what a bunch of randoms on the internet think do we!?:Hilarious
Besides which should we even be having a thread about crossbreeds?? wasnt that one of the banned topics or am I imagining it??


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> That's not how I've read it all all Silvi. The comment made about dog lovers and dog likers didn't say forum members fell into either group just that the thread shows the difference between dog likers and dog lovers and yes some of the comments made by some members do make me sad and suggest they put their own needs first and foremost and that isn't aimed at anyone in particular and I don't believe @StormyThai aimed the comment at anyone in particular although one member put herself in that camp it was not implied by anyone else. Who are the experts on this forum anyway? surely we all have different areas of knowledge or things we feel a bit more qualified to comment on than others. Personally (as you will know from general chat) I don't give a flying fig whether my opinion is in line with other peoples and whether I am the lone voice making a point. If its what I think and what I feel I say so and if its not I don't care who posted it I will say I don't agree


Thank you, it was never my intention to aim that comment at any individual forum members.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> Besides which should we even be having a thread about crossbreeds?? wasnt that one of the banned topics or am I imagining it??


I believe, given the unpopularity of the ban, it was repealed.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> yup, thats totally my fault....I do try and bring threads back to being more light hearted if people are getting too serious and (Im sure unintentionally) offensive. I would apologise but, lets face it...none of us really care what a bunch of randoms on the internet think do we!?:Hilarious
> Besides which should we even be having a thread about crossbreeds?? wasnt that one of the banned topics or am I imagining it??


Feck it not worth wasting my breath over!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It used to be a banned topic due to ex-members taking every single mention of a crossbreed, positive or negative, as a personal attack on their dogs. At least one was shown to be a troll in the end.

C4M's dogs are crated overnight, 2 nights a week if I remember right. It's not all the time


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> Besides which should we even be having a thread about crossbreeds?? wasnt that one of the banned topics or am I imagining it??


I didn't even know there could be such a thing as a banned topic ?! Oops, my bad...


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It isn't anymore, it used to be as did shock collars. But it was due to specific members causing fights and the poor mods having to clean it all up.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Pedigree = dog, Crossbreed = dog, Mutt = dog. No "type" is any better than the other if they suit you and are bred responsibly. It's the definition of bred responsibly which is often the sticky point and main point of contention.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> You know... I wasn't going to say anything, but seeing as you're so flippant about it, I guess you really don't care so what I have to say won't bother you.
> 
> Your dogs live a life of crate and rotate because you can't get two of them to not fight, so there is obviously some stress going on there. Then you admit that they're alone 13 hours a day, so that's additional crate time since they can't be out together. So we're talking over 13 hours in a crate for some of your dogs?
> 
> It is really too bad you didn't get your dogs from a decent breeder because that could be a source of support for you or at least the dogs so they wouldn't have to live like that


To be fair I think she works nights so it is not like being out all day - but I agree about crating them alternately because they do not get on. I know some people do it but no way could I live like that let alone expect my dogs to.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Can I create a new group 'dog winger' I wing my way through life and wing it as a dog owner. I dont have set walk times, set feeding times. I own some rescue dogs, pedigrees and a crossbreed. My house is a mixture. I work full time. One of them is crated. Others aren't. 

God knows what group the 'dog experts/lovers' would put me in!


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Pedigree = dog, Crossbreed = dog, Mutt = dog. No "type" is any better than the other if they suit you and are bred responsibly. It's the definition of bred responsibly which is often the sticky point and main point of contention.


This!!!!
Wish I could rep you for this


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> To be fair I think she works nights so it is not like being out all day - but I agree about crating them alternately because they do not get on. I know some people do it but no way could I live like that let alone expect my dogs to.


I'm "picking on" you, @Blitz but it could be any number of posts/members in the latter pages of this thread, so I don't mean this to be personal...

However, those who think @catz4m8z dogs are crated for too long 2 days a week or so, or that there's a constant level of stress because 2 of her dogs don't get along, did you agree with a previous member's set-up, of keeping her 6 dogs separate 24/7 and using a series of stair gates to ensure they were kept separate? Bearing in mind that I remember one incident in which one of her smaller dogs managed to get through the gates, into her female Mal's "space" (the kitchen, I believe) and was lucky to escape with her life? Is that any more acceptable than c4m's setup because the dogs weren't crated?

Fair enough, even that former member herself said it wasn't ideal and that she wouldn't advise or expect anyone to live that kind of life, but she couldn't/wouldn't give any of her dogs up. Maybe C4M finds it unbearable to part with either of her dogs... I'm in no position to judge because I've never been in that situation.

By the same token, I crate Milly at night, and in the early days, I crated her when I had to go out, so depending on how busy I was on any given day, she was crated waaaaaay longer than is recommended, and waaaaay longer than even I was comfortable with, and my only consolation was that it was a temporary solution. I suppose some would hold that against me. Too bad! It works for us. Thankfully, the system I have in place now works brilliantly and during the day, she's confined to my bedroom (plus I also work P/T so the number of days/hours left is greatly reduced, too).


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> I'm "picking on" you, @Blitz but it could be any number of posts/members in the latter pages of this thread, so I don't mean this to be personal...
> 
> However, those who think @catz4m8z dogs are crated for too long 2 days a week or so, or that there's a constant level of stress because 2 of her dogs don't get along, did you agree with a previous member's set-up, of keeping her 6 dogs separate 24/7 and using a series of stair gates to ensure they were kept separate? Bearing in mind that I remember one incident in which one of her smaller dogs managed to get through the gates, into her female Mal's "space" (the kitchen, I believe) and was lucky to escape with her life? Is that any more acceptable than c4m's setup because the dogs weren't crated?
> 
> ...


oh no, I absolutely did not approve of the former member's set up. I think the stress on humans and dogs is ridiculous. I have known people do it in real life. I knew a husband and wife that lived separately in the house with a dog each who never met and I have known someone who had dogs upstairs and downstairs and I did not like to see that either.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> That's not how I've read it all all Silvi. The comment made about dog lovers and dog likers didn't say forum members fell into either group just that the thread shows the difference between dog likers and dog lovers and yes some of the comments made by some members do make me sad and suggest they put their own needs first and foremost and that isn't aimed at anyone in particular and I don't believe @StormyThai aimed the comment at anyone in particular although one member put herself in that camp it was not implied by anyone else. Who are the experts on this forum anyway? surely we all have different areas of knowledge or things we feel a bit more qualified to comment on than others. Personally (as you will know from general chat) I don't give a flying fig whether my opinion is in line with other peoples and whether I am the lone voice making a point. If its what I think and what I feel I say so and if its not I don't care who posted it I will say I don't agree


I had been catching up on this thread and reading some interesting talk about the rescues and more about breeders, when these statements grabbed my attention:


StormyThai said:


> This thread actually really saddens me.
> For me it shows the difference between dog "likers" and dog "lovers"





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Absolutely agree - I wanted to say something similar but couldn't find the right words.





Meezey said:


> Exactly. Saddens me, more so when people find it amusing.





ouesi said:


> (To @catz4m8z) You know... I wasn't going to say anything, but seeing as you're so flippant about it, I guess you really don't care so what I have to say won't bother you....


That's it really.

Four members of this forum who I like and respect, but their responses in this case saddened me as much as some of the replies on this forum seemed to sadden them.

You are right. Many of us on this forum have experience in different areas and have developed our knowledge accordingly. And that's what I like about this forum above other pet forums. But that doesn't mean that I will stand back and watch as a few posters feel that they have to answer for comments they have made about their dogs.

And I am sure I am not the only one who saw the 'lovers' and 'likers' remark and assumed it applied to some comments made on this thread. But @StormyThai I apologise if this was not your intention.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> I had been catching up on this thread and reading some interesting talk about the rescues and more about breeders, when these statements grabbed my attention:
> 
> That's it really.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry that my reply saddened you but you are right many of the replies on this thread from pet/dog lovers saddened me deeply. Don't we all have to answer in almost any discussion thread for comments we make about our dogs? If I post for instance talking about how I let my pointer off the lead despite him having poor recall then I expect to have people question me and have to explain why I make that choice. I don't expect them to like my choice or agree with my choice but if I post it I expect to have to answer the question and if I wasn't happy to answer then I wouldn't post about it. I don't know how we can have a discussion if people can't question others opinions or statements. I'm quite sure @catz4m8z wouldn't post about the length of time her dogs are crated for if she wasn't happy to answer questions about it.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I knew I shouldn't have said anything.
I am sorry if people felt my post was putting people into "camps" as that was not my intention (if I'm honest I wasn't expecting anyone to pick up on it...my bad), I didn't mean to offend anyone.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

silvi said:


> Four members of this forum who I like and respect, but their responses in this case saddened me as much as some of the replies on this forum seemed to sadden them.
> 
> You are right. Many of us on this forum have experience in different areas and have developed our knowledge accordingly. And that's what I like about this forum above other pet forums. But that doesn't mean that I will stand back and watch as a few posters feel that they have to answer for comments they have made about their dogs.
> 
> And I am sure I am not the only one who saw the 'lovers' and 'likers' remark and assumed it applied to some comments made on this thread. But @StormyThai I apologise if this was not your intention.


I feel like the "lovers/likers" comment was badly placed and probably was better kept as a thought than made public... I feel it was at least partially aimed at me as I seem to have played the villain for much of this thread... Wether it was intended as such, it still came across as offensive and that should have been realised as soon as it was typed. You cannot demonise and divide people simply because they don't have the same opinions or knowledge as oneself. There are so many different people in the world, all with their own experiences, motivations and priorities. People come to the forum largely, I feel because they want to learn and understand other people's thoughts and share ideas and knowledge. By slamming people for thinking differently or for debating something, we are prevented from learning as people will shy away from opening up when they are pushed aside for not seeing eye-to-eye with other members and therefore will be prevented from maybe learning something really valuable from people who have interesting things to say. I think it's great to disagree but with a tone that encourages more debate rather than shutting people up. It's fine to question others decisions but there's an art to doing it that makes it inclusive and supportive, rather than hostile and judgemental.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> If I post for instance talking about how I let my pointer off the lead despite him having poor recall then I expect to have people question me and have to explain why I make that choice. I don't expect them to like my choice or agree with my choice but if I post it I expect to have to answer the question and if I wasn't happy to answer then I wouldn't post about it.


This is getting repetitive now, so this is my last comment on the 'dog lovers' and 'dog likers' theme...
But, if you let your pointer off lead despite him having poor recall, it wouldn't make you any less a dog lover - just a dog lover who made a mistake.

But enough of that. I have just seen that @StormyThai has felt the need to apologise and for that I'm sorry for opening a can of worms. And there was no need to apologise as it was simply my incorrect interpretation.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Do you know what saddens me? What saddens me is when a forum full of animal lover can't express concern or advise people what they are doing isn't good for dog's welfare anyone who agrees becomes a bully, an expert, jumping on the band wagon, one of the chosen ones, one of the clique! Yes this thread and many others like sadden me! It's fine to kick, hit, choke dogs, its fine to buy your dog from where ever you want even a byb or puppy farm because its your money, its fine to get as many dogs as you want and give them all up to rescue when you can't cope even though you were told before you got puppy it would be too much for you! It's fine to do what ever you want as long as you don't offend someone? But god forbid someone make a comment about dog lovers and dog likers!Sorry it saddens you Silvi, what saddens me more is people who ignore all the facts and just make sure the people are happy, what saddens me is 7 month old dogs dumped in rescue, what saddens me is people breeding dogs as and when they want for no other reason than money, what saddens me is people who think its fine to inadvertently defend those who use force to get their dogs to do what they want, or dump their dogs or breed as and when they like. What saddens me even more is this forum is becoming a place where people can no longer defend animals because this always happens! If having someone's respect means I can't say what I think I'd rather be hated! That simple. This is exactly way I took myself off the forum.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Do you know what saddens me? What saddens me is when a forum full of animal lover can't express concern or advise people what they are doing isn't good for dog's welfare anyone who agrees becomes a bully, an expert, jumping on the band wagon, one of the chosen ones, one of the clique! Yes this thread and many like sadden me! It's find to kick, hit, choke dogs, its fine to buy your dog from where ever you want even a byb or puppy farm because its your money, its fine to get as many dogs as you want and give them all up to rescue when you can't cope even though you were told before you got puppy it would be too much for you! It's fine to do what ever you want as long as you don't offend someone? Sorry it saddens you Silvi, what saddens me more is people who ignore all the facts and just make sure the people are happy, what saddens me is 7 month old dogs dumped in rescue, what saddens me is people breeding dogs as and when they want for no other reason than money, what saddens me is people who think its fine to inadvertently defend those who use force to get their dogs to do what they want! What saddens me even more is this forum is becoming a place where people can no longer defend animals because this always happens! If having someone's respect means I can't say what I think I'd rather be hated! That simple. This is exactly way I took myself off the forum.


I think it's fine to say that you disagree and it's fine to have a debate about things. It's also fine to step in and offer advice and say that, no, what someone is doing isn't right. But what's not fine is when it's made very personal and things get so aggressive and offensive. There's a way of talking to people that can let them know they're wrong but still remaining respectful and encouraging. Many people do things out of simply not knowing a better way, and coming in all guns blazing will only shut them down and push them away, perpetuating their behaviour as they haven't had constructive criticism to enable them to learn. It's often difficult to get tone across on typed messages, I appreciate that, but I feel there are certain ways to put things that draw people in, rather than push them away. I understand that the welfare of the dogs comes first, but there are still people involved here and so people skills have to be utilised. When you possibly have very little relationship with someone and then try to advise them (as it is on an online forum) to ensure that the recipient of the advice actually takes it on board, things have to said in a certain way. It would be different if you were talking to someone you know, or even speaking face to face. If you genuinely want people here to change and listen to you, you do have to think of the person you are talking to and not only their dog. Otherwise all your words could be wasted and your advice will never reach the dog in question.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I don't think anyone should be discouraged from encouraging better practices, encouraging owners to be the best they can be, to encourage responsible breeding and advising people look for the better breeders and rescues out there ... But what good will come out of labelling people or dividing us into groups?

I don't really know much about the history surrounding the owner of the 7m/o dog, and actually had to PM a member who has participated on this thread to help me fill in some of the blanks. Obviously there's much more to it than I realised and I obviously have much more searching to do. No one is encouraging or accepting the use of coercive training methods - I don't think that has even been mentioned?  And while people have mentioned supporting BYB and puppy farms, they seem to be in the minority?

However, if people see threads in which a member is "slated" for doing things the general consensus is against, people are going to be put off from discussing what they do on fear of judgement (excluding trolls and sh!T stirrers, of course). How's that helping improve the dogs' lives?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Do you know what I'm done more important things to worry about than this place! 

Only came back to help try and get a dog out of rescue.

I'll leave it to those who "care" to sort it! Your up Silvi and Aahlly  Good luck.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Aahlly said:


> I feel like the "lovers/likers" comment was badly placed and probably was better kept as a thought than made public... I feel it was at least partially aimed at me as I seem to have played the villain for much of this thread... Wether it was intended as such, it still came across as offensive and that should have been realised as soon as it was typed. You cannot demonise and divide people simply because they don't have the same opinions or knowledge as oneself. There are so many different people in the world, all with their own experiences, motivations and priorities. People come to the forum largely, I feel because they want to learn and understand other people's thoughts and share ideas and knowledge. By slamming people for thinking differently or for debating something, we are prevented from learning as people will shy away from opening up when they are pushed aside for not seeing eye-to-eye with other members and therefore will be prevented from maybe learning something really valuable from people who have interesting things to say. I think it's great to disagree but with a tone that encourages more debate rather than shutting people up. It's fine to question others decisions but there's an art to doing it that makes it inclusive and supportive, rather than hostile and judgemental.


Well I'm sorry @Aahlly I don't agree with you that the comment was best not made nor that it was aimed at you partially or otherwise and I don't think anyone has made you out to be a villain. The villains are the irresponsible breeders and I won't apologise for finding it shocking and upsetting that this nation of dog lovers (or likers for that matter) find it acceptable to line BYB pockets while 14 dogs per day are killed in this country because someone bred them and didn't take full responsibility for them. An active forum such as this one has lots of debates and some of them get heated/lively. I haven't found this one a particularly heated thread, have read far more especially in general chat. The very members being slated for expressing their opinions too forcefully are the ones who offer advice time after time after time, give their time freely and go the extra mile when necessary arranging rescue places etc (I'm not including myself in that statement obviously). so even though their frank speaking might hurt at times they are the ones we would all hope to hear from if we were really up shit creek without a paddle. Everyone has different posting styles and ways of expressing themselves, some you will like and some you will not, if the ones you don't like upset you then you can put them on ignore if you don't want to hear what they think.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Do you know what I'm done more important things to worry about than this place!
> 
> Only came back to help try and get a dog out of rescue.
> 
> I'll leave it to those who "care" to sort it! Your up Silvi and Aahlly  Good luck.


Meezey, I know you have more important things to worry about, as do I, so I hope it wasn't anything in my posts that have offended you, or made you feel like you're done. 

I feel like my posts have been contradictory lately on this thread ... Probably because I'm thinking things through and trying to see things from all angles. I don't mean to come across as singling people out and/or attacking them, so I can only apologise if my posts are coming across that way ... Normally I'd be on my desktop, but for reasons I don't want to go into, I'm limited to my phone atm, so I can only use the emoticons whose codes I know or can work out, so if my posts at coming across in an aggressive or offensive manner, I offer my heartfelt apologies.

Please stick around, Meezey, even if you bow out of this thread. We need "tell it how it is" members, probably more than the likes of me, who are sort of bumbling along and hoping they make some sort of sense at the end of it.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Well I'm sorry @Aahlly I don't agree with you that the comment was best not made nor that it was aimed at you partially or otherwise and I don't think anyone has made you out to be a villain. The villains are the irresponsible breeders and I won't apologise for finding it shocking and upsetting that this nation of dog lovers (or likers for that matter) find it acceptable to line BYB pockets while 14 dogs per day are killed in this country because someone bred them and didn't take full responsibility for them. An active forum such as this one has lots of debates and some of them get heated/lively. I haven't found this one a particularly heated thread, have read far more especially in general chat. The very members being slated for expressing their opinions too forcefully are the ones who offer advice time after time after time, give their time freely and go the extra mile when necessary arranging rescue places etc (I'm not including myself in that statement obviously). so even though their frank speaking might hurt at times they are the ones we would all hope to hear from if we were really up shit creek without a paddle. Everyone has different posting styles and ways of expressing themselves, some you will like and some you will not, if the ones you don't like upset you then you can put them on ignore if you don't want to hear what they think.


No need to apologise for disagreeing with me.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Do you know what I'm done more important things to worry about than this place!
> 
> Only came back to help try and get a dog out of rescue.
> 
> I'll leave it to those who "care" to sort it! Your up Silvi and Aahlly  Good luck.


No pressure then :Jawdrop

Seriously I think this is such a sad outcome from this thread. I hope when things settle down for you off the forum you will reconsider and come back on as you have helped so many people and dogs and a great many of us will miss you and reading about your gang.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> Meezey, I know you have more important things to worry about, as do I, so I hope it wasn't anything in my posts that have offended you, or made you feel like you're done.
> 
> I feel like my posts have been contradictory lately on this thread ... Probably because I'm thinking things through and trying to see things from all angles. I don't mean to come across as singling people out and/or attacking them, so I can only apologise if my posts are coming across that way ... Normally I'd be on my desktop, but for reasons I don't want to go into, I'm limited to my phone atm, so I can only use the emoticons whose codes I know or can work out, so if my posts at coming across in an aggressive or offensive manner, I offer my heartfelt apologies.
> 
> Please stick around, Meezey, even if you bow out of this thread. We need "tell it how it is" members, probably more than the likes of me, who are sort of bumbling along and hoping they make some sort of sense at the end of it.


Certainly not you my dear 

I really am just sick of it! Did those sugar sweet nicely put word stop a pup being put in rescue? Are those sugary sweet nicely put words being used to help get her out?

I stayed away last time because I am sick of people patting peoples heads and telling them everything is okay! Might be great for human but not for the dog, and being told how I should speak to people because not being nice doesn't help the dog! Yeah and people being nice really help the pup didn't it!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ok now I'm curious


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

And seriously Meezey stick around , it is sickening to see the white knight types screaming bully at anyone who tells the truth about the situation but that's why we need you


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

I don't buy that the tone of a post will prevent someone from learning. Either you want to learn and grow or you don't pretty much. What is it? "If you want to learn nothing can stop you, if you refuse to learn nothing can help you."

And FWIW, from her posts, it does sound to me like @Aahlly has learned a great deal from this thread. At least in her replies to me it sounds like she has, so I'm really not sure what the whole problem is.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> And seriously Meezey stick around , it is sickening to see the white knight types screaming bully at anyone who tells the truth about the situation but that's why we need you


Its not white knight types :/


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I don't buy that the tone of a post will prevent someone from learning. Either you want to learn and grow or you don't pretty much. What is it? "If you want to learn nothing can stop you, if you refuse to learn nothing can help you."
> 
> And FWIW, from her posts, it does sound to me like @Aahlly has learned a great deal from this thread. At least in her replies to me it sounds like she has, so I'm really not sure what the whole problem is.


But Ouesi, it is important to have people skills to put across a point (which I am sure I often fail at). The content of your post can be exactly the same as certain other members and I would never take offence, just disagree with you at times! but when a couple of other members say the same thing (not necessarily even aimed at me) it puts my back up and it certainly chases newer members away.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Blitz said:


> But Ouesi, it is important to have people skills to put across a point (which I am sure I often fail at). The content of your post can be exactly the same as certain other members and I would never take offence, just disagree with you at times! but when a couple of other members say the same thing (not necessarily even aimed at me) it puts my back up and it certainly chases newer members away.


I totally agree with this.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> But Ouesi, it is important to have people skills to put across a point (which I am sure I often fail at). The content of your post can be exactly the same as certain other members and I would never take offence, just disagree with you at times! but when a couple of other members say the same thing (not necessarily even aimed at me) it puts my back up and it certainly chases newer members away.


Some people struggle with getting their point across...If the content of the post is sound and it isn't filled with expletives then I'm afraid some should just suck it up IMHO!
I get pretty tired of the age old excuse that is "Well I'm not listening to you because you don't dress things up in enough glitter and rainbows" it just doesn't wash with me 

It has actually come to a point that I don't stick my neck out in public anymore because it gets a bit much being labeled a bully (not saying you are, just it happens) just because you decided to speak out for the animals


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

A very entertaining thread, and it has certainly gone off down a few side-roads during it's 14 pages. The thing is that, having just read through it, I have not been able to make out an answer to the original question. I quote it here.......



Aahlly said:


> I was reading around on a couple of things and came across a post an another forum slamming people who buy crossbred dogs basically saying its a waste of money and if you are happy with a "mutt" you should only get it from a shelter.
> 
> I just think this is a bizarre thing to say? Two of my three dogs are mixed breed and I bought. I chose not to adopt because if I did I would have had a dog that was unsuitable to my lifestyle. I chose dogs crossed with breeds which I could handle. If I had gone to my local shelter I could have picked between staffie mixes and terrier breeds, great dogs, but totally would not have fitted into my household.
> 
> ...


Maybe I just lost focus, with the different things that came up during the course of the thread. If anyone has a clearer picture in their head, and has found an answer in here somewhere, could you please let me know.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Colette said:


> I think its an issue of responsible versus irresponsible breeding, rather than crossbreed versus pedigree.
> 
> There are good, bad, mediocre and downright ugly breeders in both groups.
> 
> ...


Exactly. I wish we still had rep, so I could you a dollop!


----------



## LittleHolly (Jun 15, 2015)

I've been holding back from replying to this thread as i can understand just about everyone's points on the subject and see that its all come down to the same area that no one agrees with bad breeders bad breeders being those who don't get necessary health checks done, don't care about the homes the puppies go to etc. I can understand why a lot of people get their backs up and want to explain the problem with lining bad breeders pockets (which I admit doing myself with Holly) and why people really want people to rescue. I want to create a situation being someone has a female dog the owner of that dog suddenly decided that it would be nice to go on holiday next year or maybe they want a new sofa or a newly decorated room they cant afford to this so come up with the idea of breeding from their cross breed dog because they paid £500 for theirs so think they can get the same per puppy so they go ahead but they only want to have 1 litter of puppies so it make the idea sound even more not so bad, their girl delivers 5 puppies all sell for £500 each as their 'designer dogs' the owner is quite happy in thinking that she only created 5 puppies they all went to good homes (she thinks anyways no homechecks were done) and she now has that holiday next year booked and paid for...... however 2 of those puppies are bred from creating an extra 10+ puppies and 1 was used a stud dog and created around 50 puppies in his time as a stud so those 5 puppies turned into 60 extra dogs and some of those 60 puppies went on to have puppies and created a few hundred and so it goes on. so what started as 5 puppies to pay for a holiday ended up creating 100's some of those end up in rescues, others passed around from family to family, others are used for breeding from, others have health problems as no health checks were done before breeding and the last few had good forever homes. when people pay a poor breeder for a puppy it may encourage them to breed again to get more cash and while that's happening the puppies sold are also having puppies creating more and more dogs. if we didn't buy from poor breeders yes the puppies wont get homes and will probably be placed in a rescue for rehoming but it would put that breeder off from breeding again as they gained nothing from it so they have reason to do it again. 

I hope all that makes sense. that situation doesn't just apply to crossbreeds but also full breeds who owners don't care where puppies go care about health tests etc.

I personally have no problem with cross breeds (as most breeds were cross breeds once) as long as its done properly with health tests in place as well as home checks done before re homing to ensure that puppies are going to good homes with the intention of taking back any puppies regardless of age if the owners can no longer look after them so you know your puppies aren't going to be passed around and risk ending in a bad home.

Since this thread started I actually did do some searching through a few local rescues and saw that their was actually a mixture of dogs in their of all breeds and sizes I saw a couple rottweilers which I fell in love with so I think im confident in that once my 2 sadly pass over I will look into rescuing a dog instead of lining another bad breeders pocket.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

LittleHolly said:


> I hope all that makes sense. that situation doesn't just apply to crossbreeds but also full breeds who owners don't care where puppies go care about health tests etc.


Yet health tests, even when done are not the be all and end all it's made out to be by many.

http://www.border-wars.com/2013/05/health-testing-in-dogs-is-limited.html

It's only a tool of limited although important use.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

Blitz said:


> But Ouesi, it is important to have people skills to put across a point (which I am sure I often fail at). The content of your post can be exactly the same as certain other members and I would never take offence, just disagree with you at times! but when a couple of other members say the same thing (not necessarily even aimed at me) it puts my back up and it certainly chases newer members away.


Trust me, my posts put plenty of people's back's up! 
You and I do manage to disagree and be fine about it. Me and other members? Pfft... We can be agreeing and they still hate everything I post!

It's no different than in real life, some people's personalities are going to jive and others aren't.

Which is why the whole tone thing is always going to be a losing battle. We can work on our tone all day long and try our hardest to be nice and approachable in everything we post, and we're still going to piss someone off.

On another (much smaller) forum I'm on, there is a rule that if all you have to contribute to a thread is a comment or complaint about the tone of certain posts, the post will be deleted. Which is kind of harsh, but also kind of wise. We could save ourselves a whole lot of headaches if we would all (and I'm talking to myself here too) focus on the content of a post instead of who said it or how it was said.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

LittleHolly said:


> with the intention of taking back any puppies regardless of age if the owners can no longer look after them so you know your puppies aren't going to be passed around and risk ending in a bad home.
> .


Poor Milly, she is getting a bit limpy, is a bit incontinent and can't really keep up with us on a walk. Wouldn't it be better for her to send her back to the breeder, where she can live out her days in comfort?
People can see a bad thing coming - and would rather that someone else had to face it.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

@LittleHolly your post sums up the dog rescue crisis perfectly
And you are quite right about it not just being a crossbreed issue, my rescue ex-breeding bitch was a Bichon Frise
And if you look at sites such as many tears you will see pages of pure breed ex-breeders and puppies.

As for tone over content it is all very subjective much like the topic of what's a good/bad breeder
Whilst I try to word my posts carefully it doesn't always work - someone could still get upset or I could fail to get my message across 
One person may think a post is to the point another may think it's rude.
I have been on this forum for a long time and have only been offended/upset once and that was when someone compared meat eaters with rapists.
I may disagree with people, I may not like the way they post but I can easily choose not to engage with them.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

miljar said:


> Poor Milly, she is getting a bit limpy, is a bit incontinent and can't really keep up with us on a walk. Wouldn't it be better for her to send her back to the breeder, where she can live out her days in comfort?
> People can see a bad thing coming - and would rather that someone else had to face it.


Well if you bred Milly and homed her to the type of people who don't care enough about her to see her through her old age then yes you should take her back even if its to end her suffering in a dignified and loving manner.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Well if you bred Milly and homed her to the type of people who don't care enough about her to see her through her old age then yes you should take her back even if its to end her suffering in a dignified and loving manner.


Doesn't mean that they don't care, maybe just the opposite, but just that it would be an easier alternative than the dreaded trip to the vet.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

miljar said:


> Doesn't mean that they don't care, maybe just the opposite, but just that it would be an easier alternative than the dreaded trip to the vet.


Which means they don't care because if they did they would put their dog's welfare before their own


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

miljar said:


> Poor Milly, she is getting a bit limpy, is a bit incontinent and can't really keep up with us on a walk. Wouldn't it be better for her to send her back to the breeder, where she can live out her days in comfort?
> People can see a bad thing coming - and would rather that someone else had to face it.


If that's your attitude, that you can't face your dog aging, then yes, maybe it is better for the dog to go to someone who can face a dog aging, properly care for the dog, and end suffering when it is time instead of prolonging it like so many owners do because they can't handle the thought of putting their dog to sleep.

This thread has gotten long, and I'm repeating myself here, but it's not just about the breeder saying they'll take the dog back at any time. For one, anyone can say that and when it comes down to it have a slew of reasons why they can't. But also, as you point out, taking a dog back in and of itself is not necessarily going to benefit the dog.
No, it's not about breeders saying "I'll take the dog back if you ever need me to." That's meaningless. 
Good breeders can tell you about every litter they had, name the dogs in the litter, tell you where those dogs ended up, what kind of dog they matured in to, what breed traits that dog displayed or didn't, what health problems that dog had or didn't (not everything is testable), what kind of temperament the dog had, what the dog died of etc., etc.

Good breeders want to know these details about their dogs so that they can see exactly what they are producing and how to adjust their breeding program to continue producing sound, healthy dogs. 
In order to do this, they have to keep up with each and every dog they produce, and have the kind of relationship with their puppy buyers where they do get this information.
By default this will also mean that the breeder is available should anything happen to the owner and the dog needs help.

Let's look at spaniels for a minute. We are seeing some really weird OTT resource guarding in spaniels (and goldens) these days. Dangerous behavior in dogs that often end up family pets. 
There is no health test for resource guarding, and it may not even be evident in the early months of the pup's life as some level of resource guarding is normal dog behavior.

If I am a spaniel breeder, I'm going to keep up with all my puppies and have a relationship with those owners where I get valuable information about what kind of dogs I'm producing. If I start noticing a pattern where 2 or 3 pups from a litter start having RG issues at about 2 years, that gives me valuable information. If I notice that the same bitch produced one litter with no RG issues and another with RG issues and I used different studs, that gives the stud owner valuable information about their stud, and if they used another bitch with equally conscientious practices, they can go back and find out if that stud is producing RG pups. That's valuable information for the whole breed.

I can repeat this example with OCD behaviors in collies, with bloat in great danes, with separation anxiety, and all sorts of other temperament and health issues.

None of this is possible if you're not keeping up with the pups.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

For anyone who hasn't seen this poem in the breeding section - please spare a minute to read

REMEMBER ME -ODE TO THE IRRESPONSIBLE BREEDER 
- Trudie James -

Remember me, though I know that you won't
I'm the pup that you bred, I'm the soul that you owned

Remember my mum, though you'll just get confused
She's the bitch that you broke, she's the womb that you used

Remember the vet that you didn't call
When the blood ran so dark in our cold dank stall

Remember how cruelly you kicked me away
When I dared lick your hand - I just wanted to play

Remember the age that you wrenched me from mum
With my hold on life fragile and my weaning not done

Remember the home that you didn't check
That kept me outside with a chain round my neck

You'll remember the blood money you exchanged for my life
You'll remember the goodies it bought you and the wife

Now imagine my fate and cringe with your shame
See my sad lifeless eyes and my skeletal frame

I've known neglect and abuse I feared never would end
When Death came for your pup, it came as a friend

There are thousands just like me in the yard, street and pound
And whilst bad breeders breed this grim cycle goes round

You failed in your duty though I was born at your will
Now I'm your fatal shadow that walks by you still

I hope, my cruel breeder, that your guilt's worth your gain
You filled your car with my fear, bought your beer with my pain

But no act goes unnoticed and no sin goes unpaid
You'll account for my life at the end of your days

I'll be right there beside you when at your Reckoning you stand
You'll remember me then - it's my blood on your hands .


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Which means they don't care because if they did they would put their dog's welfare before their own


 Whatever - they are just fictional - created to illustrate a point


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

miljar said:


> Wouldn't it be better for her to send her back to the breeder, where she can live out her days in comfort?


I can see where you are coming from with this and, with rising costs of things like pet health insurance as a dog gets older I can imagine it happening more frequently.

The relationship between breeder and owner should be a partnership. A slight change in topic though. If I get a dog, I am not renting/leasing it out. It is my dog and I am the one who makes all decisions about it, not the breeder. I'm quite prepared to ask for advice etc but the ultimate decision is mine.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Goblin said:


> I can see where you are coming from with this and, with rising costs of things like pet health insurance as a dog gets older I can imagine it happening more frequently.
> 
> The relationship between breeder and owner should be a partnership. However if I get a dog, I am not renting/leasing it out. It is my dog and I am the one who makes all decisions about it, not the breeder. I'm quite prepared to ask for advice etc but the ultimate decision is mine.


But that is exactly the point we are making, responsible breeders home to the right people who are prepared to make those decisions and I don't doubt virtually everyone on this forum would make those decisions and take their dog to the vet themselves. However if a breeder has homed to some person who doesn't give a monkeys and isn't going to do the right thing by their dog at the end surely the responsible breeder would prefer the dog to come back to them so they can make sure the dog gets humane end of life care. I know if I'd bred puppies it would haunt me if I knew one was languishing in pain and distress in its final stage of life.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Goblin said:


> The relationship between breeder and owner should be a partnership. A slight change in topic though. If I get a dog, I am not renting/leasing it out. It is my dog and I am the one who makes all decisions about it, not the breeder. I'm quite prepared to ask for advice etc but the ultimate decision is mine.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> But that is exactly the point we are making, responsible breeders home to the right people who are prepared to make those decisions and I don't doubt virtually everyone on this forum would make those decisions and take their dog to the vet themselves. However if a breeder has homed to some person who doesn't give a monkeys and isn't going to do the right thing by their dog at the end surely the responsible breeder would prefer the dog to come back to them so they can make sure the dog gets humane end of life care. I know if I'd bred puppies it would haunt me if I knew one was languishing in pain and distress in its final stage of life.


Both of those are excellent points and it's a shame that they were not made clearer earlier.

Responsible dog owners will put the dog first, but many of them will still object to being told that their dog's breeder has ultimate rights over the dog that they purchased, reared with love, and have cared for at the very best they can.

But understanding the point of view of the breeder is important too, as I think many of us forget that the breeder makes a real connection with the pups for the 8+ weeks they have them with them.

And outlined in those two posts it makes the situation much clearer.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But that is exactly the point we are making, responsible breeders home to the right people who are prepared to make those decisions and I don't doubt virtually everyone on this forum would make those decisions and take their dog to the vet themselves. However if a breeder has homed to some person who doesn't give a monkeys and isn't going to do the right thing by their dog at the end surely the responsible breeder would prefer the dog to come back to them so they can make sure the dog gets humane end of life care. I know if I'd bred puppies it would haunt me if I knew one was languishing in pain and distress in its final stage of life.


So only the filthy rich can breed dogs as only they can afford potential care in late life stages if they are returned?

A good owner will look for the well being of their dog even if the breeder is not around. If they can't cope personally they will try to do whatever they can to achieve the best the can for their dog.

Like most things simple pigeon holes for owners and breeders don't exist and each case may be unique. We need to be aware of this.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Goblin said:


> So only the filthy rich can breed dogs as only they can afford potential care in late life stages if they are returned?
> 
> A good owner will look for the well being of their dog even if the breeder is not around. If they can't cope personally they will try to do whatever they can to achieve the best the can for their dog.
> 
> Like most things simple pigeon holes for owners and breeders don't exist and each case may be unique. We need to be aware of this.


Where did I say only the filthy rich can breed dogs? The potential care in late life stages I am referring to is PTS in the circumstances that @miljar used as an example. I wasn't suggesting a breeder should have a house full of elderly incontinent dogs with limps and pay for ongoing care in those circumstances - just do the right thing if the owner in the example given wouldn't.


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Whereas I'm the one who ends up sitting with the dog at a party, and the one straining over (or under) fences just to pet the dog


Aww  Sound like me! when I was a teenager my parents had a party and their friend brought their 'outdoor' springer along. It was freezing, but her owner wouldn't let her inside, so I sat in our garage with her for the entire party with a blanket (it really was cold and she was shivvering). She was far better company than most of the humans inside, she's a beautiful, snuggly girly.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Do you know what saddens me? What saddens me is when a forum full of animal lover can't express concern or advise people what they are doing isn't good for dog's welfare anyone who agrees becomes a bully, an expert, jumping on the band wagon, one of the chosen ones, one of the clique!


When have I ever called you or anyone else a bully? Or refer to 'chosen ones' or a clique for that matter?
You are reading into my remarks things that others _may_ have said.
As to the expert remarks, I do think it is true that certain members of this forum are seen as experts in their chosen field and that's fine. You, for example, know a lot about breeding and have excellent connections with rescues. This forum would be a lesser place without you. And I know how it saddens you that people ignore your advice or the advice of others when it comes to choosing to use a byb, or to ignore certain likely facts about a dog they have purchased.

But me pointing out that the responses made by you and some other forum members does put people off of posting is not calling you or them out as a 'bully'; it is just pointing out something which seems rather obvious to me.
If that's not the case, then I apologise.



Meezey said:


> It's fine to do what ever you want as long as you don't offend someone? But god forbid someone make a comment about dog lovers and dog likers!Sorry it saddens you Silvi, what saddens me more is people who ignore all the facts and just make sure the people are happy


Oh come on @Meezey you are totally exaggerating my remarks.
I couldn't give a flying f*** whether or not you offend anyone (or me for that matter, as you know full well that I have never condoned bad practice with dogs). But if I feel that I want to comment on the effects those remarks may have had on posters, then I will still say so, despite the result being that I will be tagged now as someone who just wants everyone to be happy. Sheesh!



Meezey said:


> what saddens me is 7 month old dogs dumped in rescue


What saddens me as well as that (which of course saddens me...a lot!) is the people going "ahh I guessed as much...." without checking out the full facts.


Meezey said:


> What saddens me even more is this forum is becoming a place where people can no longer defend animals because this always happens! If having someone's respect means I can't say what I think I'd rather be hated! That simple. This is exactly way I took myself off the forum.


What saddens me is that those who defend animals think there is only one way to do this and that anyone else who has an opinion is in some way defending the wrong doers (happens on other threads as well....).
And whether I respect anyone or not is my choice. Why I should then hate them for making a comment I feel could have been better expressed is beyond me...


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

A point about breeders taking back puppies at any stage in their life. Personally I do not want to get a puppy from someone who has the facilities to keep loads of dogs. I want one from a family pet who is not going to have a houseful of dogs they do not really have room or time for.
If they are the sort of breeder that has loads of dogs then I am not sure I would want my pet dog to go back to them if something happened that I could not longer keep it. I would want to rehome it to an owner that would keep it in a similar way to me.
Not saying it is not good that some breeders will help out if they are in a position to but I think it is rather short sighted to think that every breeder should do.

It is dog owners that need regulating not breeders.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> A point about breeders taking back puppies at any stage in their life. Personally I do not want to get a puppy from someone who has the facilities to keep loads of dogs. I want one from a family pet who is not going to have a houseful of dogs they do not really have room or time for.
> If they are the sort of breeder that has loads of dogs then I am not sure I would want my pet dog to go back to them if something happened that I could not longer keep it. I would want to rehome it to an owner that would keep it in a similar way to me.
> Not saying it is not good that some breeders will help out if they are in a position to but I think it is rather short sighted to think that every breeder should do.
> 
> *It is dog owners that need regulating not breeders*.


No its both.

When we talk about breeders being prepared to take back dogs that doesn't mean they then have to keep that dog for the rest of its life, in some cases they may want to or they can rehome the dog themselves to a suitable/responsible home with a contract in place much the same as they do with pups.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No its both.


Totally agree with this. Breeders and owners both have a responsibility. This is best done in partnership with each other.

After 7 years we are still in contact with Nelson's (a crossbreed) breeder and we actually have a meet with all his siblings each year organised by the breeder.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

silvi said:


> Responsible dog owners will put the dog first, but many of them will still object to being told that their dog's breeder has ultimate rights over the dog that they purchased,


But no one on this thread is advocating for breeders to have ultimate rights over the dog. Not in any posts I have read.
What I am arguing for is that a breeder should take responsibility for the dogs they produce and keep up with the dogs they produce. None of that means or even implies ultimate rights over the dogs.

See, and this is where it gets frustrating for me, because when you say something like that - that owners object to breeders having ultimate rights over their dogs - something that no one has advocated, then it leaves me feeling like I have to clarify something that I've already stated several times on this thread. Or simply arguing against an argument that was never put forward, and it ends up clouding the whole issue. 
Or when Goblin says that the only people who should be breeding are the filthy rich - same idea. It's presenting an argument that hasn't been made, and it leaves people feeling like they have to argue against something they never said.

And I'm sitting here wondering why I bothered to post great long posts explaining the importance of breeder involvement and why puppy buyers may want to consider adding that to their criteria when selecting a breeder only to have the entire thing dismissed and replaced with "owners will object to a breeder having ultimate rights over their dog".

And not for nothing Silvi, on another thread you were perfectly happy for people to post their genuine feelings about the police and defended their right to do so, but on this thread, people are posting their genuine feelings about what constitutes a good breeder and they're getting put on the naughty step for not being nice enough about it. I'm not sure why it is different here?


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

Blitz said:


> A point about breeders taking back puppies at any stage in their life. Personally I do not want to get a puppy from someone who has the facilities to keep loads of dogs.


See this is a misunderstanding about what "take the dog back" means when it actually happens.

In the case of the GSD breeder who repossessed the bitch who had 2 litters before she was even 2 years old, she kept the bitch because her temperament issues had been exacerbated by the hormones and stress of the two litters. The bitch lives in a home environment with the breeder (who is also a dog trainer), and will stay with her until she feels the right home for a dog with her issues comes up, IOW this bitch is available, but the breeder is also in no hurry to unload her.

In another situation, it may just be a case of great dog, owner died or fell on hard times. The breeder does not take the dog back and keep the dog. They simply participate in finding the dog a new home. A great dane breeder I know helped rehome 3 dogs (not all danes) when one of her puppy buyers died. She didn't keep any of them, but through her connections in the dog world (she is also very active in rescue) she was able to find suitable homes for all 3 dogs (2 stayed together), and she can continue to keep up with the puppy she bred.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

This reply will be quick as I'm just going back to work....


ouesi said:


> But no one on this thread is advocating for breeders to have ultimate rights over the dog. Not in any posts I have read.
> What I am arguing for is that a breeder should take responsibility for the dogs they produce and keep up with the dogs they produce. None of that means or even implies ultimate rights over the dogs.
> 
> See, and this is where it gets frustrating for me, because when you say something like that - that owners object to breeders having ultimate rights over their dogs - something that no one has advocated, then it leaves me feeling like I have to clarify something that I've already stated several times on this thread. Or simply arguing against an argument that was never put forward, and it ends up clouding the whole issue.


Sorry if I clouded the issue by putting into different words what others appeared to be feeling. And as I don't have time to sift through pages of thread to show you what I mean, I'll leave that pleasure until later.



ouesi said:


> Or when Goblin says that the only people who should be breeding are the filthy rich - same idea. It's presenting an argument that hasn't been made, and it leaves people feeling like they have to argue against something they never said.


Maybe you would like to take that up with @Goblin rather than with me?



ouesi said:


> And I'm sitting here wondering why I bothered to post great long posts explaining the importance of breeder involvement and why puppy buyers may want to consider adding that to their criteria when selecting a breeder only to have the entire thing dismissed and replaced with "owners will object to a breeder having ultimate rights over their dog".


Because that's what it feels like for some reading about breeder contracts.
(I'm not saying this is right, by the way....go back and read my posts please).



ouesi said:


> And not for nothing Silvi, on another thread you were perfectly happy for people to post their genuine feelings about the police and defended their right to do so, but on this thread, people are posting their genuine feelings about what constitutes a good breeder and they're getting put on the naughty step for not being nice enough about it. I'm not sure why it is different here?


It's not different here, as I am not saying anything detrimental about people posting their feelings (just saying that sometimes people feel they cannot state their thoughts for fear of not following the consensus), so I don't know where that question is coming from....

Oh yes, I do...
But if I say the reason why, this thread will get too personal, so I'll leave it there.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

silvi said:


> (just saying that sometimes people feel they cannot state their thoughts for fear of not following the consensus)


And likewise sometimes people feel they cannot state their thoughts for fear of being called out for being mean, harsh, lacking in compassion, not having the right "tone" to their posts, not having people skills....

I don't see what's different. You still end up with people being afraid to post for fear of how forum members might judge them.

Which could all be solved if we would simply respond to the content of a post rather than the tone - real or perceived. 
I did not see any content in this thread that said breeders should have ultimate rights over a dog. 
I did not see any content in this thread that said people who buy from BYB don't care about their dogs or aren't good owners.

So I don't know why it's even being brought up. Unless of course some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing - but there is no content to support that assumption on my part, so I will give myself my own advice and tell myself to address the content only


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

silvi said:


> Oh yes, I do...
> But if I say the reason why, this thread will get too personal, so I'll leave it there.


You can say it.
My husband is a police officer so yes I have a different view of the police than you do. I don't have any problem with that. I admitted on that thread that I have that bias, I'll admit it here. 
On the police officer thread it seemed to me that we accepted each others' difference of opinion without issue, so I'm not sure why here it is so much more of an issue, that's all I'm asking.

I am equally biased when it comes to good breeding practices. I have had the opportunity to see what they look like and experience them first hand through friends who are breeders, and I am definitely biased towards puppy buyers putting forth the effort to get a dog from a great breeder. Absolutely I have that bias.

I'm also perfectly happy to explain my reasoning (not just my emotional response) for advocating for good breeding practices.

@Blitz and I disagree on breeding practices (and a lot of things actually) and we are talking back and forth about it, without issue. She sees my point, I see hers, we just don't agree. And I'm okay with that and so is she.

I guess I really don't get why this has to be so contentious... *shrug*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I think part of the problem was earlier on in the thread some members took other member's opinions as a personal attack on them when it wasn't, it was an opinion about buying dogs from irresponsible breeders. I can put my opinions across quite forcefully but I have nothing personal against any member who doesn't share my views and absolutely nothing against their dogs. I'm just as happy to like their photos and show an interest in their dogs because I love dogs, all dogs, wherever they came from and I would never snub or not reply to a request for advice just because the dog in question was originally from a BYB because they are all now part of our forum family. The only exception to that would be if the owner was rude and abusive to me then I'm afraid I would and have bowed out of responding to them.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Or when Goblin says that the only people who should be breeding are the filthy rich - same idea. It's presenting an argument that hasn't been made, and it leaves people feeling like they have to argue against something they never said.


Yet it's the logical extension of what has been said... If you say something the side effects also need to be taken into account or should they simply be ignored? If breeders have to always be personally responsible through the whole lifetime of the dogs that they have bred, including potentially long term medical costs, it would mean only the rich could afford to do so. Long term Illness does not always mean PTS is the only option. I never intend to breed however my understanding is that to breed responsibly, it often means financial loss, rather than massive gain.

You'll also note the pigeon hole comment. It's impossible to produce rules which will match all situations, only possible guidelines. At the end it boils down to people taking responsibility for their dogs or dogs they breed and the acknowledgement that dogs are not objects. In fact I'd broaden that to any pet is not simply an object to own. This is frequently the problem in today's society.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> You can say it.
> 
> @Blitz and I disagree on breeding practices (and a lot of things actually) and we are talking back and forth about it, without issue. She sees my point, I see hers, we just don't agree. And I'm okay with that and so is she.
> 
> I guess I really don't get why this has to be so contentious... *shrug*


I have been meaning to ask for ages, how do do that @Blitz thing.

We probably disagree on less than might seem obvious. Often on breeding threads I am taking a middle road and sometimes I do actually agree with the other side more than I appear to.
Until there are enough 'proper breeders' to supply the pet market (which is never going to happen) there has to be compromise. Which should not include puppy farms or puppies bred by morons and sold at 6 weeks old. Surely it is better to encourage people to use the better end of the market for a ready supply of pups rather than lumping together every breeder that does not tick the enthusiasts boxes.

I would far rather see the advice as something along the lines of 'In an ideal world everyone would look for a puppy from x sort of breeders and I would like to encourage you to think about it but failing that go to y sort of breeders but never ever go to z sort of breeder as you will end up with a badly socialised and possibly sick puppy'. In reality very few people are going to go to the x breeder, not least because there are not enough to go round, so encourage them away from the very worst but please do not make out there only 2 sorts of breeders.

I think I am a realist not an idealist.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I have been meaning to ask for ages, how do do that @Blitz thing.


You just did by putting the @ symbol next to your user name 



Blitz said:


> so encourage them away from the very worst but please do not make out there only 2 sorts of breeders.


I didn't 
In fact I said just as much when I explained that I see good breeding practices on a continuum. Being boring and quoting myself instead of repeating myself 


ouesi said:


> To me that sounds like a very simplistic view of what is a good breeder.
> I see it as a continuum. Where there are horror show puppy mills on one end, and the best of the best dot every i, cross every t breeders who produce outstanding dogs on the other end. Not every breeder is going to be perfect on paper, but you would hope to educate buyers more towards the responsible/ethical end of the continuum than the puppy mill end.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

I know. I know a couple of people who have 'designer' dogs. My Nan's one was an older dog that she rescued but the others bought them because they couldn't find any other dogs that would have fitted their lifestyles. However, I would look in a rescue center first.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I have been meaning to ask for ages, how do do that @Blitz thing.
> 
> We probably disagree on less than might seem obvious. Often on breeding threads I am taking a middle road and sometimes I do actually agree with the other side more than I appear to.
> Until there are enough 'proper breeders' to supply the pet market (which is never going to happen) there has to be compromise. Which should not include puppy farms or puppies bred by morons and sold at 6 weeks old. Surely it is better to encourage people to use the better end of the market for a ready supply of pups rather than lumping together every breeder that does not tick the enthusiasts boxes.
> ...


Good post and you make some interesting points.

As you say, there are not enough excellent breeders to satisfy the pet market, nor will there ever be. But equally I don't think it should be as easy as it is to buy a puppy. How many posts do we get on here where someone is apparently researching breeds and literally days later they have the new puppy? to me that is really worrying.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> You just did by putting the @ symbol next to your user name
> 
> I didn't
> In fact I said just as much when I explained that I see good breeding practices on a continuum. Being boring and quoting myself instead of repeating myself


ha ha , can I do it now @ouesi

Sorry, I don't think you are ever so black and white but a few on here are.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Read this thread but no useful comments to make. Hope @Meezey doesn't go.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No its both.
> 
> When we talk about breeders being prepared to take back dogs that doesn't mean they then have to keep that dog for the rest of its life, in some cases they may want to or they can rehome the dog themselves to a suitable/responsible home with a contract in place much the same as they do with pups.


Well said - and a very important point.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> See this is a misunderstanding about what "take the dog back" means when it actually happens.
> 
> In the case of the GSD breeder who repossessed the bitch who had 2 litters before she was even 2 years old, she kept the bitch because her temperament issues had been exacerbated by the hormones and stress of the two litters. The bitch lives in a home environment with the breeder (who is also a dog trainer), and will stay with her until she feels the right home for a dog with her issues comes up, IOW this bitch is available, but the breeder is also in no hurry to unload her.
> 
> In another situation, it may just be a case of great dog, owner died or fell on hard times. The breeder does not take the dog back and keep the dog. They simply participate in finding the dog a new home. A great dane breeder I know helped rehome 3 dogs (not all danes) when one of her puppy buyers died. She didn't keep any of them, but through her connections in the dog world (she is also very active in rescue) she was able to find suitable homes for all 3 dogs (2 stayed together), and she can continue to keep up with the puppy she bred.


Again, good points well-made


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

ouesi said:


> So I don't know why it's even being brought up. Unless of course some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing - but there is no content to support that assumption on my part, so I will give myself my own advice and tell myself to address the content only


That would be great.
And preferably the content of this thread rather than others.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> Both of those are excellent points and it's a shame that they were not made clearer earlier.
> 
> Responsible dog owners will put the dog first, but many of them will still object to being told that their dog's breeder has ultimate rights over the dog that they purchased, reared with love, and have cared for at the very best they can.
> 
> ...


In my experience breeders only exercise their rights over owners when they have seen the dogs they bred being ill-treated in some way. In most cases, the relationship between a good breeder and owner is that of the partnership that @Goblin speaks about earlier. Good breeders select owners who they believe will love and care for the dogs they have bred, but they are not infallible, and even with good owners situations change. Therefore a good breeder will always require a contract to be signed so that they have the right to take back any dog they feel is being ill-treated, or the right for the dog to be brought back to them for rehoming rather than the owner rehoming/PTS.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Haven't quite finished reading p15, but thought I'd better clarify something.

I'm the one who mentioned tones in or to posts. It's not about being nicey-nicey, unicorns and their glitter rainbow farts or anything like that, but there's a respectful and disrespectful way to put things that may well be picked up on.

People say respond to the content of the post and not the tone, implied or otherwise. However, the content of a post may well give an indication of a tone, so maybe (and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here), but if a.member gets.told their posts come across as.rude.or abrupt by a number of different members (yes, you can be nicey-nicey and the odd member still takes.offense, it happens, I know. Some will have a grudge against a certain member and take offence at everything they say, other are maybe not as experienced of forums as us longstanding member, others.still will take offence for the sake of it - but if a member is getting the same sort of feedback from many different members, with varying degrees.of forum experience, then maybe they do need to look at their own posts and see if, maybe, they came across as annoyed, angry, impatient, sarcastic or so on, when perhaps they didn't intend to. And I include myself in that, too, because I can be just as guilty as the rest.

It's easy to say "offence is taken, never given", or blame the reader for reading more into a post than was actually there, but it goes both ways - just like RL.conversation. If you're.in a conversation with someone in RL, and they take offence to something you said, you wouldn't just say that it was their fault for taking it the wrong way, would you? At least, I would hope not. Hopefully, you'd apologise and maybe explain you didn't mean it the way it came across, maybe think of another way you can get your point across without causing further offence (unless you wanted to antagonise them, of.course,.and wanted to start a fight).

Why should it be any different online? OK, facial expression and BL are taken out of the equation, but that simply means maybe more attention needs to be paid to what does exist - the words an author uses, the emoticons, etc.

I did my L2 Literacy exam today - the reading part of it, at least. I had to read 3 different types of texts - a website, a newspaper and a flyer. 

The website was trying to recruit volunteers. The newspaper was saying that in business, qualifications meant everything and personal experiences and life skills meant nothing. The first question was about the tone of the website, and through text alone, I had to decide whether it was instructional, recruitment, persuasive or argumentative. The answer was persuasive. Given that it was a fictional scenario, I was.tempted to find out if the website was real and where I could sign up!

The newspaper was written in such a way as to be extremely biased and within 2 paragraphs, I wanted to punch the author. 

The flyer was just a typical flyer and, while it was obviously designed to catch the attention, it frankly, made.me.want to switch off.

Now, none of those were intended to effect.me emotionally or mentally. But they all did, in very different ways. I wasn't there to be a guinea pig for emotional responses for different written stimuli, but nevertheless, there was an emotional response, and I was very conscious of it.

So by all means, respond to the text, the Content of a post. But if people call you on the tone of your posts, maybe it.is actually you, and not them. Maybe revising your own content might help you to find ways of making the same point in a less coercive method...

After all, if it's dogs that decide what is and is not coercive, shouldn't the same apply to us when it's us receiving advice?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

I've swayed back and forth with this thread and it's really got me thinking.. As it stands at the minute, I wouldn't be happy for Phoebe to go back to her breeder if something awful were to happen to us. Hell no!!! I would want her to stay with people she knows and loves and who can appreciate all her little quirks.

Ive learnt a lot from reading this thread though and now my opinion would be very different if we had got her from a responsible breeder. If I had built up a relationship with a breeder who showed interest in the pups she produced and who cared what happened to them for the duration of their life then I would trust their judgment to do what is best for her and take into consideration all her little quirks when choosing someone to care for her. If they knew Phoebe, they would know she would be best placed with someone she knows so I would have no issue trusting their judgement.

I think the misunderstanding lies with what some of us are conceiving a good breeder to be and their reasons for taking a dog back. If an owner is wanting to return a 12 year old dog because it's getting old, then of course the breeder should take responsibility for that, they f*cked up and should never have sold a pup to that person in the first place. If an owner dies, a good breeder should be concerned about the welfare of the dog and should rehome it responsibly with a suitable owner, and continue to offer their support for the lifetime of the dog. It's not about the breeder hoarding all the dogs themselves, it's about being responsible for something they created.

I can't say I regret lining a byb's pockets because if I hadn't, I wouldn't have Phoebe and even with all her quirks, I wouldn't change her for the world.. BUT now that I know better, if I was to get another dog, I certainly wouldn't make the same mistake again. I would either rescue or buy from a responsible, ethical breeder who cares about the litters of pups she's sending out into the big bad world.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, regardless of what way the information has been presented on this thread (harsh and to the point or pink and fluffy) I've learned a great deal and would hope others have too.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Nettles said:


> . If an owner is wanting to return a 12 year old dog because it's getting old, then of course the breeder should take responsibility for that, they f*cked up and should never have sold a pup to that person in the first place..


 Oh please!
What is the question that the breeder should ask? Please bear in mind that the answer has to be truthful, and will not change over the next 12 years - even though the buyer will change houses, partners, jobs and(probably) shape in that time. How do you verify it? Does being a breeder give some sort of special sight. Can you apply it to politicians?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

miljar said:


> Oh please!
> What is the question that the breeder should ask? Please bear in mind that the answer has to be truthful, and will not change over the next 12 years - even though the buyer will change houses, partners, jobs and(probably) shape in that time. How do you verify it? Does being a breeder give some sort of special sight. Can you apply it to politicians?


How on earth did you get that from the bit you quoted?
I read it as humans are not infallible...sooooo even when a good breeder asks all the right questions and gets to know who they are selling too (it's a bit more difficult for people to keep their masks on and not slip up when you meet them more than once before you even think of handing a pup over) they could still end up selling to someone that decides to pass off an old dog (as per the example)...

So the sign of a good breeder is not necessarily one that omits to any mistakes over the years. but one that says "Damn it..I screwed up there, I best get that pup sorted as I was the one to bring it into the world"

Why is that so hard to grasp for some?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

mrs phas said:


> Jeez i wish people would get the whole rescue dogs dangerous with small children or come untrained or have behavioral issues or that no puppies are ever born in rescue
> despite what people believe, in their ignorance, these days more dogs are handed in due to family breakups, bedroom tax, having to move homes where more and more landlords are refusing pets or work commitments , than are real strays
> Many many of those dogs are well trained and beloved pets that have no issues whatsoever
> 
> ...


I would refuse to buy or take a dog which had already had its first injection, I guess I am an idiot and deserve to be parted from my money?

Dear o dear, who died and made you the authority on the subject?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> I would refuse to buy or take a dog which had already had its first injection, I guess I am an idiot and deserve to be parted from my money?
> 
> Dear o dear, who died and made you the authority on the subject?


you obviously did not take on board the posts about how to put forward your point of view!

I can't remember who said something about breeders exercising their rights to take a dog back but even the thought of that fills me with horror. So every breeder should have a contract and should take back a dog if THEY consider it necessary. I am absolutely sure they would not in fact have any right to do so but in the event they did can you see where this could end. A nutter breeder that thinks all their dogs should be exercised in a certain way eg a husky on lead or a collie off lead or whatever - so takes back dogs from owners that are not sticking to that. A pup that is sold because it looks like it will not work/show and then grows up better than expected - make up a silly excuse and take it back. I am sorry but to buy a pup with that sort of contract in place is mad. Ok, so at the moment that probably does not happen but the line of thought among some on here is that every breeder should be prepared to take a dog back if they think it is being treated wrong or if the owner can no longer keep it. The whole thing would be as open to abuse as euthanasia in humans!


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Nettles said:


> they f*cked up and should never have sold a pup to that person in the first place.





StormyThai said:


> "Damn it..I screwed up there,


But they didn't, did they? It is that the people whom they sold a pup to, 12 years back, are not the same people now - just as the same dog is no longer the same. The whole litter is the same age, and they could all be heading back - what is the breeder to do, turn into Dignitas for dogs? The problem is not a dog problem, for which a breeder might feel some sympathy, but a people one.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

miljar said:


> But they didn't, did they? It is that the people whom they sold a pup to, 12 years back, are not the same people now - just as the same dog is no longer the same. The whole litter is the same age, and they could all be heading back - what is the breeder to do, turn into Dignitas for dogs? The problem is not a dog problem, for which a breeder might feel some sympathy, but a people one.


So are you saying its fine for a breeder to purposefully breed new life, sell that life for a fair whack of money then take no responsibility for it whatsoever? The local electrical store give a better after sales service on my freezer and it cost less than the average pedigree puppy. Perhaps its time for breeders to have indemnity insurance to cover such an eventually. You are being a bit ridiculous talking about the whole litter coming back and turning the breeder into Dignitas for dogs, but yes there may be one or two that you have to step up to the plate for and take them on that trip to the vet to ensure the life you created is ended appropriately. Not many businesses can sell goods or services then wash their hands of them completely once they have banked the cheque.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

miljar said:


> Oh please!
> What is the question that the breeder should ask? Please bear in mind that the answer has to be truthful, and will not change over the next 12 years - even though the buyer will change houses, partners, jobs and(probably) shape in that time. How do you verify it? Does being a breeder give some sort of special sight. Can you apply it to politicians?


Oh please!
Your pretend shock at my comment doesn't wash with me as you know full well what I meant.

The type of person who returns a beloved pet after 12 years simply because it's getting old is not the type of person who should ever have a pet. It's crystal clear, no two ways about it, black and white, clear cut etc.

Why you think relationships, change of jobs, houses and their weight gain has ANY relevance to that is completely beyond me.. but oh please! feel free to explain it to me.

A good breeder would take back that dog and think "I may have had no way of knowing they were going to be that selfish and heartless after 12 years, but I f*cked up there and should never have sold them a pup after all. My mistake so I will rectify it"

I don't see how that's so difficult to understand.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Nettles said:


> Oh please!
> Your pretend shock at my comment doesn't wash with me as you know full well what I meant.
> 
> The type of person who returns a beloved pet after 12 years simply because it's getting old is not the type of person who should ever have a pet. It's crystal clear, no two ways about it, black and white, clear cut etc.
> ...


And you could tell that they would do this, could you?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

miljar said:


> But they didn't, did they? It is that the people whom they sold a pup to, 12 years back, are not the same people now - just as the same dog is no longer the same. The whole litter is the same age, and they could all be heading back - what is the breeder to do, turn into Dignitas for dogs? The problem is not a dog problem, for which a breeder might feel some sympathy, but a people one.


In 12 years I've had many changes of circumstances. I'm not the same person I was 12 years ago. It doesn't mean I've shrugged my responsibilities and decided to dump my elderly dog back at the breeders. You are either the type of person who would do that, or you aren't. 12 years wouldn't change that.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

I know that these people are fictional - but don't give them a hard time. They bought a puppy and then loved and cared for it for 12 years, until age started to overtake it. The thought of having it pts is just a little too much for them, and taking it back to the breeder is just a softer option.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Nettles said:


> In 12 years I've had many changes of circumstances. I'm not the same person I was 12 years ago. It doesn't mean I've shrugged my responsibilities and decided to dump my elderly dog back at the breeders. You are either the type of person who would do that, or you aren't. 12 years wouldn't change that.


Maybe, but how is a breeder supposed to tell?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

miljar said:


> And you could tell that they would do this, could you?


I'm not sure of your angle here, or are you deliberately pretending you don't understand my posts? Please note I said..
A good breeder would take back that dog and think "*I may have had no way of knowing* they were going to be that selfish and heartless after 12 years, but I f*cked up there and should never have sold them a pup after all. My mistake so I will rectify it"


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Would a good breeder be allowed to charge for this service?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

miljar said:


> I know that these people are fictional - but don't give them a hard time. They bought a puppy and then loved and cared for it for 12 years, until age started to overtake it. The thought of having it pts is just a little too much for them, and taking it back to the breeder is just a softer option.


These fictional people are putting their own feelings before the welfare of their dog. That type of person should not own a dog.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

miljar said:


> Would a good breeder be allowed to charge for this service?


What service? If you mean taking back a 12 year old dog, that's not a service. That's taking care of your responsibilities as a good breeder.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

I don't even know where to start - so I am not going to bother. Have a nice day.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

miljar said:


> I don't even know where to start - so I am not going to bother. Have a nice day.


You too


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2015)

I feel the need to interject here, you can't take one situation and judge good breeder/bad breeder from that one situation - hypothetical at that.

A good breeder is going to look slightly different every time. It's how the big picture unfolds for that breeder that puts them more towards the good breeder side of the continuum. So the breeder who sold to someone who ends up dumping the dog? Well, that happens. Sometimes no matter how hard you try to evaluate homes and puppy buyers, you get duped. Or people just change in the 15 years of a dog's life. Or maybe that's just not one of your strengths as a breeder - evaluating buyers. None of us can be good at everything, and it's no different with breeders. 

It sounds a little like there is this idea that a responsible, ethical breeder is one who ticks off every box - health testing, contracts, showing, keeping up with pups, only a certain number of litters, only bred in a home environment, etc., etc., but that's not quite how it works. There are different boxes that need ticking depending on your wants and needs in a dog. I personally have boxes I want ticked that many breeders don't bother with, but that doesn't make them bad breeders, just not a good match for me and my needs. 

As for contracts, if the breeder has crazy stuff in there like you can only feed the dog a certain way or you can't let the dog off leash, no... That's not what a contract should be. I'm sure there are control freak breeders out there who put stuff like that in their contracts, but that would not wash with me. I would not want to buy from someone who does not trust me to make basic decisions about the dog's care. 
A stipulation that the dog will not be bred? That's totally reasonable IMO.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

miljar said:


> Would a good breeder be allowed to charge for this service?


They already did when they sold the puppy.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

ouesi said:


> So the breeder who sold to someone who ends up dumping the dog? Well, that happens. Sometimes no matter how hard you try to evaluate homes and puppy buyers, you get duped. Or people just change in the 15 years of a dog's life. Or maybe that's just not one of your strengths as a breeder - evaluating buyers. None of us can be good at everything, and it's no different with breeders.


This was my point. My idea of a good breeder would be one who even after 12 years will still take responsibilty for a dog that they sold as a pup, regardless of the circumstances. They would say to themselves, "oh.. I didn't expect that owner to be like that but ok, my responsibilty as a breeder means I'm responsible for that pup for its entire life so I will do right by that dog" not one who will shrug responsibilty because of something they couldn't predict would happen. I'm certainly not saying they should have known from the start that the owner would dump a dog after 12 years... but if the owner DOES dump a dog after 12 years the breeder would then step in and take responsibility for the dog.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

miljar said:


> But they didn't, did they? It is that the people whom they sold a pup to, 12 years back, are not the same people now - just as the same dog is no longer the same. The whole litter is the same age, and they could all be heading back - what is the breeder to do, turn into Dignitas for dogs? The problem is not a dog problem, for which a breeder might feel some sympathy, but a people one.


Oh come on...If the breeder finds that a whole litter is heading back because of one reason or another then YES the breeder F**ked up...
Good breeders DO take dogs back at any stage of their life if needed. This isn't a fantasy, this actually happens in the real world.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

A breeder should take responsibility for the puppies they breed, but so should owners take responsibility for the puppies they buy. It should be made clear at point of sale that the owner is offering a home for life to a dog who is primarily a pet ( breeding rights, show potential, working ability etc coming second). So the owners are buying that individual dog, not their ability to breed or perform. Should circumstances change, as they can do over 12-15 years, the breeder is informed, and offers assistance in rehoming the dog. It might be that the owner can rehome privately, keeping the breeder informed ( would be part of the rehoming agreement that the breeder is informed of change of owner and may contact them). A new owner will surely get a better idea of the dog if they can see it in it's home environment with its original owner, and discuss reasons for rehoming. If the owner is unable to rehome privately then the breeder needs to step in, take the dog back, reassess it ( it may have changed an awful lot over many years), and then rehome with a contract similar to original puppy contract. The owner is responsible for their dog, the breeder is a source of advice and backup support, similar to an owner working with their vet for their dog's medical needs.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Oh come on...If the breeder finds that a whole litter is heading back because of one reason or another then YES the breeder F**ked up...


LOL, there are hypothetical situations and then there are complete fabrications.
If there is a case somewhere of a breeder suddenly having all puppy buyers from a litter want to return the dogs in old age, I would love to hear about it, but I have a feeling that's never happened.

So let's take the hypothetical of dog owner suddenly decides at 12 years the dog is old and dying and they can't face the dog's death so they ask the breeder to take the dog back. What does a "good" breeder do?
Well, it depends...
It might just be that all that is needed is a helpful conversation, a listening ear, and that the owners talk to the breeder and realize that while it is hard, they need to be there for the dog through the end. 
It might be that the breeder ends up offering to come along when it's time to euthanize.
It might be that the breeder does take the dog back and sees the dog through to the end.
It might be that the breeder has a friend or other puppy buyer who would be happy to share the last few years, months with an elderly dog, and they end up taking the dog.
It might be that the breeder is in the middle of their own personal struggles and can't cope with this particular issue as well so they direct the owners to other breed aficionados who can support them and the dog in question.

There are a whole slew of different possibilities that may or may not involve literally taking the dog back, but do involve the breeder's participation on some level.

But again, I feel like this "take the dog back" thing is being taken way too literally. It's more a case of the breeder simply taking responsibility in whatever capacity is appropriate for that situation. And it will differ greatly depending on the dog, the owners, the breeder, the resources available, the situation itself... It all depends. There is no one right answer. Good breeders who make ethical choices all look very different. 
Just as you wouldn't judge a good dog owner based on whether they feed raw or not, you can't judge a good breeder on one single thing with only one single answer.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> LOL, there are hypothetical situations and then there are complete fabrications.
> If there is a case somewhere of a breeder suddenly having all puppy buyers from a litter want to return the dogs in old age, I would love to hear about it, but I have a feeling that's never happened.
> 
> So let's take the hypothetical of dog owner suddenly decides at 12 years the dog is old and dying and they can't face the dog's death so they ask the breeder to take the dog back. What does a "good" breeder do?
> ...


Perfectly put. Taking responsibility doesn't have to mean literally taking back, but does have to mean caring and helping when the need arises. From a phonecall whilst an owner has a good cry to physically having the dog back in the flesh, and all things in between.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Catharinem said:


> Perfectly put. Taking responsibility doesn't have to mean literally taking back, but does have to mean caring and helping when the need arises. From a phonecall whilst an owner has a good cry to physically having the dog back in the flesh, and all things in between.


That is fine and is nothing to do with having a contract. A good seller of any animal has usually got a lifetime interest in what is going on with that animal but that is not the same thing as having a right to interfere with how it is kept or to take it back against the owner's wishes. Once money changes hands or an agreement that the dog now belongs to the new owner the breeder has lost all 'rights' even if they keep up and give help with the new owner's blessing. If it is a genuine case of cruelty or neglect then by all means speak to the owner and offer to take it back or go through the same channels as you would for any animal that is being mistreated.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So are you saying its fine for a breeder to purposefully breed new life, sell that life for a fair whack of money then take no responsibility for it whatsoever? The local electrical store give a better after sales service on my freezer and it cost less than the average pedigree puppy. Perhaps its time for breeders to have indemnity insurance to cover such an eventually.


I would recommend we ignore distinctions between "types" such as highlighting pedigree. After all "designer dogs" use price in much the same way pedigree has been used in the past, as though they are "better".

Unfortunately your viewpoint and the opposite one are based hyperthetically. We are not going to have a solution as there simply isn't one. Make it hard for buyers.. drive many to puppy farms. Make it hard for breeders and you discourage many who would be great breeders. The difficulty on both sides is that we are dealing with people and it's not black and white.

I cannot talk about breeder feelings as I am not one. Any breeder who dictates that the dog isn't wholly mine however would be one I would never get a dog from. That's not to say I so not understand the logic behind the idea, simply any dog I have is mine and is my responsibility. If I wasn't prepared to take on that responsibility, I wouldn't be getting the dog. Then again, I am not locked in on getting a specific breed or specific dog so maybe that comes into play as well as I would have many options available. Most buyers do.


----------



## Sarahliz100 (Jan 5, 2014)

ouesi said:


> If that's your attitude, that you can't face your dog aging, then yes, maybe it is better for the dog to go to someone who can face a dog aging, properly care for the dog, and end suffering when it is time instead of prolonging it like so many owners do because they can't handle the thought of putting their dog to sleep.
> 
> This thread has gotten long, and I'm repeating myself here, but it's not just about the breeder saying they'll take the dog back at any time. For one, anyone can say that and when it comes down to it have a slew of reasons why they can't. But also, as you point out, taking a dog back in and of itself is not necessarily going to benefit the dog.
> No, it's not about breeders saying "I'll take the dog back if you ever need me to." That's meaningless.
> ...


Actually this is a good point.

My boy came from a breeder (of spaniel crosses) who at the time I thought was pretty good. I know she has been involved in rehoming some of the dogs she's bred, although there was no formal contract. Initially keen to keep in touch. Replied to all my "oh my gosh he's so cute and clever" emails immediately. Initially helpful when we started having problems (although her advice was all a bit Cesar Millan and I didn't follow it but she meant well). However, once things got more serious with massively OTT resource guarding and I mentioned our behaviourist felt there was a strong genetic element - she stopped replying to my emails. She's gone on to breed from the parents at least once more.

I stopped updating the breeder as I felt my emails were unwelcome. Maybe I should have kept emailing anyway so she knew there were definite issues. This thread (and this post in particular) has highlighted that actually a good breeder should have been very keen to know what was going on as soon as an issue was highlighted, and even more so once they knew it was (or could be) genetic. Keeping up with your puppies owners shouldn't simply be about getting cute pictures and anecdotes to put on your Facebook page.

I wouldn't involve my breeder if I couldn't keep my dog. She might be willing to try to rehome him but I don't have faith it would be done responsibly. And if my boy needed rehoming it would have to be done very carefully. I suspect he would end up PTS and if that happens I should be the one to take him.

What do I think makes a good breeder? Obviously health tests and appropriately selected dam and sire. I do think a good breeder should keep in touch, for the reasons ouesi mentions above. I would expect to be able to make decisions as I see fit for my dog, but would hope that having discussed with breeder during early stages our opinions would be compatible anyway. If it ever came to rehoming then assuming that I had faith in the breeder I would involve them but if I had a suitable home lined up with friends/family I think I would expect them to respect my judgement, especially if we were a good few years down the line. Maybe different if dog is still a young pup and there is the option of them going back to a home they remember.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

If rescues are expected to step up for the dogs they rehome if something goes wrong, then surely the same or similar should be expected of a good breeder, especially in these times of rescue crisis?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Nettles said:


> Oh please!
> Your pretend shock at my comment doesn't wash with me as you know full well what I meant.
> 
> The type of person who returns a beloved pet after 12 years simply because it's getting old is not the type of person who should ever have a pet. It's crystal clear, no two ways about it, black and white, clear cut etc.
> ...


Selfish and heartless...

Or seeing the end in sight for their beloved pet and companion for 12 years and finding it hard to say goodbye...

Not all of us have the strength to be the last thing our dogs see. Not all of us can even find the strength to be the one to take the dog to the vet for the last time. It would be nice to think we all could do that, but those who feel they can't shouldn't be criminalized for it. They have as much right to compassion and sympathy as those who do have that strength, because they've still lost a much loved pet. Whether its them, a friend or relative, or the breeder that takes the dog on its last trip.

I've yet to be in that situation so I don't know if I'll be strong enough to do the right thing. I hope I am, but I don't know. I'd hope that if I came on here in my grief and said I couldn't do it, that I felt guilty for letting my dog down, that people would be more sympathetic than to say "Yeah, you did! How selfish of you!" Which seems to be being implied here.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> Haven't quite finished reading p15, but thought I'd better clarify something.
> 
> I'm the one who mentioned tones in or to posts. It's not about being nicey-nicey, unicorns and their glitter rainbow farts or anything like that, but there's a respectful and disrespectful way to put things that may well be picked up on.
> 
> ...


This is what I was trying to get across, but you said it much more eloquently and understandable than me @LinznMilly :Happy


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

Nettles said:


> I can't say I regret lining a byb's pockets because if I hadn't, I wouldn't have Phoebe and even with all her quirks, I wouldn't change her for the world.. BUT now that I know better, if I was to get another dog, I certainly wouldn't make the same mistake again. I would either rescue or buy from a responsible, ethical breeder who cares about the litters of pups she's sending out into the big bad world.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is, regardless of what way the information has been presented on this thread (harsh and to the point or pink and fluffy) I've learned a great deal and would hope others have too.


This is exactly how I feel @Nettles I feel a bit sheepish for starting this but at the end of the day, I've learned a lot. I also can't really regret buying my dog from what could be considered a less than ethical breeder. I have lovely dogs who, in my eyes, are wonderful. Buuuuut.... I have a lot to think about if I were ever to have another dog and I feel a bit more armed with knowledge and insight if that day ever came.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Aahlly said:


> This is exactly how I feel @Nettles I feel a bit sheepish for starting this but at the end of the day, I've learned a lot. I also can't really regret buying my dog from what could be considered a less than ethical breeder. I have lovely dogs who, in my eyes, are wonderful. Buuuuut.... I have a lot to think about if I were ever to have another dog and I feel a bit more armed with knowledge and insight if that day ever came.


Don't feel sheepish everyone loves a good debate on here 
I also don't regret getting my dogs, they are/were lovely members of my family.
Like you in the future I will carefully consider a breeder before buying a puppy if I chose not to rescue.
But my Lilly has been my saviour, having lost 2 dogs in traumatic circumstances which she survived I could never regret having her in my life.
But I do wish I knew then what I know now.
Please don't feel you shouldn't of started this thread or stop posting any other threads you may want to.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> Selfish and heartless...
> 
> Or seeing the end in sight for their beloved pet and companion for 12 years and finding it hard to say goodbye...
> 
> ...


I would like to think that if a member came on here upset and thinking they couldn't face doing their last act of love for their dog (and their duty to that loyal companion) then so much help and advice would be offered that the member would find the strength to do it. Knowing this forum (and a few others I've belonged to) there would soon be offers flooding in to help, possibly even to go with them if necessary. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the owner absolutely has to be there in person, it could be a close relative or friend or indeed the breeder if they are still in contact but what would be selfish and heartless is to do nothing and let the dog suffer because the owner couldn't face the inevitable end.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> Selfish and heartless...
> 
> Or seeing the end in sight for their beloved pet and companion for 12 years and finding it hard to say goodbye...
> 
> ...


Yes.. Heartless and selfish. In fact, there were many other words I could think of but I wasn't able to use them on a public forum.

Someone who puts their own feelings before the welfare of their dog is IMO uncaring, heartless and selfish.

I also don't understand why you've taken my comment to heart when RPH said EXACTLY the same thing in post #274 yesterday morning. A post which you liked btw. Now just over 24 hours later you've had a major change of heart with your opinion? Or is it just because I said it?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I would like to think that if a member came on here upset and thinking they couldn't face doing their last act of love for their dog (and their duty to that loyal companion) then so much help and advice would be offered that the member would find the strength to do it. Knowing this forum (and a few others I've belonged to) there would soon be offers flooding in to help, possibly even to go with them if necessary. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the owner absolutely has to be there in person, it could be a close relative or friend or indeed the breeder if they are still in contact but what would be selfish and heartless is to do nothing and let the dog suffer because the owner couldn't face the inevitable end.


See, I don't have a problem with that. I agree, letting a dog suffer because you can't fave letting them go is one thing, but calling a grief-stricken owner who can't find that strength to take the dog for that trip thwmaelves, selfish and heartless (like @Nettles is doing), is entirely a different matter.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Nettles said:


> Yes.. Heartless and selfish. In fact, there were many other words I could think of but I wasn't able to use them on a public forum.
> 
> Someone who puts their own feelings before the welfare of their dog is IMO uncaring, heartless and selfish.
> 
> I also don't understand why you've taken my comment to heart when RPH said EXACTLY the same thing in post #274 yesterday morning. A post which you liked btw. Now just over 24 hours later you've had a major change of heart with your opinion? Or is it just because I said it?


Get over yourself! I simply quoted a post that I felt I could respond to. I was no more aware that I was quoting you as I was that I likes a post 24hrs ago!

And just because I like a post, it doesn't mean that I like every single sentence in that post.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

ouesi said:


> A good breeder is going to look slightly different every time. It's how the big picture unfolds for that breeder that puts them more towards the good breeder side of the continuum.


This hits the nail on the head for me - it isn't a black and white issue of good breeders versus bad; it's on a continuum from one extreme to the other with everything inbetween.

Look at health testing. I know someone who breeds a particular small breed for show. They do not health test at all. But then, their breed has no recommended health tests, so does it matter? Then you have rottie breeders who do health test - but they only hip score. Personally this isn't good enough for me, for this particular breed, so I found a breeder who went way over and above this basic minimum. Back to the issue of crossbreeds the same applies - if tests are of value then of course they should be done; but there is no point testing for something just for the hell of it. Same with rearing practices - if I was buying a companion / pet dog of a companion (non-working) breed (say a bichon) there is no way I would get a pup from a breeder who keeps their dogs in kennels. If I were buying a labrador I would want working lines, so I wouldn't rule out kennel reared pups.

As for this whole issue of breeders taking dogs back - as others have said this doesn't have to mean literally! Just being there to assist, or even intervene, if necessary is the sign of a good breeder.

I think the point Blitz raised about not wanting to go to a breeder with the facilities to keep all the pups they produce is misleading. IMO a good breeder does 2 things:

1) They strive to produce pups of sound health and temperament, both through breeding (nature) and rearing (nurture). Health and behaviour problems are common reasons for dogs to be rehomed, so producing quality, happy, healthy, sane pups improves the odds of them staying in their first home.

2) They are careful who they sell those precious pups to. They want to know about your home / lifestyle / experience / reasons for wanting a dog and generally to get to know you and get a feel for you as a person. If they don't feel you can meet their pups' needs, or just get a bad vibe, they won't sell you a pup. Being picky means they increase the odds of selecting suitable people who have the means and the inclination to give their pups a home for life.

The result of these 2 things is that good breeders should rarely find themselves in the position where an owner needs them to take a dog back (or some variation thereof). sure, things change and anyone can find themselves in the awful position of having to give up their pets - but by taking the above precautions they reduce the risks. A good breeder is never likely to get more than one pup returned from a litter.

Back to the original question, regarding the attitude that it is wrong to buy crossbred pups - you should only ever adopt from a rescue, I think this is rubbish. I think no less of crossbreeds than I do of pedigrees, and the rescue crisis exists for both. There are countless rottweilers in rescue; the same could be said for me buying a rottie pup from a breeder when I could have adopted one of those. But I have my reasons for wanting a well bred pup, and I went to a responsible breeder. I won't be guilt tripped because of other peoples mistakes, and nor should anyone else be.

Everyone has different standards that they require of a breeder, and that may vary between breed/type/purpose of dog etc. The crux of it surely is that a good breeder does their best to produce pups that are of good health and temperament, rears them well, keeps their adult dogs in good condition, doesn't breed too many, vets new owners, and takes responsibility for the pups they produce. The finer details - whether they vaccinate, what they charge, pedigree or cross, contract or verbal offer of assistance if needed etc. comes down to personal preference.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> Get over yourself! I simply quoted a post that I felt I could respond to. I was no more aware that I was quoting you as I was that I likes a post 24hrs ago!
> 
> And just because I like a post, it doesn't mean that I like every single sentence in that post.


There was one sentence in the post you liked yesterday  You responded with such distaste today to a comment you liked yesterday! If it isn't personal then I can only assume you've had a major change of heart with your opinions. That's fair enough. I however will get over myself and stand by my opinions that someone who puts their own feelings before the welfare of their dog and who can dump a beloved pet after 12 years is heartless and selfish


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

I wouldn't presume to judge someone else who couldn't take their animal to be PTS; indeed, in the past I have stepped in for owners who couldn't make that final trip. However, in my case I would feel that I had failed my cat or dog if I did not go with them: I am their security, comfort, leader and best friend; I could not abandon them, no matter how much it hurt (and yes, I have been there).


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Nettles said:


> There was one sentence in the post you liked yesterday  You responded with such distaste today to a comment you liked yesterday! If it isn't personal then I can only assume you've had a major change of heart with your opinions. That's fair enough. I however will get over myself and stand by my opinions that someone who puts their own feelings before the welfare of their dog and who can dump a beloved pet after 12 years is heartless and selfish


I wasn't talking about that, though. I wasn't talking about the act of giving up a dog that has gotten old - just because t's gotten old.

I was talking about the actual.final trip of the dog. Taking it to be PTS. If you think it's"selfish and heartless" to be unable to take the dog to the vet yourself instead of getting a friend/relative/breeder WHO KNOWS THE DOG for the lethal stuff then IMHO YOU are the heartless one, because YOU lack compassion for a vulnerable human being.

And I didn't take your post personally I used myself ae an example - there's a difference. But OK. Unless I act exactly as you will approve, I'll make damned sure I suffer my grief in silence when the time comes. Thanks.

Oh, and you are FAR more aware of what I have previously liked and not.liked than I am myself.

I've gone from irritated to annoyed in the space of 2 posts, so I'll be leaving the thread now ... I'll wait til I calm down before I decide whether to add to my ignore list.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> See, I don't have a problem with that. I agree, letting a dog suffer because you can't fave letting them go is one thing, but calling a grief-stricken owner who can't find that strength to take the dog for that trip thwmaelves, selfish and heartless (like @Nettles is doing), is entirely a different matter.


I really don't think @Nettles was saying that, or at least that wasn't how I read her comment which was

"*The type of person who returns a beloved pet after 12 years simply because it's getting old* is not the type of person who should ever have a pet. It's crystal clear, no two ways about it, black and white, clear cut etc.

Why you think relationships, change of jobs, houses and their weight gain has ANY relevance to that is completely beyond me.. but oh please! feel free to explain it to me.

A good breeder would take back that dog and think "*I may have had no way of knowing they were going to be that selfish and heartless after 12 years*, but I f*cked up there and should never have sold them a pup after all. My mistake so I will rectify it"

I think we are saying the same thing but you have interpreted her meaning that the owner must personally take the dog to the vet to be PTS whereas I thought she meant the same as me that even if they couldn't personally do it they would get it done somehow (friend/relative/help from elsewhere) rather than dump it back on the breeder just because it was 12 years old (using miljars example).

Its easy to misunderstand or read in things that weren't said or implied which I think might have happened here


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

What is it about this thread that is making many of us (definitely me included) so touchy?
It's an interesting subject and the offshoots of the subject are also interesting and I think that quite a few of us have learned a lot.

But as to whether or not we take our much-loved family pet to be pts, some of us will feel we must do this and some of us will feel that we just can't do it and will ask a close relative or friend to do it in our place.
But the second choice doesn't make us love our pets less, or heartless in any way.
Just that we all react to the death of a loved one in different ways.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> What is it about this thread that is making many of us (definitely me included) so touchy?
> It's an interesting subject and the offshoots of the subject are also interesting and I think that quite a few of us have learned a lot.
> 
> But as to whether or not we take our much-loved family pet to be pts, some of us will feel we must do this and some of us will feel that we just can't do it and will ask a close relative or friend to do it in our place.
> ...


Like I said above I don't think anyone on here said it did, I think our responses to @miljar's hypothetical situation were just that he (the breeder) should do it if the owner wouldn't as he has an ongoing responsibility to the hypothetical dog which he hypothetically bred and hypothetically sold to a hypothetically heartless git who wanted to dump it just because it was 12 years old, a bit limpy and incontinent.

Or in other words yes I agree we are all getting a bit hot under the collar


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think our responses to @miljar's hypothetical situation were just that he (the breeder) should do it if the owner wouldn't as he has an ongoing responsibility to the hypothetical dog which he hypothetically bred and hypothetically sold to a hypothetically heartless git who wanted to dump it just because it was 12 years old, a bit limpy and incontinent.
> 
> Or in other words yes I agree we are all getting a bit hot under the collar


When you put it like that, it makes complete sense


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I really don't think @Nettles was saying that, or at least that wasn't how I read her comment which was
> 
> "*The type of person who returns a beloved pet after 12 years simply because it's getting old* is not the type of person who should ever have a pet. It's crystal clear, no two ways about it, black and white, clear cut etc.
> 
> ...


Thank you for clarifying that RPH. At no point in any of my replies did I even mention the physical act of taking a dog to be pts. My point from the very start which I reiterated many, many times was dumping a dog because it got old.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> I wasn't talking about that, though. I wasn't talking about the act of giving up a dog that has gotten old - just because t's gotten old.
> 
> I was talking about the actual.final trip of the dog. Taking it to be PTS. If you think it's"selfish and heartless" to be unable to take the dog to the vet yourself instead of getting a friend/relative/breeder WHO KNOWS THE DOG for the lethal stuff then IMHO YOU are the heartless one, because YOU lack compassion for a vulnerable human being.
> 
> ...


Don't dare accuse me of lacking compassion because YOU misread my comments. My point time and time again had nothing at all to do with being pts. YOU have decided that was my opinion. NOT ME! My point time and time again was about dumping a dog because it got old.
So if you want to throw accusations around about how I feel on a subject that isn't being discussed, then I will tell you now, you are wrong!


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Can I clarify for anyone taking @LinznMilly post as fact.. She misread my comments. I did not at any stage say that I have an opinion on someone taking a dog to be pts themselves. My opinion on that is quite the opposite to what is being implied actually.
I will state my opinion again for clarity..
Anyone who DUMPS a dog with the breeder, simply because it is getting old is heartless and selfish.

If you wish to read in to that any differently than those words I have stated, then I can tell you now, you are wrong.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

silvi said:


> What is it about this thread that is making many of us (definitely me included) so touchy?
> It's an interesting subject and the offshoots of the subject are also interesting and I think that quite a few of us have learned a lot.
> 
> But as to whether or not we take our much-loved family pet to be pts, some of us will feel we must do this and some of us will feel that we just can't do it and will ask a close relative or friend to do it in our place.
> ...


I know I've just clarified my take on this but for what it's worth, I just want to point out again that I did not at any stage make those comments and feel very hurt that someone can totally misread what I have said and then state it as fact for others to read.
If a dog is suffering and needs pts, I have an unbelievable amount of compassion for anyone in that situation. I've been in that situation with family pets 4 times and it's the worst feeling in the world. If someone cannot do the dreadful act themselves, I completely understand and I'm genuinely hurt that someone would make out I lack compassion because they misread my posts.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Nettles said:


> I know I've just clarified my take on this but for what it's worth, I just want to point out again that I did not at any stage make those comments and feel very hurt that someone can totally misread what I have said and then state it as fact for others to read.
> If a dog is suffering and needs pts, I have an unbelievable amount of compassion for anyone in that situation. I've been in that situation with family pets 4 times and it's the worst feeling in the world. If someone cannot do the dreadful act themselves, I completely understand and I'm genuinely hurt that someone would make out I lack compassion because they misread my posts.


No need to clarify @Nettles. It has already been done 
But as I said, a lot of us are getting touchy on this thread and we are taking things to heart in some cases too. I know I have.
Don't know if it's the change in the weather or something.....


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

silvi said:


> No need to clarify @Nettles. It has already been done
> But as I said, a lot of us are getting touchy on this thread and we are taking things to heart in some cases too. I know I have.
> Don't know if it's the change in the weather or something.....


Thank you  I just don't like anyone thinking I have such a horrible, heartless opinion.
Don't know if it's the change in weather making others that way but my OH tells me I'm always a miserable b1tch lol


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Does anyone actually know of a case where a dog owner gave a 12 year old geriatric dog back to the breeder? Probably not. So why on earth has this non existent person become the centre of such controversy!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Nettles said:


> Thank you  I just don't like anyone thinking I have such a horrible, heartless opinion.
> Don't know if it's the change in weather making others that way but my OH tells me I'm always a miserable b1tch lol


Liked, but not because of what your OH said


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Does anyone actually know of a case where a dog owner gave a 12 year old geriatric dog back to the breeder? Probably not. So why on earth has this non existent person become the centre of such controversy!


I see plenty of them dumped in rescue tho 
Maybe if those dogs were bred by conscientious breeder then those dogs wouldn't have ended up there.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> I see plenty of them dumped in rescue tho
> Maybe if those dogs were bred by conscientious breeder then those dogs wouldn't have ended up there.


that is dreadful - but are they really put in rescue simply because the owner does not want an old dog. I hope if it was because the owner could not face the visit to the vet then the rescue would not keep them in kennels but would immediately pts. There must be many reasons that older dogs end up in rescue and if it is because of health problems I really do not think they should be there.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

miljar said:


> Would a good breeder be allowed to charge for this service?





rottiepointerhouse said:


> They already did when they sold the puppy.


No, not if it was sold without this "service" being stipulated. If it was a lease, or rental, then that would be different.
If this "service" was offered then, leaving aside any money questions, you could not bitch when someone takes you up on it. If you don't want them to do it then don't offer to help.
It is a situation where, in trying to be "responsible", you could actually end up causing something to happen - something you find abhorrent. Complicated, eh?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

miljar said:


> No, not if it was sold without this "service" being stipulated. If it was a lease, or rental, then that would be different.
> If this "service" was offered then, leaving aside any money questions, you could not bitch when someone takes you up on it. If you don't want them to do it then don't offer to help.
> It is a situation where, in trying to be "responsible", you could actually end up causing something to happen - something you find abhorrent. Complicated, eh?


I haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about


OK, I will try again. 
If you say that you will take a dog back, at any age etc, and then someone actually brings one back - would you have a problem with that?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> that is dreadful - but are they really put in rescue simply because the owner does not want an old dog. I hope if it was because the owner could not face the visit to the vet then the rescue would not keep them in kennels but would immediately pts. There must be many reasons that older dogs end up in rescue and if it is because of health problems I really do not think they should be there.


It is dreadful and very sad. But it does happen, people are fickle creatures and some don't want the hassles that an old dog may bring 
The rescue I follow and support would not keep an old dog alive if the dog was suffering (they also don't kennel their dogs which makes it quite a small rescue in the grand scheme of things). I would hope that none would keep a dog alive for the sake of it, sadly we have all heard the stories of a few using them as a fund raiser


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

miljar said:


> OK, I will try again.
> If you say that you will take a dog back, at any age etc, and then someone actually brings one back - would you have a problem with that?


No.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

all bred by someone

http://www.oldies.org.uk/category/adopt-an-oldie

If only my OH would agree

http://www.oldies.org.uk/2015/timmy-rspca-essex-south-west-branch


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> all bred by someone
> 
> http://www.oldies.org.uk/category/adopt-an-oldie
> 
> ...


If we had the space, I would take any of them in a moment, but I really love Beasley


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No.


Fair Do's. 
Even though the owner was a "heartless git who wanted to dump it just because it was 12 years old, a bit limpy and incontinent".
It would be you, though, that enabled the "heartless git" to take this course of action. That was the point of my first post, the one you struggled to understand.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

miljar said:


> Fair Do's.
> Even though the owner was a "heartless git who wanted to dump it just because it was 12 years old, a bit limpy and incontinent".
> It would be you, though, that enabled the "heartless git" to take this course of action. That was the point of my first post, the one you struggled to understand.


Well it wouldn't be me actually because I wouldn't have bred the dog in the first place but assuming in your hypothetical case I had then if taking responsibility for an animal I purposefully bred and sold for money means I enabled some heartless git to dump it back on me because it was 12 years old and a bit limpy/incontinent then I would consider it an honour and my duty to do the right thing by that dog. That my friend is where we differ and no doubt always will


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Well it wouldn't be me actually


You're spoiling it now. Just when I thought you were a diamond.


----------



## Hanlou (Oct 29, 2012)

Wow, what a thread!

I so agree with @ouesi and @rottiepointerhouse on the subject of rescue dogs - both mine are rescues (one is a Pedigree who was 7 1/2 when we adopted her, the other was hardly even 8 weeks old and is a crossbreed) a and I can tell you now that they are well adjusted, gentle and friendly with no major issues at all. We have families and children asking to fuss them all the time and they love the attention. They are a great advert for rescue dogs.

But the other important factor is that the rescue they are from has a huge mix of dogs - mostly cross breeds but they have dogs of all shapes and sizes and have had puppies in fairly often too. The rescue rehomes to a wide range of people and families and I know they will always be there for me if I need advice etc.

Yes if I was wanting a Pedigree I'd go to a breeder but if I wanted a cross breed I'd go to a rescue.

On the subject of contracts etc - it's interesting as even in the rat world decent breeders offer lifetime back-up. They want to know how their rats are doing and I had emails with questions at various points throughout their lives so they could track the health and temperament of ther lines. And many times I know breeders changed plans from the information they received. The line of rats I had sadly all developed tumours later on in life and so she finished that line altogether. This is not strange, or weird - it's normal......

I know I've said this before but the breeder I was going to get a pup from before Teddy turned up is still in touch with me. She is such a lovely person and she knows her dogs, posts about their successes etc long after they leave her house. This is a good breeder to me!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

miljar said:


> Fair Do's.
> Even though the owner was a "heartless git who wanted to dump it just because it was 12 years old, a bit limpy and incontinent".
> It would be you, though, that enabled the "heartless git" to take this course of action. That was the point of my first post, the one you struggled to understand.


A conscientious breeder will take a dog back at any age and do what they think is best for that dog.

That doesn't preclude the Breeder from having an opinion about the owner if indeed they are "dumping" the dog because it's become limpy and incontinent.

If that were me, I certainly would see the owner as heartless, but that wouldn't stop be from taking the dog, which I had bred, and doing what I could. My feelings, however negative, about the owner, wouldn't stop me from putting the needs of the dog first.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Sweety said:


> A conscientious breeder will take a dog back at any age and do what they think is best for that dog.
> 
> That doesn't preclude the Breeder from having an opinion about the owner if indeed they are "dumping" the dog because it's become limpy and incontinent.
> 
> If that were me, I certainly would see the owner as heartless, but that wouldn't stop be from taking the dog, which I had bred, and doing what I could. My feelings, however negative, about the owner, wouldn't stop me from putting the needs of the dog first.


Fair enough, and I see what you are saying. The dog and the owner are separate entities, and any feelings about one would make no difference to the other.



miljar said:


> It would be you, though, that enabled the "heartless git" to take this course of action.


 What about this bit, though? Do you think that it has any relevance? I suppose that, if they were determined to "get rid" before the end, they could go to rescue, but that seems a lot harsher. This is offering and easy route, and could you blame someone for taking it - especially as you had offered it?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Interesting, has anyone spotted the straw man yet?


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2015)

Sarahliz100 said:


> Actually this is a good point.
> 
> My boy came from a breeder (of spaniel crosses) who at the time I thought was pretty good. I know she has been involved in rehoming some of the dogs she's bred, although there was no formal contract. Initially keen to keep in touch. Replied to all my "oh my gosh he's so cute and clever" emails immediately. Initially helpful when we started having problems (although her advice was all a bit Cesar Millan and I didn't follow it but she meant well). However, once things got more serious with massively OTT resource guarding and I mentioned our behaviourist felt there was a strong genetic element - she stopped replying to my emails. She's gone on to breed from the parents at least once more.


Which goes right back to what I was saying about identifying a good breeder. It's not just if the breeder ticks the right boxes or not. It's about the big picture, what does the breeder DO with the infomation they compile. Are they purposeful in bettering the dogs they produce, their lines, the breed as a whole?
Any breeder can jump through the hoops and tick off boxes, it's wether they are doing it with purpose and genuinely caring about what they're doing that matters.



miljar said:


> OK, I will try again.
> If you say that you will take a dog back, at any age etc, and then someone actually brings one back - would you have a problem with that?


This is such an out of the ordinary hypothetical, I really don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Okay, do I have a problem with those owners who just stop caring for/about a dog because the dog got old. I think that's a horrible attitude in a human to toss away a loved companion just because they got old.

However, if I were the breeder of that dog in question, no, I would not hesitate to take that dog back and show him/her love and kindness in their twilight years. If that means enabling an owner to treat their dog poorly, so be it. The dog is more valuable than the lesson the callous owner probably isn't going to learn anyway.

And let's not forget, even in a huge country like the US, the dog world is *very* small. Word gets out. If you don't do right by your dogs, people are going to find out, and they won't sell you another dog....


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> Interesting, has anyone spotted the straw man yet?


I think it's just old fashioned distraction technique. If we're all focused on the nonexistent 12 year old dog returned to the fictitious breeder who is enabling irresponsible owner behavior, we won't notice yet another litter bred for no other purpose than to make some extra spending money


----------



## Hanlou (Oct 29, 2012)

Relatives of my husband used to breed dogs - Border Collies - they were regularly at Crufts for showing and agility etc. One dog they'd sold to a farmer but they found out it was being mistreated. (I couldn't tell you the specifics) She went and got the dog back - and indeed paid to do so - all that mattered to her was getting that dog back into her safe keeping. And as the dog had issues from the way it had been treated, she kept it for the rest of its life.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

ouesi said:


> This is such an out of the ordinary hypothetical, I really don't know why you keep bringing it up


Yeah, it is getting a bit tired now. Just that, when you think one conversation has drawn to an end, someone come in with another point. It would be rude if you did not respond - and I haven't been here most of the day, so it has been carried by others. I am willing to quit.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2015)

Hanlou said:


> Relatives of my husband used to breed dogs - Border Collies - they were regularly at Crufts for showing and agility etc. One dog they'd sold to a farmer but they found out it was being mistreated. (I couldn't tell you the specifics) She went and got the dog back - and indeed paid to do so - all that mattered to her was getting that dog back into her safe keeping. And as the dog had issues from the way it had been treated, she kept it for the rest of its life.


See stories like this abound...
It would be interesting to have a thread on this sort of thing, but the problem is not only is the dog world small, it's also very judgemental, and many breeders don't want to share their stories of getting their dogs back for fear of being judged for not acting soon enough, acting too soon and overstepping their bounds, not vetting homes carefully enough, not predicting temperament and suitability for a home well enough... It's a minefield!

But bottom line, good breeders take responsibilty for their dogs. It's really that straight forward.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I think it's just old fashioned distraction technique. If we're all focused on the nonexistent 12 year old dog returned to the fictitious breeder who is enabling irresponsible owner behavior, we won't notice yet another litter bred for no other purpose than to make some extra spending money


Indeed, interesting how they always try & shift the focus- I wonder if they also think that rescues encourage owners to give up their dogs by virtue of just existing, ergo providing a convenient repository to take the dogs to.

I wonder if they have ever taken back any of the dogs they've bred, or if they have contracts in place to at least try & protect the dogs from expolitation.

Hell, in for a penny, in for a pound.

I also wonder if they even bother health testing their dogs & whether they have a limit on how many times their bitches are bred.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

miljar said:


> Fair enough, and I see what you are saying. The dog and the owner are separate entities, and any feelings about one would make no difference to the other.
> 
> What about this bit, though? Do you think that it has any relevance? I suppose that, if they were determined to "get rid" before the end, they could go to rescue, but that seems a lot harsher. This is offering and easy route, and could you blame someone for taking it - especially as you had offered it?


If this is an 'easy' route, then yes, I would have offered it, for the sake of the dog.

It isn't about the owner, whether they're uncaring, lazy, tightfisted, whatever, it's about the dog.

Yes, if the Breeder turned the owner and dog away, they could go to rescue. But, the very thought of a pup I had bred ending up in rescue at any point, worse still in old age, would have horrified me.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Sweety said:


> If this is an 'easy' route, then yes, I would have offered it, for the sake of the dog.
> 
> It isn't about the owner, whether they're uncaring, lazy, tightfisted, whatever, it's about the dog.
> 
> Yes, if the Breeder turned the owner and dog away, they could go to rescue. But, the very thought of a pup I had bred ending up in rescue at any point, worse still in old age, would have horrified me.


OK, and fair enough. You are a noble soul.
Been told this is getting samey, which it probably is, and so I wish you a good night.


----------



## Born to Boogie (Oct 1, 2010)

Good breeders all over the country are quietly taking their "puppies" back for all sorts of unforeseen reasons.
No trumpet blowing required.
It's what a caring breeder does, in a heartbeat.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

BVA calls for measures to prevent rogue breeding

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.p...tm_source=Campaign Monitor&utm_term=Read more


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> A lot of people either can't or do not want to rescue. I often look through rescue sites and have yet to see a single dog I would actually want to own. I am sure a lot of people are as fussy as me. And a lot of people are refused by rescues.
> 
> But* if all the less good breeders disappeared then there would not be dogs in rescue and so huge numbers of potential dog owners would never get a dog - *which in some cases might be a blessing of course but a lot of good dog owners would not be able to get another dog.
> 
> I would never deny that there needs to be a lot of education on how to buy a pup but I still think that the aspirations of a few on here (that are then parroted by the less knowledgeable) are not sustainable and that sights need to be lowered to the well reared pet litters.


Sadly - there will ALWAYS be dogs in rescue - accidental (truly accidental) litters; dogs whose owners have died, or are too ill to look after them; dogs who are the victims of relationship/marital breakdowns; dogs who are the victims of cruelty and abuse; dogs which have got lost, were stolen and dumped, or have strayed; dogs whose families have moved abroad or into homes where they are no longer allowed a pet; dogs which truly can't settle into a family because of a child or another pet; dogs which have lost their cuteness as far as their owners are concerned; dogs that don't make the grade as working dogs (e.g. farm dogs); dogs whose "useful" lives are short e.g. greyhounds; and dogs whose misfortune is just to have been bought by a [email protected]

I don't think that keeping dogs "affordable" is a valid reason for "allowing" BYBs - it would break my heart not to have a dog - but surely that is better, from the dogs' perspective, than have the unbearable suffering that goes on day after day just so that a few people can line their pockets? Cruelty can never be justified. And if dogs were harder to obtain, perhaps people would value them more and take care of them better. Of course, idiots and tossers will always exist . . .

I know where you are coming from Blitz - I know you aren't advocating bad breeding, and I absolutely agree with you that many well-reared pet litters are wonderful healthy, happy pets (possibly healthier and of better temperament than some show animals), but I still can't condone the loose and thoughtless breeding that is filling the rescues to bursting and leading to beautiful, healthy, loving dogs being destroyed in their thousands every year. I wish I knew what the answer was - how to control the breeding and import of helpless puppies and kittens to be dumped onto a thoughtless market, in a culture where animals are expendable accessories rather than family members. I just don't know how it can be controlled, but I know we have to try.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> BVA calls for measures to prevent rogue breeding
> 
> http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/146239/34/watchdog_expos__prompts_call_for_tougher_action_on_rogue_breeders?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Dog+World+newsletter+232+Oct+15&utm_content=Dog+World+newsletter+232+Oct+15+CID_00b6ba10d8a3aa69f1c50a32ef74565e&utm_source=Campaign Monitor&utm_term=Read more


About time - but why has it taken so long when these vile practices have been common knowledge for decades?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

lostbear said:


> I know where you are coming from Blitz - I know you aren't advocating bad breeding, and I absolutely agree with you that many well-reared pet litters are wonderful healthy, happy pets (possibly healthier and of better temperament than some show animals), but I still can't condone the loose and thoughtless breeding that is filling the rescues to bursting and leading to beautiful, healthy, loving dogs being destroyed in their thousands every year. I wish I knew what the answer was - how to control the breeding and import of helpless puppies and kittens to be dumped onto a thoughtless market, in a culture where animals are expendable accessories rather than family members. I just don't know how it can be controlled, but I know we have to try.


What I am against is the people on here that are anti ANY breeding that does not totally conform with their ideals. obviously puppy farming and dealing is abhorrent and I fail to see why it is so difficult to outlaw - but there are thousands of litters inbetween the two that are supplying the average sensible and responsible pet owner yet according to the few on here they are tarred with the same brush as the most dreadful puppy farm. I am counting those that keep their bitches at home in poor conditions and churn out litters as puppy farms by the way (or maybe BYB in the true sense of the term).

I was tongue in cheek over the rescue situation as obviously it will never happen but IF the few on here got there way then there would only be breeders that took their puppies back so there would not be a rescue situation at all. Anyone wanting a 'rescue' dog would merely put their name down with a breeder for a returned dog. And most good pet owners would not have a dog as there would not be enough to go around.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> BVA calls for measures to prevent rogue breeding
> 
> http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/146239/34/watchdog_expos__prompts_call_for_tougher_action_on_rogue_breeders?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Dog+World+newsletter+232+Oct+15&utm_content=Dog+World+newsletter+232+Oct+15+CID_00b6ba10d8a3aa69f1c50a32ef74565e&utm_source=Campaign Monitor&utm_term=Read more


I really do not understand why nothing has been done about it. What difference does the Watchdog programme make. There have been plenty of other undercover films about puppy farming and I am sure everyone involved with dogs is aware of what goes on. Surely keeping dogs like that has to be illegal, are they all masons or something!

I bought my first standard poodle from a show breeder who answered all the right questions, offered back up, sent me a book on clipping and altogether seemed fine. When I got the puppy home I realised she was full of worms and she kept breaking out in skin abcesses and was antibiotics for ages. I was not happy but she was clean, had her baby puppy clip and seemed well fed. Anyway a couple of years later he was advertising two unregistered puppies very cheaply. I was looking for a second dog and my poodle had a wonderful temperament and did well at companion shows and was a brilliant pet so I thought I would give him a ring. We chatted for a while and one or two things he said had me more than worried so I thanked him and decided against a pup. I phoned the SSPCA who said that where he lived was not covered by them (I had never realised that some areas were not covered) and gave me the number of the society that looked after it. I gave them my concerns and they went to visit him, told me that the conditions were not ideal but he had promised to improve. About a year later the SSPCA took over and immediately took away all his dogs and he was later prosecuted and banned from keeping dogs. It turned out he had 2 premises a couple of hundred miles apart and he alternated where he lived, 3 days in each. He kept the dogs in the house in rooms in age groups and put down food for 3 days at a time. A lot of the dogs had dreadful eye and ear infections and some needed surgery - but apparently every one of them had a wonderful temperament and were rehomed as soon as they were fit.

I know he was bad but surely no worse than a lot of so called puppy farms - so why are they not closed down. Are politics involved.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I would be tempted to think that the reason nothing is done against the majority of puppy farms is "politics" at the local council level. Know the right people in the right places and a license becomes more easily available. Especially in areas where other other employment may be an issue. I think anyone who thinks this never happens is deluding themselves.


----------



## BrackenFlight (Mar 9, 2015)

I always liked pedigrees because I knew roughly what I would be getting. Saying that however, I am considering a mutt right now as a second dog...


----------

