# breeders not keeping a puppy from litter. .



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Do you think it's wrong to breed if the breeder isn't keeping a puppy? Or not having a puppy this time over but next instead?


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

I don't think its wrong not to keep a puppy.....For example they might be all pet quality and not quite right to show or there may not be the gender a breeder wants.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

No I don't believe they can be expected to keep a pup every time.

Chester was a singleton... Perhaps his breeder wanted a bitch


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Not always no, but my preference would be to keep a pup back from any litter I bred. I can't see why I would need to breed any more, and don't want to risk my dogs to be perfectly honest, breeding what would end up as nice quality pet dogs for people who at the most, would want to dabble with showing and possibly working their dogs.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Just asking as it just popped into my head that Pippa's breeder didn't keep a puppy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

dandogman said:


> Just asking as it just popped into my head that Pippa's breeder didn't keep a puppy.


True, but she may be interested in buying a pup back from Pippa, so for some breeders, even though they may not keep a pup, they may have it in mind to buy back in from something from their lines if they get the chance.

There are too many people who just churn out and sell pups, I got the BRS for gundogs today for Spring 2013, and the numbers of litters from some kennels for a three month window just stinks. There is no need to breed 4 or 5 litters every quarter.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

I don't keep something back from every litter I have to choose very carefully who I keep back but if I kept something out of every litter id soon become over run.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> True, but she may be interested in buying a pup back from Pippa, so for some breeders, even though they may not keep a pup, they may have it in mind to buy back in from something from their lines if they get the chance.
> 
> There are too many people who just churn out and sell pups, I got the BRS for gundogs today for Spring 2013, and the numbers of litters from some kennels for a three month window just stinks. There is no need to breed 4 or 5 litters every quarter.


Wow, that's insane!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Yes it is, and then you look at other breeds, and realise they've bred a number of litters from those as well. Puppy farmers with an affix basically.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

I had 2 bitches have 1 litter each for two years,so 4 litters born.Not one of those litters had a girl in it,so didn't keep any, then I didn't breed for 2 years.I ended up waiting nearly 4 years for a bitch.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Chuff!! I'm pretty bl**dy lucky that I got exactly what I wanted from one litter!! She's not perfect, but to be honest, I'm not sure I want her to be, I quite like her ratbag status


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

The last 2 litters Dans breeder has had she's fully intended on keeping a bitch pup back, on the first litter 2 of the bitches died (one faded and one was suffocated by mum), then in Dans again a bitch faded, and she felt she couldn't turn away anyone on her waiting list so she still hasn't got a new bitch for her lines.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

No, not at all. If you don't get the pup you were hoping for (and you would just KNOW this) then cash them in and try again.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

miljar said:


> No, not at all. If you don't get the pup you were hoping for (and you would just KNOW this) t*hen cash them in* and try again.


I would hope that most breeders don't think of it in *quite* those terms....


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

i'm planning a litter from kuki this year, and i probably won't be keeping a pup. but i am hoping at least one pup of quality will go to someone who wishes to show and Possibly breed- but of course the stipulations that would go with this would be immense! my hope had been to see how the litter turned out and then repeat the mating next year, but her seasons haven't closed up at all, and i feel she would be too old next year.. so instead, i'm hoping to then either buy a pup back off one of my shown pups, or IF i do breed poppet (the bitch i kept from her other litter- too large to show  ) do a 'trial' litter, then see about keeping a pup back. but considering yorkies average at 2-4 pups, this will hardly flood the pet market- not the way i home My pups anyway!

there is a huge difference though IMO between doing this, and breeding litter after litter with no aim other than to fund a holiday, or earn the dogs keep- such reasons do make my blood boil. 
i'm not pretending that i don't love raising pups, but i'll satisfy that between my litters by 'renting out' my puppy nursery to rescue bitches and queens in need of a maternity room :blushing: can't think of any better use for it!

(eta)


Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I would hope that most breeders don't think of it in *quite* those terms....


i cry Every time a puppy leaves me- any breeder who sees it as 'cashing in' doesn't deserve the honour of raising a litter imo- and can't be doing it properly if thats their view!


----------



## I love springers (Dec 3, 2010)

We bred a litter and kept a puppy back as i wanted another one to show....we run her on till she was 7mths old but sadly she wasn't going to be good enough to show....she like all my other pups have fantastic homes and i get text messages and emails about them all the time...I have had 3 pups back to visit me in the last 4wks....I am committed to these pups for life as it was my decision to let my girl have them.. 

I would only breed if i really wanted another pup for myself but sometimes things don't go to plan..


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

No not at all. If they are breeding good dogs from health tested parents then they are supplying a demand and far better than people having to go to PF's or BYB's for a pup.

Although I do think some take it too far. In the Summer 2012 BRS there is a kennel who had registered *three* litters then another *four* in Autumn 2012 then another *six* in Winter 2012 litters of Husky's. That to me is breeding for capital gain and nothing else and shouldn't be allowed! Others in the breed registering two and three litters at a time too.
They don't seem to have anything mentioned about showing or working. Looking through the parentage on KC test finder - no health tests either!  I could go back trough previous BRS's but will just get more annoyed at this kennel, there is no way they can keep in touch with the owners of so many puppies, I don't care what anyone says, just not possible!

Is it any wonder there are now so many Husky's about when breeding to this extent? 
Sireniki Snow Dogs - Home


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I think you have to remember with some kennels, they take the opportunity when it's out of season, so working dogs and those who compete at a certain time of year, to breed, and perhaps may have three litters listed, but may also be keeping a pup back from each, it's just *that's* how it's worked out. So when I look at the BRS I like to look at a few years, to try and build up a picture of who's registering what. But as you say, when you see them regularly registering three or four litters (or more) every single time, really they are just breeding for financial gain. One flatcoat breeder actually went on record in one of the shooting magazines to say that she bred (in part) to pay the mortgage, and this is a *supposedly* well thought of kennel.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I would only have a litter when I want to run a pup on - however - as the breeder establishes themselves - what they keep / show / breed must be better than what they've had before - it is futile keeping pups that don't offer the required potential - but in the same breath - these pups may make excellent foundation dogs for someone new to a breed.



Malmum said:


> Although I do think some take it too far. In the Summer 2012 BRS there is a kennel who had registered *three* litters then another *four* in Autumn 2012 then another *six* in Winter 2012 litters of Husky's. That to me is breeding for capital gain and nothing else and shouldn't be allowed! Others in the breed registering two and three litters at a time too


That is ONE kennel where you've substantiated your comments by saying how you've gone on to check how and what they breed and have struggled to find anything positive about what they are doing  and sadly, I'm sure they are not an isolated example.

However - there are long term established breeders who may have waiting lists to keep them going for a number of years from prospective pet and show owners across the globe (yes, there are people who go to the expense of importing solely pets from the UK).

Within those litters - they are frequently fortunate to be able to keep a few pups from each which will go on to show - some of those pups may eventually end up as UK or overseas champions.

I'm merely pointing out generally (I quoted you because you went on to substantiate your claims) that whilst there will be breeders like the one you describe - there will be many more who are good breeders and do have the capacity to keep 1 or more pups from a number of litters close together.

Also - when a breeder runs on just even a couple of bitches - assuming they are all suitable to breed from - it is pretty much inevitable that there will come a point whereby because of seasons and breeding windows - it will be necessary to mate more than one at the same time - I've known of people mate two or three bitches and none of them catch - mated the same bitches on their next season (frequently entire bitches living together synch their seasons) and all of the bitches have caught

Personally - I couldn't cope with more than one litter at a time - but there are others who cope admirably.

After a dearth of puppies and breeding in our home - we've now brought in a young bitch from fantastic breeding lines - and also got shared ownership in another bitch also from fantastic breeding lines who lives with a friend - I've also brought in a boy from the same litter as the second bitch.

There is literally weeks between the girls and it's pretty much inevitable that at some point - these girls may well have litters around the same time - the only difference is - I'm fortunate that one lives with me and the other with a close friend.

I could however have done things the other way around and had the two bitches here and sent the dog we've brought in (litter sister to one of the girls) to my friend.

Season intervals in Labs can vary from 4/5 months up to 18 months + so some bitches offer much smaller breeding windows than others.

If we both ran a bitch on from these litters - hey presto - suddenly we have four bitches between us who could potentially end up having litters around the same time - even taking a MAX of two litters out of a bitch - it's not difficult to see how suddenly a single small scale breeder could be seen to be having a number of litters close together - but then they may not have any more for 2 to 3 years +++.

I recognise there are breeders who do breed more litters than others - however, as above, some will be established kennels with a high demand for their pups and the capacity to keep several good pups.

Then there are commercial breeders who strive to bring in dogs from the best breeding (often at substantial sums of money) -and run their kennel as a business - what sets them apart from puppy farmers is how the dogs are kept and raised and the fact they use all the mandatory and recommended health schemes on their dogs prior to breeding.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

dandogman said:


> Do you think it's wrong to breed if the breeder isn't keeping a puppy? Or not having a puppy this time over but next instead?


nope. I only breed when I want a pup to show . Have only once had a litter and let them all go simply because they weren't good enough imo to show . although on paper they should have been ! I'm not one who would keep a bitch pup for breeding later on if its not good enough to show.


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

Cat breeder but...

Every mating I do is with the hopes of keeping something back, I'm breeding to improve the breed not just produce pets. 
Now not every litter will have something I want to keep or in the right colour & sex, but that's the aim.
I don't see the point in breeding without hoping for the next show & breeding cat. If I don't need to keep something from that girl she'd be desexed and removed from my program.
No problem with overcrowding as girls are retired to make room for the next generation.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

spotty cats said:


> Cat breeder but...
> 
> Every mating I do is with the hopes of keeping something back, I'm breeding to improve the breed not just produce pets.
> Now not every litter will have something I want to keep or in the right colour & sex, but that's the aim.
> ...


This ^ indeed!


----------



## reallyshouldnotwearjods (Nov 19, 2012)

Out of 3 litters I kept 1 bitch to continue from, and was going to put her in for the 4th and last - but I cant find the right dog so thats it no more litters for us x

but who's business is it what a breeder does with the pups?
is there some ancient law saying a pup must be kept each time?

I would have 5 dogs then by this rote!! blimey x


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

reallyshouldnotwearjods said:


> Out of 3 litters I kept 1 bitch to continue from, and was going to put her in for the 4th and last - but I cant find the right dog so thats it no more litters for us x
> 
> but who's business is it what a breeder does with the pups?
> is there some ancient law saying a pup must be kept each time?
> ...


No, but the concern is that some breeders churn out litters from every season a bitch has just about, and perhaps keep back a bitch simply to breed from, not because it's an improvement. I personally wouldn't go down that route, and the people I know who intentionally breed a litter without the aim of keeping a pub back necessarily, do so from proven, health tested stock. I'm sure if a pup really took their fancy, they'd possibly keep it back, but the intention is merely to sell all the pups from that litter.

For some people that isn't acceptable, I'd rather see well bred pups from health tested parents out there, but it's not for me personally. I wouldn't want the responsibility, or the work of staying in touch with all the puppy owners and ensuring I could always provide back up for pups I'd bred.


----------



## reallyshouldnotwearjods (Nov 19, 2012)

but if there is not a pup that makes the grade then why should they if their soul purpose is to breed the best, some blood lines have taken years to create, and I am sure quite a few have fallen by the weyside. 

There are people who breed litters to sell, not for a purpose, why not?


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

I personally don't have a problem with it, as long as the breeder isn't effectually a puppy farmer.

I know many people who breed without keeping a pup back for whatever personal circumstances/inclination and depending on what they have in their kennel at that time.

If all goes well with my youngest and she proves herself in competition in the coming future I'll be having a litter from her in about two years, but with no intention of keeping a pup - I just won't have time at that point to train one up.

That view might not sit well with some but then again I'll only ever breed from a bitch if she's worth it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

reallyshouldnotwearjods said:


> but if there is not a pup that makes the grade then why should they if their soul purpose is to breed the best, some blood lines have taken years to create, and I am sure quite a few have fallen by the weyside.
> 
> There are people who breed litters to sell, not for a purpose, why not?


I'm not saying they should, what I am saying is that the difference for me between people who are simply in it for the cash no matter what, wouldn't consider keeping a pup back. Where as a breeder who possibly hasn't wanted to keep a pup back from a particular litter, would be more inclined to change their minds *if* something very nice came of that litter and screamed the sort of top quality they aspired to breed and show/compete with, and was too tempting to let go.

It's difficult though, as out of Tau's litter, those who showed most promise for showing as youngsters, have grown up very different, and are now the least likely show prospect. The largest, chunkiest chocolate bitch who I thought would be too substantial for my tastes, is actually more like Tau than Zasa at the same age, but Zasa is what I wanted, with the improvements I wanted. The best prospect out of the litter so far is the other black bitch that I liked, and I'm sure more experienced breeders when planning a litter where they aren't going to keep a pup back for whatever reason, are much more likely to know the direction pups may go in from their past experiences.


----------



## reallyshouldnotwearjods (Nov 19, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not saying they should, what I am saying is that the difference for me between *people who are simply in it for the cash no matter what, wouldn't consider keeping a pup back. Where as a breeder who possib*ly hasn't wanted to keep a pup back from a particular litter, would be more inclined to change their minds *if* something very nice came of that litter and screamed the sort of top quality they aspired to breed and show/compete with, and was too tempting to let go.
> 
> It's difficult though, as out of Tau's litter, those who showed most promise for showing as youngsters, have grown up very different, and are now the least likely show prospect. The largest, chunkiest chocolate bitch who I thought would be too substantial for my tastes, is actually more like Tau than Zasa at the same age, but Zasa is what I wanted, with the improvements I wanted. The best prospect out of the litter so far is the other black bitch that I liked, and I'm sure more experienced breeders when planning a litter where they aren't going to keep a pup back for whatever reason, are much more likely to know the direction pups may go in from their past experiences.


but again why not, as long as they are health checked, kept nicely and bred well, why cant it be about the cash, people breed horses (other animals) for this purpose all the time x


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

reallyshouldnotwearjods said:


> but again why not, as long as they are health checked, kept nicely and bred well, why cant it be about the cash, people breed horses (other animals) for this purpose all the time x


The primary goal should never be the money, particularly not with dogs being put to sleep at the rate they are, and horses for that matter, or any animal. Yes, some breeders will make a profit on a litter, and possibly a loss on another, but if you're talking breeding for profit as a primary goal then that to me is simply unethical. It's a gamble as to whether you end up in the black or the red, if a bitch only has a couple of pups, or a c-section, you might lose pups, bitch or both, but churning out so many pups on a regular basis to make a living off it just isn't something I could ever agree with. If you end up on the black side instead of the red side and it all goes back into the lifestyle of dogs and showing, training, breeding, fair enough, but that to me is different than churning out pups to fund your lifestyle of holidays, cars, houses etc.

Simply put, it's unethical to me to risk the lives of bitches and pups so you can get as much cash as possible. Yes, there is a grey area where it's more/less acceptable to some as to just how many litters people don't keep a pup back from, but for me, although I don't expect a breeder to keep a pup from every litter, it's still not acceptable to simply churn pups out at a rate of knots and breed the maximum from every bitch, or allow their dog(s) to cover bitches that aren't up to scratch with health tests at least in place.


----------



## reallyshouldnotwearjods (Nov 19, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The primary goal should never be the money, particularly not with dogs being put to sleep at the rate they are, and horses for that matter, or any animal. Yes, some breeders will make a profit on a litter, and possibly a loss on another, but if you're talking breeding for profit as a primary goal then that to me is simply unethical. It's a gamble as to whether you end up in the black or the red, if a bitch only has a couple of pups, or a c-section, you might lose pups, bitch or both, but churning out so many pups on a regular basis to make a living off it just isn't something I could ever agree with. If you end up on the black side instead of the red side and it all goes back into the lifestyle of dogs and showing, training, breeding, fair enough, but that to me is different than churning out pups to fund your lifestyle of holidays, cars, houses etc.
> 
> Simply put, it's unethical to me to risk the lives of bitches and pups so you can get as much cash as possible. Yes, there is a grey area where it's more/less acceptable to some as to just how many litters people don't keep a pup back from, but for me, although I don't expect a breeder to keep a pup from every litter, it's still not acceptable to simply churn pups out at a rate of knots and breed the maximum from every bitch, or allow their dog(s) to cover bitches that aren't up to scratch with health tests at least in place.


But not everyone who breeds to earn is 'churning' out litters, nor does this make it unethical, 'unsavoury' to some but not unethical. I brought a laptop with the proceeds made from my pups (bearing in mind they were only £150 each and I gave 3 away to good homes) as thats what I was able to do, please note however the litter was not done so I could afford it x

A friend of mine breeds Chihuahuas, she sells them for £500 a pup, she has 4 bitches and 1 litter a year (as they take a while to mature they stay longer with her) she will be going on holiday with the proceeds from them x


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

reallyshouldnotwearjods said:


> But not everyone who breeds to earn is 'churning' out litters, nor does this make it unethical, 'unsavoury' to some but not unethical. I brought a laptop with the proceeds made from my pups (bearing in mind they were only £150 each and I gave 3 away to good homes) as thats what I was able to do, please note however the litter was not done so I could afford it x
> 
> A friend of mine breeds Chihuahuas, she sells them for £500 a pup, she has 4 bitches and 1 litter a year (as they take a while to mature they stay longer with her) she will be going on holiday with the proceeds from them x


That depends on what your definition of churning out litters is. Breeding an occasional extra litter I don't have a problem with. Breeding as many litters, or more litters to sell than you would keep a pup back from, I simply don't agree with.

I take it your friend is aware of SM in chihuahua's? Because if she has to start doing MRI scans that will cut into her profit margins, and no, I'm afraid I couldn't agree with that sort of breeding, it doesn't sit right with me at all.

Having said that, I would still prefer to see someone who health tests AT LEAST breeding litters, than even worse breeders being supported. But while everyone is carrying on churning out litters because they believe they have a God given right to and they want to make a bit of money, I think they should visit their local vets and perhaps be made to put down a healthy dog that can't find a home, because their breeders thought the same.

Sounds harsh, but it's just how I feel I'm afraid.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

Regarding money from litters,

The way I see it as all through the year you are putting money into a little pot that pot being a queen/bitch for food,cat litter,vet stuff,raising a litter,vaccinations,chipping,regestering,etc.Testing.

Then at the end when you sell pups or kits you get all your money back in one sum like taking your money out of your piggy bank.This is if you break even mind.

I have actually lost out due to c section and small litter but you take the rough with the smooth.

And if im honest my last litter bought me a new bed.


----------



## reallyshouldnotwearjods (Nov 19, 2012)

we love bsh's said:


> Regarding money from litters,
> 
> The way I see it as all through the year you are putting money into a little pot that pot being a queen/bitch for food,cat litter,vet stuff,raising a litter,vaccinations,chipping,regestering,etc.Testing.
> 
> ...


^^^^^ this is what I was trying to say x


----------



## Skandi (May 4, 2012)

Why on earth shouldn't breeding be a business? so long as the animals are well cared for any any tests are carried out then I really do not see why breeders should be doing it for some altruistic reason!
Reading some of the replies on here people seem to think that making any form of financial gain on a animal is somehow wrong. Doing something for a profit does not mean you have to cut any corners, yes some will, but others won't same as anything.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Skandi said:


> Why on earth shouldn't breeding be a business? so long as the animals are well cared for any any tests are carried out then I really do not see why breeders should be doing it for some altruistic reason!
> Reading some of the replies on here people seem to think that making any form of financial gain on a animal is somehow wrong. Doing something for a profit does not mean you have to cut any corners, yes some will, but others won't same as anything.


Because as fast as we're breeding dogs, they are being put to sleep. Or doesn't it bother you that there are thousands of dogs, cats, horses all unwanted being put to sleep. And as fast as they're taking their last breath, someone somewhere thinks it's ok to breed a litter of pups, kittens, etc to fund their annual holiday.

The thought of it actually makes me feel physically sick that people are willing to turn a blind eye.


----------



## Skandi (May 4, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because as fast as we're breeding dogs, they are being put to sleep. Or doesn't it bother you that there are thousands of dogs, cats, horses all unwanted being put to sleep. And as fast as they're taking their last breath, someone somewhere thinks it's ok to breed a litter of pups, kittens, etc to fund their annual holiday.
> 
> The thought of it actually makes me feel physically sick that people are willing to turn a blind eye.


But it's ok to breed a possible 12 puppies because the breeder wants to keep 1?

well those 11 others can take their chances then I guess. again if the breeder is finding homes or there is demand, (which if you want to make a profit there would have to be) there is NO difference having a litter becasue you want to keep one and having one becasue you want to sell all.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Skandi said:


> But it's ok to breed a possible 12 puppies because the breeder wants to keep 1?
> 
> well those 11 others can take their chances then I guess. again if the breeder is finding homes or there is demand, (which if you want to make a profit there would have to be) there is NO difference having a litter becasue you want to keep one and having one becasue you want to sell all.


The difference is in the aim of breeding the litter, which you're succinctly missed out. They haven't bred a litter to sell all the pups and make as much money as possible. They've bred a litter to hopefully keep a pup back to breed on from themselves in the future, that is an improvement on the parent(s), they will mot likely show, work or compete with in some way in an effort to make a valid contribution to their chosen breed(s).

There is a HUGE difference between having a litter because you want to improve what you've got, hopefully prove that with the next generation, and the one after that, and are willing to never make a penny in the process but if at one point you appear to be cash rich, inbetween the showing, competing, health tests etc, that is a very slight bonus.

So far I've spent probably about £700 showing my dogs this year alone, I've got a £1k health testing bill for the two youngsters (not to mention another operation for Indie who's never had a litter in her life but has got more health tests than most Labs), I'll probably spend another £700 at least showing and working them, and also competing with them this year. Ok, so some breeds don't have as many health tests but generally speaking, it is not possible to make a large enough profit from dog breeding unless you are cutting corners or breeding too many pups too frequently. You might occasionally as I've said, be cash rich, but in reality you will have churned in as much, if not more than what's in the pot.

If you're happy with the thought of dogs dying while you're sat sunning yourself on a beach somewhere that's fine. I'm not, and that's how I view it I'm afraid.


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

I don't understand why it's considered such a "bad" thing if money is made from a litter (and no, I'm not going to state the obvious regarding puppy farmers or those who use their bitches as cash cows).

Plenty of people make money from litters: people who use their own stud dogs, breeders who already have all their whelping equipment, people who've already health-tested their bitch and are doing a second or third mating, people who use a friend's stud dog and pay a reduced/zero fee etc etc.

Why is it such a bad thing to accept reality? How is any of the above in any way unethical? Why are people then breeding pet quality puppies with only a slight potential in making any headway in their chosen breed if there are so many other dogs dying?

Yes, people breed healthy, tested litters with no intention of keeping pups; yes, established _good_ breeders (with all the necessary health tests in place) do make money out of litters; yes, there are dogs being PTS as a result of over-full rescues, but how has making money on a litter got anything to do with that? If one wants to make a realistic impact on the rescue situation, get a rescue dog, help out at a rescue centre, don't breed litters at all - this has nothing to do with keeping a pup or not when breeding.

The taboo regarding money when still employing good breeding practice is frankly ridiculous.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Well I do think if your primary aim is to make money from a dog then there is something wrong with your aims. If your primary aim is to prove your dogs are a nice example of the breed, and you spend money campaigning that dog or dogs, at whatever your chosen field is, and you are successful, and you perhaps (as I've said above but will repeat it again) end up at times cash rich, because let's face it, how many people who do *something* with their dogs and breed, are often out of pocket while they pay for the next lot of show entries, joining clubs and societies, petrol driving all over the place, health tests etc. Then fair enough, after all of Tau's pups had gone to their new homes, I had £3,000 in cash in the draw of the kitchen dresser, but in reality, I'd already spent that and a lot more!! 

But if you want to make money from dogs from breeding them, then I simply don't agree. I'm not saying my opinion is right and others are wrong, but whilst dogs are being killed as fast as they're being bred, I simply don't see the need to produce massive amounts of dogs on an individual basis, when you only need to produce very few pups in reality to keep what you like going on. 

I couldn't breed more litters than those where I would breed to keep back a pup, and I wouldn't want to own a stud dog, there are too many of them being over used with not a high enough criteria for bitches, just the bare minimum of health testing. Yes, there are a lot worse out there, but that doesn't excuse breeding dogs to support your lifestyle, I prefer to have a job and use that to support what I want to do with my dogs.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

Loving some of these replys 

A business makes money..breeding *doesnt*..not if you are doing it properly.

The only 'breeders' who profit are back yard breeders qwho cut corners,dont buy registered stock so cheaper to buy..sell kits at 8 weeks so no vaccinations to pay for or chip,thats 4 weeks less food they have to buy than I do,feed whiskers crap! as where we feed high grade raw feed.No registering fees as parents arnt registered so kits cant be registered.

You are lucky if you break even breeding the right way.Its true believe me.


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

I never mentioned anything about primary aims being monetarily inclined. 

What I'm trying to say is that there are very well respected breeders out there who take litters with no intention of keeping pups, but with the full knowledge that money will probably be made from said litter. The difference is they don't hide this fact or make it their "guilty secret" - why should they?

They're breeding to continue their line/produce puppies for a consumer market/whatever the reason - they are from health-tested, proven (in many cases) parents, going to carefully vetted homes. And yes, on some litters there is financial gain and that money is spent in whatever way they choose.

Making enough money to support a lifestyle, however, is another conversation entirely.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

shamykebab said:


> I never mentioned anything about primary aims being monetarily inclined.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that there are very well respected breeders out there who take litters with no intention of keeping pups, but with the full knowledge that money will probably be made from said litter. The difference is they don't hide this fact or make it their "guilty secret" - why should they?
> 
> ...


Once again a good breeder does not profit from breeding.

Ok you add up £5 of raw feed per day for one year just then we add to that tinned meat daily £5 a week,£10per week tuna/sardines.£100 every couple of months on dry feed. And this is just to feed my adults,extra when weve got kits,cat litter £10 per week.

£60 at least on testing each cat before breeding,registration fees,showing fees £50 per show.Vaccinations £50 per cat/kitten.

I 100% don't profit hand on heart.

Why do I do it then?..i enjoy it I feel a buzz to go to a show and one of my home bred cats winning another cat,great feeling.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

People want puppies, and will always want pups. I'd much rather see an accredited breeder satisfying this demand than puppy farmers. If breeders who do things properly because of the number of dogs in rescues don't breed, guess who the puppy buyers will turn to? 

We can try and educate people against puppy farmers but unless there's an adequate supply of well bred pups then they have nowhere else to go. 

As long as each bitch is not overbred then I do mind seeing it as a business. Breeders like this make their dogs their life. It's not for me - if I breed it will be one litter to keep a pup back, but I do not see people breeding on a bigger scale as adding to the number of dogs in rescue (as long as they sell good quality pups to the right people). They are competition for the puppy farms, and enough of them would help put puppy farms out of business! 

One pet hate of mine is someone with a bitch who's so so, and who mates it to a champion stud thinking good quality pups will result. Whether a one off breeder, or a kennel breeding from a number of bitches, there has got to be something special about the bitch to breed from her. And not just because she's a nice pet dog.


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

we love bsh's said:


> Once again a good breeder does not profit from breeding.
> 
> Ok you add up £5 of raw feed per day for one year just then we add to that tinned meat daily £5 a week,£10per week tuna/sardines.£100 every couple of months on dry feed. And this is just to feed my adults,extra when weve got kits,cat litter £10 per week.
> 
> ...


*Sigh*. You're combining basic animal husbandry and the cost of your hobby - that isn't the price of just breeding. I'm talking about making money on an individual litter.

It might be different in the cat world but there are plenty of genuinely good, decent breeders in the dog world who do make a profit on some of their litters.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shamykebab said:


> I never mentioned anything about primary aims being monetarily inclined.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that there are very well respected breeders out there who take litters with no intention of keeping pups, but with the full knowledge that money will probably be made from said litter. The difference is they don't hide this fact or make it their "guilty secret" - why should they?
> 
> ...


And I never said that it's black and white, there are breeders who I know who do breed litters and don't keep a pup back always, I don't agree with them always, yes, I can see that sometimes it's good to get a litter out there, and you never know whether it might be useful to buy back in from something with your breeding in the future. I know I've discussed with Rhuna's breeder so that we can possibly, if we both breed from the bitch pups out of her litter, choose complimentary lines with an eye on the future.

I'm talking about breeders who as I've said, breed more litters of pups simply to sell, without the aim of keeping back anything until they need to replace breeding stock, rather than any long term plans for where they want to go (except the next rare/popular colour), or what they're doing. Or stud dog owners who allow their dogs to cover too many bitches, there's no need to have hundreds of pups from the same dog out there, looking at the rate some popular dogs are being used they'll easily reach four figures. In which case you have to wonder are people who own dogs making them up into proven champions in their field simply so that everyone will want to use them, or are they doing it because they have a passion for their chosen breed(s). The two don't tally, because by allowing a dog to be overused, you're doing no service to your breed(s), and possibly creating a problem for the future.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

shamykebab said:


> *Sigh*. You're combining basic animal husbandry and the cost of your hobby - that isn't the price of just breeding. I'm talking about making money on an individual litter.
> 
> It might be different in the cat world but there are plenty of genuinely good, decent breeders in the dog world who do make a profit on some of their litters.


 any why shouldn't the cost of ''husbandry'' come into it??

The hobby isn't free is it!

Why should I only look at what I get out and not what I put in.


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And I never said that it's black and white, there are breeders who I know who do breed litters and don't keep a pup back always, I don't agree with them always, yes, I can see that sometimes it's good to get a litter out there, and you never know whether it might be useful to buy back in from something with your breeding in the future.


Well, yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Plus the fact that some of these breeders do occasionally make money from some of these litters.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm talking about breeders who as I've said, breed more litters of pups simply to sell, without the aim of keeping back anything until they need to replace breeding stock, rather than any long term plans for where they want to go (except the next rare/popular colour), or what they're doing.


And these are the breeders I'm definitely NOT talking about, lol!



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Or stud dog owners who allow their dogs to cover too many bitches, there's no need to have hundreds of pups from the same dog out there, looking at the rate some popular dogs are being used they'll easily reach four figures. In which case you have to wonder are people who own dogs making them up into proven champions in their field simply so that everyone will want to use them, or are they doing it because they have a passion for their chosen breed(s). The two don't tally, because by allowing a dog to be overused, you're doing no service to your breed(s), and possibly creating a problem for the future.


Sadly, I don't think this will ever change (and I don't mean to generalise but some male egos....).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shamykebab said:


> Sadly, I don't think this will ever change (and I don't mean to generalise but some male egos....).


Don't get me started on that one!!


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Don't get me started on that one!!


:lol: Me either!


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

If you are a small cattery like me - one queen only at the moment - I suppose you could only count the costs without taking their normal food etc into account - because that one cat could easily be a pet. But once they are mated all extras should be counted, all tests should be counted any thing you would do that you wouldn't normally do for a pet. Get into the realms of more than one queen and especially if you have a stud then obviously those costs are part of breeding as you wouldn't be keeping an entire male cat as a stud but never use him. The cost of a breeding queen should also be taken into account etc. 

Okay so you could say the day to day care shouldn't come into it (not counting extra food for pregnancy and lactation) - but even taking that away I have never ever even come close to breaking even. 

From what I know - puppies aren't kept for as long as cats, early neutering is frowned upon, and most (and this is from when we got our collie KC reg 3 years ago) go before jabs. Kittens have full jabs and many are now early neutered too. 5 weeks extra food, litter etc on top eats into costs too. £50 each for jabs £50 each for early neutering and you've nearly used the cost of the whole litter anyway. Forget stud fees! Once I started adding it all up I was horrified.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

spid said:


> If you are a small cattery like me - one queen only at the moment - I suppose you could only count the costs without taking their normal food etc into account - because that one cat could easily be a pet. But once they are mated all extras should be counted, all tests should be counted any thing you would do that you wouldn't normally do for a pet. Get into the realms of more than one queen and especially if you have a stud then obviously those costs are part of breeding as you wouldn't be keeping an entire male cat as a stud but never use him. The cost of a breeding queen should also be taken into account etc.
> 
> Okay so you could say the day to day care shouldn't come into it (not counting extra food for pregnancy and lactation) - but even taking that away I have never ever even come close to breaking even.
> 
> From what I know - puppies aren't kept for as m=long as cats, early neutering is frowned upon, and most (and this is from when we got our collie KC reg 3 years ago) go before jabs. Kittens have full jabs and many are now early neutered too. 5 weeks extra food, litter etc on top eats into costs too. £50 each for jabs £50 each for early neutering and you've nearly used the cost of the whole litter anyway. Forget stud fees! Once I started adding it all up I was horrified.


True, but most dogs are on a bigger scale don't forget, more poo, more wee, more washing and food is just free flowing. I got through about 20kgs weaning pups and what mum picked up after them.

You can't vaccinate pups any younger than 8 weeks, as they will still retain the immunity from their mum's milk. I did microchip mine, and would do so again, that's done as close as possible to them being 8 weeks of age.

Not sure how much health tests are for cats, but for Labradors, once you add up hip scores, elbow grades, eye test, and dna tests for a couple of hereditary conditions, you are easily over £500 unless you've got someone who specialises in doing the hips/elbows who charges much less. Last time I had any done it was about £300 for both including BVA fees.

So although there are different costs associated with dogs and cats, I think they're quite closely comparable.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

Depends on the breed of cat for health tests - luckily for me mine are all DNA tests so fairly cheap. With my last lot of kittens , they were going through £7.50 of food a day and litter was being used up at a rate of £20 a week. Probably not as much as a large breed like yours, but not far off a small dog. I pity Main Coon breeders as those cats are huge!

It's a 'hobby' for me - I breed because I want to show and breed the best example I can. I don't expect to make any money. I never have. If I didn't have something to breed for I would give up. And indeed I did just that after my last litter - I was stuck with where to head my breeding next, there were no studs in the country that would have given me what I wanted and I didn't have the option to own my own - so I stopped breeding that breed. Luckily I already had a different breed and so have continued with that line. No point breeding for breedings sake.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

spid said:


> If you are a small cattery like me - one queen only at the moment - I suppose you could only count the costs without taking their normal food etc into account - because that one cat could easily be a pet. But once they are mated all extras should be counted, all tests should be counted any thing you would do that you wouldn't normally do for a pet. Get into the realms of more than one queen and especially if you have a stud then obviously those costs are part of breeding as you wouldn't be keeping an entire male cat as a stud but never use him. The cost of a breeding queen should also be taken into account etc.
> 
> Okay so you could say the day to day care shouldn't come into it (not counting extra food for pregnancy and lactation) - but even taking that away I have never ever even come close to breaking even.
> 
> From what I know - *puppies aren't kept for as long as cats*, early neutering is frowned upon, and most (and this is from when we got our collie KC reg 3 years ago) go before jabs. Kittens have full jabs and many are now early neutered too. 5 weeks extra food, litter etc on top eats into costs too. £50 each for jabs £50 each for early neutering and you've nearly used the cost of the whole litter anyway. Forget stud fees! Once I started adding it all up I was horrified.


i just wantedc to highlight that toy breeds should be At Least 12 weeks before re-homing. they develop a lot slower than larger breeds and often at 8 weeks don't even have many teeth. so they need both vaccinations as well as the worming, microchip etc.

one thing that hasn't been brought up yet on the costs of a litter though is puppy packs- mine are often worth over £50, including the next few months worth of wormer along with other toys, treats, books etc.

i would refer to 'my profit' at times (this is including my mum breeding missy- i took over everything apart from the decision that she was having pups) but it does work quite like savings... a very large sum of money goes in to the bitch and her pups right from the moment she is mated, then when the pups go to their new homes i get the money back (or hope to- didn't work with kukis litter!)


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

kodakkuki said:


> i just wantedc to highlight that toy breeds should be At Least 12 weeks before re-homing. they develop a lot slower than larger breeds and often at 8 weeks don't even have many teeth. so they need both vaccinations as well as the worming, microchip etc.
> 
> one thing that hasn't been brought up yet on the costs of a litter though is puppy packs- mine are often worth over £50, including the next few months worth of wormer along with other toys, treats, books etc.
> 
> i would refer to 'my profit' at times (this is including my mum breeding missy- i took over everything apart from the decision that she was having pups) but it does work quite like savings... a very large sum of money goes in to the bitch and her pups right from the moment she is mated, then when the pups go to their new homes i get the money back (or hope to- didn't work with kukis litter!)


Yep my kitten packs are worth about that.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with not keeping a puppy back out of every litter, whats wrong is for a breeder to constantly breed without keeping, or even having that aim in mind!
- Some breeders keep a puppy back, and later on rehome that dog later on for various reasons.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Just for the sake of it, what would you think of someone who bred their pet dog, nothing out of the ordinary, just their pet, with another dog, perhaps of a different breed, and then kept a pup themselves (their reason for breeding) and sold the remainder of the litter? Where would they fit into this scenario?


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

Cats are a little different as most good breeders begin by showing neuters, so you're out several years of fees before getting an entire girl and breeding any kittens - of course she's shown and titled before breeding too (unless she hates showing, some show well as kittens and hate it in adult class)
I figure that as just a cost of the hobby, not a loss per say. Not something I'll get payed back for in kitten sales, and I wouldn't breed if I couldn't show as I feel they go hand in hand.

Any so called profit from kittens goes back into the cattery, buying new breeding 'stock' etc. it's not money in your pocket.
But it will never work out even, especially when you have to import once a year or so because a rare breed stole your heart.
Early neutering is the norm here with cats, so they're vaccinated twice, microchipped and neutered by 12 weeks. Taking out the cost of raising them on a high quality diet there's not much left from each kitten, and there's only so much you can charge for pets.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So although there are different costs associated with dogs and cats, I think they're quite closely comparable.


I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been brought up before.

In the case of cats, litters often have to be bred without keeping one, just to keep the queen entire. Unlike dogs, cats have many seasons throughout the year and keeping an entire queen un-mated for any length of time is ill-advised and can be dangerous to her health. Some breeds call once a month all year round, so you can see why it's easy to keep an entire bitch - 2 seasons a year - but not an entire queen without breeding from her regularly.

Even when a queen is bred every 12-18 months she will still come into season regularly and Ovarid to delay/prevent seasons is not advised for long term use.

There is also a very high risk of a calling queen escaping and being mated by the local tom - and there is no after-mating jab for cats.

So while it would be relatively easy for a dog breeder to breed a bitch only once in her lifetime and keep a puppy, that scenario is unlikely in cats especially where the first or even second litters don't produce a suitable kitten to keep. Some breeds also have very small litters 2-4 average, while others can have as many as 7-9.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

miljar said:


> Just for the sake of it, what would you think of someone who bred their pet dog, nothing out of the ordinary, just their pet, with another dog, perhaps of a different breed, and then kept a pup themselves (their reason for breeding) and sold the remainder of the litter? Where would they fit into this scenario?


It depends on what else they did, what health tests and how aware they were of conformation, temperament etc. Just because you're breeding pets, does not mean you have to breed any old dog you own because that's what you've got.



spotty cats said:


> Cats are a little different as most good breeders begin by showing neuters, so you're out several years of fees before getting an entire girl and breeding any kittens - of course she's shown and titled before breeding too (unless she hates showing, some show well as kittens and hate it in adult class)
> I figure that as just a cost of the hobby, not a loss per say. Not something I'll get payed back for in kitten sales, and I wouldn't breed if I couldn't show as I feel they go hand in hand.
> 
> Any so called profit from kittens goes back into the cattery, buying new breeding 'stock' etc. it's not money in your pocket.
> ...


Not quite the same, but quite often dog owners don't start out with the first dog or bitch they breed from. I had my oldest bitch health tested, it was quiet a while ago now and she was doing well at working trials training, which I spent quite a lot of money on, more than showing on it's own. But after she suffered an injury, and because her elbow grades weren't good enough, I had her spayed. She would never have done well at showing because her chest is too deep and laterally compressed. And as it turns out, she's really an old creaky, lumpy thing by the age of seven, so it was the right decision.

I set out down the working trials route with Tau, but she really didn't enjoy the training, so then I switched to gundog stuff. But it's only since getting Rhuna that I've really started showing as well. The gundog equipment doesn't come cheap either, particularly since my ex seems to have appropriated a lot of what I had, so I've just had to fork out for a whole load more. Joining clubs and training groups all adds up, as well as ring craft classes (must cost me £30 per week just to drive to ring craft). So all in all, when you've got four dogs, and you're driving all over to train them for at least one competetive aim, the costs soon start to stack up considerably.

Show entries on average set me back at least £15, I've got a competition form ready to fill out which is a bit cheaper, and then there's the petrol for each one. I've travelled as far South as Alcester to stay with the breeder of my flatcoat for shows local to her; that's a good £60 in petrol each time.

It's quite frightening when you start adding up how much you spend, and that goes without all the little dog related things I buy related to my breeds simply because I'm a mad old dog lady!!


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

I don't think there's a high risk of breeding girls getting out in heat, certainly not with myself of breeder friends. You know the girls are hormonal and take precautions

They also don't need to be left calling, I've had girls call at 14-16 weeks and not mated until 12 months (the standard age). If left to call they come into almost constant heat and lose condition, I don't allow mine to do that. 2 litters in 12 months are permitted here but most are 2 litters in 18 months.
There are times it's best for their health to be mated, but it needn't be a common thing. The pill is not the only option and isn't one I'd personally use, but it works in some circumstances.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

miljar said:


> Just for the sake of it, what would you think of someone who bred their pet dog, nothing out of the ordinary, just their pet, with another dog, perhaps of a different breed, and then kept a pup themselves (their reason for breeding) and sold the remainder of the litter? Where would they fit into this scenario?


Do both dogs have fab temperaments, and have they been tested for any health issues that affect their breeds? If the answer to either is 'no' then I would class this person as a highly *UN*ethical breeder.

And* if *the breeds involved are very numerous in rescues - e.g. Staffies - then I would say it was very wrong indeed to add to the numbers of that breed. Because NO breeder can guarantee 100% that none of their pups will ever end up in rescue.

There are SO many wonderful dogs in rescues, personally I really don't understand why so many people feel the need to breed from their pets - however lovely their pet may be


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

spotty cats said:


> I don't think there's a high risk of breeding girls getting out in heat, certainly not with myself of breeder friends. You know the girls are hormonal and take precautions
> 
> They also don't need to be left calling, I've had girls call at 14-16 weeks and not mated until 12 months (the standard age). If left to call they come into almost constant heat and lose condition, I don't allow mine to do that. 2 litters in 12 months are permitted here but most are 2 litters in 18 months.
> There are times it's best for their health to be mated, but it needn't be a common thing. The pill is not the only option and isn't one I'd personally use, but it works in some circumstances.


I really struggle to keep my girls in when their in call unless their out in the cattery..look at tass the other month,not easy with kids constantly in and out you got to be right on the ball.

So far only had the one near miss,but there have been other close calls.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been brought up before.
> 
> In the case of cats, litters often have to be bred without keeping one, just to keep the queen entire. Unlike dogs, cats have many seasons throughout the year and keeping an entire queen un-mated for any length of time is ill-advised and can be dangerous to her health. Some breeds call once a month all year round, so you can see why it's easy to keep an entire bitch - 2 seasons a year - but not an entire queen without breeding from her regularly.
> 
> ...


*If* there wasn't what I wanted in a litter, I might consider taking a second litter from a bitch, but I've never yet been in that position, so who can say. With the size of litter of both the breeds I have, it *shouldn't* be a problem. I'm pretty likely to get a bitch, and something I like.

I wouldn't want to breed cats for all the tea in China, the lady who bred my two older girls also bred orientals, and said the work involved was much harder, kittens are not as hardy as pups, which is very scary!!

I'll stick to my 'easy whelpers' although the last time round it wasn't particularly easy, I'm sure Tau did it on purpose as she's too posh to push


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Show entries on average set me back at least £15, I've got a competition form ready to fill out which is a bit cheaper, and then there's the petrol for each one. I've travelled as far South as Alcester to stay with the breeder of my flatcoat for shows local to her; that's a good £60 in petrol each time.


I'm not up to date with current cat show entry fees but last I heard they were in the region of £30 per cat. More for some shows. Plus they charge you an entry fee at the door even if you are an exhibitor! That's not even thinking about the travel costs. And catalogue price.

And if your cat is even slightly unwell, you have to cancel the whole thing and stay at home or risk being rejected at vetting-in. That never happened to me, but you have no choice but to go straight home, forfeiting all entry fees. Then - depending on the reason for rejection, it can take months for veterinary clearance before you can show ANY of your cats from the same address, and forfeiting of course any shows you have already entered... many shows have entries closing three months before the show date.

It is a much different picture to the dog world, where some people may enter shows they are only mildly considering going to, and not going on the day. I was surprised to see so many absentees at some of the large Championship dog shows I've attended.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> I'm not up to date with current cat show entry fees but last I heard they were in the region of £30 per cat. More for some shows. Plus they charge you an entry fee at the door even if you are an exhibitor! That's not even thinking about the travel costs. And catalogue price.
> 
> And if your cat is even slightly unwell, you have to cancel the whole thing and stay at home or risk being rejected at vetting-in. That never happened to me, but you have no choice but to go straight home, forfeiting all entry fees. Then - depending on the reason for rejection, it can take months for veterinary clearance before you can show ANY of your cats from the same address, and forfeiting of course any shows you have already entered... many shows have entries closing three months before the show date.
> 
> It is a much different picture to the dog world, where some people may enter shows they are only mildly considering going to, and not going on the day. I was surprised to see so many absentees at some of the large Championship dog shows I've attended.


It doesn't sound too dissimilar to some of the dog shows I've been to. Sometimes there are numerous entries, I've paid for a few entry fees and not gone either because of work commitments cropping up, or the girls have been in season, but I am glad the entry fees aren't as high. But then usually the dog folks don't require much, just a ring to do a triangle and a bit of an up and down line so the judge can see the movement. There's no need to hire a space to set up all the cages needed for showing cats. In fact the show I went to on Sunday was on a very cold field in Pately Bridge, it was chuffin' freezing!!


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

we love bsh's said:


> I really struggle to keep my girls in when their in call unless their out in the cattery..look at tass the other month,not easy with kids constantly in and out you got to be right on the ball.
> 
> So far only had the one near miss,but there have been other close calls.


I'd have them set up in their own room, so there was no chance of anyone getting out. I couldn't have them outside, they live indoors as pets like the neuters. But that's me, everyone does what they feel works for them

I also couldn't breed with young kids, my cats and kittens take up so much time I'd end up doing a half arsed job on both. But again, that's just me....and I don't want kids 
I know many who stopped to raise their family, and start again 8-10 years later with a queen or 2.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> In fact the show I went to on Sunday was on a very cold field in Pately Bridge, it was chuffin' freezing!!


You need a strong constitution to show dogs! I was at WELKS last year and you needed wellies to get from the car park and arctic clothing waiting around in the benching area.... Those that were showing also took a change of clothes and shoes so they didn't look like muddy farmers in the ring!

Mind you, you can arrive at a dog show later if you know the classes are being judged in the afternoon, and leave straight after if you're not going to be in the Group. At cat shows, you have to be there very early for vetting-in, and usually not allowed to go home til around 5-6pm. It's a very long day, and most of it on your feet.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Oh yes, I've done the wellies thing!! In fact it was so bad, the dog really needed wellies!!


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

spotty cats said:


> I'd have them set up in their own room, so there was no chance of anyone getting out. I couldn't have them outside, they live indoors as pets like the neuters. But that's me, everyone does what they feel works for them
> 
> I also couldn't breed with young kids, my cats and kittens take up so much time I'd end up doing a half arsed job on both. But again, that's just me....and I don't want kids
> I know many who stopped to raise their family, and start again 8-10 years later with a queen or 2.


Yeah its not easy.

Sadly I don't have a spare room to use.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

Cats shows are on average about £48 for entry, I normally end up writing out a check for about £60 once you include entrance and programme. Plus petrol and refreshments - a day out at a show tends to come at about £150. SOmetimes less. Often more - though that's just me buying things for the cats.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

spid said:


> Cats shows are on average about £48 for entry, I normally end up writing out a check for about £60 once you include entrance and programme. Plus petrol and refreshments - a day out at a show tends to come at about £150. SOmetimes less. Often more - though that's just me buying things for the cats.


I'm a meanie, the dogs never get anything, the most I've bought them this year were their 'Tarimoor' collars. I'm a mean mum 

I do try and donate something towards the rosettes, and I'm stingy with the refreshments as well, I always make sure I've got something in my bag just in case it looks [email protected] I hate paying for a [email protected] cuppa!!


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

spid said:


> Cats shows are on average about £48 for entry


*£48*!!!  
I knew I wasn't up to date but had no idea it had gone up by that much.
(_and_ they keep you prisoner there all day, which forces you to buy stuff out of sheer boredom :laugh

Certainly makes £15 for a Championship dog show look like a walk in the park... No wonder at some Champ dog shows I've been to with a friend showing, it all seemed to be over and done with so quickly I didn't get to look round the stalls properly, spent nothing, and was left wondering, Why drive 2.5 hours to a show and only spend 1.5 hours there before going back home? ut:


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm stingy with the refreshments as well, I always make sure I've got something in my bag just in case it looks [email protected] I hate paying for a [email protected] cuppa!!


You make a good point there, as the larger champ dog shows are often catered for by franchise food stands where a cup of tea is £1.50 hmy:

Cat shows are often in large leisure centres where the in-house refreshments are reasonable, ish.

I occasionally get a lift to Champ dog shows with a local friend who has a minority pastoral breed and the exhibitors always have a picnic, bringing loads of food and drink and home made cakes to share on the benches. Not possible with cat shows, really!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Stalls!!?? That would entail spending money 

I have to be quick going to shows as I've got to get back to the rest of my lot if I've not managed to get someone to pop in and give them a break during the day. But yes, I *generally* take a flask and a chocolate biscuit at least, if I'm organised I take a pack up, but I'm a fussy eater, I don't like *plastic* food.


----------



## Puppy Love (Jan 10, 2008)

I love springers said:


> We bred a litter and kept a puppy back as i wanted another one to show....we run her on till she was 7mths old but sadly she wasn't going to be good enough to show....she like all my other pups have fantastic homes and i get text messages and emails about them all the time...I have had 3 pups back to visit me in the last 4wks....I am committed to these pups for life as it was my decision to let my girl have them..
> 
> I would only breed if i really wanted another pup for myself but sometimes things don't go to plan..


I did the same!!! Had my litter with all intentions of keeping a boy to show. We had him for 8 mths and finally let him go to a wonderful pet home as he sadly was not of show quality. It did break my heart but I know i have done the right thing for us all. I am hoping to breed from my other show bitch maybe sometime this year and hope to keep one from this litter.......but who knows!!!

Puppy Love x


----------

