Crufts 2018

Why does unpapered have to be synonymous with untested for genetic defects ? Let's assume for the sake of the argument that they are tested - what's wrong with making a profit from breeding puppies?
Click to expand...

You've only got to be a member of local fb pages to see the number of people breeding from their pets. Ask them if xyz tests have been done on mum and dad, nine times out of 10 the answer is no. It's irrelevant whether they're papered or not. So breed your untested bull dog bitch and sell the pups for 1k each - what a smashing little earner. Let's do it again! Likewise let's cross your bitch with another cutie and sell the pups for £500, just because it has a womb.

I have no problem breeding for profit, but a somoene doing it right won't be. They'll be doing it to improve or (at least) maintain the breed.

I think you're being a little disingenuous YCBM, which does you no favours.
 
ycbm said:
Few people breed from their pet dogs, the unknowing inbreeding question is an issue but not a big one.

Why does unpapered have to be synonymous with untested for genetic defects ? Let's assume for the sake of the argument that they are tested - what's wrong with making a profit from breeding puppies?

I don't see the difference between selling one offspring for profit and selling five.



Just what is so wrong about breeding puppies for profit that isn't also wrong about breeding horses, birds, guinea pigs or any other pet?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong with breeding pups for profit. However having spent 2 years finding a quality pup, from health tested parents and with a pedigree that has been checked I have seen an awful lot of rubbish both with low quality breeders and home breeders. More than you think breed from their pet dogs (untested) . The unknowing public buy them and many are lined up already for future health problems. That means the dogs are going to be the ones with health problems. They may well be bred from again and another generation of potential health problems will be lined up.

In the past we bred healthy mongrels now we seem to breed pups with potential genetic and health problems. This doesn't seem to have happened so much in horses.

I am not sure that many of these unpapered dogs will have been health tested. Their owners are breeding for profit. Are they going to pay the costs of vets fees and x rays etc? I think not. Look at pups advertised in your local paper and then ask how many are hip and elbow tested and also tested for genetic defects in that breed.

I see it as something like if someone had a couple of QH mares in a field dolng nothing. There was a QH stallion up the road. Small stud fee and they could sell the purebred QH foals for a lot of money Would you buy one? No doubt nice foals that would make nice calm riding horses. Neither of the parents have been 5 panel tested. Look at all the problems you could be buying!! That situation equates to current dog breeding.
 
This post appeared yesterday elsewhere . The owner of the pup tried to contact the "breeder" who immediately blocked them . 😡

Just had an interesting conversation with a lady who had to have her 7 month old puppy pts with severe hip/elbow dysplasia, EPI and a degenerative bone disease affecting his spine. She gave me his registered name so I had a nose on My KC and came up with neither parent health tested (or any of their siblings) and the sire had produced 7 litters ranging from 12 - 15 in each litter and the dam produced 2 litters of 12 and 13. Is it me or does that seem rather unusual to have so many large litters and no average ones? They are all registered without affixes and I did wonder if they could be puppy farm puppies with dodgy registration.
 
Can nobody see the connection here? Breeding FOR PROFIT is what is ruining these breeds and what everyone here is complaining about.

Money leads to the ruination of everything.
Good breeders don't 'make' money.
The people who cover their costs or contribute to the gene pool and plough the money back into dogs aren't the ones who are causing the problems.
It's those who seek to line their own pockets and won't shell out on health tests and registrations and show entries and training and working their dogs to prove that they are of suitable quality to breed from.

Even if you want to breed your pet...health test it and cover your costs. Don't pimp your supposed mate who lives in your house to line your own pocket and don't breed it if the health isn't good.
 
Last edited:
CorvusCorax said:
I DON'T AGREE WITH BREEDING ANY PET ANIMAL FOR PROFIT
Click to expand...

I get that, but so far you have not explained WHY.

Thank goodness not everyone agrees with you or there wouldn't be enough horses for the rest of us to buy and ride or rabbits and guinea pigs for kids to own.
 
ycbm said:
Breeding for showing prestige was what started off the problems, surely?
Click to expand...

Showing prestige can = puppy sales/stud fees.
If someone breeds purely to make a profit and skips the expensive stuff like health tests etc then they are part of the problem. The only reason one would skip the health tests or breed from an animal with poor results, is to make money.

I repeat, the percentage of dogs in the UK actively taking part in shows is tiny.
 
CorvusCorax said:
Can nobody see the connection here? Breeding FOR PROFIT is what is ruining these breeds and what everyone here is complaining about.

Money leads to the ruination of everything.
Good breeders don't 'make' money.
The people who cover their costs or contribute to the gene pool and plough the money back into dogs aren't the ones who are causing the problems.
It's those who seek to line their own pockets and won't shell out on health tests and registrations and show entries and training and working their dogs to prove that they are of suitable quality to breed from.

Even if you want to breed your pet...health test it and cover your costs. Don't pimp your supposed mate who lives in your house to line your own pocket and don't breed it if the health isn't good.
Click to expand...

Needs quoting as it's not being read. Or maybe not being understood.
 
CorvusCorax said:
Showing prestige can = puppy sales/stud fees.
If someone breeds purely to make a profit and skips the expensive stuff like health tests etc then they are part of the problem. The only reason one would skip the health tests or breed from an animal with poor results, is to make money.

I repeat, the percentage of dogs in the UK actively taking part in shows is tiny.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not talking about skipping health tests or anything else on that front, or tax evasion, or in breeding.

I'm talking about your pure and simple belief that no pet of any species should ever be bred for profit.

I don't understand why you feel that way, and you have so far said nothing that helps me understand why you feel that way.

Why do you feel no healthy animals should be bred and sold for a profit to loving homes who want to buy them?
 
I'm not sure many horses are bed and sold for profit in their raw state though, that has come up several times over the years on this forum.

Equally the same seems to happen with dogs, you don't make a profit unless you have an unusually large litter, or you have skimped on the health tests and health care of those dogs.
 
ester said:
I'm not sure many horses are bed and sold for profit in their raw state though, that has come up several times over the years on this forum.

Equally the same seems to happen with dogs, you don't make a profit unless you have an unusually large litter, or you have skimped on the health tests and health care of those dogs.
Click to expand...

That's not the point Ester. The point is the ideological rejection of breeding animals for profit. I don't understand it, but I'd like to.
 
Ycbm. I can't make you understand it, if you can't. It is the profit that corrupts. The 'making a bit extra'...then a bit more...then a bit more...then the ethics start to go out the window.
If you truly love your dog...then cover your costs or reinvest into the dog/breed/lines.
Don't use your pet to make money. Otherwise the dog is no better than any other household object or possession.
A commodity.

It's worth saying that nothing anyone says will change my mind and my deeply held convictions are based on my own experiences over many years.
In the same way that nothing I say will change yours.
 
Well that might explain things if you are only talking about personal pets being bred from. I would classify any bitch being bred from for profit as a working dog, not a pet. And obviously I see no problem with that.
 
Sorry not read the complete thread but don't buyers need to use a bit of common sense? Rogue breeders (puppy farms or not) will only make a profit and continue to breed if buyers continue to be stupid. There's loads of info on the net advising buyers what to check, it's not rocket science. Stanley is not KC registered and I know why and am completely satisfied. I saw both parents, picked Stan when he was 4 weeks old, visited weekly until he was ready to come home. BTs are a breed that is recognised to have few inherited problems and tbh I think that the working lines are much tougher than the show lines. This was Stan's mother's last litter and she has been spayed and is a lovely family pet. I hope my breeder, who is local to me, makes some money out of breeding or she might not continue. She breeds lovely dogs, takes care of the pups beautifully and loves to keep in touch with her owners. Stan was cheap in comparison to most breeds but it took as much effort to get him to 8 weeks safely than it would a much more expensive dog. Oh, and never has to advertise as her owners and dogs do that for her, I sold two the next litter her other bitch had by word of mouth.
 
Last edited:
I think the trouble is that while removing all the stupid buyers would resolve the problem from the bottom up being able to do so seems unlikely to happen and in the meantime there are dogs suffering from completely preventable inheritable conditions.
 
Ok. Well that wouldn't be my classification of a 'working dog'...I can't see any pet dog breeders standing out here in the mud and sideways rain and gales today.
And I don't know anyone who breeds dogs 'well', who makes money out of it. And I know a lot of breeders.
 
I wonder if that is what makes it a moot point, if it isn't possible to breed well, without welfare compromise, with health tested parents and make a profit? Ergo automatically anyone doing so to make a profit is doing something substandardly?
 
;) well quite, but I'm just trying to work it out as ycbm is suggesting profit while doing everything right, if that isn't possible then profit automatically is a 'bad thing'.
 
ycbm said:
Well that might explain things if you are only talking about personal pets being bred from. I would classify any bitch being bred from for profit as a working dog, not a pet. And obviously I see no problem with that.
Click to expand...

So all puppy farm bitches are working dogs?I normally have no problem debating with you but you are arguing for the sheer love of it. Head desk!
 
Clodagh said:
So all puppy farm bitches are working dogs?I normally have no problem debating with you but you are arguing for the sheer love of it. Head desk!
Click to expand...

What problem do you have with that definition? I'm talking about working for their living, not breed classification.

I am simply trying to understand why some people have an ideological objection to breeding any pet animal for profit. But by all means attribute your frustration at your own inability to provide any logical answer to that question to me if it makes you happier.
 
Cahill said:
working at making puppies :(
Click to expand...

What is the difference between that and a brood mare working at making a foal?
Many vets refer to it metabolically as work. And why is it worse to work at making a puppy than it is to work at agility or retrieving birds? I really, really do not understand and I think this is a gut reaction that no-one can logically explain. Can't we just agree to differ? Contrary to what I'm accused of, I do not argue a point just for the sake of it, I really was hoping for an explanation. Unfortunately when people can't offer one, they then tend to make accusations of 'arguing for the sake of it' rather than simply agreeing to differ. But that's the nature of forums :)
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
What problem do you have with that definition? I'm talking about working for their living, not breed classification.

I am simply trying to understand why some people have an ideological objection to breeding any pet animal for profit. But by all means attribute your frustration at your own inability to provide any logical answer to that question to me if it makes you happier.
Click to expand...

Puppy farm bitches 'working for their living'? Boke.
I go to work and I use a lot of my pay to provide for my dog, from whom I have never made a penny, nor do I ever intend to. He owes me nothing.
Please do not equate a poor puppy farmed, money machine with a prolapse and teats dragging the ground to happy, healthy, fit for purpose animals doing what they love.
 
The breeder who I got my best dog from does it and makes a profit on her litters. Each of her bitches has the maximum number of litters allowed that can be registered. She then rehomes them to pet or lightweight type working homes, spayed with a contract about 20 pages long, to people she knows. She has about 3 bitches on the go at a time and breeds maybe 2 litters a year. The more she breeds the more money she makes as most health tests are a one off cost.
However, before they are bred from they do have every health test available to a lab - and there are a lot. They have to win at least one field trial. They have to be of exceptional calmness and good natured 'pets' who also pick up four days a week all season.
There is no problem, to my mind, with her making money. If you actually put her hours in, of training and travelling, of interviewing prospective buyers, of sitting each buyer down and explaining the contract it is probalby not an enormous amount. She will always take anything she bred back, at any age.
So, yes she makes money but she is also contributing to the labrador breed as a whole both working ability, temperament, soundness, trainability and health.

I have no problem with that - as I have said ad infinitum. To compare her to the people in the next village who spit out a litter every season, then sell the bitch - still unspayed - on preloved is laughable, and that, ycbm, is what you are condoning. And at least the people in the next village do give their breeding bitches a name and look at them now and then, so they are far better off than hundreds of puppy machines, that you say are entirely defensible. So as long as the puppy can be sold that is all that matters? I think not.
 
CorvusCorax said:
Puppy farm bitches 'working for their living'? Boke.
I go to work and I use a lot of my pay to provide for my dog, from whom I have never made a penny, nor do I ever intend to. He owes me nothing.
Please do not equate a poor puppy farmed, money machine with a prolapse and teats dragging the ground to happy, healthy, fit for purpose animals doing what they love.
Click to expand...

I don't. My argument, as I've tried to say time and time again, is nothing whatever to do with bad breeding practices.
 
Clodagh said:
The breeder who I got my best dog from does it and makes a profit on her litters. Each of her bitches has the maximum number of litters allowed that can be registered. She then rehomes them to pet or lightweight type working homes, spayed with a contract about 20 pages long, to people she knows. She has about 3 bitches on the go at a time and breeds maybe 2 litters a year. The more she breeds the more money she makes as most health tests are a one off cost.
However, before they are bred from they do have every health test available to a lab - and there are a lot. They have to win at least one field trial. They have to be of exceptional calmness and good natured 'pets' who also pick up four days a week all season.
There is no problem, to my mind, with her making money. If you actually put her hours in, of training and travelling, of interviewing prospective buyers, of sitting each buyer down and explaining the contract it is probalby not an enormous amount. She will always take anything she bred back, at any age.
So, yes she makes money but she is also contributing to the labrador breed as a whole both working ability, temperament, soundness, trainability and health.

I have no problem with that - as I have said ad infinitum. To compare her to the people in the next village who spit out a litter every season, then sell the bitch - still unspayed - on preloved is laughable, and that, ycbm, is what you are condoning. And at least the people in the next village do give their breeding bitches a name and look at them now and then, so they are far better off than hundreds of puppy machines, that you say are entirely defensible. So as long as the puppy can be sold that is all that matters? I think not.
Click to expand...

No that is NOT what I am condoning. Have you actually read my posts? You are agreeing with me!!! What I am condoning is your first description of the breeder of your pup making a profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top