New Problem To Address

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

any risk assessment of puppies that includes a lifetime liability would make that puppy far too costly and impossible to manage given nutrition, care exercise etc can contribute to puppy/dog health problems and i suspect puppy buyers don't want that.

i suspect they want if to know the breeder has done all that is scientifically/medically possible to ensure the puppy has the best chance at a healthy life.

the liability should be before the puppy goes to the buyer, it should be encapsulated in best practise for breeding the particular breed.

hope this makes sense

[TsarsMum]

like i said i got a pup from a reg breeder.

Im just saying how people think. it does come down to the all might $$ and when some breeders want 2k for a common breeder its something that will turn people off and make them look eles where.

I know that will happen with my brother and partner.

[ravenau1]

and that is exactly why ive sat on my hands for 30 years, no one wants to know or talk about it.

the dust is still under the carpet

Look I totally understand but I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of your everyday chap who just wants to buy a dog. All of that technical stuff, personality conflicts, dog world politics just goes whoosh. We just want a puppy and when we get a great puppy and a super cool breeder, we talk about it. We puppy owners promote you breeders. If you talk ad nauseum about all the other stuff, we glaze over.

I know that's pretty abrupt and I dont mean to be rude, but you guys need to use us (the puppy buyers) to be ambassadors for purebreeds, and the only way to do that is to be really lovely mentors - which I know you all are because my breeders have been super nice people that make me proud to be part of the purebreed world, but so often you hear the same stuff about breeders being snobs. We've all seen it. someone rocks up to a show because we all say - go to a show before you buy a dog - and they walk away dumbfounded because someone told them off for calling a 'girl' rather than a 'bitch'. (yes I actually watched that happening. It was pretty bloody disgraceful and the person involved went and bought a mongrel from a puppy farm as a result)

Raz, as you know, I've been saying for some time that I've seen show people be rude to enquirers at shows and have been screamed at for saying so. It's not just my experience. I have seen a breeder run down other breeders to enquirers because of stupid bloody breed politics. I've heard other breeders run down other breeders dogs because of this, that and the other. Happy puppy buyers are the best ambassadors, I agree, because we're often not bound up in those things.

Well, Steve, what do you want us to do?

I like this. Seems so much better than the pet expos.

I haven't liked to mention it before as there are a lot of show people here but when I was first looking for a puppy, I read all the advice and some of it was to go to a dog show and look at dogs, talk to breeders. No one was friendly, or helpful. I was definitely left with the feeling that 'outsiders' were not welcome and people who weren't involved in showing were suspicious somehow. I have to say it was a vastly difference to years and years ago (20years I think) when my family bought a Mini Schnauzer and we started looking for dogs at a dog show, people were happy to talk about their dogs etc. When anyone I know is looking for a puppy one thing I don't suggest to them is going to a dog show.

I think that if I wasn't intent on buying a purebreed from a registered breeder by then I would not have continued to pursue buying a purebreed pup from a breeder. As it is, I specifically chose a breeder that doesn't show.

Edited November 21, 2010 by ravenau1

[shortstep]

Shortstep, can you tell me what you mean by lifetime liability?

As far as genetic health lifetime liablity, number 9 of the 10 point plan.

Insurance to cover inherited disease (breed based) for the life of the dog. So say the breed is know to have HD (almost every breed on earth can get HD) the insurance rate for the disease will be set using the breed average score and the litters EBV score for HD and the cost of medical correction or treatment of the problem. Higher the breeds risk and/or higher the EBV on the litter, or more cost related to treatment, the higher the higher the rate of insurance to cover the pup for that disease if it happens.

This would apply to all genetic disorders in the breed for the whole litter and each pup would have it's own policy that is bought by the breeder and is given to the new owner. EVB is created by all vet sending all midical infomration o the uni linked to microship number, registration cross lined to microship number. Then it all ends up on the pedigree when ever that dog shows up (maybe also linkd as relative to dogs ont he pedigree such as in estimating breed values on HD families). No one is sure just how much this is going to add to the average pup in an average litter but most feel atleast $1000.00 per pup.

I have to go someone is here.

[Sheridan]

any risk assessment of puppies that includes a lifetime liability would make that puppy far too costly and impossible to manage given nutrition, care exercise etc can contribute to puppy/dog health problems and i suspect puppy buyers don't want that.

i suspect they want if to know the breeder has done all that is scientifically/medically possible to ensure the puppy has the best chance at a healthy life.

the liability should be before the puppy goes to the buyer, it should be encapsulated in best practise for breeding the particular breed.

hope this makes sense

I recall reading one post a little while back where the breeder gave a month's worth of pet insurance to each puppy buyer. That was an interesting idea.

A lifetime's liability (and maybe I'm reading Shortstep wrong here) seems inherently flawed given that so many issues are late onset or have unknown causes.

[Greytmate]

any risk assessment of puppies that includes a lifetime liability would make that puppy far too costly and impossible to manage given nutrition, care exercise etc can contribute to puppy/dog health problems and i suspect puppy buyers don't want that.

i suspect they want if to know the breeder has done all that is scientifically/medically possible to ensure the puppy has the best chance at a healthy life.

the liability should be before the puppy goes to the buyer, it should be encapsulated in best practise for breeding the particular breed.

hope this makes sense

Yes.

First step is to work out what the "best practice" is.

Like in any other 'industry', every process can be examined, changed, updated or improved, and documented.

Then you have "quality assurance".

And that is something you can use. A world of scientific jargon condensed right down to one little message of integrity that addresses a host of concerns.

[raz]

And of course its not that easy when the scary within our own ranks are bigger liabilities than anti purebred factions.

Yep. This is actually a really big turnoff. I will support registered breeders until I am blue in the face but the crap and carry on in the dog world is really hard to blow off when trying to promote buying a purebred dog to a potential puppy buyer. Your bad press is right there in your own ranks. It's happening in this thread

I dont think we need regulations or documentaries or anything else. We just need people being proud of their dogs and their breeders and spruiking it all.

[Steve]

im a puppy owner not a breeder.

I feel that (please dont shoot me) sometime for breeds that are fairly common the price of the pups are insane $1.5K and upwards. I went away from the breed i was looking at as I had one all ready he pass away at 8 they have alot of health problems and paying what they where asking i would not do it.

I also feel that some breeders dont have time and are rude to puppy buyers and that really really turned me off to the point i started looking at back yard breeders both of the above reasons why i started looking to back yard breeders.

I ended up finding a breeder who would spend all day talking about his dogs and the love he had and guess what............. thats where my pup come from. he answered all my questions. had time for me.

My brother and sister inlaw want a pupt and they are not prepard to pay that sort of money so i know where they will end up going I try but the $$ are to high in there opinion.

anyways im not sure this helps but i thought i would let you know what i seen and felt.

Thank you - much of this is an age old probelm. For as long as I can remember purebred dogs have been more expensive than mixed breed dogs but these days its more common for papered purebred dogs to cost less than purebred dogs from pet shops or cross bred dogs.

When I was a kid everyone knew why purebred dogs cost more. because you could breed them and have puppies and have her pay her way . A purebred costs as much to feed as a cross bred but if they had pups you couldnt get the same amount for your pups. Some showed their dogs but lots of them were what we call now back yard breeders. If you bought a purebred pup froma breeder and told em you would breed it you expected the breeder wouldnt sell you a dud and they wanted what was best for the breed in general regardless of who was breeding them. If it wasnt suitable for breeding the breeder would say so and tell you why. There were more puppies around from lots of different combinations of male and female - breeding wasnt limited to one show dog which wins a bit sire 100 or more pups so if the dogs did have some filthy genetic thing going on the potential for it to get into the entire gene pool was limited.

At the end of the day its coming down to a cost = supply and demand and that is basic economics so for a variety of reasons including the costs of scanning and testing etc the less there are available the more the pup will cost.

I have also struck breeders who should have their phones disconnected if thats how they respond to potential puppy buyers and then they tell us they care about the future of the breed!

Edited November 21, 2010 by Steve

[Greytmate]

The price thing is one of the easiest things to solve -

If the right steps are put in place first.

Purebreed dogs are undervalued. There are ways of raising their perceived value to different people, so that realistic prices can be achieved for them.

[raz]

I have also struck breeders who should have their phones disconnected if thats how they respond to potential puppy buyers and then they tell us they care about the future of the breed!

I've struck a few of those as well but I'm happy to say they are few and far between (in my experience). Generally they're really chatty and great with a n00b who wants to buy a puppy.

[asal]

any risk assessment of puppies that includes a lifetime liability would make that puppy far too costly and impossible to manage given nutrition, care exercise etc can contribute to puppy/dog health problems and i suspect puppy buyers don't want that.

i suspect they want if to know the breeder has done all that is scientifically/medically possible to ensure the puppy has the best chance at a healthy life.

the liability should be before the puppy goes to the buyer, it should be encapsulated in best practise for breeding the particular breed.

hope this makes sense

I recall reading one post a little while back where the breeder gave a month's worth of pet insurance to each puppy buyer. That was an interesting idea.

A lifetime's liability (and maybe I'm reading Shortstep wrong here) seems inherently flawed given that so many issues are late onset or have unknown causes.

yes Petplan is 6 weeks insurance from puppy pickup, dont know if there are others.

trouble is breeders take their babies to their vet for their first vaccinations and checks for teeth placement, hearts, eyes, hernias , patellas, testes etc and an all clear puppy is music to your ears.

BUT, even the next vet check can be different, yet its the puppy breeder wears the unethical hat if its next check is different, not the vet who the breeder had it checked by, nor the judge to passed an 8 week puppy with perfect teeth placement and two testes, even at 12 weeks and or 18 weeks.

ive seen it. everything fine then disaster. adult teeth dont come in scissor bite,. breeders unethical

in the case of one pup. two teste at 6 weeks 12 weeks and 18 weeks. six months old and ones dissappeared who do you denigrate... the unethical breeder of course.

in the case of patellas, cleared by the vet, parents grandparents and puppy. checked by the new owners vets at second and third vaccination all clear. then 9 or ten months old and oopss one going wobbly.. who's the one thats deliberately sold them a dud? do i really need to tell you? of course that unethical breeder.

who cares the mug has relied on the very vets who now point the bone straight at ??????????

yet the vets dont say. sorry i was wrong do they?

i have great fun with my dogs, dogs are great. but.

its just too risky letting a puppy go to a new home anymore. my friend even gave one away as she had an allergic reaction to her vaccination and feared she may be ill again when the boosters have to be done.

so what happened? vaccinations fine.

BUT six months down the track and get a phone call. my vets said this pup needs a $3,000 op and as the breeder the bills comming to you, hysterical was she? you bet.

told her, you have the right to a second opinion. what does her vet find? puppy weighted more than its 5 year old mum already and had fractured both elbows jumping from a verandah.

i was only saying to a friend, most of the ops vets decide to do on puppies these days.. once upon a time a luxating dog luxated all its life without surgery now its just about standard procedure it seems from some i have heard from, and no they gave up breeding.

simply couldnt see the point in selling a pup for 1,000 and refunding 3,000 for the ops the vet said to be done. soo i wondered, what about paying the first years insurance, its not like things like that happen very often?

to be told...but.. the cost of the policy from the price of the pup wont cover breeding and raising it and the buyers sure wont pay the extra.....

sooo wheres the comprimise?

im stumped to find a posative

think the pearler for me was a once long time friend was given two puppies a year apart .

6 n 7 years old down the track get a phone call... "vets doing luxating ops on both of them today and ive told them to send you the bill... just thought to call you so you know its comming and can be ready with the money"

sweet.

no the bill didnt arrive, her vet when he got the message from the secretary called her and told her there has been not a thing wrong with these dogs since you got them. what have you done different at home to cause this?

turned out they had bought a new bed and the dogs were now jumping three feet to get back to the floor in the morning.

never met that vet but i adore him.

will or did she ever get another from me?

not on your nelly

Edited November 21, 2010 by asal

[shortstep]

any risk assessment of puppies that includes a lifetime liability would make that puppy far too costly and impossible to manage given nutrition, care exercise etc can contribute to puppy/dog health problems and i suspect puppy buyers don't want that.

i suspect they want if to know the breeder has done all that is scientifically/medically possible to ensure the puppy has the best chance at a healthy life.

the liability should be before the puppy goes to the buyer, it should be encapsulated in best practise for breeding the particular breed.

hope this makes sense

I recall reading one post a little while back where the breeder gave a month's worth of pet insurance to each puppy buyer. That was an interesting idea.

A lifetime's liability (and maybe I'm reading Shortstep wrong here) seems inherently flawed given that so many issues are late onset or have unknown causes.

Sheridan this is not my idea, it is on the 10 point plan for breeding pedigree dogs in Australia and has been mentioned through out the PDE activists push to regulate dog breeding. Even someone this very thread have said they want breeders to be responsible for the life of the dog.

Anyway the idea is that it cover things that do come up any time in life. What they want to cover are things that there is little ability to control (even with screening), like SM, HD, diseases that have no DNA tests and so forth. This protects the buyer that they are not stuck with medical bills. But I think even more importantly it would also protect the breed's breeding committee members and also secondaryly the breeder.

Remember yesterday when I said that if the committees take over making the breeding decisions then they would also have to take on the responsibly for the results? So yes rest assured if the government or it's agents take over dog breeding decisions they will make sure those pups are insured, as they know things will still go wrong. They will not want to deal with it, the owner was made aware of the risk when they bought the dog with the insurance coverage, end of liability.

BTW no where have I seem any mention of containing costs on the price of dogs or on the amount of testing, by any of those pushing for the changes.

Edited November 21, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

asal, with great respect, it may not happen the way you are outlining. what you are saying is just one of many ways this can end. you may not have the right conclusion there may be more positive conclusions and that is what we need to work towards

[asal]

asal, with great respect, it may not happen the way you are outlining. what you are saying is just one of many ways this can end. you may not have the right conclusion there may be more positive conclusions and that is what we need to work towards

i sincerly hope you are right.

think i lost hope of sanity prevailing anywhere governement and laws are involved upon learning what happend to Judy Guard, and the law is still not even being considered for review.

instead concerns dismissed and more listed for adding

as i said. i soo so hope you are right

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

asal, with great respect, it may not happen the way you are outlining. what you are saying is just one of many ways this can end. you may not have the right conclusion there may be more positive conclusions and that is what we need to work towards

i sincerly hope you are right.

think i lost hope of sanity prevailing anywhere governement and laws are involved upon learning what happend to Judy Guard, and the law is still not even being considered for review.

instead concerns dismissed and more listed for adding

as i said. i soo so hope you are right

i think what happened to Judy Gard threw us all for a loop, not just breeders but all people who are fair minded.

we need to make sure to the best of our ability and combined knowledge that we do fight what's happening and we fight for what we care about, the dogs

[raz]

its just too risky letting a puppy go to a new home anymore. my friend even gave one away as she had an allergic reaction to her vaccination and feared she may be ill again when the boosters have to be done.

so what happened? vaccinations fine.

BUT six months down the track and get a phone call. my vets said this pup needs a $3,000 op and as the breeder the bills comming to you, hysterical was she? you bet.

That's really sad but pretty rare, isnt it (the hysterical reaction I'm talking about)? My fave dog was given to me - her breeder entrusted me to give a little dog a nice home. When the dog got sick the breeder offered to pay the vet bills. I said no because that's my deal when I take on a dog. I think most puppy buyers wouldnt even think to ask the breeder to pay if the dog gets sick or am I totally naive?

[asal]

its just too risky letting a puppy go to a new home anymore. my friend even gave one away as she had an allergic reaction to her vaccination and feared she may be ill again when the boosters have to be done.

so what happened? vaccinations fine.

BUT six months down the track and get a phone call. my vets said this pup needs a $3,000 op and as the breeder the bills comming to you, hysterical was she? you bet.

That's really sad but pretty rare, isnt it (the hysterical reaction I'm talking about)? My fave dog was given to me - her breeder entrusted me to give a little dog a nice home. When the dog got sick the breeder offered to pay the vet bills. I said no because that's my deal when I take on a dog. I think most puppy buyers wouldnt even think to ask the breeder to pay if the dog gets sick or am I totally naive?

i would like to think its pretty rare.

but its happened to me, and two of my friends in the last 3 years so I dont think they consider it rare now. and terrified of the new mindset now.

one no longer breeds, the other has decided once her present ones are retired thats it. me? thinking the same

LOL just realised you mean the hysterical reaction of the breeder,, well put yourself in her shoes. expected to pay $3,000 now? when they didnt even pay a cent for the pup in the first place? maybe you have that sort of money in the bank, many dont. when you dont, it does tend to cause stress

Edited November 21, 2010 by asal

[raz]

i would like to think its pretty rare.

but its happened to me, and two of my friends in the last 3 years so I dont think they consider it rare now. and terrified of the new mindset now.

one no longer breeds, the other has decided once her present ones are retired thats it. me? thinking the same

Gee you've been served a bum deal, asal. We puppy owners arent all like that so try not to let it turn you off. I hope to think that most of us take responsibility when we take on one of your dogs.

[raz]

LOL just realised you mean the hysterical reaction of the breeder,, well put yourself in her shoes. expected to pay $3,000 now? when they didnt even pay a cent for the pup in the first place? maybe you have that sort of money in the bank, many dont. when you dont, it does tend to cause stress

No I meant the hysterical reaction of the buyer.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

its just too risky letting a puppy go to a new home anymore. my friend even gave one away as she had an allergic reaction to her vaccination and feared she may be ill again when the boosters have to be done.

so what happened? vaccinations fine.

BUT six months down the track and get a phone call. my vets said this pup needs a $3,000 op and as the breeder the bills comming to you, hysterical was she? you bet.

That's really sad but pretty rare, isnt it (the hysterical reaction I'm talking about)? My fave dog was given to me - her breeder entrusted me to give a little dog a nice home. When the dog got sick the breeder offered to pay the vet bills. I said no because that's my deal when I take on a dog. I think most puppy buyers wouldnt even think to ask the breeder to pay if the dog gets sick or am I totally naive?

you are not naive raz

my puppy came to me with an inguinal hernia and i had this fixed when she was desexed and i never expected the breeder to pay for it even though she had it the day she arrived at my home