Base The Cost Of A Dog On Colour, Why?

[espinay2]

If I lower the price on the tan and whites rather than raise the price on the tri colours - is that O.K.

All depends on perspective doesnt it. Two colours - you charge more for one than the other - which charge is your 'base price'? If you say it is the higher one, then you are lowering the charge for some dogs, and if you say it is the lower price you are raising it. Why is it if you say one instead of the other you automatically become more 'ethical'?

In my breed what breeders charge for pups can vary by about $1500 (with pups being sold for from $1500 to around $3000). The interesting thing is there is absolutely no correlation to quality. It is simply what the breeder decides personally to charge. We dont really have a colour issue though! (although the all whites can be popular with first time Pyr pet owners - I have never heard of a breeder charging more for one though)

I do wonder though why some insist that all in a litter should be sold at the same price. Walk into a white goods store for example and I can guarantee you that any large appliance will not be sold at the same price to everyone. There may be a 'base price' but sometimes how much you pay can depend on a range of factors including how well you get on with the salesperson! If I want to charge less to someone I am selling a pup to (and as a result charge someone else more), then why not? Why is that considered somehow unethical if both the buyer and the seller are happy with the price? If they are not happy with the price, there is always the option of seeking a better one elsewhere.

Edited November 30, 2010 by espinay2

[Pippa]

If it's Ok to sell more popular colours at higher prices, why do we see people on threads complaining about "rare" blue staffords being sold at much higher prices?

[JulesP]

If it's Ok to sell more popular colours at higher prices, why do we see people on threads complaining about "rare" blue staffords being sold at much higher prices?

I don't see the people that were complaining on the Staffie thread saying it is ok here?

If the blue staffy has a black nose then I wouldn't have a problem with it being sold for more money. If it doesn't have a black nose then it is a dog with a fault according to the standard and should not be sold for more money. Probably should be less money.

[espinay2]

If it's Ok to sell more popular colours at higher prices, why do we see people on threads complaining about "rare" blue staffords being sold at much higher prices?

IMO while it is not wrong to charge more in general, where this sort of thing becomes wrong is as follows:

a. The claim that something is 'rare' - particularly when it is not and/or when it is not an accepted colour or feature for the breed. This type of selling and claim is dodgy no matter what 'product' you are selling.

b. When breeding for colour takes precedence over breeding for type/structure/health.

If you breed for the good of the breed, and happen to get a dog with a more sought after colour or markings - then I see nothing wrong with selling it for more if people are willing to pay more. It is when things are done the other way around, or when they are falsely represented, or when a fault is passed off as something extra special that it becomes dodgy.

Edited November 30, 2010 by espinay2

[Kristin Dwyer]

If it's Ok to sell more popular colours at higher prices, why do we see people on threads complaining about "rare" blue staffords being sold at much higher prices?

IMO while it is not wrong to charge more in general, where this sort of thing becomes wrong is as follows:

a. The claim that something is 'rare' - particularly when it is not and/or when it is not an accepted colour or feature for the breed. This type of selling and claim is dodgy no matter what 'product' you are selling.

b. When breeding for colour takes precedence over breeding for type/structure/health.

If you breed for the good of the breed, and happen to get a dog with a more sought after colour or markings - then I see nothing wrong with selling it for more if people are willing to pay more. It is when things are done the other way around, or when they are falsely represented, or when a fault is passed off as something extra special that it becomes dodgy.

[JulesP]

Sooooo basing the cost of a dog on colour is wrong but breeding crossbreds is OK?

[espinay2]

Sooooo basing the cost of a dog on colour is wrong but breeding crossbreds is OK?

Who is talking about crossbreds in this thread? You have me confused now.

[JulesP]

Sooooo basing the cost of a dog on colour is wrong but breeding crossbreds is OK?

Who is talking about crossbreds in this thread? You have me confused now.

The OP stated in another thread that she intended to mate her unregistered dog.

[espinay2]

OK, so actually nothing to do with the topic of this thread at all? Then why bring it up here and derail/hijack the topic?

Edited December 1, 2010 by espinay2

[Silvawilow]

The OP stated in another thread that she intended to mate her unregistered dog.

I thought she DID cross Border Collie with Aussie Shepherd and was selling them for $350 on Gumtree?

[Moselle]

A little OT but about 5 years ago I wanted to buy a purebred dog, I was especially after a white one; rang a breeder that specialised in white dogs, she had two pups available, one was the typical colour that this breed comes into and the other was a white. She was charging $1500 more for the white and emphasised that it would be desexed before leaving her....that is fair enough, she is the breeder and it is her prerogative, I don't believe in early desexing....she went on to say that the reason for this was to ensure that it wouldn't end up in a puppy farm, when I questioned her as to whether the same applied to the other pup.....she said that I would be responsible for desexing the other one if I wanted to purchase it; it was abundantly clear that she was more interested in preserving the bloodlines rather than a genuine concern for the welfare of her puppies and wanting to be sure that they did not end up in a puppy farm. Having said all of that....I do think that charging an extra $1500 (total $2500) was a little too exhorbitant.

[Steve]

A little OT but about 5 years ago I wanted to buy a purebred dog, I was especially after a white one; rang a breeder that specialised in white dogs, she had two pups available, one was the typical colour that this breed comes into and the other was a white. She was charging $1500 more for the white and emphasised that it would be desexed before leaving her....that is fair enough, she is the breeder and it is her prerogative, I don't believe in early desexing....she went on to say that the reason for this was to ensure that it wouldn't end up in a puppy farm, when I questioned her as to whether the same applied to the other pup.....she said that I would be responsible for desexing the other one if I wanted to purchase it; it was abundantly clear that she was more interested in preserving the bloodlines rather than a genuine concern for the welfare of her puppies and wanting to be sure that they did not end up in a puppy farm. Having said all of that....I do think that charging an extra $1500 (total $2500) was a little too exhorbitant.

Preserving th ebloodline when they are from the same litter? I dont get it.

[lappiemum]

One of the things that bothers me selling certain colours for more, is that you are not only meeting demand, you are also serving to create & increase it.

If other breeders know that a certain colour will sell for more or be more sought after, some of them will be more likely to factor this in to their next breeding choices. The crappier breeders will be willing to sacrifice more to get the colours that there is demand for & pretty soon there are rainbow litters of crap dogs. I think people who sell their coloured pups for more should in part be willing to take some responsibility for this.

The above is a MAJOR factor in my breed. 30-60% of the breeders ads on DOL at any point in time are often more about colour than anything else & like someone else mentioned, it seems to be more prevalent in QLD.

This is in a sense the issue - when you start charging additional for 'special' colours, then there is the temptation for breeders to attempt to breed for that colour, rather than overall conformation.

I've seen many pretty coloured dogs with awful conformation, and the owners have been charged a great deal.

[Gayle.]

The OP stated in another thread that she intended to mate her unregistered dog.

I thought she DID cross Border Collie with Aussie Shepherd and was selling them for $350 on Gumtree?

Read the opening post. She said she bred a litter of Border Collies earlier this year.

She actually bred a litter of mongrels as she mated her Australian Shepherd with her Border Collie, then advertised the pups on Gumtree.....but I thought it was for $800. But maybe that was the stud fee she was charging the owner of the BC she later mated the Aussie to. Or maybe the $350 was the price of the deaf pups from the second litter of BC x Aussies.

The OP is not a registered breeder, she does not have a prefix and she has bred at least 2 mongrel litters this year that I know of....could be 3 though. She is, however, entitled to her opinion as all of us are.

[Shazzapug]

The OP stated in another thread that she intended to mate her unregistered dog.

I thought she DID cross Border Collie with Aussie Shepherd and was selling them for $350 on Gumtree?

Read the opening post. She said she bred a litter of Border Collies earlier this year.

She actually bred a litter of mongrels as she mated her Australian Shepherd with her Border Collie, then advertised the pups on Gumtree.....but I thought it was for $800. But maybe that was the stud fee she was charging the owner of the BC she later mated the Aussie to. Or maybe the $350 was the price of the deaf pups from the second litter of BC x Aussies.

The OP is not a registered breeder, she does not have a prefix and she has bred at least 2 mongrel litters this year that I know of....could be 3 though. She is, however, entitled to her opinion as all of us are.

This changes what I was thinking but will still reply.....I charge more for Black pugs, cos I pride myself in breeding Black pugs and I am breeding for the betterment of the Black pugs....BUT now every man and his dog ie reg back yard breeders are breeding for the COLOR not for the betterment of the Black Pug. Black pugs are my first love, my first Pug was a Black pug and sold to me as a Show and breeding prospect....he has been our much loved desexed pet since he was 1.

Color in the wrong hands is money in their pockets.

[Moselle]

A little OT but about 5 years ago I wanted to buy a purebred dog, I was especially after a white one; rang a breeder that specialised in white dogs, she had two pups available, one was the typical colour that this breed comes into and the other was a white. She was charging $1500 more for the white and emphasised that it would be desexed before leaving her....that is fair enough, she is the breeder and it is her prerogative, I don't believe in early desexing....she went on to say that the reason for this was to ensure that it wouldn't end up in a puppy farm, when I questioned her as to whether the same applied to the other pup.....she said that I would be responsible for desexing the other one if I wanted to purchase it; it was abundantly clear that she was more interested in preserving the bloodlines rather than a genuine concern for the welfare of her puppies and wanting to be sure that they did not end up in a puppy farm. Having said all of that....I do think that charging an extra $1500 (total $2500) was a little too exhorbitant.

Preserving th ebloodline when they are from the same litter? I dont get it.

They were from separate litters, Steve. The whites are rather scarce in Australia.