Larger Scale Registered Breeders

[stonecutter]

Following on from this topic

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/224391-breeder-or-farmer/

I was debating with someone the validity of larger scale registered breeders. The previous topic had plenty of interesting POVs with the care and health of any animals being bred being of utmost importance.

The person I was debating with stated that breeding should only happen for the "betterment of the breed" - but who decides that? To really be breeding for the betterment of the breed, should an expert decide? Would each breeder only be allowed to breed their best bitch? "Betterment of the breed" seems to have so many different interpretations.

If that means a limited number of pups produced - would this push some dog buyers looking for a pet only more towards BYBs and puppy farmers? Would it be better to have some breeders who have a larger scale operation (for example, they might not work and raise pups full-time) who are registered and covered by ANKC and state-body rules? And therefore subject to their rules and regulations?

If a breeder is raising pups for mostly the pet market (those people who currently buy from a BYB or pet shop) - and bitches and pups are well looked after, they see a reputable breeders vet for health checks, pups raised in a home environment and the breeder is "full service" (takes back pups for whatever reason their owner wants to surrender them, is happy to consult on behavioural or health issues, is ready to take a pup out of a home if they are unhappy with how they are looked after, etc) - but on a larger scale (for example, more than 10 litters a year, but within ANKC breeding ethical guidelines) - is there a problem? Is this person a BYB?

People also talked about breeding "for profit" - what if breeding in this way (on a larger scale) provides the person a basic standard of living? Not swanning around in a new car or designer duds?

I ask because many Jap Spitz pups are turning up on Gumtree and pet shops from BYBs (and also Chevromist PF) - is it preferable to have a registered breeder with health tested animals and bound by ANKC/state operate on a larger scale?

(Obviously some will state that the best option is for only small family based kennels/breeding as stated in the original topic I linked - but I would appreciate opinions on BYB/PF vs larger scale registered breeder)

[Allerzeit]

The ANKC Code of Ethics for breeders states:

A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market.

So, if you are an ANKC registered breeder, then breeding primarily for the pet market or to make a profit is an unethical practice, regardless of the size of the breeding operation.

[stonecutter]

The ANKC Code of Ethics for breeders states:

A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market.

So, if you are an ANKC registered breeder, then breeding primarily for the pet market or to make a profit is an unethical practice, regardless of the size of the breeding operation.

Thanks Allerzeit - how does the ANKC actually enforce this? How do they determine if someone is breeding primarily for the purpose of improving quality? I see deregistration of prefixes in the monthly gazette - but no explanation of why.

Could this particular piece of the code be actually encouraging puppy farmers and BYBs?

[Miss B]

People also talked about breeding "for profit" - what if breeding in this way (on a larger scale) provides the person a basic standard of living? Not swanning around in a new car or designer duds?

Breeding quality dogs is not a profitable exercise when done correctly, and you'd be hard pressed to find many reputable breeders for whom their puppy sales provide an 'income' to fund their life. Plus as Allerzeit stated, breeding specifically to supply the pet market is actually against the ANKC Code of Ethics.

[stonecutter]

Thanks Miss B

[Inevitablue]

My question to the ANKC is - define the 'pet market'. Is it puppies to be supplied to pet stores? Or is it selling puppies to good homes to people who have no intention to show or breed, but want the qualities that a purebred dog has?

Isn't the provision of Limited Registration allowing people to supply the 'pet market'?

Edited August 10, 2011 by Inevitablue

[espinay2]

Some of the best breeders in my breed (on a world wide scale) are larger breeders who breed frequently. They are the breeders whose names are well known in some of the 'better' pedigrees and are recognised as making some of the most significant contributions to the breed. A lot of their dogs are also sold as pets (or livestock guardians). This holds as true today as it did in the past.

We really have to be very careful that breeding is not limited so much in some cases that we reduce genepools to the point where they are no longer viable. And we need to be VERY careful about imposing labels driven by an 'animal rights' view of what is ethical. 'large scale breeder' does NOT automatically equal 'bad breeder'

Edited August 10, 2011 by espinay2

[oakway]

Some of the best breeders in my breed (on a world wide scale) are larger breeders who breed frequently. They are the breeders whose names are well known in some of the 'better' pedigrees and are recognised as making some of the most significant contributions to the breed. Al lot of their dogs are also sold as pets (or livestock guardians). This holds as true today as it did in the past.

We really have to be very careful that breeding isnot limited so much in some cases that we reduce genepools to the point where they are no longer viable. And we need to be VERY careful about imposing labels driven by an 'animal rights' view of what is ethical. 'large scale breeder' does NOT automatically equal 'bad breeder'

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[~*Shell*~]

Could this particular piece of the code be actually encouraging puppy farmers and BYBs?

No. Puppy farmers and BYBs will breed regardless of whether or not they can be registered with the ANKC.

IMO anyone who breeds without the goal of bettering the breed shouldn't be breeding. Yes, there is a large difference of opinion in some people about what betters the breed - take a look at show line vs working line - they sometimes work in 2 different ways but both generally believe that they are bettering the breed.

Breeding to give yourself even a basic standard of living is breeding for profit and totally unethical. If a breeder has too many bitches/dogs to try and match to a suitable stud dog/bitch they cannot be trying to better the breed. Once it gets to the point where it becomes about money and not for the love of the breed, IMO you are a puppy farmer.

The vast majority of ethical registered breeders I know actually lose money on breeding a litter - one litter may make some money but it can be easily lost on the next and ethical registered breeders are prepared for this. How can you profit enough for even the lowest standard of living if you're providing the highest standard of care to the mother and puppies? You would have to be constantly breeding and be incredibly lucky to actually make money. Breeding a litter should never be about the amount of money that you will get from it, even if you will make some.

I don't think there is a certain number of dogs or litters that a breeder must have to decide if someone is unethical - as espinay said, there are some larger scale breeders who constantly show up in the "better" pedigrees. Obviously in that case, they are very very knowledgable when it comes to their breed and know what they will get from a litter however, in a lot of breeds, it's not as common to see it.

Edited August 10, 2011 by ~*Shell*~

[stonecutter]

My question to the ANKC is - define the 'pet market'. Is it puppies to be supplied to pet stores? Or is it selling puppies to good homes to people who have no intention to show or breed, but want the qualities that a purebred dog has?

Isn't the provision of Limited Registration allowing people to supply the 'pet market'?

Hmm - good point - I hadn't even considered that.

Some of the best breeders in my breed (on a world wide scale) are larger breeders who breed frequently. They are the breeders whose names are well known in some of the 'better' pedigrees and are recognised as making some of the most significant contributions to the breed. A lot of their dogs are also sold as pets (or livestock guardians). This holds as true today as it did in the past.

We really have to be very careful that breeding is not limited so much in some cases that we reduce genepools to the point where they are no longer viable. And we need to be VERY careful about imposing labels driven by an 'animal rights' view of what is ethical. 'large scale breeder' does NOT automatically equal 'bad breeder'

Thanks - I did not know this

[~*Shell*~]

My question to the ANKC is - define the 'pet market'. Is it puppies to be supplied to pet stores? Or is it selling puppies to good homes to people who have no intention to show or breed, but want the qualities that a purebred dog has?

Isn't the provision of Limited Registration allowing people to supply the 'pet market'?

Hmm - good point - I hadn't even considered that.

Not all registered dogs are "show" quality or have the right amount of working drive for main register - limited registration is a provision for that. It also stops dogs with faults being bred from and those puppies being registered. You might have 2 dogs out of a litter of 8 that are considered of high enough quality to be put on the main register, you might not have any or you might have 8. So no, i don't think limited registration is a provision for the pet market, i think it's a way of bettering the breed.

I would be interested in the ANKC's interpretation of "pet market" but personally I don't consider a breeder who is breeding solely so people can have pets ethical. The breeders I know breed for themselves because they want a puppy out of a litter. The show quality puppies are then sold into show/performance homes where those homes are available and the rest are pet homed on the limited register with desexing agreements. Yes some of those puppies go into pet homes but it's not what i would consider to be the "pet market".

Edited August 10, 2011 by ~*Shell*~

[Sandra777]

The ANKC Code of Ethics for breeders states:

A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market.

So, if you are an ANKC registered breeder, then breeding primarily for the pet market or to make a profit is an unethical practice, regardless of the size of the breeding operation.

The COE doesn't say this though. It says for the commercial market which is supplying shops or those that do. Profit doesn't come in to it....

[rahrah]

If it is unethical to breed genuinely healthy and good examples of a breed for the pet market,even if offering every support and accepting return of puppies, where are pet buyers supposed to get quality pups? Those pups that didn't qualify as suitable for breeding for the betterment of the breed would still be available but would numbers be adequate to supply the pet market? There are many, many pet owners out there who provide loving and knowledgeable homes for their dogs. If the number of pups available to these people is limited, or excessively expensive, isn't this going to contribute to problems associated with irresponsible breeders?

[Bjelkier]

If it is unethical to breed genuinely healthy and good examples of a breed for the pet market,even if offering every support and accepting return of puppies, where are pet buyers supposed to get quality pups? Those pups that didn't qualify as suitable for breeding for the betterment of the breed would still be available but would numbers be adequate to supply the pet market? There are many, many pet owners out there who provide loving and knowledgeable homes for their dogs. If the number of pups available to these people is limited, or excessively expensive, isn't this going to contribute to problems associated with irresponsible breeders?

Why would they be more expensive?

I've seen people who breed 'for the pet market' only who charge an arm and a leg for bad quality pups when the ethical breeders are charging much less.

Fair enough, if we eleminated the pet only breeders maybe the pups from an ethical breeder would be in shorter supply and maybe the pet buyer would have to wait a little bit longer but is that really such a bad thing?

Edited August 10, 2011 by Bjelkier

[rahrah]

If it is unethical to breed genuinely healthy and good examples of a breed for the pet market,even if offering every support and accepting return of puppies, where are pet buyers supposed to get quality pups? Those pups that didn't qualify as suitable for breeding for the betterment of the breed would still be available but would numbers be adequate to supply the pet market? There are many, many pet owners out there who provide loving and knowledgeable homes for their dogs. If the number of pups available to these people is limited, or excessively expensive, isn't this going to contribute to problems associated with irresponsible breeders?

Why would they be more expensive?

I've seen people who breed 'for the pet market'only who charge an arm and a leg for crap quality pups when the ethical breeders are charging much less.

Some breeders may take advantage of limited supply by increasing prices to match demand - not all of course. And I am asking about responsible people who breed good quality, not 'crap quality', pups. I don't wish to offend anyone, I am genuinely trying to understand. I personally have never bred, or intend to breed any puppies, so I am not running any personal agenda, but I am wanting to purchase a well bred, healthy puppy in the next couple of weeks.

[Roxy Lady]

Some of the best breeders in my breed (on a world wide scale) are larger breeders who breed frequently. They are the breeders whose names are well known in some of the 'better' pedigrees and are recognised as making some of the most significant contributions to the breed. A lot of their dogs are also sold as pets (or livestock guardians). This holds as true today as it did in the past.

We really have to be very careful that breeding is not limited so much in some cases that we reduce genepools to the point where they are no longer viable. And we need to be VERY careful about imposing labels driven by an 'animal rights' view of what is ethical. 'large scale breeder' does NOT automatically equal 'bad breeder'

So True! The breeder i got Roxy off is IMO a larger scale breeder. They wouldn't have more than 10 litter a year but they do breed often, athough they do seem to be slowing down a bit. They are a very reputable breeder in that a lot of their dogs are behind most quality bull terriers today and i would go as far as saying they have contributed to the bull terrier in Australia today in a very big way (have been breeding over 30years). They do still compete in show. And they generally keep the best pup/s out of a litter to run on. They tend to keep more bitches than dogs, and bitches are breed from once or twice then desexed and adopted out to a nice family home, when they are 3 or 4. They also sell their pups relatively 'cheaper' compared to some prices of BTs going around. They definitly improve on each litter and are putting out very nice examples of BTs and i think they get what they want out of most litters, but i also think it helps them (in a small way) with the costs of owning and keeping so many dogs. But in saying that, IMO this is not why they breed .

Edited August 10, 2011 by Roxy Lady

[Liebhunde]

This very topic has been on my mind too....this forum is always promoting the general public buy only pure bred dogs. Right ..fine and dandy..lets do just that. Couldnt agree more. And where do we go for said pups..registered breeders..very good..and we are presuming they are ethical breeders, commited to the lifetime care of the animals they produce..show their dogs and try to conform to the standard. They are conscious of the health requirements of the breed and produce with the view to eliminating inherited genetic problems. They ll be happy to take back any pups theyve bred and rehome if neccesary...they introduce new blood from OS to compliment their lines...or new blood from other kennels for th same purpose. They are involved in promoting their breed and are happty to talk to people and answer their questions and invite people to visit ..often.

When we say dedicated breeders should breed only to improve..wellonce again ..fine and dandy..but what is thye ultimate aim? Are Poodles being improved to better take part in a retrieval from the water..are Great Danes improved to better run down and hold a boar? Are Pointers improved so they can better indicate hidden birds??? Not so much these days..many breeds whos purpose was an active one in the field for various reasons are now simply show dogs whose most heart stopping activity is going out and back and stacking beautifully for examination. i acknowledge there are many actual working breeds which are actually working..eg., herders etc. and yes their breeders are working to improive them for that purpose.

So..what about all the other breeds..oh we all know there are many breeds now whos original purpose no longer exists...too many to list but you get my point.

I cannot see any problem with a committed bteeder who breeds more than what some would say is accepted practice...if they do all the above with respect to the dogs they produce. The public should be able to go to these breeders for a well rounded pet if they want one. Not everyone is interested in the show ring and all its political intrigues..as well as its positive contributions..and we all know only too well the show ring is host to some very strange people at times.

I really think the ANKC is shooting itself in the foot when they advise against breeding for the public who want a well bred pup..otherwise they go straight to the BYBers and that horrible can of worms...can of pythons more like. All the kennel clubs are wondering why membership is dropping off..could it be that they are just too elitist for their own good??? Just a thought thats been running through my head.

In case I am about to be burnt at the stake..let me say plainly thatI am a supporter and admirer of registered and commited breeders..its just that "{shot in the foot "thing that intrigues me....

[sandgrubber]

The Labrador Retriever breed was founded, in large part, through a few large scale UK breeders who imported dogs from the Canadian east coast. The Duke of Buccleuch in particular. It would be interesting to know whether these guys made a profit or where landed gentry who didn't need to make a profit. These days we can't count on landed gentry to run big kennels, though the Queen still keeps a respectable Labrador kennel. But you still find, if you go to shows, larger breeders play an important role in achieving the scale, and the economic resources, to import quality dogs and maintain exchanges with other top kennels worldwide. I know that some of them make a decent living doing so. BFD. They work 72 hours a week. They've taken risks. They've generally put huge resources into their operations. They stay on top of testing, and vet care in general. Ok, you or I may not like the fact that their litters don't run around on the kitchen floor, and their brood bitches tend to be rehomed when they've had the allowed number of litters. Some have concentrated on showing, and don't worry that some of their stock have no drive and may even dislike water. If you're going to attack the show dog establishment, you may find some of these guys are guilty of line breeding and of pushing over-used stud dogs. But you can't deny their central position in the Pedigree dog world.

[stonecutter]

If it is unethical to breed genuinely healthy and good examples of a breed for the pet market,even if offering every support and accepting return of puppies, where are pet buyers supposed to get quality pups? Those pups that didn't qualify as suitable for breeding for the betterment of the breed would still be available but would numbers be adequate to supply the pet market? There are many, many pet owners out there who provide loving and knowledgeable homes for their dogs. If the number of pups available to these people is limited, or excessively expensive, isn't this going to contribute to problems associated with irresponsible breeders?

Why would they be more expensive?

I've seen people who breed 'for the pet market'only who charge an arm and a leg for crap quality pups when the ethical breeders are charging much less.

Some breeders may take advantage of limited supply by increasing prices to match demand - not all of course. And I am asking about responsible people who breed good quality, not 'crap quality', pups. I don't wish to offend anyone, I am genuinely trying to understand. I personally have never bred, or intend to breed any puppies, so I am not running any personal agenda, but I am wanting to purchase a well bred, healthy puppy in the next couple of weeks.

Bjelkier - rahrah summed up what my thoughts might be - that for some (not all) economic theory would win out.

But you're correct - a lot of JS pups in pet shops/trading post are the same price or more than from a registered breeder.

[~*Shell*~]

All the kennel clubs are wondering why membership is dropping off..could it be that they are just too elitist for their own good??? Just a thought thats been running through my head.

Or could it be that house block sizes are getting smaller, people have less time and with all the advances in health testing breeders are now expected do, breeding a litter is becoming more financially straining?