Rescue Lumping Breederswith Byb And Pet Shops

[asal]

one thing not mentioned is the large number sold as "pets" which in fact are show quality.

There are far more people who are looking for a quality pet.

People who want a "show" quality pup (to actually show it) are the minority.

The majority are people with or without children who want a beautiful puppy.

Others are happy to take a puppy with a fault.

Others Want a puppy that looks like it belongs in the show ring.

They have no wish to show, or breed but want a puppy as good as they can get.

As a breeder, what greater reward than to see a magnificant representaive of their kennel out and about in public. turning heads where ever they go.

To be honest.

Where do you think your dog will be most noticed?

At a show where the majority present are breeders themselves?

Edited January 1, 2012 by asal

[Steve]

Hi all, just wanted to add the perspective of a "member of the public" - i.e., I've never been involved in showing or breeding dogs, and know nothing about it.

When I see an ad saying that "we sometimes have pet-quality pups available", I think "Oh good, I'm allowed to contact them if I would like a pup." In other words, I don't think of "pet quality" as a derogatory term. I think of it as descriptive, rather than evaluative.

My very basic understanding is that dogs that are perfect examples of a standard (in terms of appearance, temperament etc) will be used in breeding and showing. Other dogs will be pet quality. It doesn't mean that they're not good dogs. It means that the markings or colourings or the way the ears point etc is not what is specified in the standard.

So, basically, I am not at all concerned about the use of the term "pet quality". I don't find it offensive. In advertisements, I see it as an indication that I (a non-breeder etc) am welcome to enquire about a pup.

(Not having a go at anyone who is offended by the term - just adding my perspective.)

I think Kitt's post is very relevant and one that has been largely ignored in this thread.

So what - that's the whole point. Some people especially breeders understand what pet quality means and that it isn't an inferior dog to any other dog in a litter they use it as a guide and they are not offended by it but unless you do know that and you have been exposed to it as breeders are then its possible - some would argue even probable that this is creating a negative view of purebred dog breeders and their dogs to the general public and as has been pointed out already it was one of the things used by you know who to tell the public they were only getting our dregs.

No one is ordering anyone to change what they do its only a discussion about a potential issue which is good to talk about and consider especially as its not something that many breeders have considered before because they didn't know some people were offended by it. If its just here on this forum that's good but unless we do some research we wont know and if we don't we will simply bury our heads and says its not true.

Its not about whether you need to market your pups its about a general perception of purebred dogs and their breeders. Where is the harm in considering it - what is it exactly we stand to loose if at the end of the day it turns out its better for our PR if we don't use it?

Edited January 1, 2012 by Steve

[asal]

I cant remember a time ive ever referred to a pup as pet quality?

how many times have we kept what we at the time thought was the pick of the litter.

Remember it IS the breeder who does get first pick.

hands up how many have seen others from the same litter turn out better than your "pick" puppy?

I ask, do you want a pet? or to show?

If a pup has a fault that will put it down the line i say so and show that that fault is.

But even then the swan can transform into the duckling and the duckling become the swan.

even decided to hedge my bets and get the advice of not one but two international judges. the result? the worst pup in the litter by 9 months

perfect mouths can go wrong. glorious bodies can go oooops

imperfect mouths can become MAGNIFICANT.. gawky heads legs etc etc can do what? but already desexed so..live n learn nothing is black and white

the only ones who havent seen it havent seen their puppies again as adults would be my suspicion.

[rebelsquest]

Hi all, just wanted to add the perspective of a "member of the public" - i.e., I've never been involved in showing or breeding dogs, and know nothing about it.

When I see an ad saying that "we sometimes have pet-quality pups available", I think "Oh good, I'm allowed to contact them if I would like a pup." In other words, I don't think of "pet quality" as a derogatory term. I think of it as descriptive, rather than evaluative.

My very basic understanding is that dogs that are perfect examples of a standard (in terms of appearance, temperament etc) will be used in breeding and showing. Other dogs will be pet quality. It doesn't mean that they're not good dogs. It means that the markings or colourings or the way the ears point etc is not what is specified in the standard.

So, basically, I am not at all concerned about the use of the term "pet quality". I don't find it offensive. In advertisements, I see it as an indication that I (a non-breeder etc) am welcome to enquire about a pup.

(Not having a go at anyone who is offended by the term - just adding my perspective.)

I think Kitt's post is very relevant and one that has been largely ignored in this thread.

So what - that's the whole point. Some people especially breeders understand what pet quality means and that it isn't an inferior dog to any other dog in a litter they use it as a guide and they are not offended by it but unless you do know that and you have been exposed to it as breeders are then its possible - some would argue even probable that this is creating a negative view of purebred dog breeders and their dogs to the general public and as has been pointed out already it was one of the things used by you know who to tell the public they were only getting our dregs.

No one is ordering anyone to change what they do its only a discussion about a potential issue which is good to talk about and consider especially as its not something that many breeders have considered before because they didn't know some people were offended by it. If its just here on this forum that's good but unless we do some research we wont know and if we don't we will simply bury our heads and says its not true.

Its not about whether you need to market your pups its about a general perception of purebred dogs and their breeders. Where is the harm in considering it - what is it exactly we stand to loose if at the end of the day it turns out its better for our PR if we don't use it?

Gawd, have you even read Kitt's post? She/he has posted, in their own words, as a member of the public, and they are not offended by the use of the term pet quality. The people in this thread complaining about the term pet quality don't seem to be general members of the public.

I will again state that I have NEVER heard a breeder use the term pet quality in a way that sounds as if the pup is second class. No one in this thread has said they use the term in this manner. People in this thread are implying that breeders are looking down their noses and acting all snobby about the puppies that are "only" pet quality. However, there has been no evidence from the many breeders who have posted in this thread that any of them do this.

This thread is getting out of hand and turning into what I see as an unnecessary argument about one of many terms that are used in the dog world.

*Exits thread somewhat gracefully ;)*

Edited January 1, 2012 by rebelsquest

[Steve]

Hi all, just wanted to add the perspective of a "member of the public" - i.e., I've never been involved in showing or breeding dogs, and know nothing about it.

When I see an ad saying that "we sometimes have pet-quality pups available", I think "Oh good, I'm allowed to contact them if I would like a pup." In other words, I don't think of "pet quality" as a derogatory term. I think of it as descriptive, rather than evaluative.

My very basic understanding is that dogs that are perfect examples of a standard (in terms of appearance, temperament etc) will be used in breeding and showing. Other dogs will be pet quality. It doesn't mean that they're not good dogs. It means that the markings or colourings or the way the ears point etc is not what is specified in the standard.

So, basically, I am not at all concerned about the use of the term "pet quality". I don't find it offensive. In advertisements, I see it as an indication that I (a non-breeder etc) am welcome to enquire about a pup.

(Not having a go at anyone who is offended by the term - just adding my perspective.)

I think Kitt's post is very relevant and one that has been largely ignored in this thread.

So what - that's the whole point. Some people especially breeders understand what pet quality means and that it isn't an inferior dog to any other dog in a litter they use it as a guide and they are not offended by it but unless you do know that and you have been exposed to it as breeders are then its possible - some would argue even probable that this is creating a negative view of purebred dog breeders and their dogs to the general public and as has been pointed out already it was one of the things used by you know who to tell the public they were only getting our dregs.

No one is ordering anyone to change what they do its only a discussion about a potential issue which is good to talk about and consider especially as its not something that many breeders have considered before because they didn't know some people were offended by it. If its just here on this forum that's good but unless we do some research we wont know and if we don't we will simply bury our heads and says its not true.

Its not about whether you need to market your pups its about a general perception of purebred dogs and their breeders. Where is the harm in considering it - what is it exactly we stand to loose if at the end of the day it turns out its better for our PR if we don't use it?

Gawd, have you even read Kitt's post? She/he has posted, in their own words, as a member of the public, and they are not offended by the use of the term pet quality. The people in this thread complaining about the term pet quality don't seem to be general members of the public.

I will again state that I have NEVER heard a breeder use the term pet quality in a way that sounds as if the pup is second class. No one in this thread has said they use the term in this manner. People in this thread are implying that breeders are looking down their noses and acting all snobby about the puppies that are "only" pet quality. However, there has been no evidence from the many breeders who have posted in this thread that any of them do this.

This thread is getting out of hand and turning into what I see as an unnecessary argument about one of many terms that are used in the dog world.

*Exits thread somewhat gracefully ;)*

Yes Gawd I did even read kitts post and I can clearly see that she isn't offended but guess what - I hang out with people every day who are ordinary every day dog owners and members of the public and some of them are telling me they feel the same way that the un ordinary members of the public on this forum here feel. What makes one person's comment on this forum more valid because it may come from someone in your opinion who is who is more ordinary?

We are in a war right here right now with a fight against those who would prefer we dont breed at all for public perception and anything that may raise the positives about us and our dogs is in my opinion a good thing and worth considering.

What is it exactly that a breeder stands to loose if they concede that perhaps some members of the public are offended by the term and they decide to think on whether they should change that? No one is telling them they have to its a simple suggestion but it would appear that we have to insult each other and make our comments personal in order to argue for the accepted - for the sake of what?

Some people are offended by the term and it is a tool they have used in the past to put us down in the media and after the 4th when the part 2 PDE is released its likely to get worse.

Kitt is one general member of the public and she isn't offended - very good but that doesn't mean others are not and to pick one comment in this thread as more valid than someone else's who does feel its an issue makes little sense.

[Mystiqview]

In every business I have been involved in we had focus groups where we canvassed the consumers to get their views of our product and whether our marketing campaign was getting the message we wanted across.

We would have been very foolish indeed to just use our ideas and spend millions on advertising if it was not going to get our message across to the right market segment.

Like it or not, consumers are quite sophisticated when they are purchasing anything and I think registered breeders should pay heed to feedback about how their product is perceived, especially when there is growing opposition to that product.

Most companies now have changed how they operate and what core messages they have because times are changing and if they want to remain relevant and profitable then they need to change to meet market expectations. If they don't they will lose profitability and market share and eventually they won't exist.

Market Share is our standing against the puppy farmers, the back yard breeders and pet shops. We do not need to advertise or state we wish to cover costs or even make a profit. While there are cases that THIS litter may return a profit on the outgoing costs, the money goes back to the breeding program, the upkeep and care of the bitch and entries.

The Canine associations do not do a real effort to promote the benefits of the pedigree dog.

Breeders need to rise above

problem is we are dealing with a group who like to constantly remind us that if you breed to cover costs. let alone ever admit to making a profit?

is to be labled a puppy farmer. we all know puppy farmers have to be eliminated.

sooooo. bit of a no win situation.

unless that mind set can be changed thats just the beginning of a multitude of problems.

Had a very interesting afternoon. Met a lovely lady with an adorable teeny Teacup Chihuahua puppy. "Her" breeder only ever uses 1.2 kg and under parents to keep the breed pure.

i remember reading that 4 to 6 lbs being the best breeding size. looked it up and it equats to 4 lb = 1.81436 kg to 6 lb = 2.72155 kg.

yet as she said. her puppy is perfectly healthy as is her parents and siblings, so why not breed for this size they are so much nicer.

how on earth do you answer that kind of question?

AND get them to listen?

Let alone understand?

That is the truth. Some desreputable (even registered) breeders are bringing down the better ones. The attitude of some of the reputable breeders are bringing down some of the other reputable breeders by their high and mighty attitudes. Especially if the puppy enquiry reaches them first. The perception is then re-inforced.

As in every "business" there are time wasters. That is part and parcel when you are selling something, no matter the product. That does not mean we have to be rude, over the top or whatever the case to those enquiries. Some of the most genuine enquires are from a new person who has not ever heard of DOL or know the correct "protocol" for contacting registered breeders.

There is nothing wrong in the marketing strategies of business. If this increases the public perception of registered breeders, changes consumer habits of going to a pet store or a back yard breeder, then where is the problem?

Breeders are still individual. The pet stores and puppy farms are united.