Ok To Advertise Puppies In The Classifieds?

[Dame Aussie]

Just wondering if given the ANKC code of ethics says this

11. 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.

Personally, I think this is a snobbish and ambiguous part of the code of ethics. I also think the attitude that often goes along with it is a major reason that pedigree registrations are falling and designer dogs are increasing in popularity. People want a good healthy dog, with predictable temperament and look. Not many want a show dog, and a lot of the people who think they want a show dog go to one show and decide it's not for them. You can rationalise most anything under the rubric of 'improving the quality and/or working ability of the breed'. For a lap dog, being a good pet may equate to being a good working dog! Try and breed away from extreme conformation for health reasons and avoid popular sires . . . say so openly, and you'll be in for a lot of criticism.

Agree with this.

[Sheridan]

Just wondering if given the ANKC code of ethics says this

11. 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.

Personally, I think this is a snobbish and ambiguous part of the code of ethics. I also think the attitude that often goes along with it is a major reason that pedigree registrations are falling and designer dogs are increasing in popularity. People want a good healthy dog, with predictable temperament and look. Not many want a show dog, and a lot of the people who think they want a show dog go to one show and decide it's not for them. You can rationalise most anything under the rubric of 'improving the quality and/or working ability of the breed'. For a lap dog, being a good pet may equate to being a good working dog! Try and breed away from extreme conformation for health reasons and avoid popular sires . . . say so openly, and you'll be in for a lot of criticism.

Yes, yes, we get that you don't like pedigree dogs. You should have a 'repeat button'.

[Mystiqview]

this thread has probably moved on to breeders rather than just advertising - my view - Lets aim to get pure bred dogs out in the public eye again. That means as breeders we should aim to breed for the following

1. Use good DNA - temperament is set at birth, the environment will develop the behaviour but wont change the temperament so that means knowing that the Dam and Sire are of good character - if you use interstate or overseas sperm you should also do some research to ensure the temperament of the sire is solid. The health checks and DNA testing (even if not perfect) is the best we have available at present to ensure the best chance of good health.

2. Raise the pups to be healthy mentally and physically - ensure that pups have the chance to develop confidence for whatever life they will go to.

3. Find homes where the pups can have the chance to develop and become the dogs you hope for. That means to advertise where the public get to know the options open to them.

4. Breeders should be prepared to talk to potential buyers - use the enquiries as a chance to educate people on the breed traits and perhaps if not suitable for your breed advise the families of other options of pure bred.

Personally have no real interest in showing, therefore many of the showies would call me a pet breeder - but it is such fun to raise pups and see them go to homes. however this doesn't mean my breeding (and many other 'so called pet' breeders) aren't as good as what might be in the ring - besides I use the same bloodlines! Perhaps ocassionally someone might get one of my pups and decide to show or compete.......and thats great......... but my first priority is to produce a dog that someone would be proud to walk down the road and sit in a cafe - a dog they enjoy showing off in public.

A lovely pure bred dog with great manners - that is out in the public does more to promote pure bred dogs than any show.....

:thumbsup to the bolded bits

I think in a few cases, the "research" is not done on lines even here in Australia. I was talking to someone the other week who has been in the breed for ages. They even said they did not believe many of the new breeders are doing this research. I was talking to another person in the breed, and they said "great to talk to someone who has researched the lines and know the good and the bad points associated with the lines and also genetics." (I took that as a compliment.)

It is imperative all who venture into breeding research the lines they are using. For each good point a particular animal has, it may also be carrying 3 bad points which you can double up on. One of those three bad points may have a DNA test associated to it where you can get a quantitative answer to its status. The other two, are ticking time bombs waiting to go off if given the right genetic make-up. This is what is starting to happen in some of the lines within the Border Collie. People are ignoring the warnings and advice from those who have been around before and know of these issues, and still doubling up on certain animals with genetic concerns. I am sure this will be the same in all breeds, particular if there is a popular sire/bitch in there carrying a trait that is liked.

A point I brought up years ago, "it is amazing what you find out AFTER you breed a litter with an animal with a problem". I had one pup with a deformed eye. At birth, he was late coming and his placenta had broken and I had revived him. I put this pup to sleep at 4 weeks. Reason: When he walked he would often totter to one side or favour one side. This could have been due to his birthing and possible brain damage from lack of oxygen. It could have been something more. The eye, at first I thought it had not opened properly. At the PM, the vet said it was not formed properly and was in a way deformed.

A few weeks later I was talking to the person who owned the grandsire of my dam about the eye. They said, "oh yes, XYZ had produced that before"..(WTF!!!) They casually wrote it off as if it did not matter.

There is nothing wrong in my opinion to breeding good quality pets. After all, even show breeders, where do you think 90% of the puppies end up? Even those breeding for sports, the ones that don't have the drive or whatever to go to sporting homes, end up as someone's pet.

However, there is still no excuse why anyone who breeds should ignore or turn away from the breed standard. Those breeding for sports, should be breeding MORE to the breed standard than away. You cannot have a good sporting dog if the structure and conformation of the animal is not there. Pat Hastings even states in her lectures and books, the sporting dog should be MORE conformed than those of the show dog because of the extra pressures and stresses placed on joints and limbs associated with the sporting activity.

The pet buyer is entitled to have the same respect and right to approach a breeder and expect a healthy puppy and the support and hopefully the knowledge and skill of a breeder who has done the research, not only into the breed but into the problems within the lines. This is what hopefully sets the ANKC breeder apart from those breeding purebreds without the knowledge and information contained within a pedigree if one so was inclined to do their research.

There is nothing wrong with breeding for the pet market. But those who choose to do so, should still take into the same considerations as those who breed for the show ring and performance arenas.

[mita]

I'm not a breeder but I can't see anything incompatible between the ethic of breeding to improve the breed standard....& placing puppies in good pet homes.

In order to 'improve the breed', it's necessary to make decisions about mating, and to produce some litters of puppies.

Some pups will reflect a high 'standard', others less so. So the breeder may retain some for later showing/ breeding (or pass to another show-person)...but place others in good pet homes.

As to the puppies being well socialised to be happy & confident. The good registered breeders do that with all their puppies, whether they're 'show' bound or 'pet home' bound. As little creatures, they're all loved. Which is proven by how carefully those breeders rehome their puppies.

I've got show-quality dogs, retired by the breeder after they've done their bit in the show-ring & had 1 or 2 litters.

They were treated as loved pets by that breeder as puppies & as adults....so they slotted into a pet home without turning a whisker!

[espinay2]

Just wondering if given the ANKC code of ethics says this

11. 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.

You can breed to improve quality and 'working ability' and still be breeding dogs that make good pets.

Pets are not second class dogs and one of my pet peeves is that attitude that seems to class them as such.

Pet owners deserve sound dogs that are good example of their breed.

There is nothing incompatible between working to breed quality dogs and selling some, if not the majority of them to the general public as 'pets'.

This is about the overall aim of a breeders breeding program which is IMO not something that can gauged solely by one criteria alone (such as whether a dog ends up as a 'pet' or not).

Certainly if a breeders ONLY criteria in breeding is to sell to the pet market and they make their choices using no other criteria at all then fair enough.

Most breeders (ethical and responsible registered breeders of purebred dogs) though have more than one criteria on which they base a breeding program.

If that program includes imporving quality and/or working ability then regardless of any other criteria, and whether those pups are sold to pet homes or not, a breeder will more than likely fit within the definition of the above clause.

[sandgrubber]

Just wondering if given the ANKC code of ethics says this

11. 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.

Personally, I think this is a snobbish and ambiguous part of the code of ethics. I also think the attitude that often goes along with it is a major reason that pedigree registrations are falling and designer dogs are increasing in popularity. People want a good healthy dog, with predictable temperament and look. Not many want a show dog, and a lot of the people who think they want a show dog go to one show and decide it's not for them. You can rationalise most anything under the rubric of 'improving the quality and/or working ability of the breed'. For a lap dog, being a good pet may equate to being a good working dog! Try and breed away from extreme conformation for health reasons and avoid popular sires . . . say so openly, and you'll be in for a lot of criticism.

Yes, yes, we get that you don't like pedigree dogs. You should have a 'repeat button'.

I get that your reading comprehension is poor and that you don't like me. I breed pedigree dogs and am proud of the pedigrees behind my dogs. I do health testing. I screen buyers. I'm no longer breeding because the lovely pup I kept from the last litter (sire, via AI, a multiple BISS import with excellent temperament and good health stats) did poorly on hip/ebow screening and my old girl stopped having regular cycles. Yatta, yatta, yatta. I have major problems with the show ring as a decider of what is an 'improvement' in the breed. Show judging has done immense damage to the health, temperament, and working ability of many, many breeds. If breed fanciers response to people voicing anti-show sentiments is to attack the messenger, the decline of purebred/pedigree dogs and the rise of designer dogs and puppy farms is assured.

[Sheridan]

Sandgrubber, I have done my fair share of heavily criticising pedigree dog breeders but nowhere in your posts have I ever got that you are one. All your posts are exactly the same, that you can see no good in the show ring, that you can see no good in pedigree dogs at all. Indeed, I thought you were pro-crossbreeding. It isn't my comprehension that's poor. If you can't get your message across without sounding as if you're a member of the opposition then it's your writing construction skills at fault.

[Rebanne]

actually I would have to reconsider advertising my pups after 8 weeks of age because of

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/234935-new-vic-microchip-advertising-rules/

or break the law myself and put in false numbers.

[LizT]

Donning flame suit....

As I stated in a previous post, I breed to KEEP not to sell but the reality is that I cannot keep everything and so occasionally I will have carefully bred, well-reared and socialised puppies available to SUITABLE pet homes. Note that I say SUITABLE....and yes, I'm well aware that my idea of suitable doesn't necessarily correspond with somebody else's idea of suitable. I actually saw that firsthand recently whilst a friend of mine was selling a litter of registered purebred puppies...she dealt with certain issues and enquiries in a far different way to the way that I do and to be honest (and she is aware of this) there were some of her puppy purchasers who wouldn't have been successful at purchasing a puppy from me for various reasons. But, each to their own.

Now that said...I do believe that breeders should be breeding to better the breed. And that is what the ANKC and State controlling bodies Codes of Ethics state.

BUT....isn't breeding good quality, healthy, happy puppies for the companion market just as important? In some high-demand breeds, I personally am coming around to the mindset that if a breeder can safely manage the occasional litter of companion only puppies, then why should it be wrong to ensure that there is a healthy supply of correctly bred and reared puppies for the companion market? Why should the BYB and shonky millers be the only ones who can supply the market and potentially cause even more damage to breeds that are already in danger from overbreeding?

Now I am not for one minute endorsing that every breeder should churn out puppies specifically for the pet market, but in some breeds (Staffords for instance), even my much-loved, healthy, happy companion puppies are a better proposition than the hundreds that are churned out by people who have no idea how to rear them, let alone health test which can potentially create untold problems in pet homes and in society, let alone the damage to the breed itself.

At the very least, registered and reputable breeders will screen the homes more carefully, HOPEFULLY match puppies to purchasers and not just hand over a puppy to anybody who turns up with the money and then provide lifetime backup and support as well as (in an ideal world) being able to take back, or help to arrange alternatives for the dog down the track if circumstances change.

We are never going to completely stop backyard breeding or farming, but I do think that certain trains of thought need to get on track for the present and think a little more about the future whilst they are at it.

I totally agree Ellz, don't the General Public deserve to have a dog that was bred with the betterment of the breed in mind and not just for the money in puppy sales.

Don't they deserve to be able to find these dogs as easily as any other when they are in the market for a companion animal or working dog?