Price Of Puppies

[corvus]

YES!! No need to health test they are not show dogs, and most don't have a clue what health problems there are or that many of them can be greatly reduced or prevented through proper testing and selection of breeding stock.

If they have no idea and don't health test, the question still remains whether the resultant dogs are affected. If you could show it with figures and statistics it would be very powerful. You could change attitudes with that.

[Roova]

so what is it? Breed only to replace a show dog or breed often enough to have a regular income?

I don't quite understand what you mean by your question sorry. What I was meaning by my comment is registered breeders are not all setting a good example yet the finger seems to be forever pointed at BYBers for making poor decisions. Both parties seem to have healthy happy dogs or the opposite.

Don't presume a Breeder does not test simply on the wording of an advert. For many it is simply a part of what they do and they see no need to even mention they do it, it is all discussed when contact is made.

Im sure thats definitely the case for some, although advertising how careful you are as a breeder I would have thought, would contribute to attracting a puppy buyer who knows how important that is.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Roova

[minimax]

YES!! No need to health test they are not show dogs, and most don't have a clue what health problems there are or that many of them can be greatly reduced or prevented through proper testing and selection of breeding stock.

If they have no idea and don't health test, the question still remains whether the resultant dogs are affected. If you could show it with figures and statistics it would be very powerful. You could change attitudes with that.

Your argument was science vs luck, not whether the dogs are affected.

If you want figured and statistics you could do your own research, but it's hard to show statistics for people who don't do something and aren't registered, as they aren't obliged to be accountable.

[Rosetta]

Because irresponsible people breed random dogs without health testing or thought for anything. There is a lot of evidence for that. The chances of dogs being fabulous is sheer luck, what effort do they go to to ensure their dogs will be fabulous?

Show it to me? Show me evidence that shows that anyone who is not an ANKC registered breeder that is breeding dogs is doing it in a completely random manner. I find that one in particular very hard to believe. They are at least picking the breeds they want to use most of the time. Show me the evidence that none of them health test. Maybe they have had different experiences, different upbringing, and different beliefs and education. How many random bred dogs does someone have to buy before they run out of luck? How many pedigree dogs? Rhetorical questions.

Of all the byb's I've asked , NONE have health tested their "breeding dogs" None have seen the "need" for it. as to selecting conformation- SOME had no clue what that even meant, while others didn't care.

If a person wanted to breed, but couldn't give a hoot about formal registration (ANKC ect) but still health tested and assessed temperament and Conformation- then they are not byb's in my book- but the kind of breeder who cares about what they produce (though I doubt you'll find many of these) as doing "right" by the dog is going to cut into their profit margin- and they may as well become a registered breeder.

There's a couple of facebook pages that I ask every BYBer the relevant health questions pertaining to their breed and ask if the parents have been tested. I've asked countless BYBers and not one has said yes, the majority say there's no need to and that they are $500 puppies not show dogs.

YES!! No need to health test they are not show dogs, and most don't have a clue what health problems there are or that many of them can be greatly reduced or prevented through proper testing and selection of breeding stock.

The one that cranks me off the most is the response " my vet health checked them, so they are fine" ...

Sorry don't mean to be a smarty-pants but that is exactly the response I got from a few registered breeders when enquiring - just thought it ironic.

[WreckitWhippet]

Because irresponsible people breed random dogs without health testing or thought for anything. There is a lot of evidence for that. The chances of dogs being fabulous is sheer luck, what effort do they go to to ensure their dogs will be fabulous?

Show it to me? Show me evidence that shows that anyone who is not an ANKC registered breeder that is breeding dogs is doing it in a completely random manner. I find that one in particular very hard to believe. They are at least picking the breeds they want to use most of the time. Show me the evidence that none of them health test. Maybe they have had different experiences, different upbringing, and different beliefs and education. How many random bred dogs does someone have to buy before they run out of luck? How many pedigree dogs? Rhetorical questions.

Of all the byb's I've asked , NONE have health tested their "breeding dogs" None have seen the "need" for it. as to selecting conformation- SOME had no clue what that even meant, while others didn't care.

If a person wanted to breed, but couldn't give a hoot about formal registration (ANKC ect) but still health tested and assessed temperament and Conformation- then they are not byb's in my book- but the kind of breeder who cares about what they produce (though I doubt you'll find many of these) as doing "right" by the dog is going to cut into their profit margin- and they may as well become a registered breeder.

There's a couple of facebook pages that I ask every BYBer the relevant health questions pertaining to their breed and ask if the parents have been tested. I've asked countless BYBers and not one has said yes, the majority say there's no need to and that they are $500 puppies not show dogs.

YES!! No need to health test they are not show dogs, and most don't have a clue what health problems there are or that many of them can be greatly reduced or prevented through proper testing and selection of breeding stock.

The one that cranks me off the most is the response " my vet health checked them, so they are fine" ...

Sorry don't mean to be a smarty-pants but that is exactly the response I got from a few registered breeders when enquiring - just thought it ironic.

I don't find it acceptable from any breeder

[corvus]

I could go on and on on what expences I incur, and trust me, there is no breaking even on all of that. Thats not counting my time AT ALL.

Right, exactly. So why do you do it?

Yes the point of breeding is to produce dogs that are a continuous improvement of the breed, not to make money. But until I win lotto and can afford all of the things I want for my dogs, I will be charging for puppies. And because I probably provide more service with the puppy than most breeders, I will be charging premium prices.

I think that is getting to the crux of it, really. I've always figured breeders price their animals at what they think they are worth. Which presumably takes into account the time and effort they put into them, but not, one would hope, on an hourly basis.

What I'm getting at is that it's not a business. Which is to say the purpose of your breeding is not to make a living. You have every right to charge what you wish for your puppies, but I think justifying the price with the pain and hardship you live through in bringing puppies into the world is a hard sell. If it's so terrible for you, don't do it. No one is making you. Plenty of people go through similar hardships in all walks of life, in paid work as well as volunteer work and in hobbies. They don't generally need acknowledgement or payment for doing something their moral and ethical standards demand they do, or for going above and beyond because their commitment to quality requires it. I expect you don't spend stacks of time and effort in breeding so you can charge premium price for puppies. I am imagining it is much much more than that. Most of the time I think few people realise how much of themselves you and others in a similar situation put into what they are doing, and I think that is understandable. You have to live with someone to see all of it. But I also think it's okay that the rest of the world don't know. Because you're not doing it for affirmation from them, are you?

[german_shep_fan]

Slightly off topic but I often wonder how some of these health problems come abt? Is it the way dogs are bred or just bad luck? In the GSD the hemophilia gene can be traced back to one very prominent show dog many moons ago and things spread from there. He apparently died young but as he was a popular boy the damage was done Fortunately, and as should be the gene has been mostly eradicated now. But just made me think how one dud dog can do so much damage.

[melzawelza]

Because irresponsible people breed random dogs without health testing or thought for anything. There is a lot of evidence for that. The chances of dogs being fabulous is sheer luck, what effort do they go to to ensure their dogs will be fabulous?

Show it to me? Show me evidence that shows that anyone who is not an ANKC registered breeder that is breeding dogs is doing it in a completely random manner. I find that one in particular very hard to believe. They are at least picking the breeds they want to use most of the time. Show me the evidence that none of them health test. Maybe they have had different experiences, different upbringing, and different beliefs and education. How many random bred dogs does someone have to buy before they run out of luck? How many pedigree dogs? Rhetorical questions.

Of all the byb's I've asked , NONE have health tested their "breeding dogs" None have seen the "need" for it. as to selecting conformation- SOME had no clue what that even meant, while others didn't care.

If a person wanted to breed, but couldn't give a hoot about formal registration (ANKC ect) but still health tested and assessed temperament and Conformation- then they are not byb's in my book- but the kind of breeder who cares about what they produce (though I doubt you'll find many of these) as doing "right" by the dog is going to cut into their profit margin- and they may as well become a registered breeder.

There's a couple of facebook pages that I ask every BYBer the relevant health questions pertaining to their breed and ask if the parents have been tested. I've asked countless BYBers and not one has said yes, the majority say there's no need to and that they are $500 puppies not show dogs.

YES!! No need to health test they are not show dogs, and most don't have a clue what health problems there are or that many of them can be greatly reduced or prevented through proper testing and selection of breeding stock.

The one that cranks me off the most is the response " my vet health checked them, so they are fine" ...

Sorry don't mean to be a smarty-pants but that is exactly the response I got from a few registered breeders when enquiring - just thought it ironic.

I have to say, I am completely against unregistered breeding (unless for a very specific purpose that can be backed up)and spent so many hours convincing my Aunty of the benefits of registered breeders (namely health testing as my main focus) so she wouldn't buy another BYB Silky X Maltese.

Convinced her it was worth investigating so we're looking in to breeds. She's interested in Havanese so I ring up a local breeder and start asking some questions. When I mentioned health testing I was told 'I've never had a problem with my dogs, all these people who go on and on about health testing have no idea. My dogs can lie with their legs straight out behind them on the floor and that means there's nothing wrong with their hips!'. She was charging $3000 per puppy mind you.

Very hard when you've been telling your Aunty that health testing is paramount and that's why she should be going to a Rego Breeder and pay $1000+ for a pup rather than $100 - and then getting that sort of response.

Luckily she found a lovely Lowchen breeder and is thrilled with her puppy. But the dodgy registered breeders really do make it hard for the general public to see the difference. I don't understand why ALL breeds don't have compulsory testing of known issues in the breed like the Lab or GSD do.

Edited March 6, 2013 by melzawelza

[megan_]

Slightly off topic but I often wonder how some of these health problems come abt? Is it the way dogs are bred or just bad luck? In the GSD the hemophilia gene can be traced back to one very prominent show dog many moons ago and things spread from there. He apparently died young but as he was a popular boy the damage was done Fortunately, and as should be the gene has been mostly eradicated now. But just made me think how one dud dog can do so much damage.

It also shows how over-using one dog or one line can do much damage. I wonder how breeders take this into consideration? We always talk about "bettering the breed" but it doesn't seem like there is a breed master plan, just individuals doing their best.

Apparently there is a similar issue with Std Poodles and many dogs being traced back to a few very popular show dogs a few generations back.

[WExtremeG]

Because irresponsible people breed random dogs without health testing or thought for anything. There is a lot of evidence for that. The chances of dogs being fabulous is sheer luck, what effort do they go to to ensure their dogs will be fabulous?

Show it to me? Show me evidence that shows that anyone who is not an ANKC registered breeder that is breeding dogs is doing it in a completely random manner. I find that one in particular very hard to believe. They are at least picking the breeds they want to use most of the time. Show me the evidence that none of them health test. Maybe they have had different experiences, different upbringing, and different beliefs and education. How many random bred dogs does someone have to buy before they run out of luck? How many pedigree dogs? Rhetorical questions.

Of all the byb's I've asked , NONE have health tested their "breeding dogs" None have seen the "need" for it. as to selecting conformation- SOME had no clue what that even meant, while others didn't care.

If a person wanted to breed, but couldn't give a hoot about formal registration (ANKC ect) but still health tested and assessed temperament and Conformation- then they are not byb's in my book- but the kind of breeder who cares about what they produce (though I doubt you'll find many of these) as doing "right" by the dog is going to cut into their profit margin- and they may as well become a registered breeder.

There's a couple of facebook pages that I ask every BYBer the relevant health questions pertaining to their breed and ask if the parents have been tested. I've asked countless BYBers and not one has said yes, the majority say there's no need to and that they are $500 puppies not show dogs.

YES!! No need to health test they are not show dogs, and most don't have a clue what health problems there are or that many of them can be greatly reduced or prevented through proper testing and selection of breeding stock.

The one that cranks me off the most is the response " my vet health checked them, so they are fine" ...

Sorry don't mean to be a smarty-pants but that is exactly the response I got from a few registered breeders when enquiring - just thought it ironic.

I am not a breeder, but thought that you couldn't register a litter without the submitted results (breed specific mandatory testing) of the sire and dam?

[Salukifan]

Slightly off topic but I often wonder how some of these health problems come abt? Is it the way dogs are bred or just bad luck? In the GSD the hemophilia gene can be traced back to one very prominent show dog many moons ago and things spread from there. He apparently died young but as he was a popular boy the damage was done Fortunately, and as should be the gene has been mostly eradicated now. But just made me think how one dud dog can do so much damage.

It also shows how over-using one dog or one line can do much damage. I wonder how breeders take this into consideration? We always talk about "bettering the breed" but it doesn't seem like there is a breed master plan, just individuals doing their best.

Apparently there is a similar issue with Std Poodles and many dogs being traced back to a few very popular show dogs a few generations back.

It's called Dominant or Popular Sire Syndrome and it isn't confined to dog breeding. A sire named Impressive produced a very serious issue in Quarter Horses some years back. He was responsible for a genetic mutation that produced a devastating muscular disorder that widely in the breed. Google "Impressive Syndrome" if you want to know more about it.

The best breeders breed on pedigree not popularity but this is the inherent danger in ANY breeding. Genetic results are not entirely predictable.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[teekay]

First of all I have absolutely no problem with what breeders charge for their dogs. Quite simply, they are their dogs ans they cancharge whatever they want for them. I don't see a problem. If they are charging too much I guess the pups won't sell. If they sell then the price is fine.

However i did have a problem with the original post. I'm sorry but most, if not all, of the things you said in the first post MonELite, could apply for anyone who has a bitch having puppies, not just a registered breeder. Not counting puppy farms of course as they obviously don't give a sh*t about their dogs, but if an uneducated person decided to breed their beloved pet, "for the experience' as I know some people do, I'm sure they would go to all that trouble for them too. Not all, obvioulsy there are those that just wouldn't care but I'm sure a lot would.

I also take issue with this post

Are you talking about breaking even on the particular litter or breaking even on the breeding overal?

Because when its on the breeding overal I have some pretty big expences.........

Larger property than standard so that dogs would have more room to run, far away from where I work, so lots of fuel and time to get to work on daily basis.

Bigger car than what I'd have if I had one dog as a pet.

Show and trial entries and travel to and from them so that my breeding dogs can have some titles to their names.

Number of crates, dog beds, training equipement, seminar attendance, books, DVDs, dog toys, LOTS and LOTS of dog food.

Now - I had a bitch returned to me from one of the previous litters - she doesnt get on with the others. So I had to build a fence to keep her separated, thats $2000.

She has a contact alery to something in my grass , maybe wondering dew. That is vet visits, spray of all sorts of weeds in the garden.

None of that would be done if I never bred her in the first place.

I could go on and on on what expences I incur, and trust me, there is no breaking even on all of that. Thats not counting my time AT ALL.

Yes the point of breeding is to produce dogs that are a continuous improvement of the breed, not to make money. But until I win lotto and can afford all of the things I want for my dogs, I will be charging for puppies. And because I probably provide more service with the puppy than most breeders, I will be charging premium prices.

Most of these things, with obvious exceptions, I do already for my pet dogs as I am sure others do too. I don't think it fair to factor most of these things into the cost.

However, as I said before but it is worth saying it again. I have no problem with what registered breeders charge for their dogs. I just didn't really like the tone of the 'justification' for doing so.

[Roova]

When breeders complain that people say their prices are too high I think some other factors are forgotton. Buying a pet which will be desexed can be pretty expensive outlay of money, think Frenchies at $3500+. There's no physical return on the money (Im not talking about the love and pleasure you'll have from your pet) and in fact more costs will be ahead with feeding, vets and equipment etc.

From a breeders perspective they might invest money and time into their chosen pets but they can have a regular return of money through selling excess puppies. They may also sell older dogs which no longer suit their needs and possibly dogs given back to them for some reason. Every litter can't be a disaster of hand feeding and rushing to the vets or no-one would do it surely?

I don't think people should be expecting to get a return from their pet??

It is a one off investment, as you said + plus running costs thereafter. When was the last time your car or furniture gave birth to a litter for you to sell on? They can also require maintenance, just like a pet. Yet nobody would tell the retailer to charge less because you will not see a return from your couch??

By all means, don't buy a luxury "item", like a $3500 Frenchie or a $3500 couch if you do not want to pay that price or cannot afford it but don't expect people to drop their prices because you won't be making money off them :p

Sorry but I find this argument extremely bizarre

I don't think the average person would contemplate getting a return from their pet, I was trying to make the point that puppies are purchased knowing this.

It does seem breeders do want a return of money spent (or to make money) on puppies though. If not they wouldn't be as expensive as they are!

In saying this I think any breeder who puts their time, effort and skill into helping create a long lived, healthy pet deserves money to help them continue what they're doing. There must be some incentive or they might stop. Unfortunately it's the ones who don't put the same effort in but want the same money which I think make it harder for decent breeders to explain their costs.

What irks me though is BYBers are frowned on for breeding for money, or with non health tested dogs, when there are registered breeders doing the same. Registered breeders have governing bodies, have been educated, and have agreed to abide by rules but it doesn't seem to stop many from breaking these rules when it comes to breeding puppies.

[corvus]

Your argument was science vs luck, not whether the dogs are affected.

That isn't an argument! How do you calculate 'luck'? I do it with probabilities, because it's the scientific way. You need to know whether dogs are affected to calculate the probability of a dog being luckily healthy.

I actually wasn't trying to argue anything. I was just saying and still am that making claims about an entire population without numbers to back it up is not very convincing and it's kind of unfair to that population as well. When people do that about registered breeders everybody here gets very upset about it. I am suggesting perhaps it's hypocritical to then turn around and do the same thing about another group? Whether it's justified or not is unknown, so it seems fairer to at least modulate language so it's clear what is being said is someone's opinion, not established fact.

I love that now it's my job to collect the data because I said it would be good to have some. I don't think it would be hard as you are saying, but I guess we'll never know if no one does it. I guess it's much easier to just be opinionated about something without having to find out if it's true or not.

[german_shep_fan]

Slightly off topic but I often wonder how some of these health problems come abt? Is it the way dogs are bred or just bad luck? In the GSD the hemophilia gene can be traced back to one very prominent show dog many moons ago and things spread from there. He apparently died young but as he was a popular boy the damage was done Fortunately, and as should be the gene has been mostly eradicated now. But just made me think how one dud dog can do so much damage.

It also shows how over-using one dog or one line can do much damage. I wonder how breeders take this into consideration? We always talk about "bettering the breed" but it doesn't seem like there is a breed master plan, just individuals doing their best.

Apparently there is a similar issue with Std Poodles and many dogs being traced back to a few very popular show dogs a few generations back.

It's called Dominant or Popular Sire Syndrome and it isn't confined to dog breeding. A sire named Impressive produced a very serious issue in Quarter Horses some years back. He was responsible for a genetic mutation that produced a devastating muscular disorder that widely in the breed. Google "Impressive Syndrome" if you want to know more about it.

The best breeders breed on pedigree not popularity but this is the inherent danger in ANY breeding. Genetic results are not entirely predictable.

yes I know and its still going on now unfortunately. That's what is amusing, some of these issues were started by reg breeders but they get uptight when byb don't test for them. Fortunately now the mess of hemophilia is mostly a thing of the past.

[Salukifan]

Your argument was science vs luck, not whether the dogs are affected.

That isn't an argument! How do you calculate 'luck'? I do it with probabilities, because it's the scientific way. You need to know whether dogs are affected to calculate the probability of a dog being luckily healthy.

I actually wasn't trying to argue anything. I was just saying and still am that making claims about an entire population without numbers to back it up is not very convincing and it's kind of unfair to that population as well. When people do that about registered breeders everybody here gets very upset about it. I am suggesting perhaps it's hypocritical to then turn around and do the same thing about another group? Whether it's justified or not is unknown, so it seems fairer to at least modulate language so it's clear what is being said is someone's opinion, not established fact.

I love that now it's my job to collect the data because I said it would be good to have some. I don't think it would be hard as you are saying, but I guess we'll never know if no one does it. I guess it's much easier to just be opinionated about something without having to find out if it's true or not.

Although less scientific, in the absence of data, anecdotal evidence is at least some kind of evidence.

I have never heard of research being conducted or data being collected on health issues in crossbred dogs or dogs of unknown parentage. I hope it IS collected because as you suggest, it will provide facts. I'd like to see the issue explored scientifically and my guess is that the evidence would show neither purebed nor crossbred dogs are immune from inheritable health issues.

[Salukifan]

yes I know and its still going on now unfortunately. That's what is amusing, some of these issues were started by reg breeders but they get uptight when byb don't test for them. Fortunately now the mess of hemophilia is mostly a thing of the past.

It cut a swathe through American Cockers at some point too. Devastating.

[MonElite]

Right, exactly. So why do you do it?

I think justifying the price with the pain and hardship you live through in bringing puppies into the world is a hard sell.

Why? Variety of reasons

You know the dream of creating the "perfect" dog?

I'd like to think that I positivelly contribute to the breed.

Id like to think that I posittivelly contribute to peoples lifes when they get a puppy from me.

And I, formost, breed a dog for myself.

As to the hard sell - I think you have missed the point of my original post completly.

Id love to have a smooth sailing litter, with 7-8 puppies, with no issues.

I didnt. And I said that those hard moments I would love to outsource to someone. I would than possibly be able to charge the $100 for the puppies.

The point was that I had a "tyre kicker" call up ask for a price of a puppy, when I told him, he said - but Ive seen one in xyz place for x price wich was $100 less than mine.

Great - go and buy one there!

[hankdog]

I don't have a problem with breeders making a profit. Produce a good product and charge accordingly, produce a great product and charge more. You breed your dogs, treat them well and that's your business from which you should profit, put some of that profit back into the business and your dogs will benefit, if you're running on a shoestring that won't benefit your dogs.

I think a lot if people get confused between making a profit from a well run business and a puppy farm. Dogs can live happily within a well run breeding establishment, I don't think they "need" individusl pet status nearly as much as people want to think. Social time with other dogs, excercise, food and all the other dog things are necessary if people aren't a central feature of their life I think they really don't miss it.

[MonElite]

I don't breed dogs as a business and never intend to.

I work full time to earn my money.

And I think when someone breeds for profit there is potential of missing some of the most important aspects of bringing puppies up, or/and carying for adults