Backyard breeder makes fortune

[SchnauzerMax]

3 hours ago, Diva said:

Yep it is perverse to limit the age of the male. In breeds where the common diseases aren’t testable, using older healthy studs is one approach to help safeguard the health of the breed. If the boys make it to a decent age without health issues they are better prospects. And it’s not like breeding them over 6 does them any harm. Making it illegal defies logic.  

Um,  not quite true. The older either of the parents are, the more genetic defects. In humans, the older the father the more likely the child will develop schizophrenia or other mental heath issues and the older the mother, the greater probability of Downs Syndrome or other genetic defects. The bottom line is younger eggs and sperm are generally healthier. If you want to cover your bets, you collect from the dog when it is young and then wait to see how it turns out. 

[asal]

7 hours ago, SchnauzerMax said:

Um,  not quite true. The older either of the parents are, the more genetic defects. In humans, the older the father the more likely the child will develop schizophrenia or other mental heath issues and the older the mother, the greater probability of Downs Syndrome or other genetic defects. The bottom line is younger eggs and sperm are generally healthier. If you want to cover your bets, you collect from the dog when it is young and then wait to see how it turns out. 

 the father of my brothers chihuahua was 17 years old when he sired him. the entire litter were great.  fact is, older the male the more you know about his health status into maturity, which you have no idea in the young male. ditto for the females.   a catch 22 true 

 

if they are going to ban older dogs why not ban older humans from breeding too?   ah yes that would get them into heaps of hot water

 

 

[Diva]

13 hours ago, SchnauzerMax said:

Um,  not quite true. The older either of the parents are, the more genetic defects. In humans, the older the father the more likely the child will develop schizophrenia or other mental heath issues and the older the mother, the greater probability of Downs Syndrome or other genetic defects. The bottom line is younger eggs and sperm are generally healthier. If you want to cover your bets, you collect from the dog when it is young and then wait to see how it turns out. 

Yes I know that too. And I do collect the boys young. But not everyone can do that, and i don’t think those of us who can afford to rely on frozen semen and artificial insemination and have access to collection and storage within reasonable driving distance should be ruling out quite successful traditional strategies for those who don’t, or those who simply value knowing the dogs can mate and conceive naturally. That last point is also important for breed vitality. 

I think the risk of affecting breed health from using an older male is insignificant in the breeds I know, and heavily out weighed by knowing how well they aged. A healthy 7 year old male would not be allowed to mate naturally under the proposed rule, but it’s a much safer bet for a breeder than an 18 mth old male who has not even had time to develop the untestable diseases that are the lethals in my fav breed. 

Nothing in my post suggested breeding old females. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Diva

[Little Gifts]

On 30/08/2022 at 7:20 PM, Podgus said:

Breeders don’t put dogs in shelters, ……buyers do.

 

 

Not true. Every rescue could tell you a story of a backyard breeder surrendering past their use by date breeding bitches and past their sell date older pups with some bogus tale so they don't have to pay a surrender fee. One of my foster fails was a pup surrendered along with 2 siblings and their 14 year old mother. She clearly had dementia and did not teach the pups good social skills. All 3 pups had serious behavioural issues. Just one story amidst thousands and just for my breed.

[Pjrt]

23 minutes ago, Little Gifts said:

Not true. Every rescue could tell you a story of a backyard breeder surrendering past their use by date breeding bitches and past their sell date older pups with some bogus tale so they don't have to pay a surrender fee. One of my foster fails was a pup surrendered along with 2 siblings and their 14 year old mother. She clearly had dementia and did not teach the pups good social skills. All 3 pups had serious behavioural issues. Just one story amidst thousands and just for my breed.

That is sad. I used to run a rescue, but we really on took unclaimed strays from 3 local rural councils who we had contracts with. I don’t call private surrender ‘rescue’. People need to rehome their own owned dogs. It was only in exceptional circumstances like deceased estate we took private surrender. So I never heard of breeders surrendering dogs. 
Personally I think private rescue are making their own beds by taking private surrenders. If we stopped giving people the soft options people might take a bit of damn responsibility for rehoming their own unwanted pets. I really do understand it’s not always simple. But while ever there is someone willing to take owned dogs, their will be people willing to dump them on those people. I think it needs to stop being like that. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Podgus

[Amazetl]

I haven’t finished reading this thread but there are some interesting and good ideas. Nothing happens in isolation though, whatever happens in change there will be some consequence. 

 

If only registered pedigree breeders breed wouldn’t that make prices go way up and not as many people be able to have a dog then and not enough dogs to go around either. 

 

If there was a cap on the price of a puppy, wouldn’t a lot just choose not to breed then because they aren’t getting enough to cover their costs?

 

The cost of a c-section is a few thousand or more and if they lose all the pups or just have one or have to hand rear, it’s very expensive, thousands.

 

I’m not sure what the percentage of breed club registered breeders do it to make a profit but even if they aren’t actively seeking one, they put a lot of hours and often lost hours of work and loss of pay, plus some breeds cost way more to breed than others, do we cap the cost of it all at the vets too and the formula amounts needed and litter size and medication and de-wormers?

 

Different sizes require different costs as well as some breeds may have more special needs. So even capping the puppy price but not capping the price on everything else that they need to bring the litter into the world and raise it… I think would turn a lot of people away simply because they can’t afford it. 

 

As for legislations they come up with to try to implement - it seems messy, lets just try this, no how about this, oh that didn’t work so now lets do this. There are so many rules rules rules and whatever they’ve tried doesn’t seem to really do a lot of difference. 

 

A lot of people get a dog and don’t know anything about the breed or care or think about how hard it’s going to be. A lot get the wrong breed for their lifestyle. Education should be the starting point but some people don’t seem to able to really learn too well, they just want what they want and think it’ll be fine and manageable. 

 

 

[tdierikx]

The real point remains that we don't NEED more legislation. The current legislation is already more than strict with what is and isn't acceptable with regards to animal welfare... the problem is that the legislation is NOT being effectively policed. Simply adding even more legislation WON'T fix that glaring problem.

 

I'm a firm believer in regular review and tweaking of animal welfare legislation to stay current with advances in best practice with the end goal of better outcomes for animals... but certain political groups with slick propaganda machines pushing untenable agendas should not be who is dictating what is considered best practice.

 

If one reads the current NSW Puppy Farm Inquiry report, just look at the minutes of the meetings at the end to see exactly who seems to have been instrumental in dictating what "evidence" is presented in that report, and what is supressed or omitted... all with the goal of pushing for their proposed Bill to be passed into law.

 

Also, Victoria have just very recently announced that they are looking to replace the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Act (POCTAA) completely... led by pushes by the Animal Rights/Protection mob. It wasn't enough for them when they got their 2017/2019 changes through... they want more and more restrictions, to the point of making it untenable for anyone to own a pet... and are banking on the general apathy of the "it will never happen" attitude of the general public to get their way.

https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria  - it might be a good idea for Victorian DOLers to have a looky at what is being proposed and have a say in the shaping of that legislation. The glaring issue will be that most of the fine print stuff will be in Regulations, which means that any future changes to the rules will NOT require any public consultation, effectively leaving it open to any politician with a slick argument to push through changes that will be completely detrimental for pet owners, farmers, etc...

 

T.

[asal]

On 02/09/2022 at 10:04 PM, SchnauzerMax said:

Um,  not quite true. The older either of the parents are, the more genetic defects. In humans, the older the father the more likely the child will develop schizophrenia or other mental heath issues and the older the mother, the greater probability of Downs Syndrome or other genetic defects. The bottom line is younger eggs and sperm are generally healthier. If you want to cover your bets, you collect from the dog when it is young and then wait to see how it turns out. 

 

I knew a beautiful child,  by the time he was 19 he was diagnosed schizophrenic, he was his parents first child so its not the case of only occurring to "the older the father" ditto for a friends son his parents were only 20, he killed himself on his 21st birthday, ditto for my 19 yr old friend.

 

in the decades before all this crap nanny state legislation deciding the lives of our dogs for us, I never saw a downs syndrome puppy and I knew an awful lot of breeders.

 

was surfing gumtree this morning,  noticed an add for merle border collie x koolie, as all were smoothcoats in curiosity opened the add.  to discover the only border collie in them was 25%, the rest kelpie and koolie. What really stunned me was both parents were merle??????????

 

The "breeder" was in no register, the puppies had been "a happy accident"   The very people who are the real suppliers of probably over 80% of puppies today.  Nice to see though that all 7 were microchipped though.

 

Amazingly lucky that none of them had inherited two copies of the merle gene.

 

ooo and the majority had sold for $3,000?  the last offered for $1,200

 

no legislation can touch these people, but nice to see their puppies are microchipped

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by asal

[moosmum]

I agree theres enough legislation now to effect charges for most any act of cruelty or neglect we might be presented with now. 

Ignorance seems the cause of the worst welfare failures.

Legislation tends to compound the ignorance. That gives rise to calls for more legislation and 'round and 'round we go.

We keep asking for breeding to be taken out of the hands of people who don't do the things we think should be done. So we get micro management of what 'must' be done, regardless of whether is right for the situation to hand. 

Whole areas of expertise become meaningless or obsolete, the situations dealt with become  based on routine rather than understanding of the reasoning behind them, and far fewer people have a broader based knowledge to inform their decisions. BYBers should not breed?

Then heaven forbid we should assist them to do it better! Open discussion of what goals they might possibly have, what qualities they think their dog has worth passing on, possible defects, market for pups and costs associated with breeding, mate selection and the other information entailed for education. 

 

If education is needed it should come from those with the experience and results to back it up. Its not up to any of us to decide what value a person might bring to table, if they show an interest. If people are going to do some thing, far better for me to help them see the problems they might not have the knowledge to see. Maybe even help them do it right.

 

In the current climate, this discussion is forbidden across interests. Breeders with hold information on the grounds others shouldn't be breeding. So dogs and information are with held.

Each discredits the other, and we lose value to our environment. The people who support companion animals, by keeping them and some, breeding them.

They don't value breeders, because we never hear anything good about them. As soon as some one publicly does have some thing nice to say, 100 more will jump in to discredit any good that could come from that source.

 

We need a healthier and friendlier environment to bring dogs into, but no one wants to work at making it a healthier environment. If we don't make sure the body is working, disease is inevitable.

 

So we just keep cutting away at the disease when it inevitably shows, while the  body disappears underneath us.

 

FFS Dog Breeders are anyone who breeds dogs. Their environment is what ever supports that to happen.

One body, no communication. =disease. Because there no recognition thats its one unit, or objective.

 

No community that recognizes that one objective, and takes responsibility to see that the environment its done in is going to support that goal, and see any value in it.

We don't make it harder to have children, though its never done perfectly. We assist people to understand whats involved.

We don't try to stop some groups of people having children because some in  similar situations have welfare issues. We make sure they have the information needed to make informed decisions for themselves, and have an expectation they will make use of it, and there is support available when its needed.

 

If we expect the same of people buying dogs, The information has to be just as accessible and freely given as child rearing advise, and as inoffensive in its delivery. Or its not going to be valued for what it gives. 

 

We don't gain anything by tearing down what exists. But it gives us a lot to work on if we just look at how we can best make use of it.  Thats what responsibility is!  How things evolve into some thing better.

 

 The only role govt. or other organizations should be playing to OUR objective, is where it can facilitate that 

Theres no single objective while its being pulled apart. If we can't function, theres nothing to form.

 

Accept the form for what it is. 

Then we can understand its properties, and how we can alter them.

if its not working, shutting it down is counter to logic.

 

People support badly bred dogs because they have no better expectations. 

We need to create them , have all fallen into tearing them down instead.

 

[Amazetl]

I know it’s a bit rare but I have seen some byb’s do the appropriate health testing or at least some of the testing before breeding their dogs. Usually they don’t appear to do everything. Some do just the basic orivet testings and some do just hips and elbows but sometimes not at the correct age, too early. 

 

But I guess I just find it interesting that some are trying to be a bit better, although perhaps it’s just a marketing technique thinking they can then sell for more without papers still.  

 

But you can get the breeding dogs tested for whatever they need to be for their breed and if they are good then breed them without papers. I guess that’s the theory I’m trying to point out. But unfortunately it doesn’t seem like it’s very common (if at all for everything?) 

 

 

[Dozer76]

This unfortunately comes down to the ignorance and stupidity of consumers.

 

Dodgy puppy farmers are absolutely a menace but their busienss model would not exist if (sorry) idiots and fools were not willingly paying ridiculous amounts.  The problem is there are a lot of really stupid and gullible people around and fools and their money are soon parted.