Puppy breeding

[melt]

I have been watching with interest the 'debate' that has escalated in the classifieds from a person that was selling corkie puppies. I have two dogs myself a collie that we got from balmore and the more recent addition a chocolate lab puppy. A lot of people have said how disgusted they are by puppy farms and quite rightly too, in my mind anybody who doesnt care about the wellbeing of their animals should not be allowed anywhere near them. This though applies to each and every person involved in some way, you could be the most caring breeder in the world and selling to who you think is a suitable new owner but once the dog is home and the work begins (and it is hard work in the beginning) if the owner isnt suited to the task then its the dog who suffers and I know from experience there are some very nasty people out there. My collie is a living example.
Quite frankly I take my hat off to all those who are involved in animal rescue from both bad homes and breeding farms, as unfortunately there will always be the bad apples in the cart. What do you think??

[Highland Laddie]

I have three dogs now, all rescue dogs, we lost one of our dogs about a year ago, we saw her the day after she was picked up on the streets of thurso.

The SSPCA vet said he thought she had been used for badger baiting, as her ears and nose were pretty torn, and she hated anyone touching her tail or back legs.

The vet said that they had to cut the collar from her neck, as it was embedded in the flesh, she was so thin, they were thinking of putting her to sleep.
The next morning, she delivered 9 pups, 7 lived, 2 died, we waited 2 weeks for her to recover before we were allowed to take her home, she was such a loving dog once she came to trust us, we had her for 6 years before she passed away, she's buried under a rose bush in the back garden.

And they say we're a nation of animal lovers [disgust]

[buggyracer]

I have three dogs now, all rescue dogs, we lost one of our dogs about a year ago, we saw her the day after she was picked up on the streets of thurso.

The SSPCA vet said he thought she had been used for badger baiting, as her ears and nose were pretty torn, and she hated anyone touching her tail or back legs.

The vet said that they had to cut the collar from her neck, as it was embedded in the flesh, she was so thin, they were thinking of putting her to sleep.
The next morning, she delivered 9 pups, 7 lived, 2 died, we waited 2 weeks for her to recover before we were allowed to take her home, she was such a loving dog once she came to trust us, we had her for 6 years before she passed away, she's buried under a rose bush in the back garden.

And they say we're a nation of animal lovers [disgust]

considering there are no badgers in caithness i find that a hard one to beleive? i may be wrong but i m sure sutherland has them but not caithness?

what type of dog was it?

why do even "responsible" breeders need to breed more than one or two litters of a dog in a lifetime? ok if the dog has something to offer the breed, breed from it but why more than once?? £££££££,s some breeding every year its crazy.

[Highland Laddie]

considering there are no badgers in caithness i find that a hard one to beleive? i may be wrong but i m sure sutherland has them but not caithness?

what type of dog was it?

why do even "responsible" breeders need to breed more than one or two litters of a dog in a lifetime? ok if the dog has something to offer the breed, breed from it but why more than once?? £££££££,s some breeding every year its crazy.

She was a Jack Russel, and i never said she was used to badger bait in Caithness, i said she was picked up on the streets of Thurso.
If you were to dump a dog, would you dump it on your own doorstep where people might know who owned her.

[jean]

some back yard breeders can be as bad as puppy farms.
indiscriminate mating.. taking a litter of pups because they think its good for the bitch or even worse taking pups off their pet dog just for extra cash.
now I dont mind anyone breeding pups as long as both the sire and dam are healthy have the relevant health tests for the breeds and have good temperaments. they also should be trying to improve the breed, thats why things like hip and elbow scoring are so inportant.. to eliminate problems in the breed which often dont show up until the dog is mature.
if you dont care enough about your bitch to ensure she will a) survive her pregnancy and b) be able to afford what may be very large vet bills as pet insurance does not cover pregnancy and c)have healthy pups the dam or sire could be a carrier mate 2 carriers you will get an affected pup. as in eye disease where a dog can go blind. (cocker spaniels and collies are prone to this.) you shouldnt go down the breeding route. buy yourself a health checked pup from a reputable breeder or go to a rescue if you arent fussed on a particular breed.
then theres the follow up care.. you should homevet pups.. and offer aftercare. for the lifetime of that pup.
just taking a bitch to a vet to have her jabs and be wormed and have a routine examination is not enough really but better than some bitches will have. Its the lucky ones who land in rescue .. many are disposed off.

have a look at this site to see how many pups once cute and cuddly have been abandoned as adults and now are
homeless.

http://www.dogpages.org.uk/forums/index.php?showforum=21

Its an epidemic..
as I said on the other post I know of a 5 month old cocker spaniel who was on its 3rd home and had been taken to the vets to be put to sleep cos the new owners coudnt be bothered with it once it started to lose its cuteness and need excercise and stimulation.
If I posted a pic of him everyone would ooh and ah and say how cute.
but he was saved at the last minute by a vet who couldnt bear to do it and sent his details to a spaniel rescue. what were his breeders doing when they sold him? did they offer to take him back should things not work out or do homechecks to ensure the new owners knew just what they were taking on.??
the pup was from working stock so therefore a bit more active than his show cousins. so a death sentence was passed.
then theres the labs I meet who can barely walk, back legs stiff and sore all down to poor hips.
its so sad, they look old before their time.
I dont think its all done out of badness especially up north more ignorance and a bit of greed thrown in.
after all how many times have i heard someone say they will take a litter off their pedigree pet " to make their money back" no thought to that the poor bitch could die or have a litter of unhealthy or dead pups. and ill health in pups as ive said often doesnt show up until they are 2 or 3.
and the pyometra argument sucks.. just get your bitch spayed no pyo no unplanned pregnancies no uterine cancer no seasons. no phantom pregnancies.
and I know 2 bitches both who had litters who had pyo. I know of a small terrier who died of pyo just after its first mating. tragic.
So unless you have carefully weighed up all the pros and cons done the health testing revelant for your breed and have plenty money in your wallet ,dont do it is my opinion.

[carasmam]

Well said Jean :)

[carasmam]

she was such a loving dog once she came to trust us, we had her for 6 years before she passed away, she's buried under a rose bush in the back garden.

And they say we're a nation of animal lovers [disgust]

Good on you for making her final years happy. After all she'd been through she deserved a loving home :)

[Whitewater]

Carasmam, like you signiture, it's so true. When we had to put our last dog to sleep we decided not to have any more and I did put on a lot of weight. However, both my daughter and son came to my rescue by buying dogs of their own, so the task of exercising them fell on me, but it is great fun, and in some ways better as I get to walk them but I can put them home at night. I look forward to when they go away on holiday my job becomes full time then, neither of them like putting the dogs into kennels.

[carasmam]

as I get to walk them but I can put them home at night. I look forward to when they go away on holiday my job becomes full time then, neither of them like putting the dogs into kennels.

Haha just like being a Grandparent :lol:

[Whitewater]

Or course I am, and the same goes for the grandchildren. Being a grandparent has its good points.

[MadPict]

The seller of the Corkies mentioned they were recognised by the American Kennel Club - they are not listed on the AKC recognised breeds.

Did they mean to say they are recognised by the American Canine Hybrid Club?

I was a bit concerned the phrase "designer breed" was used giving the impression that some breeds are now being classed along with handbags and shoes?...

And while 'accidents' do happen between different breeds of dogs I don't think deliberate meddling by breeders should be encouraged.
I am aware of Labradoodles as a breed but they were produced to try and give blind people with allergies a chance of having a dog with a low-shed coat.
I'm not sure I can see what the Corkies were produced for?

[carasmam]

I was a bit concerned the phrase "designer breed" was used giving the impression that some breeds are now being classed along with handbags and shoes?...




It was that phrase that, quite rightly, rattled a few cages

[buggyracer]

She was a Jack Russel, and i never said she was used to badger bait in Caithness, i said she was picked up on the streets of Thurso.
If you were to dump a dog, would you dump it on your own doorstep where people might know who owned her.

Firstly i would never consider "dumping a dog" secondly i cant imagine someone travelling all the way to caithness to do so?

and a jack russell weighing in at around 10-13lbs versus a badger at least 20-25lbs? id imagine it was the badger doing the baiting :eek: again highly unlikey, and a huge assumption by the vet, good on you for giving her a loving home though!! :D

[unicorn]

There must be badgers in Caithness as I saw one dead on the road at the castlemire a few years ago.
I absolutely agree that puppy farms and backyard breeders with no experience or care for veterinary treatment should absolutely be outlawed. All they do in my opinion is breed an expensive vet bill for the new owner.

[porshiepoo]

I agree with Madpict. It was the statement that was made about these pups being the next 'designer breed' that got my goat.

In general the mating of different breeds, sticking the names together and producing something ridiculous and then selling them as a breed is ridiculous. They are not a breed, they are cross breeds or mongrels, but these people have jumped on the 'Designer breed' band wagon and are producing these pups just to sell at ridiculous prices. It's purely money orientated. They have no concern for the individual breed itself, most don't even have the parents health checked and cleared for any breed specific defects.
There is no concern for what they are producing and can see no further than pound signs.
I've even noticed in the paper today poodles cross lab puppies going for more than pure bred husky pups :confused, the mind boggles.
If these people actually sold their pups as poodles cross labs or yorkies cross cockers, I suspect that there wouldn't be as many people biting.

Wonder what the next lot out will be? I have an entire male dane and a female ShihTzu, what could I have going there - apart from an impossibility of course :eek:. Maybe: Shih danes. lol. Great Shih's?

We have enough unwanted, abandoned pure breeds as well as mongrels sitting in our rescue kennels already, we don't need greedy pet owners mating dogs of questionable health, to different breeds just because they can.

[porshiepoo]

The seller of the Corkies mentioned they were recognised by the American Kennel Club - they are not listed on the AKC recognised breeds.

Did they mean to say they are recognised by the American Canine Hybrid Club?

I was a bit concerned the phrase "designer breed" was used giving the impression that some breeds are now being classed along with handbags and shoes?...

And while 'accidents' do happen between different breeds of dogs I don't think deliberate meddling by breeders should be encouraged.
I am aware of Labradoodles as a breed but they were produced to try and give blind people with allergies a chance of having a dog with a low-shed coat.
I'm not sure I can see what the Corkies were produced for?

I always find it suspicious when an 'accidental mating' produces puppies that are being sold as the next 'Designer breed' and being sold for top dollar. I personally don't think the mating was quite so accidental, just extremely profitable.

[Boozeburglar]

Get over the they are not pedigree bull.

It only takes a little time in the scheme of things to establish a breed.

Don't be fooled by anyone suggesting dog breeders in general will provide whatever sells, and as many as they can get away with.

I reckon all breeders of unendangered breeds should be limited in expansion, and regulated to a much higher degree. Pet licences should return, and pet chipping and insurance should be mandatory.

The license should reflect the animal, a hamster just a few pounds to cover the administration, and something towards the costs of the rescue services, whereas a large dog such as a Dane or Mastiff should attract a reasonable £300 or £400 to reflect the need to vet potential owners independently, something the SPCA could do, which would give a valuable income stream towards cleaning up the mess irresponsible dog breeders and owners have made so far.

If you want a pedigree pup from a breeder when there are thousands of dogs needing rehoming you should pay for it through the nose.

People who rescue dogs should only pay the fee presently required, i.e. £50 for an SPCA dog. Their license would be free, but held by the SPCA and if they pass on the dog it would have to be done through the SPCA.

We have to do something.

[melt]

Im sure Ive heard somewhere that the government are looking at making microchipping a requirement, but Im not sure if thats just dogs or if it includes others like cats. Both our dogs and our 8 cats are all chipped. In my mind its also a safety net for us, if any of our 'kids' went missing, at least we'd know if they are found they would be coming straight back home instead of having to stay in rescue and possibly even being rehomed to another family.

[dook]

Get over the they are not pedigree bull.

It only takes a little time in the scheme of things to establish a breed.

Don't be fooled by anyone suggesting dog breeders in general will provide whatever sells, and as many as they can get away with.

I reckon all breeders of unendangered breeds should be limited in expansion, and regulated to a much higher degree. Pet licences should return, and pet chipping and insurance should be mandatory.

The license should reflect the animal, a hamster just a few pounds to cover the administration, and something towards the costs of the rescue services, whereas a large dog such as a Dane or Mastiff should attract a reasonable £300 or £400 to reflect the need to vet potential owners independently, something the SPCA could do, which would give a valuable income stream towards cleaning up the mess irresponsible dog breeders and owners have made so far.

If you want a pedigree pup from a breeder when there are thousands of dogs needing rehoming you should pay for it through the nose.

People who rescue dogs should only pay the fee presently required, i.e. £50 for an SPCA dog. Their license would be free, but held by the SPCA and if they pass on the dog it would have to be done through the SPCA.

We have to do something.

I have already paid through the nose for my 3 pedigree dogs. And they are big!! I adore them, I insure them, I even buy my houses and cars around them. Why should I get hit further simply because my dog is a certain type? Why not find the people who don't look after them, or allow their animals to stray/defecate on the street? Once again, it will be the good owners who have to compensate for the bad ones. Your car insurance is high due to drivers who don't have insurance, your house insurance is high to compensate for people who steal stuff. I believe I'm already compensating enough. The SSPCA are already there to combat animal cruelty. How about people coming forward and point the finger at those responsible in a court?

Isn't it specist to charge more for a dog than for a hamster? What if the hamster sues? I'm not paying for that either.......

[Boozeburglar]

I have already paid through the nose for my 3 pedigree dogs. And they are big!! I adore them, I insure them, I even buy my houses and cars around them. Why should I get hit further simply because my dog is a certain type?


I wouldn’t expect there would be a retrospective charge, and if so only to register dogs already owned, and to cover the cost of administering a mandatory dressing/castration programme.


I would obviously also suggest the outlawing of all unregistered home breeders. This would actually allow registered breeders to maintain the price levels they need to ensure standards for pedigree dogs, and thus for a Dane, £300 should reflect only around 20-35% of the cost of the pup, which should be sold chipped, insured, fully checked and with the undertaking that the new owner shall not breed the dog and said dog shall be rendered unable to breed at the appropriate time.



Why not find the people who don't look after them, or allow their animals to stray/defecate on the street? Once again, it will be the good owners who have to compensate for the bad ones.


My thought too, but on that basis should the general non dog owning public also pay for this? Should non car users pay car insurance or car tax? With such a large license fee, the numbers of dog owners I feel would be reduced and there would be money in the pot to run local schemes dealing with these issues more effectively.


Say for instance a CCTV scheme in local prime dog walking spots. This facility would benefit all dog owners by increasing their safety in accessing that amenity, meanwhile allowing quick identification of irresponsible dog owners.



Your car insurance is high due to drivers who don't have insurance, your house insurance is high to compensate for people who steal stuff. I believe I'm already compensating enough.


My car insurance is around £5 a week, in a low car crime area. I don’t think my insurance company contributes anything to the schemes in place to catch uninsured drivers before they cause damage, and I believe they should.


Besides, I am not suggesting we pay a £300 license and then renew it annually, but every year we should perhaps pay £50 and also a charge when transferring a license.


This money would be spent locally, so in an area of high dog ownership there would be a correspondingly large budget to deal with the attendant problems and to provide facilities for dogs and their owners.



The SSPCA are already there to combat animal cruelty. How about people coming forward and point the finger at those responsible in a court?


I have at every opportunity. The SSPCA is woefully short of money. We as dog owners can afford to have dogs, so we ought to be able to afford to pay into a license scheme that protects our dogs against irresponsible owners and gets non licensable breeds out of circulation.



Isn't it specist to charge more for a dog than for a hamster? What if the hamster sues? I'm not paying for that either.......


I find it hard to see wee animals being sold for a few pounds. Were there a £10 surcharge to ensure the new owners had literature and advice as part of the package, I think it would genuinely improve the lot of smaller pets, and would also instil more perceived value in them amongst the kids, who let’s face it go on to become the next breed of dog owners.


I know there is no perfect answer, but I feel scrapping the dog license was a poor answer to the cost of administering it. They should have just put it up, all of us who love dogs would have been glad to pay knowing it might save a few unwanted pups from being bought only to be abandoned.

[porshiepoo]

Get over the they are not pedigree bull.

It only takes a little time in the scheme of things to establish a breed.

Don't be fooled by anyone suggesting dog breeders in general will provide whatever sells, and as many as they can get away with.

I reckon all breeders of unendangered breeds should be limited in expansion, and regulated to a much higher degree. Pet licences should return, and pet chipping and insurance should be mandatory.

The license should reflect the animal, a hamster just a few pounds to cover the administration, and something towards the costs of the rescue services, whereas a large dog such as a Dane or Mastiff should attract a reasonable £300 or £400 to reflect the need to vet potential owners independently, something the SPCA could do, which would give a valuable income stream towards cleaning up the mess irresponsible dog breeders and owners have made so far.

If you want a pedigree pup from a breeder when there are thousands of dogs needing rehoming you should pay for it through the nose.

People who rescue dogs should only pay the fee presently required, i.e. £50 for an SPCA dog. Their license would be free, but held by the SPCA and if they pass on the dog it would have to be done through the SPCA.

We have to do something.


First off, it is not 'Bull' that they are not pedigree. It's fact!

Vetting potential owners and charging them an extortionate amount does NOT ensure that that dog is going to a good home.

Why should anyone have to pay through the nose for an unendangered dog? That's a ridiculous suggestion. Although alot of breeds nowadays do actually cost ridiculous amounts - Labradoodles and Corkies just for example.
If someone is looking for a particular breed then most people do not mind paying the attached price tag, in fact research would pre warn people what they can expect to pay. But to charge a huge amount just because the label says you can, does not mean you should. When I paid a large amount for my Dane puppy I did so because the breeders had carried out health checks to both parents, among other things.
The breeders (I use that term loosely) of these 'Designer Breeds' do none of the necessary health checks, make out that they are 'accidental matings', rear the puppies on a wing and a prayer with no actual knowledge of the breeds and then they charge extortionate amounts to gullible people.
I understand that there's always going to be the introduction of new breeds, but it's quite worrying that these breeds are going to be based on the back yard 'accidental matings' of inexperienced pet owners. Maybe that is the way that other breeds developed, but with so much knowledge of specific breed problems nowadays, it's not something that should be encouraged.

[dook]

My car insurance is around £5 a week, in a low car crime area. I don’t think my insurance company contributes anything to the schemes in place to catch uninsured drivers before they cause damage, and I believe they should.

All insurance firms have to contribute to a fund to protect against drivers with no insurance. Its called the Motor Insurance Bureau and the cut is quite high.

[Boozeburglar]

First off, it is not 'Bull' that they are not pedigree. It's fact!

I never suggested they were pedigree, just that if they become popular they inevitably shall gain that status. As a dog lover you must know of the many examples.

I realise the next section I wrote was miswritten, forgive me I have flu.
What I meant was... Don't be fooled by anyone suggesting dog breeders will not in general provide whatever sells, and as many as they can get away with.
Dog breeders are business people and will do whatever it takes to survive, something which would not be necessary were some of my ideas imposed.


Vetting potential owners and charging them an extortionate amount does NOT ensure that that dog is going to a good home.

One, vetting owners is essential and is not done properly in the majority of cases. What else do you suggest?
Two, you really think something in the order of £300 or £400 and a yearly fee is extortionate?
That kind of money could provide well funded support, rescue and prosecution services to ensure less dogs suffer, and to ensure the people who make them suffer get punished.
What you describe as an extortionate amount, and the mandatory vetting of new owners may well practically rid us of the most damaging of dog acquiring habits, the impulse buy.


Why should anyone have to pay through the nose for an unendangered dog? That's a ridiculous suggestion. Although alot of breeds nowadays do actually cost ridiculous amounts - Labradoodles and Corkies just for example.

You seem to find any suggestion or idea you don’t agree with ridiculous.

You obviously take the view that dog ownership should remain cheap and available to all without regulation.

Unfortunately this mindset has resulted in many of the tragic stories we hear about abused and abandoned animals. There should be no inherent right to ‘own’ any animal; you should demonstrate the ability to care for the animal and an awareness of your responsibility as part of the dog owning fraternity.

Labradoodles were bred for a specific purpose, just like your Dane. No less valuable a purpose, and much more relevant to our society today. They are an emerging standard, why should their price not be elevated? Perfectly normal, market forces and all that.

As you will no doubt know, most pedigree dogs started as bred for purpose, but the advent of dog showing and the attendant focus on pedigree caused the breeding in of genetic defects whilst trying to maintain breed purity. All in the name of coin. No one really working their dogs gives a hoot if they have a mix, bit of spaniel is grand in a collie, terrier crosses etc, all good.

My Dane Lurcher cross will probably still be running around happily years after an equivalent ‘pure bred’ has succumbed to medical problems, that is the way it is with cross breeds. Until every dog needing rescuing has a good home I see the job of every dog lover is to pitch in and help. Were you unable to rescue a Dane puppy? My rescue Dane cross had all his parent's health checks too, but he cost me £50.


I paid a large amount for my Dane puppy I did so because the breeders had carried out health checks to both parents, among other things.
The breeders (I use that term loosely) of these 'Designer Breeds' do none of the necessary health checks, make out that they are 'accidental matings', rear the puppies on a wing and a prayer with no actual knowledge of the breeds and then they charge extortionate amounts to gullible people.

Well we seem to agree on something; that breeders need stricter regulation.

[Boozeburglar]

All insurance firms have to contribute to a fund to protect against drivers with no insurance. Its called the Motor Insurance Bureau and the cut is quite high.

The MIB maintain a database of all insured vehicles and compensate cases where the offending party was uninsured or untraceable, the scheme is mandatory for insurers to join and so it should be.


They do not go out and catch uninsured drivers, or proactively prevent them. The Police do, and every tax payer pays for that, car driver or not.


You say the cut is high, yet still my insurance seems very reasonable considering the potential to devastate and the huge costs involved in clearing up when that happens.



I will pay my wedge for the greater good, and I have the same attitude towards my dogs. Were a high license fee to allow more protection from dangerous dogs and better facilities for responsible owners I would be all for it.


:)

[porshiepoo]

One, vetting owners is essential and is not done properly in the majority of cases. What else do you suggest? I never said that it shouldn't be done, I merely suggested that it does not guarantee a good home. Obviously it still has to be done.


Two, you really think something in the order of £300 or £400 and a yearly fee is extortionate? That kind of money could provide well funded support, rescue and prosecution services to ensure less dogs suffer, and to ensure the people who make them suffer get punished. What you describe as an extortionate amount, and the mandatory vetting of new owners may well practically rid us of the most damaging of dog acquiring habits, the impulse buy.A yearly fee would be extortionate when we all know that this money would not go to the causes you mention.
So your principle would be fine those real animal lovers who provide proper care and attention to their animals in order to pay for the neglect and abuse of others?
Mandatory vetting will not go anywhere near ridding us of animal abuse because the steps that would need to be put in place to do so would never be enforceable.

You seem to find any suggestion or idea you don’t agree with ridiculous. You obviously take the view that dog ownership should remain cheap and available to all without regulation.And I said that where exactly?
Yes, I do think 300 to 400 ponds is an extortionate amount for a mongrel. If someone wants a mongrel surely their money would be better spent at rescue kennels? As you so often like to shove across.
Yes I do find some of your suggestions ridiculous, it is you that seems to take offence to anyone who dares to question your opinion.
Since when has dog ownership been cheap? I paid good money for my dogs, I feed them good food, I pay vets bills whenever necessary, I insure them, I build custom kennels for when we are out, I have travelled hundreds of miles to show them. While these things may be my choice, they are certainly far from cheap.


Unfortunately this mindset has resulted in many of the tragic stories we hear about abused and abandoned animals.That has got to be one of the most god awful things I have ever been accused of. Please do not EVER suggest that I, in any way, condone or have a relaxed view about animal abuse and/or neglect.
I have probably done much more than you ever will to help suffering animals - in this country and abroad.



There should be no inherent right to ‘own’ any animal; you should demonstrate the ability to care for the animal and an awareness of your responsibility as part of the dog owning fraternity.At least that we agree on. Unfortunately there are no laws to ensure that any potential owner has to have at least an inkling of or an ability to look after animals - of any species.


Labradoodles were bred for a specific purpose, just like your Dane. No less valuable a purpose, and much more relevant to our society today.That is a matter of opinion. Great Danes were bred for Boar hunting and are roughly 400 hundred years old as a breed.
Labradoodles on the other hand are now being bred by their hundreds with little regard for what is actually being bred. They do not breed 'true' and their characters as puppies have not been consistently predictable. The Labradoodle IS NOT a breed and as such should not be sold with that name tag, they are simply mongrels.


They are an emerging standard, why should their price not be elevated? Perfectly normal, market forces and all that.Emerging standard. Again, they are mongrels. To put a fancy breed name to them does not make them a breed, it simply means they will sell and that is why people breed them.


As you will no doubt know, most pedigree dogs started as bred for purpose, but the advent of dog showing and the attendant focus on pedigree caused the breeding in of genetic defects whilst trying to maintain breed purity. All in the name of coin. No one really working their dogs gives a hoot if they have a mix, bit of spaniel is grand in a collie, terrier crosses etc, all good. My Dane Lurcher cross will probably still be running around happily years after an equivalent ‘pure bred’ has succumbed to medical problems, that is the way it is with cross breeds.Maybe so with a cross breed that is for example Dane, Greyhound and a few other breeds mixed in, but only because the amount of cross breeding has diluted breed specific health issues. But for a straight Poodle / Labrador cross (for example) it isn't the same. How do any of these 'New designer breed' breeders/ owners know what the Labradoodle is susceptible to?


Until every dog needing rescuing has a good home I see the job of every dog lover is to pitch in and help. Were you unable to rescue a Dane puppy? My rescue Dane cross had all his parent's health checks too, but he cost me £50. The very first Dane I owned was in fact a rescue.
My choice to pay or rescue does not reflect on me as a person or an owner, not have I ever suggested it reflects on the poor sods that are gullible enough to buy 'The next designer breed'.

[Boozeburglar]

Your main problem is that you either misread or intentionally misrepresent what I posted.

Seems you cannot be bothered taking a better look before whacking on the auto pilot outrage.

Your dog is just a mongrel with a family tree.

[porshiepoo]

Your main problem is that you either misread or intentionally misrepresent what I posted.

Seems you cannot be bothered taking a better look before whacking on the auto pilot outrage.

Your dog is just a mongrel with a family tree.

[lol][lol] Hahahahaha, Aye that he is.

I'm not sure where you think I may have misread your posts, as far as I'm aware I haven't.
You suggested that I believe dog ownership should be cheap and without regulation, you then added to that by saying that it is this exact attitude 'that has resulted in many of the tragic stories we hear about abused and abandoned animals'. I most certainly have not 'misread' that, it's there in black and white.

[unicorn]

On the flip side of this coin, this link shows another downside of all this designer breeding and in thing breeds http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-why-are-so-many-british-dog-breeds-in-danger-of-extinction-773073.html
we are now having many old breeds of dogs that are endangered as nobody is interested in them.
It is not just with dogs either, even in the rabbit world we are seeing that there are so many people working on new breeds and colours that many of our old breeds are disappearing. It is a real shame to lose breeds to the in thing :roll:

[crustyroll]

I would obviously also suggest the outlawing of all unregistered home breeders. This would actually allow registered breeders to maintain the price levels they need to ensure standards for pedigree dogs, and thus for a Dane, £300 should reflect only around 20-35% of the cost of the pup, which should be sold chipped, insured, fully checked and with the undertaking that the new owner shall not breed the dog and said dog shall be rendered unable to breed at the appropriate time.

You don't really know what you are saying do you?

What's worse, a 'registered' dog breeder (who to become one, has to breed more than 5 litters in a year, or in certain council boroughs have more than 3 breeding bitches), who has purpose built kennels and raise all the pups outside with possibly limited attention, as it would be spread thin over all the litters they are having, with no idea of what its like to be raised in a home. Or, the 'unregistered' breeder who only breeds occassionally, usually to keep a pup for themselves, does all the health checks, registers the puppies and raises them in a home and family environment so the pup is used to all the household noises already for its new family? This 'unregistered' breeder hasn't taken any less time over the puppies and jumps through all the hoops they can to vet the potential new owners and usually offers a guarantee of LIFETIME support.

Most puppies sold from good breeders are already insured, possibly not chipped, are certainly checked by their vet and have had the new owners sign a contract to say that they WILL NOT breed from their puppy. Breeders can ENDORSE the Kennel Club Registration papers to say that any resulting puppies CANNOT be registered with the Kennel Club.

Whilst this will not stop the unscrupulous person who doesn't care if the pups are KC registered or not, if you've done your homework properly, the new owners won't even have considered the idea of breeding and a good breeder wouldn't sell one of their pups to that type of person.

Dog Laws and rules do have to change, but they shouldn't be done by non dog owing MP's as is starting to happen in parts of the country.

It should also never become 'unreachable' due to high licence fee's for the general public to own a dog. How many OAP's only live a happier longer life because they have a dog? There are so many people out there that don't have a high income bracket but can afford to have a dog, love it, care for it and be an upstanding and responsible dog owner but to possibly have an extra £300-400 added on would make the dog just out their grasp. Money doesn't make the right kind of person in any walk of life.


Were a high license fee to allow more protection from dangerous dogs and better facilities for responsible owners I would be all for it.

The cost of the licence is irrelevant, it could be 50p or £500, it won't stop irresponsible dog ownership. How many times have we seen that the 'dangerous dogs' are being bought by the wrong type of owners, and they don't seem to have a problem getting money, so the cost of the licence won't matter to them, that is if they even bothered to be legal and get the licence. I remember going to the post office and buying the dog licence for 37.5 pence and what difference did it make, not one as so many others didn't bother. Unless it became an enforceable criminal offence many wouldn't bother and we'd be no further on in our control of dogs in society.