But their parents are yorkies and their parents were yorkies. and the parents before them were also yorkies. At what point do the offspring stop being Yorkies?

You eventually get a split like you do with working and show lines -which incidentally I think is just as wrong. A good dog can be shown, worked and live as a pet (with a few exceptions). A pet bred Yorkshire terrier does not look like a show bred one. A working Cocker Spaniel looks like an entirely different breed to a show bred one. Yet the pet buyers will look at photos on the internet and in books etc and they expect the show type, and don't get it. Maybe you as a pet groomer don't recognise dogs that don't look like their breed should as you have become too used to seeing them look wrong, but I certainly see them every day -all you need to do is look around you in the vet's waiting room, in the town centres, parks etc and you see all the masses of so called pedigree dogs that are totally different to the way they SHOULD look -as in my examples given earlier. If people did not care what their dog looked like because it is "just" a pet, they'd always go for a mutt and not a pedigree. I had pet dogs for well over 20 years before I started to seriously show and eventually breed. Yet my dogs were always bought from successful show breeders (unless they were rescues) as I wanted them to look and act like the breed should -if I didn't I might as well have got a mongrel.

> I have no problems with people breeding 'oodles' or indeed for the pet market IF THEY USE THE SAME CAREFUL USE OF HEALTH TESTING AND PEDIGREE ANALYSIS AS ETHICAL BREEDERS DO,

And that is exactly what  I was trying to say. We will never stop people breeding or wanting dogs so we need to try to get them bred as well as possible.

I'm sorry smithy, but everything you have written is what the puppy farmers write and say, to justify their volume bred dogs :-(

"It's the buyers fault if they don't get what they thought they were paying for"

"They should have done their research"      -   you clearly have no idea of the lengths puppy famers go to, to hide what they do.   They are very convincing and can certainly talk the talk.   

"so what if the dogs wouldn't win any shows, they are still good pets"

"if the buyer didn't like what they got, they should have done more research"

"It's just fulfilling a need, there aren't enough dogs to go around"

"It's a market economy, if people want to pay high prices, that's their lookout"

What you don't understand is that those badly bred pets, are not only too big, but their temperaments aren't typical and their coats are usually untypical too - which is great for people like you as it keeps you in business.

But it isn't great for the dog owner, to have a dog who has a coat that mats up so fast no-one can keep it comfortable,  to have a coat that is too soft to repel the rain,  or a coat that is so thick with undercoat that no brush or comb will cope.

Then there are the dogs who have slipping patellas - because mummy dog has an attractive little skip in her step.   Or the staffies whos back legs are arthritic at 6yo because they are so badly out of alignment.
Here's an example for you -   my next door neighbour had a dog and a bitch, both supposedly staffies.    The dog had temperament problems, so did the bitch,  could only walk them aftermidnight safely.    The bitch also had surgery for hip displacia at an early age, followed by surgery on slipping patellas.    This didn't stop them having a large litter of pups and selling them without telling the buyers about the temperament and surgery.    They also sold them without vetting the owners.    What are the chances that these dogs will then go on to have pups of their own?

And as for price then that is down to the buyer. Its a market economy. If people want to buy a Cortina and pay a Rolls Royce price then why shouldnt they? No one holds a gun to their heads.

The Ford Cortina may be a decent car, but if you paid for delivery of a Rolls Royce,  you'd soon be sueing the company for fraud.   
Easier to do, when you haven't fallen in love with it as a baby and become extremely attached to it and only realised it isn't what it should be after a year when it's full grown.

> Maybe you as a pet groomer don't recognise dogs that don't look like their breed should as you have become too used to seeing them look wrong,

I am fully aware of what the breed standard says these dogs should look like. However I just done think it is the be all and end all. Just because you dont think these dogs look right does not mean they are not good much loved pets.

> Yet the pet buyers will look at photos on the internet and in books etc and they expect the show type, and don't get it.

That is not the fault of the breeders. The buyers should do their research and out what they are buying.

There also seems to be a big misconception here. People here seem to think that only a KC bred registered health tested show bred dog is the only type of dog to have. Well it isn't. There are thousands if not millions of dogs in this world that are outside the KC and still they make good pets. or working dogs. the KC has only been around for just over 100 years. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years for various different things.

And if we start to look at howdogs have changed since the involvement of the KC and shows it has not been a good influence in many cases. Breeding only for looks can cause many problems.

I am sure if you ask the breeders of the working lines dogs they are very happy with the dogs they breed and will no doubt be very scathing about the show lines dogs. Everyone has a different ideas about what is right and wrong in dogs as in so many other things in this life. Just because working bred dogs are not your thing does not mean other people shouldn't breed their working dogs to acheive their goals.  As long as the dogs are being bred from healthy stock and reared well then they have every right to breed what they want to. Same as you do.

There are thousands if not millions of dogs in this world that are outside the KC and still they make good pets. or working dogs. the KC has only been around for just over 100 years. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years for various different things.

I toally agree with this.   And for the most part it has been successful, because a dog that didn't fulfil the purpose of the breeder and the new owner, didn't get to be bred from.  Pups that were extra to requirements were culled at birth, as were older dogs that didn't make the grade - no hand wringing about animal rights,  these animals did not survive, if they were lucky it would be a quick death.   And of course, if for example, a farmer's dogs were no good, no-one would buy them to work stock, so the incentive was there to keep up standards.  So there was at least some kind of selection for fitness of purpose.

But in the last 15 years or so, there has been a massive change in the breeding of dogs in the UK.   Caused by a new purpose for breeding -  to make as much MONEY as possible.    And of course a purpose like that is indiscriminate when it comes to breeding stock.   Any stock will do as long as it can breed.   Any pups will do, as long as they sell.  There is no 'grade' to make, so they all get sold, and they all get bred. 

And as you say so frequently, if they aren't what the buyer expected, it's their own fault, they should have done more research.

All the benefits of breeding cheap stock, with NONE of the responsibility.

For me its no matter what the breed, show, working or mix breed if the relevant health checks are done, the parents are of sound temperament and would be suited to the purpose they are sold for I.e. Pets
/ working/ competitive obedience etc then that is a responsible breeder. No good selling a highly prey driven working dog to a young family living in a flat or small house, it wouldn't work. The gene pool is kept open and new lines added where appropriate taking great care and consideration when doing it, again be it pedigree or crosss bred.

BYB- doesn't fully health test both parents, askes different amounts for dogs and bitches, does not include paperwork be it vetinary papers or KC. Even if they have 1 or 100 litters, the litter is produced is with little aim appart from financial. The matching of the sire and dam has not been fully thought through appart from being geographically convenient.

Its a mine field out there, it must been pretty much impossible for a general public to make informed decisions about the puppies when some KC reg breeders would fall under the BYB. People just need to be sensible and do homework.

    > Yet the pet buyers will look at photos on the internet and in books etc and they expect the show type, and don't get it.

That is not the fault of the breeders. The buyers should do their research and out what they are buying.

Is it the 1st of April?? A breeder produces pups that look nothing like their breed, just for fun and to make money, advertise their pups as pedigree and sell them to people who then are disappointed, but none of that is their fault?!

For me its no matter what the breed, show, working or mix breed if the relevant health checks are done, the parents are of sound temperament and would be suited to the purpose they are sold for I.e. Pets
/ working/ competitive obedience etc then that is a responsible breeder.

But then why would anyone bother buying a pedigree dog at all? All you'd need would be a generic working or pet dog.

We seem to have digressed from the original question. Its not about proper breeders vs byb, but rather, what makes someone a byb.

So far I have gleaned that although there is a clear difference between planned breeding through the proper channels and simply putting two dogs together, the lines become muddied between byb, hobby and professional breeding (for want of a better term) when hobby breeders aren't quite either one way or the other.

For me, I just simplify it now and class anyone who does not know the lineage of the dogs they are breeding from to be of sound genetic health and temperament as BYBs. Breeding only for money or the experience, because everyone else does........... humph!

I would stick my neck out here and say that there are actually more breeders (in their thousands) who do not health tests or know anything about the lines they are breeding from, it is just a plain and simple fact of..... I have a dog/bitch I want to breed.

We hear of it continually, just this week, my friend has told me of one of her friends breeding yet again for the 3rd time in a row her toy dog, with the dog down the road, the pups sell like hot cakes for £350, the way she raises the pups and cares for the dam makes me want to implode, I keep telling my niece stop telling me......

Also just heard of someone who got a rescue dog (for some reason un-neutered????) and then took on a homeless bitch of the same large breed only 11 months old, yes, you guessed it, bitch is now in whelp, of course I stick my nose in, mention the litter can be safely terminated, but no, not interested, what can you do?

At least if just these two examples of dogs were KC reg it would protect the dams a little, from being over used or bred from too young, but alas, due to the mindset of 'you don't need a KC dog' out there in the world no dams are protected, no doubt the pups will all sell as they will be cheaper, people don't seem to mind........

How many people on dog walks do we meet who actually have KC reg dogs? I've noticed over the years more and more who don't and they come from these type of pet breeders, dog health is getting worse, dog formation is getting worse and dog temperament, it is a FACT, ask any vet........

And always the blame is put on pedigree dogs, it is not pedigree dogs but careless breeding, it is causing a minefield of problems, and there is no sign of stopping it ever! BYB's and puppy farmers have a lot to answer for, unfortunately BYB's outnumber those who are reputable probably by 70%.

What chance does the dog have in the future? Genetic disaster is around the corner for so many breeds today. The moment just anyone started to become a dog breeder, is the moment the dog started to lose it's battle.

The KC, The breed clubs and The good reputable breeders, are the only people who understand and are wanting to turn things around, but it is a battle, as all are outnumbered by the reckless breeding.

And that is exactly what  I was trying to say. We will never stop people breeding or wanting dogs so we need to try to get them bred as well as possible.

Smithy, if only it was that simple.......... We will never stop people breeding is exactly what is wrong, there is unfortunately no official body insisting on health tests apart from the KC, trying to do their bit as much as it is criticised and not perfect, they at least are trying.

But, as long as people want unregistered cheap dogs, there is never going to be a winner for dog health.

the lines become muddied between byb, hobby and professional breeding (for want of a better term)

Careful there with your language gsdowner ;-)  

BYBs who breed regularly, and puppy farmers sell themselves as professional breeders to convince the public that they know what they are doing, unlike the hobby/show breeder who 'breeds all those unhealthy dogs'  it's also a term used by those who make a very good living from breeding dogs, since they have few overheads like showing and health testing.

Thinking back to when I was looking for my first pedigree Bedlington pup, it's a complete minefield trying to separate out the responsible breeders from the irresponsible - and I was in the loop regarding dog shows, at least I was aware of them, and had some contacts in other breeds.   :-(

Sorry Dill. I should have sais 'show breeders' instead of professional.  Very very soz ;)

:-)    

It just shows how difficult it is for the general public to find a good breeder ;-)

It's a confusing term.   

To me professional means trained and verified in some way.  I'm sure it does to many people, which is why it's one of the terms used by those who wish to make themselves look respectable and knowledgeable  :-(

> You're misunderstanding. 'Value' isn't all about money, is it? Items can be financially worthless but also have immense value. Would replacing 'devalued' with 'under-appreciated' give a clearer meaning?

Agreed - but devaluing as well, especially with regard to health testing. Also I have come across a few naive people who think that KC registration actually costs £200, because of the price difference.

>It's a confusing term

This is why I don't agree with labelling in this way.  I don't think there is any benefit in describing oneself, or others as a hobby breeder, professional breeder, BYB or other when we all apply different meanings to it.

I think it's up to the buyer to choose and beholden on any of us who care, to educate and inform them.  There is quite a lot of good information available for buyers to help them choose not only the right breeder but the right breed too but sadly not everyone is prepared to put the effort in, or to wait.  It's also a fact that most of us learn by our mistakes.  In many cases that's fine, and quite normal, but sometimes it's the puppy that pays the price for the owners ignorance

It's all well and good trying to paint KC registration as the answer but frankly, it's not.  I think one of the reasons less and less people have KC reg dogs is because it no longer means anything - it is NOT a guarantee of good breeding, it is NOT a mark of good health and health testing, it's just a piece of paper and until the KC stop accepting registrations from all and sundry (including puppy farmers which will generate a huge revenue for them) then that's all it's going to be.

I know there is a lot of fraud out there with regards to registrations but I don't doubt for a second that the KC are aware of some of the sources.  It was the same problem with the breeder scheme - it's getting better now I think but it used to mean absolutely nothing because the rules were too slack and good and bad breeders alike could join it.

What I'd like to see is tighter rules on registration for health testing for both the assured breeders and the registrations - mandatory tests, not just recommended and I'd like to see more tests for many breeds.  I've just had a quick look at the recommendations for my dobes on there - assured breeders must test for HD and vWd, and are recommended to test eyes; but DCM testing is only mentioned as 'also available' - yet this is a disease affectecting 60% of the breed, and no mention of hypothyroidism at all.  All I can think seeing that is 'what's the point?'

What definitive test for breeding dogs is there for DCM?

Breeding dogs (and any dogs) can be echod and ECGd, preferably with a 24 hour holter at minimum.  There is a genetic test which identifies the genes that cause around 85% of cases (might be more now, that figure is from three years ago), and there's also the troponin blood test, which is recommended from 12 months of age.  Ok, none are 100% definitive but they are a damn sight better than doing nothing at all and with the state of the breed with this problem, all breeders should be doing everything they can to identify dogs with it and alter their breeding programs accordingly.  Just saying 'tests are available' is NOT good enough IMO, not any more.

Forget all the BYB, Hobby Breeders or professional breeder... There are 2 types " good or bad " breeders.
Good breeders care, bad breeders like the ££££'S.
Aileen

Everything always sounds better when it is simplified, here, here, Merlot, hit the nail on the head. :-) :-) It is that simple.......... thank goodness so many good breeders are here on this site. :-)

Joe Public has an very difficult time identifying which is which.

Even my husband once said. "I see their confusion....who wants to buy from an amateur when you can have one from a professional"...... And I'm sure many buyers see our home bred litters, in our living rooms, all with pet names, treated as part of the family....etc etc....us as amateurs in this instance.

I agree when people see adverts from puppy farmers who have had 20-30 years of experience (of dog persecution and health issues) blasted across their adverts, easy to get confused and think they are the real deal.

I don't envy the public out there who don't know what to look for or what to do, the shame of it is, so many people come on this site and others after the event, not before, I so wish that people would come beforehand so that they know, yes, they know for the future, but I guess people think that (Puppy farmer/un-knowledgeable BYB) is how dogs are bred, some never think it is any different, absolutely no idea how to make people care enough to get a dog from a reputable breeder..........

I think one of the problems concerning 'the people' is the throw away culture they seem to be living in. If little joey wants a puppy lets get one on the cheap. We've all seen the wanted ads on gumtree/preloved. 'My son wants a puppy. Can't afford much as I am a single parent with 4 kids but pup will be loved and looked after. Don't mind breed or age but must be free or cheap.'

Then there are the ads....our dogs mated so we have 8 German russells/Jackashepherds available £80.00 each. (Yes I did stand in the living room and wonder which was the dam/sire and how he managed to get his leg over whilst doing the actions.)

So there you have it. A marriage made in hell. A cheap dog for the family and a buyers market for the seller. No regards as to what the progeny will be like in size, behaviour and aptitude. Yes it looks like a dog, functions like a dog but thats about it and when joey gets bored or the dog turns out hyper and driven...'we are looking to rehome our dog...through no fault of his own...he has not been neutered...£100 to secure good home...'

Get rid and its someone elses problem.

*I do apologise to any single parents who actually do right by their children and pets.

>Good breeders care

Got it in one. 

Nice one Aileen.

>Good breeders care, bad breeders like the ££££'S.

I'd just add "Good breeders care for the whole of the puppies' lives. Poor breeders stop caring (if they ever started) as soon as the pup has left their premises."

> "Good breeders care for the whole of the puppies' lives. Poor breeders stop caring (if they ever started) as soon as the pup has left their premises."

Not universally true.

I know someone who 'gets hold' of second hand Cavaliers and mates them to poodles....sells them for large sums
Yet is very chummy and friendly with many buyers. These 'oodles' will grow and be swiftly mated and THEIR owners quickly become one of the "family friends".
To all intents and purposes...she/they care very much, quite a little community in fact.there is no doubt that they are a cottage industry, breeding dogs for money and they all slap each other on the backs.

They consider show breeders as " Dog snobs".
I consider them BYB.

And I'm sure many buyers see our home bred litters, in our living rooms, all with pet names, treated as part of the family....etc etc....us as amateurs in this instance.

I don't know. Personally I find that once people are in my living room they always notice rosettes on the walls, the framed photos from Crufts, see my trophy cabinet, the stud book certificates are on the wall, Champion certificates, and then they instantly realise we show a lot  and do pretty well and it's always the Crufts rosettes (even with kitten buyers!) that impress people as everyone will know what Crufts is. Surely I'm not the only breeder to have rosettes and trophies in the same room that people view puppies in? I had a puppy collected last weekend, the buyer brought an elderly friend along and he spent all the time here looking closely at the trophies -more so than looking at the dogs!

Just replying generally as a rank amateur in dogs, and currently dogless :)

In my mind, good breeders care not only for the pups they breed/dogs they own, but they care about the breed. BYB might seem to care a lot about their puppies and new homes, but show little regard for the good of the breed as a whole, e.g. lines, health, longevity etc.

I see a lot of ads on Facebook, people looking for 'a dog', must be cheap & available to collect this weekend for little so and so's birthday. Invariably they are answered either by someone with a very random sounding litter 'flead & wormed so well cared for, mum is really sweet & lets the kids climb all over her', or by someone who is selling an adolescent 'staffie type, lovely dog but too boisterous for us'.

I've had many conversations with a colleague who wants a dog, despite advising her about how to choose a suitable breed & breeder, I just know she'll end up buying the first one she sees in the Free ads.

Until people realise that it is not a right to own a dog, unfortunately, I think we're all pushing water uphill.

In my mind, good breeders care not only for the pups they breeds/dogs they own, but they care about the breed.

EXCELLENT way of putting it!!!

Marianne....those trophy admirers have already got the stage of being IN your home.
The vast majority live by the old adage..." Don't want a show dog..just a pet"
Those people generally see litters from Champion bitches as being " bred for looks not health" after all..its been drummed into them from all sides.

>The vast majority live by the old adage..." Don't want a show dog..just a pet"

I wish I had a pound for every time someone says to me that they "don't want a show dog .. just a pet". I would be extremely rich by now :)

The general consensus (whether you agree or not) is that 'show dogs' are over priced and that 'pet dogs' are much cheaper and just as good (and in some cases they are just as good). I even had an ex-Veterinary Nurse say this to me recently. They didn't want to pay two grand for a show bred puppy and reasoned that buying a 'pet' bred dog (rather than a 'show' bred dog) would be cheaper and suit their needs just as well - they only wanted a pet after all.

I explained to her and ANYONE whom says that to me, that:

You are entitled to a well bred, health tested puppy EVEN if you are "only wanting a pet"!

If only we could get this message across to the general public :)

I see your point tooolz.

You are entitled to a well bred, health tested puppy EVEN if you are "only wanting a pet"!

I will never understand how people think. I have always gone to show breeders, wellknown ones, even way back when all I wanted was a dog just as a pet. Anything else never even occurred to me. The very first thing I did when I got my very FIRST dog, way back when I was 15 -and the dog was a RESCUE!- was to join the breed club! And I so enjoyed getting yearbooks/newsletters and spotting relatives of my dog. When he died just a few years later I then knew straight away what liens I wanted my next dog from, and where to find those breeders. Yet my first dog was never shown, my second a total of two times in his entire life. Just pets, but wellbred ones, as I wanted a nice looking healthy pet to be proud of, with a breeder available to ask for help and advice at any time. I was just 18 when I bought that first puppy, researched breeders etc, long before the internet -and yet these days people can't seem to  do any research, when they have everything at their fingertips.

>and yet these days people can't seem to do any research, when they have everything at their fingertips.

I am going to start sounding like my mum at this rate :) but she would say that "It is the 'I-want-it-and-I-want-it-now' generation". They do not have time for research. If they can't acquire something instantly, than they don't want it. And that applies to all area's be it dogs, houses or the latest mobile phone. She has a point and why people end up with badly bred, un-health tested dogs from BYB.

Sadly it does seem to be true that everyone wants everything really quickly these days -I notice it even with my own kids/stepkids (most of which are adult) -although with other things, not dogs.

The consensus in this group is that breeding for money is a bad thing.

I think this is a mistaken view. Breeders whose ONLY or disproportionate motivation is money are indeed a bad thing. But there is nothing wrong with being a "professional" dog breeder if you do it properly, which includes paramount concern for the health and welfare of the dogs, the future of the breed etc.

it is far more like this on the continent. If you look at the websites of the top 20 (competitive) breeders of, for instance, beaucerons, you will see that almost everyone prides themselves on their "professionalism". This includes a thorough commitment to health, testing, wellbeing, the breed, socialisation, careful homing and whole life care etc which is at least on a par with the very best breeders in the UK.

Many of these are breeding at least partly for money, and in some cases it is their main business. They do not claim that they only breed when want to run one on. They breed dogs because they are dog breeders, professional dog breeders, who are utterly devoted, passionate, committed, and all round outstandingly good at what they do.

That is not unknown here. Some if our very top winning kennels are effectively volume breeders, though we tend not to say so. Yet that does not make you a puppy farmer if your standards are exemplary.  And surely that is what we should be aiming for, rather than the rhetoric which tends to pertain here, according to which breeding for money is de facto a bad thing.

> rather than the rhetoric which tends to pertain here, according to which breeding for money is de facto a bad thing.

I think if you read back you will find that most feel breeding to a high standard, taking the health of the parents and ....of the breed as a whole......is a good thing.
Many add the rider that the offspring should at least RESEMBLE the breed they are selling as per trade descriptions.

A great deal of the discussion here is the proliferation of banging ANY two available dogs together for profit.

But there is nothing wrong with being a "professional" dog breeder if you do it properly, which includes paramount concern for the health and welfare of the dogs, the future of the breed etc.

TOTALLY disagree 100 %. Once money comes into it, things DO change. Nobody expects to make money from a hobby, whatever they do. Everybody expects to make money from a business. And you cannot ever run a business like a hobby, it simply does not work. I HAVE bought dogs from the type of breeders you mention abroad. Great dogs yes, but it is NOT like I would ever want to breed. The day my pups start being born and reared in kennels, with the majority or even all dogs living outside in kennels as opposed to indoors as part of my family, is the day I give up. That is not how I want to breed dogs. And without staff, it just isn't physically possible to give the same attention to all dogs.

For the litter I have just had, 3 pups ended up staying longer than the rest. I kept one. So I have had 4 pups. They were all vaccinated, of course. Then I lead trained them all. Walked them around the area here, both with other adult dogs, with their littermates, and on their own. We popped them in the car and got them used to travelling. We took them down to the local pet shop. We have stood outside the entrance to Tesco's to watch people and trolleys etc. Last weekend on the Saturday we took the last two pups to the "All about dogs" show and walked around watching everything, meeting people and so many dogs. Entered them in the huge fun dog show, with 30 + entrants per class. (The pups are 10 ½ weeks old.) They saw pushchairs and wheelchairs etc etc. They went inside crowded halls. Heard loud music. On the Sunday we drove for 3 hours each way to visit a friend on a farm, to meet her dogs and get new experiences. We stopped at motorway services for a little walk and toilet break.

You tell me what volume breeder would or COULD do as much for pups that cannot be sold until 10-12 weeks of age, or even later. Certainly none I have ever bought a dog from. I have bought older dogs from wellknown breeders, and usually they have just sat in kennels doing nothing. One at 9 months could not even walk on a lead.

Why assume without staff? With staff is more likely.

Does your view - that only an amateur can do it properly - only apply to dogs? What about horses?

What is so unique about breeding dogs that means it CAN'T be done properly by committed and passionate professionals? Almost everything else in human experience is generally done more effectively by people whose sole concern it is, who don't have to fit it round the rest of their life, but are solely dedicated to excelling at what they do (in this case, being outstanding breeders of champion dogs).

It is possible to end up making a living doing something you love, all of your motives for doing which are underlyingly good, to which are then added the motives of professional pride and reputation.

If course, money can corrupt - as it can in any profession. But that doesn't have to be the case, and it isn't always.

I have mentioned some of my views on this subject before. However, as a "Member of the public" I believe something has to be done to help members of the public to have some assurance that the pup they purchase from a Breeder is of good health. Like many others, my first port of call when looking for a pup is/was The Kennel Club list of Breeders. Prior to my most recent pup I wish to mention Buster my Saint Bernard. Purchased from a "TOP BREEDER" so called, and one that was reported by other breeders as a good breeder, he was plagued with hereditary problems throughout his short life. However, more recently I have been looking (and now purchased) a Newfoundland. The first Breeder I contacted and visited I can only describe as a Farm. The second was running an Ad but after contacting I noted the available litter was not the litter in the advert, and therefore the parent mother was also not the one advertised. The next Breeder I contacted, (KC Assured) did not Elbow Score, which was important to me. Following that the next breeder bred from a Hip score greater than what the KC says you should. I have also read on champdogs that this is acceptable by some of you Breeders subject to other conditions. "NO IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE"  if the guideline is not to breed above a certain score then other than money, why do it. The score already has a large band so this should not be increased even further. However, I then came across what appeared to be the perfect advert, "KC Reg'd, Micro-chipped, Vaccinated, Wormed to date, both parents viewable. In reality, Not micro-chipped, not vaccinated, due a worming and Father not available to view. All the above advertise on here, (champdogs) and all were listed breeders on the KC site. Again as a member of the public, I would like to see somewhere have a "true list" of good breeders. A list where we (whom do not know as much as others about these health issues) can go and purchase a healthy pup. I, like many others, have some very sad stories to tell, perhaps more so than many as I have been lucky enough to have owned several lovely breeds. I have and do pay top price, but my overall experience is that "Breeders" are not that much better than "Farms". It appears to be a business transaction only. I know what I want, I know what some Breeders tell me they have, they are not always the same.

Does your view - that only an amateur can do it properly - only apply to dogs? What about horses?

What is so unique about breeding dogs that means it CAN'T be done properly by committed and passionate professionals?

It's very simple. Dogs are, and SHOULD be, family pets that live in the house with you. Horses do not. We do not expect and accept dogs to die during agility, we do not kill them when they are of no more use to us (not if you are responsible, anyway) and also we do not eat them.

And amateurs, as you put it, can still do very well at shows the way most good breeders do it these days. We just don't expect to earn a living from it. It's immoral, simple as that. If we want to earn a living from dogs, we do something ELSE -grooming, boarding, walking, training etc. Not breeding.

However, I then came across what appeared to be the perfect advert, "KC Reg'd, Micro-chipped, Vaccinated, Wormed to date, both parents viewable.

BOTH parents owned by the breeder SHOULD be a red flag. Of course at times we use our own dogs, but then the breeder should be able to explain in detail WHY their own dog was much better for the bitch than somebody else's dog. Most of the time good breeders will travel hundreds of miles, if not abroad, to the best dog. Puppy farmers and back yard breeders use the closest dog, to save money.

Again as a member of the public, I would like to see somewhere have a "true list" of good breeders.

It would never work, because what one person considers to be good, another might not find acceptable at all. Which is why as a buyer you need to go and VISIT several breeders before making a decision, meeting them and their dogs BEFORE there are puppies, maybe ask to get to speak to some previous puppy buyers, before you pick a breeder. Picking a BREEDER is what you should always do, rather than picking a pup. It takes time, yes, which is why the people that end up with the best pups tend to be the ones that started researching a year or two in advance.

On this occasion the breeder had imported the sire from france so I assumed this to be as an addition to the Kennel although I was not aware that this could be deemed as a no-go area. I do agree with your comments but looking at it from a "Member of the public" view, If my main criteria was to Show, then I fully accept the comments, but most people seeking a pup would not have the time to do this type of research and in all honesty most would not have the knowledge of the type of problems to look for. I am not saying that they shouldn't but they just do not. My main point of a "true list" is that The Kennel Club have breed standards, therefore a Breeder should adhere to these standards. As an example: If those standards stipulate that you should only breed from a Hip Score of 0-20, then you only breed within that score, no exceptions. The same should apply to many other conditions, several are known to be a danger/problem but still allowed. As a buyer (dog lover) the more tests that can be done to stop the suffering of some of the poor puppies with hereditary conditions, then all the better. As another example: The KC "advise" that you should not breed a Large Breed Dog with an Elbow Score other than Zero, yet they will still register a litter if the parents Scores are at the highest level of 3. this beggars belief. They recognise a serious health issue and yet still allow it to continue. I had the unfortunate experience of owning such a loving gentle Newf with Elbow Dysplasia. Whilst he had ops at Langford and went on for Ten years, we had some very bad days and so nearly let him go on several occasions. What I find even harder to accept is the Breeders that breed from stock with this type of issue are still allowed to become an Assured Breeder. Like my self in the past a member of the public, who would possibly make just one or two purchases in their lifetime, would automatically assume a KC Assured Breeder would only breed healthy pups and would be totally reputable. Unfortunately we can only learn by experience, but I would like to see say "An Assured Breeder" is just that, one that does every test and remains within specific guidelines which should also be totally enforced.

I have SBTs and the amount if times i get asked what breed mine are, and the people asking have staffy types, or the other question is they must be the short legged ones.

My main point of a "true list" is that The Kennel Club have breed standards, therefore a Breeder should adhere to these standards. As an example: If those standards stipulate that you should only breed from a Hip Score of 0-20, then you only breed within that score, no exceptions.

I think you have misunderstood what breed standards are. They mention nothing about hip scores etc; breed standards describes the looks and characters of the dogs, nothing else. It is what a judge bases their placings on at shows. Also it would be a HUGE mistake to limit what hip scores you can breed from -a dog is so much more than a pair of hips. In fact there are breeds where totally new genetic problems have cropped up because breeders have tried to concentrate on dogs free from another problem, not realising they were instead breeding in a completely different one. Many breeds would also die out altogether. If a breed has a mean score of say 10, then breeding from a dog with a score of 15, a dog that has really good qualities, perhaps completely new blood etc, that should not be seen as a problem as you would gain more than you risk. A score of 15 is still not a dog with anything anywhere NEAR having problems, and many breeds have much higher average scores.

Nothing is black and white when you are dealing with live animals. You have to take the whole picture into account, not just parts of it.

See, this is where I disagree. Firstly I accept my misunderstanding to the Term "Breed Standard" as I mentioned it is all very confusing to the general public. However, (with respect) I truly do not understand your view of the likes to Hip Scoring. You say "It would be a HUGE mistake to limit what hip scores you can breed from" yet both the KC and perhaps more importantly the BVA state (SCIENTIFICALLY BASED EXPERT OPINION) "ADVISE FOR BREEDERS IS TO USE ONLY BREEDING STOCK WITH SCORES WELL BELOW THE BREED MEAN SCORE AND IDEALLY BELOW THE MEDIAN". Again with respect, to me this means that you certainly "should not" breed anything from a higher score.

It's vitally important not to have tunnel-vision and focus entirely on one aspect when breeding, but to instead keep an eye on the whole picture. Hip scores are a useful tool when deciding whether or not to breed (and who to), not the sole deciding factor. As has been oft-repeated by genetic experts, "A dog is more than a pair of hips". While nobody advocates breeding from a dog with clinical HD, an excellent dog with a hip score a few points over the average can have a huge beneficial influence on its breed.

What use (for breeding purposes) is a dog with a perfect hipscore but a savage temperament, for example? Breeding will never be straightforward, and should never be decided by numbers.

SKV - if this recommendation by the BVA was only directed at breeds which have hip problems, then I would be more likely to agree. But my breed, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, have a mean score of around 9 now, which is pretty good, especially for a large breed. I would be perfectly happy to use a dog that had a score of 9, or slightly higher IF he/she had all the other things that I wanted.

yet both the KC and perhaps more importantly the BVA state (SCIENTIFICALLY BASED EXPERT OPINION) "ADVISE FOR BREEDERS IS TO USE ONLY BREEDING STOCK WITH SCORES WELL BELOW THE BREED MEAN SCORE AND IDEALLY BELOW THE MEDIAN". Again with respect, to me this means that you certainly "should not" breed anything from a higher score.

So what do you suggest that we do with breeds that already have low scores, where perhaps one dog born every year will have a lower score than average, and that dog may have other problems instead? Let the breed die out or mate close relatives together for every mating, as long as their hips are better than average? (And as closely bred matings are no longer allowed, the pups would not even be KC registered.) Like I said before, nothing is black and white, and one thing about hip dysplasia is that NOBODY knows exactly how it is inherited, and how much of it is caused be genetic influence and how much is environmental. And this is why you can get low scoring parents to have high scoring pups, and vice versa. And even then it isn't consistent. Take one of my early litters as an example. 6 pups out of which 4 were hip scored. The sire had a score of 10, the dam 11. The four pups: 6, 7, 8 and 9. So all the scored pups were lower than both parents, but we had four different scores.

The 0-20 figure I used was purely as an example. Hips have a top score of 53 with the average score being 26, that already gives a great deal of scope. In the case of large to giant breeds one would assume that there is additional stress due to weight so any dog that has a score of 53 must surely have a reasonable amount of discomfort. As this is also an hereditary problem then a score of 53 (and more-so over 53) surely results in a greater chance that the pups will have some form of dysplasia. As this is a very painfull  condition then lowering the chance of it occurring must be a good thing. As mentioned, a score of 0-53 is already a large scope to work within. As far as I have so far found, every breed site that I have looked at all agree that you should look at staying within this scope.