Following on from posts on another thread, I wondered what people's thoughts are on the benefits (or otherwise) of 'professional' breeders - not puppy farmers, but those who have spent years building up a respected kennel of one type of dog. This article is quite interesting

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Features/1-barney?year=2009&month=01

I know someone who has a Saredon Lakeland from Judy Averis and Dave Scawthorn - just a pet, but they take him back there to be trimmed regularly, and I must say that to my, admittedly inexpert, eye he comes home looking at least as good as most of the show dogs that I see. He was beautifully reared, and has a super temperament. He may have been kennel-bred, but was obviously very well socialised.

There's a tendency on CD, and elsewhere, to assume that anyone who has more than the occasional litter is a puppy farmer. Being a serious, committed breeder seems to have gone out of fashion. Is that part of the trouble that dog people find themselves in nowadays? Do we all, in our heart of hearts, secretly believe that all dog breeders are wicked and evil?

What about this final paragraph from the article?

So let's make it more acceptable to be a professional breeder with all the responsibility that goes with it and take the moral high ground here. Let's show we are not just a bunch of amateurs, playing at breeding.


Discuss ;) ;)

It depends really on what Dog World mean by professional breeders. It doesn't seem to be defined particularly well. I know of several breeders who would describe themselves as professional breeders and exhibitors, although they actually do not live off the income they get from their dogs, they have other jobs outside the home kennel enviroment, which brings in an income to ensure both they and dogs are well taken care of.

Many years ago most dogs were bred by professional breeders who had large kennels. I worked in 1969 in one of these big kennels. I learnt a lot from them and they did not over breed from bitches or their stud dogs. I have since come across amateur breeders who have fewer bitches who have bred more from those bitches. Having said that there are "professional breeders" who I would never buy from for various reasons.

One problem with any breeder is what happens when they get 'over dogged'? For the hobby breeder this might be 6 dogs or 10 dogs, but for the professional breeder this could be well over 100 dogs, I am sure we all remember the case of the labrador breeder who was widely publicised as having had to to hand over to the RSPCA some 200+ dogs and puppies for rehoming, although they stiill left her with well over 100 dogs in her care to continue breeding, and the RSPCA said this was responsible breeding. I thought this was very irresponsible of the breeder and the RSPCA to say this was responsible breeding.

In other cases we find that these so called professional breeders, who should be running a top class kennel, keeping accurate records on all their dogs then seem to manage to have 'accidents'...... 'ooopsie litters' as I have also heard them called, where a bitch has been mated more times than is allowed in the breed club code of ethics, or they have litters six months apart, or they even produce 'by accident' a crossbred litter or they allow their stud dogs to be used many times over the year, I think was on CD that somebody asked if a stud who was only just 13 months old was over used at stud having already sired over 40 litters.

Certainly Bill Lambert at the Kennel Club sees nothing wrong in having professional breeders register with the KC accredited breeder scheme, but I know as I am sure many CD members do that among these 'professional breeders' in the scheme have had more than their fair share of 'ooopsie litters' or used their stud dogs way too much. Even when breed clubs have complained about some of these 'professional breeders' to Bill Lambert his reaction has been to dismiss their concerns saying their is nothing wrong in what they are doing.

I think Saredon kennels are one of only a handful across the country that love the dogs and are obsessed with showing.  I have personally had a an airedale (my old breed) from them and found them to be such nice people.  They do breed more than one breed but they are all square breeds so seems an obvious expansion.

I have 2 large kennels for seperating dogs and bitches when seasons come round.  But as I have a smooth coated small breed they dont sleep in it. If I had the money and the space I would build fully heated kennels and have a lot more dogs but doubt I would have more litters than I do now.

I dont think having kennels has gone out of fashion I just think more people do breed and show dogs these days and not everyone can have a kennel.  Not so long ago dog showing was very much a sport for the rich hence all the large kennels because they could.  Times change and home bred dogs are just more of the norm these days.  There will always be a fine line between being a professional breeder and a puppy farmer and that is all down to the quality of life they have.

Emma

For me 'Professional' means commercial, but good breeders are 'Professional' in what they do.

There are only so many dogs and puppies that it is possible to look after in the way one would wish, so unless a breeder has staff, more than the occasional litter (be that 1 or 3 or 4 a year), is all that a person or family can rear properly and still be there for the new owners with ongoing care.

I do not subscribe to the me rather 'extreme' view that a litter should only be bred if one is to be kept.  Every litter should be bred with the view of advancing the breeding program and ensuring the continuance of the breed.

I seriously doubt though breeders of the kind of reputation you speak of have many more litters than a couple in order to provide the kind of care needed, and of course if they have two or three breeds (usually as a family), having more than a litter a year may still only be less than that per breed..

I think it is regretable that these sorts of breeders have been lumped together with the disreputable puppy farmer and have always said puppy farming should not be defined by the number of litters bred or even the number of dogs or breeds involved. 

With all due respect (and thanks) to those of you that have replied so far, no-one has actually answered my question.

> There's a tendency on CD, and elsewhere, to assume that anyone who has more than the occasional litter is a puppy farmer. Being a serious, committed breeder seems to have gone out of fashion. Is that part of the trouble that dog people find themselves in nowadays? Do we all, in our heart of hearts, secretly believe that all dog breeders are wicked and evil?

I've noticed a definite trend (Brainless being amongst the honourable exceptions) for posters on CD to castigate anyone who breeds specifically to further their own line, and isn't necessarily in a position to keep a puppy, but maybe feels that the proposed litter can offer good things to the breed as a whole.

I'm NOT talking about those who breed just to make money, but rather people who have devoted almost their whole lives to their breed. Mention that a breeder has used their own stud dog and there are shouts of horror from many posters. But why? If the breeder concerned has been following a carefully thought out plan over many years, surely they will have bred a dog that they feel will be the best match for their own bitches? Or maybe they have bought in a dog that suits their lines and have bred a sufficient number of bitches (whether owned by them, or in other ownership) that he will complement.

Is there something inherently wrong with having a largish kennel (say 20 dogs) - as long as you have the facilities to look after them properly? Taking the example I started with. I don't know Judy Averis and Dave Scawthorn. I have no idea how many dogs they own, but it must be quite substantial. I do know they breed many types of terriers - Airedale, Lakeland, Kerry Blue, Dandie Dinmont, Welsh, etc. and have several litters of each breed every year. They are very successful in the show ring (Group 1 and 2 at the recent LKA show, and RBIS at Crufts a few years ago). They also breed pet dogs (probably better in quality than some other people's 'show' dogs) that are well-reared and socialised and have excellent temperaments. But I'm sure that some people, including many here on Champdogs, will regard them merely as 'puppy farmers'.

Perhaps if there were, as there used to be, more big kennels rather than most 'breeders' having just one or two bitches and breeding a litter every three or four years the dog world would not be having to defend itself quite so often. As I asked in my OP, do many of those who breed only very occasionally subconsciously want to ally themselves with the anti-breeder lobby rather than be regarded as aligned with the professional breeder (who they, again  subconsciously, think of simply as puppy farmers)?

The role of dogs has changed greatly in the past 60-odd years. Back then dogs weren't necessarily expected to live in the house as part of the family, so any lack of socialsation was less important. Nowadays that's all changed and people's expectations have also changed (not always to a new puppy's benefit). The pup is expected to be relaxed in its new home with all the household noises and comings and goings, so this all needs to be taught by the breeder. If the dogs are permanently kennelled, unless there are plenty of staff to give the puppies the time they need to acquire this level of habituation then the pups are at an immediate disadvantage. Although the breeders might well be 'professional' (this is how they earn their living) they're not being 'professional' in the other meaning of the word - they're not doing a 'proper job'.

One type of 'professional breeder' is fine. The other type of 'professional breeder' isn't.

> If the dogs are permanently kennelled, unless there are plenty of staff to give the puppies the time they need to acquire this level of habituation then the pups are at an immediate disadvantage.

I have bought puppies from this sort of environment and my family before me and never had any problems adapting them to a home environment.  Puppies, by their very nature, are very adaptable and I would say the greater importance is breeding from sound temperaments in the first place.  This is the factor one seen emphasised in older breeding books rather than socialisation and I believe this type of breeding may have an advantage as they will be far less inclined to nurture and train behaviour into a dog before selecting breeding stock.  Similarly, health issues such as food intolerances, skin conditions, poor reproduction and other poor doings will be far more inclined to be weeded out from their breeding plans I feel than the hobby breeders with their smaller group.  I am not saying there are not very good, very knowledgable and very sensible hobby breeders but there are losses and gains in both types of breeding and would should have room in the breeding world for both.

There's a tendency on CD, and elsewhere, to assume that anyone who has more than the occasional litter is a puppy farmer. Being a serious, committed breeder seems to have gone out of fashion

Have you really got that impression, I've been on this board for 3 some years and that isn't the impression I have at all.

I have forged in my mind a large group of people on this forum whom I would happily have a pup from and feel very secure about the conditons of them being raised, from the aftercare, the health, the parentage and lines, and many of those are not people who have a one off litter or just a couple of dogs.

I very much support the commited breeder and I know others on here do too, it actually has nothing to do with numbers.

Personally if someone is breeding excellent healthy stock from a large well known kennel, I don't view them as a puppy farmer, I would rather buy my pup from a reputable breeder who knows their stuff, at the end of the day we all want healthy dogs, close to the breed standard, with all paperwork and a breeder who knows what they are talking about and can be there as a confident for many years to come, this is what makes a good breeder, and if someone enquiring just wants a dog as a pet, they should expect a dog of the exact same standards too.

Trouble is how do people tell the difference, between the commited large breeder and the puppy farmer both have a council breeding license but it doesn't mean the breeder knows what they are talking about, this is why a breeder IMO needs to be someone who has shown, worked their dogs, proudly has the rosettes, cups and certificates, it shows commitment to me and gives me the faith that they love their breed.

Without these things, it is very hard to tell the difference, unless it is by reputation and jo public often don't get to hear of that good or bad. So often I think some can be very wary, until we get to know people and quite rightly we will tell those enquiring to avoid these large breeders they are usually more likely to be puppy farmers, we all know people in our breed and if a kennel comes up, we'll soon let an OP know they have a good rep, for me that is one of the best things with CD we all know good and many breeders and very often pass them onto others even if only through PM's.
 
With regards to people using a stud from their own premises, to be honest most enquires regarding this are from pet owners, who just wish to pop two dogs of the same breed together, it soon becomes apparent when we are talking to people which have made preparation, studied and gone out to match lines and temperaments to breed together and these such people are viewed differently, many do have stud dogs, but they always quote that they are only matched to some of their bitches, so again I don't think there are always shouts of horror :-D often we don't get the whole picture to start with.

At the end of the day, CD is mainly full of breeders who wish to fight against the puppy farms, the unnecessary breeding, the use of bad stock and lines, to try to educate what makes a good breeder, sometimes we can chastise and educate our own too if that is not apparant, but don't you think that is a good thing?

Quality is paramount, that can certainly come with quantity too, but we all have to earn our reputation somewhere,

Are all large dog breeders wicked and evil? No, :-D Of course not, if you know your stuff and do it right, my support is certainly there.

> There's a tendency on CD, and elsewhere, to assume that anyone who has more than the occasional litter is a puppy farmer. Being a serious, committed breeder seems to have gone out of fashion
>
>

This certainly is the case on some canine forums, where breeding is considered a cardinal sin, and the view is all dogs should be rescues (who bred these pray), but not on this one I haven't found.

I don't know what to think really.  I hate to see large numbers of dogs bred in breeds that are not for everyone and in reality should be very carefully bred. 

I don't have a problem with reputable breeders breeding litters to further their lines - not everyone is able to keep a puppy from each litter if they are investing serious money, time and effort into helping their chosen breed move on and improve in health, type and character :)  I don't approve of wildly experimental matings (although the level of 'experiment' is personal to us all LOL) nor do I approve of breeding specifically for the pet market - I believe matings should be thought out, planned and take place on the basis of what improvements can be hoped for and with forward thought to how those improvements will benefit not just that litter but the breed as a whole.

In those circumstances many breeders may have to let pups go on terms, in partnership or to trusted breeders/friends who they know will do their best to protect the health of the lines they've brought in and from which the original breeder may be able to buy something back or use at stud a dog from those lines at a later date :) 

TBH I think most of us on here are pretty good at working out what's what - i.e. someone breeding for the benefit of their own pocket or for the genuine benefit of their breed.

I think the distinction needs to be made between "Professional" and "Commercial".  In most fields, to talk of something being conducted in a professional manner would be a compilment, and would mean that it was carried out to the highest standard.  It's often seemed to me that when talking of breeding/breeders people often confuse commercial with professional.  I think part of the ABS encourages a professional approach, insisting on standards of record keeping, paperwork handover, ID of breeding animals, etc.  The professional approach to the care and breeding side of things is harder to quantify and keep track of.  Someones minimum standard and requirements may be beyond the reach of others as a top level.  This side of things is very breed dependent too, which is why any scheme which set down standards has to cover such a wide framework - whilst the basic needs for good animal husbandry can be roughly encapsulated in the "suitable housing, feeding, warmth" type phrase, what is suitable for a Newfoundland at 4 weeks  is not at all what a 4 week Chihuahua litter needs, so providing rules or even guidelines either has to be very loose and open to interpretation, or is likely to ignore the needs of  large segments of the dog population.  However, my personal feeling is that anyone breeding and selling pups should do so in a professional manner, adhering to best practice in all respects.

Lots of the top kennels stay at the top because they have the facilities, experience and resources to keep lots of dogs, and breed quite a few litters, giving them access to more pups to pick from as show potential. For instance, they have the depth of knowledge and experience to perhaps keep a pup as a potential brood bitch because they see virtues in it which could be valuable to the breed, possibly with specific matings in mind even at the puppy stage, which in a smaller kennel would be sold as a pet and so excluded from the on going breeding pool for the breed, as it may have small faults which make it unsuitable for showing, but which there experience tells them can be "fixed" with a judicious mating, and put something valuable back into the breed from  another aspect in which it excells.  For the small breeder who is able only to keep a show potential pup for themselves this is not an option.  They may have the facilities to run on several pups from a litter for extra weeks or even months, which is not open to someone with limited space and facilities,  enabling a better view of the development and potential of the pup they eventually keep.  If someone is doing dogs "full time", often coupled with a dog related business such as boarding or grooming, so have the chance to be with the dogs 24/7, more dogs can end up getting lots more individual attention than the one or two dogs kept by someone trying to show, breed and keep up a full time job.

Thank you Gwen. That's exactly the response  I was hoping for!

On having my first cocker and joining the cocker club ect I have seen a couple of professional breeders that I would love another dog from. I just think that they "look" special. I am pleased my first was from a "hobby" if I can use the word breeder. Home bred (in the home) and I found him through the KC website. As this was my first pedigree, apart from family ones my parents had brought over the years I had no idea where else to get one from.
I am aware that here in Hampshire we do have a couple of notorious "breeders" and I use the word v. loosely. On further research over the past two years I will go direct to a breeder when ready to extend my family of spaniels. I would like a Lynwater line, Asquaine (not spelt right) or Hustonia (I think Irish line). I will wait for the right dog.
Border Collie wise, we did much more research before buying and I want another one from the same breeder, a bitch to go with our own Jake who has been neutered. I think we are a) a little to old to start breeding ourselves (after reading CD threads!) and b) I dont think I could part with any we had bred.
I want to last our dogs out not the other way around.

This certainly is the case on some canine forums, where breeding is considered a cardinal sin, and the view is all dogs should be rescues (who bred these pray), but not on this one I haven't found.

Well it certainly wasnt the people rescueing them was it?  Why on earth is there a problem with people wanting rescue dogs?

I find these boards to be very antirescue if anything - see comment above - and very pro breeder regardless of whether they have 100 St Bernards or never see the dogs just breed great examples of the breed regardless of how raised.

> Why on earth is there a problem with people wanting rescue dogs?

Never seen or noticed a hint of that myself .............

> I find these boards to be very antirescue if anything

Not this one :) Lots of folks on THIS forum have rescue dogs, have in the past and doubtless will do so again - some pedigree breeds, others crossbreeds and many much loved bitzers :)

Perhaps if you read more of the forum you will see that only responsible breeding is advocated as much for the benefit of the breeds themselves as for avoiding ill thought progeny ending up straining further the resources of hard pressed rescue societies - whether general canine rescues or breed specific ones :)

As to your ref re the St Bernard thread you will note that compassion was urged for the sake of giving the benefit of doubt to someone when no actual circumstances were fully known.  That view IMO stems more from basic common sense, justice and an acceptance that invstigations are underway by folks more intimately involved than anonymous internet posters and did not serve as endorsement or encouragement towards unsuitable husbandry.

> the view is all dogs should be rescues

please note that I made no comment against rescue dogs, just that many people who are in rescue think it is wrong to wish to have anything else.

In a way that view just helps out the puppy farmer and other irresponsible breeders.  After all someone else will always pick up the pieces, they do not take back and home them as decent breeders do..

My first Papillon (now 8) was a rescue, he was shut in a cupboard and fed scraps by his horrible owners when he became a pest around in season bitches, when I got him he was sooooo skinny, his coat a matted mess and his teeth in an awful state from which they have never really recovered properly, anyway the point is I adore him as much as the ones I have paid hundreds of pounds for, he is loved for the wonderful forgiving dog he is, the majority of people I have met have no problem with taking on rescues, if you love dogs you love them whether they be from top breeders or rescues, they are all lovely no matter what.

No-one is suggesting there is anything wrong with rescue dogs, just the fact that they need rescuing because so many do not have breeders that take responsibility for them (yes in some very few cases the breeder really is unable to, ill, died changed circumstances).

What I have issue with is that many involved with rescue view any breeding as wrong and do not give credit/realise that decent breeders take lifelong responsibility nd are not the ones guilty of causing the 'rescue problem'.

Any good breeder will actually do rescue work.  first off re-homing their own breeding, helping out fellow breeders with same, then often helping with breed rescue be that financially, fostering etc.

It has been mentioned on this forum that a really good breeder who does rescue was vilified for wanting to breed her own litter from top class stock with something to offer the breed.  The opinion seemed to be that breeding and rescue are incompatible, and that breeders and rescuers are like on opposing teams.

We are back to the problem of all those who breed being lumped together and the 'real breeders' being tarred with the irresponsible attitude and behaviour of the 'puppy producers', sadly probably because there seem to be more of the latter than the former,a nd many of those are the one off litter producers, who somehow think they don't have to be responsible or health test etc etc, as they are not a proper breeder.

Well said brainless, I to have been on websites where breeders are villified no matter how responsibly they breed, I do always wonder why a few believe that we should all own crossbreeds and pedigrees are somehow not a proper dog, didnt stay on those websites long because some of them had such fixed and ignorant ideas about dog breeding it was like banging your head on a brick wall, just not worth the time and effort to try and educate them that not everyone is a byb just in it to make a fast buck.

please note that I made no comment against rescue dogs, just that many people who are in rescue think it is wrong to wish to have anything else.

In a way that view just helps out the puppy farmer and other irresponsible breeders.  After all someone else will always pick up the pieces, they do not take back and home them as decent breeders do..

No you made no mention of rescue dogs but the rescues themselves, I think asking who bred the dogs and mentioning rescues as implying that rescues are breeding these dogs to make money from - now how anti rescue is that?

In what way to do rescues encourage people to go to puppy farmers and just who is picking up these pieces if not the rescues?

I do always wonder why a few believe that we should all own crossbreeds and pedigrees are somehow not a proper dog,

I think its interesting that you think there are only cross breeds in rescue, funnily enough I traced one of my RESCUE dogs parentage back to the 1770's just today, can anyone else?

> I do always wonder why a few believe that we should all own crossbreeds and pedigrees are somehow not a proper dog,
>
> I think its interesting that you think there are only cross breeds in rescue, funnily enough I traced one of my RESCUE dogs parentage back to the 1770's just today, can anyone else?

Hi ya, read my first post again, my first Papillon was a rescue! so I certainly dont think all in rescue are crossbreeds :-)

Oh yes forgot to add, I do actually do rescue in the Essex area when Papillon rescue require me to, fortunately we dont get very many in rescue but they do come up occasionally and I'm always glad to help.

Well its great that you do not get many in rescue, wish it was the same for my preferred breed.

>I think asking who bred the dogs and mentioning rescues as implying that rescues are breeding these dogs to make money from - now how anti rescue is that?

No, I read it saying that the dogs in rescues were all bred by someone - saying that you don't want to get a dog from a breeder doesn't really make sense, because indirectly they all come from breeders!

I wish we didnt get any in rescue but glad its not as many as some, as it happens I adore Greyhounds, I hate what the industry does to the ex racers, I live a 10 minute drive from Romford Greyhound Stadium and I will say to my shame years ago before I knew about what happens to the dogs that dont make good racers I used to enjoy a night out there, nowadays of course I wouldnt be seen dead in there, in fact me and the OH always say we should have gone into Greyhounds because apart from two bursts of running a day they are pretty much couch potatoes, would have suited us down to the ground lol.

No, I read it saying that the dogs in rescues were all bred by someone - saying that you don't want to get a dog from a breeder doesn't really make sense, because indirectly they all come from breeders!

So are you saying that people should get dogs from breeders and not rescues because they still all come from 'breeders' anyway?  Why doesn't getting a dog from a rescue make sense?

>Why doesn't getting a dog from a rescue make sense?

That's not what was said. Brainless originally said "This certainly is the case on some canine forums, where breeding is considered a cardinal sin, and the view is all dogs should be rescues (who bred these pray)", pointing out that all dogs in rescues have breeders somewhere, and those breeders are the ones who should be taking responsibilityfor any rehoming needed. In that respect rescues make it easier for bad breeders to flourish because they take the responsibility away from the breeders.

Getting a dog from a rescue makes as much sense as getting a dog direct from the breeder. That's not anti-rescue.People who get a rescue dog are still getting a dog that's come from a breeder. The two are intertwined.

In that respect rescues make it easier for bad breeders to flourish because they take the responsibility away from the breeders.

arh yes Ive heard this arguement before that its rescue's fault for taking the dogs in.   - so what would you have happen to these dogs if the rescue's dont take them in?  Sorry but I think putting the blame on rescues for bad breeders is IMHO not fair on rescues or the dogs.

i think greyhoundsr4lif you should try reading the responses properly how you have come to that conclusion from the responses god only knows. nobody is saying or even implying what you have said. seems like you are actually downing breeders not breeders downing rescues orginisations.

>
> I find these boards to be very antirescue if anything - see comment above - and very pro breeder regardless of whether they have 100 St Bernards or never see the dogs just breed great examples of the breed regardless of how raised.

greyhoundsr4lif, many of your subsequent posts appear to be questioning someone else rather than making your own statement so I've gone back to your first post to answer.

You mention boards plural - I don't know to what other boards you are referring but have you spent time reading the information and advice given by many of the regular posters on Champdogs?  There are a number of current threads, and many other recent ones, where newcomers have asked questions about breeding, mating, stud dogs etc and have received very sensible advice - DON'T.  These newcomers have been told that there are too many unwanted puppies, that no one should breed without health testing, dogs of poor temperament are unsuitable, that their dog/bitch is too young, that without knowledge of showing or working the dog is unlikely to be the best candidate.  The list for not breeding goes on and on and I'm only quoting advice given in the last week.

The best breeders (some of which are CD members) are not the ones whose dogs are ending up in rescue facilities, they make every effort to manage waiting lists, to provide long term after care, and best advice for their dogs and their new owners.  They will also, if notified, take their own dogs back. 

I genuinely can't find any evidence that any poster on this thread or this site has suggested that there is a problem with people wanting rescue dogs but you may be in the wrong place.  I'm not entirely sure of the demographic but Champdogs seems to be populated by a large number of people that show and work their dogs or who are looking for advice on how to start these activities.  You are not going to find anyone here that is anti rescue but you will find a group of people who are supporting good breeding practise and conscientious breeders; people who are working to prevent dogs entering the rescue arena at all...

It's a bit like going to Glastonbury and moaning that they're not playing classical music.  Whilst we may have some much loved Beethoven or Delius in our collections at home we are gathered together in a muddy field to share a love of something else entirely.  Somewhere else I'll happily spend hours talking about my mongrel rescue, the large number of rescue dogs we've had since I was a child, our successes and failures, the good the bad and the ugly rescue facilities - but not here.  Are you perhaps just in the wrong place? :)

> No you made no mention of rescue dogs but the rescues themselves, I think asking who bred the dogs and mentioning rescues as implying that rescues are breeding these dogs to make money from - now how anti rescue is that?
>
> In what way to do rescues encourage people to go to puppy farmers and just who is picking up these pieces if not the rescues?

> No you made no mention of rescue dogs but the rescues themselves, I think asking who bred the dogs and mentioning rescues as implying that rescues are breeding these dogs to make money from - now how anti rescue is that?
>
> In what way to do rescues encourage people to go to puppy farmers and just who is picking up these pieces if not the rescues?

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me.

If every breeder (that is anyone whose bitch has a litter) be that an accidental one, a one off litter, a litter bred for pin money or one bred for the Pet market commercially, or ones bred for work show etc, took full responsibility for the pups produced there would hardly be any dogs in rescue.

There would of course be dogs who needed a new home from time to time, but these should e homed via their breeder.

Rescue organisations make it easy for irresponsible breeders and sometimes owners to rid themselves of their responsibilities for these dogs.  By proposing that people would take a rescue dog for preference makes it even easier for them to absolve themselves of responsibility.

Excellent posts from both Brainless and Dogs A Babe. Resecue is only necessary IF breeders are irresponsible.

how you have come to that conclusion from the responses god only knows. 

I think perhaps we have a little mischief making here, (we have our own Coolio) it is perfectly clear what Brainless and Jeangenie were trying to say. :-D

i think greyhoundsr4lif you should try reading the responses properly how you have come to that conclusion from the responses god only knows. nobody is saying or even implying what you have said. seems like you are actually downing breeders not breeders downing rescues orginisations.

Can you show me where I am downing good breeders?

That's not what was said. Brainless originally said "This certainly is the case on some canine forums, where breeding is considered a cardinal sin, and the view is all dogs should be rescues (who bred these pray)", pointing out that all dogs in rescues have breeders somewhere, and those breeders are the ones who should be taking responsibilityfor any rehoming needed. In that respect rescues make it easier for bad breeders to flourish because they take the responsibility away from the breeders.

Getting a dog from a rescue makes as much sense as getting a dog direct from the breeder. That's not anti-rescue.People who get a rescue dog are still getting a dog that's come from a breeder. The two are intertwined.

It was the 'who bred these' comment straight after rescue that came across to ME that rescues were breeding dogs!  I understand I misunderstood now.

However I disagree that you might as well get one from a breeder as a rescue as someone bred it anyway, yes I understand that some people feel getting a dog from rescue and rescues taking them in is supporting bad breeders and puppy farmers but until there is an ideal world out there what happens to these dogs if rescues don't take them or people do not rehome them?

Dogs a babe

Thank you for your post it makes for interesting and sensible reading.

However, you knew there would be one, I don't think I have ever said that the breeders of CD's are the ones putting dogs into rescue - I totally agree with you that the vast majority on here give excellent advise regarding breeding and encourage those who are responsible and advising those who are not to not breed.  I have no problem with responsible breeders.

I do find it sad that you cannot talk about your rescue on here and maybe you are right I am in the wrong place.  I joined some time ago and came back only recently due to search regarding a health issue with one of my rescues so I think maybe you are right, if its not encouraged to talk about rescues. 

It is comments such as rescues are encouraging bad breeders that really hurt when they do such a lot of good work not only rehoming dogs but trying to educate the GP regarding these issues.

Again thanks for being open with me.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me.

If every breeder (that is anyone whose bitch has a litter) be that an accidental one, a one off litter, a litter bred for pin money or one bred for the Pet market commercially, or ones bred for work show etc, took full responsibility for the pups produced there would hardly be any dogs in rescue.

There would of course be dogs who needed a new home from time to time, but these should e homed via their breeder.

Rescue organisations make it easy for irresponsible breeders and sometimes owners to rid themselves of their responsibilities for these dogs.  By proposing that people would take a rescue dog for preference makes it even easier for them to absolve themselves of responsibility.

Well I can only apologise for the misunderstanding.

Yes of course in an ideal world that would be the case but its not an ideal world is it?

I don't think it is just irresponsible breeders that put dogs in rescue - there are a lot of older dogs in there as well.  Plus owners do get rid because of problems, financial, behavioural, splits in relationships, or even the fact that the dog cant run fast anymore.

If as you say rescue organisation do not propose people take rescue dogs - what happens to these dogs?  Should rescue's refuse to take the dogs to make puppyfarmers have more responsibility for the dogs they are done breeding with?  How would that work, lets face it puppyfarmers along with other types of breeders would have no problem taking a spade or bullet to the dogs it would not stop them producing the pups.

I think perhaps we have a little mischief making here, (we have our own Coolio) it is perfectly clear what Brainless and Jeangenie were trying to say. 

Im sorry you think I am only here to cause trouble, as I said above I initially came back here as a search came up regarding a health issue with one of my dogs and I did get help with it.  I do not have a problem with good breeders but do not understand why rescues are getting the stick for dogs in rescue.

The show would be rather boring do you think if everyone had the same opinions and were just agreeing with everything Tina says?

I understand your point, as i have two "pedigrees" now and I had always rescue before I would think the ideal is a mix of the two. I have an employee who is also a friend, we went to school together and he has a beatiful springer and a lurcher both give to him. His view is people buy the dogs and have no idea of the time a commitment needed. So I cant say its all the breeders fault, as these two were "sold" to their owners, it was the owners that failed in their obligations, not the breeder.
There will always be rescue animals but i do feel that experianced owners are required for the ones that may be traumatised, ill treated or ill bred.
I would like a rescue cocker but I would not sign up to training classes ect as I did not find them that useful for our two. I also donate an amount each month to a rescue for Border Collies, when time permits I will have a rescue collie but I also want another pedigree from the lines I listed for my cocker, its choice.
I certainly have learnt a lot from reading the posts of experianced breeders on here and my life is richer for it.

>I do find it sad that you cannot talk about your rescue on here

I'm not sure where you got that idea - people talk about their rescue dogs without any problem. You can't, of course, advertise a rescue kennel (that would be advertising, which is banned) just as breeders can't mention their breed when they have a litter of puppies. Fair's fair! But individual rescue dogs - no problem.

greyhoundsr4lif,

Giving you the benefit of the doubt then, it seems that you have entered this site with a great chip on your shoulder.

This forum is not for or against anything other than responsible breeding, we have many members with cross breeds,  heinz 57, pedigrees, and many, many, members who work in rescue and many of us financially supporting rescues, there is no for or against anything on this board, if you took the time to get to know the people on it, instead of coming in all guns blazing accusing members of being biased, it's quite laughable that the people you are accusing are actually 'to those who know them' the very least on the board to ever be biased in anyway.

> I don't think it is just irresponsible breeders that put dogs in rescue - there are a lot of older dogs in there as well. Plus owners do get rid because of problems, financial, behavioural, splits in relationships, or even the fact that the dog cant run fast anymore.
>

No, it is also the irresponsible breeders that aren't prepared to take back the older dogs and those they bred whose owners have now had a change in circumstances. If rescue weren't so 'fashionable' in some circumstances, these so-called breeders would have to face up to their own responsibilities.

In an ideal world that is what we would all like for dogs to be re-homed via their breeders, but we know that is all but a pipe dream, rescues have and always will be very much needed, they have and do a great job and without them, we would have an awful lot of stray dogs. Thefew rescue members that point the finger at good breeders and say we should not breed and all excess dogs should be taken up firstly, well that is completely down to joe public to decide, many wanting pets wish to train up and socialise their own dogs.

But many of us on this forum very often point people in the direction of rescue and I know we shall continue to do so. :-)

> I do find it sad that you cannot talk about your rescue on here and maybe you are right I am in the wrong place.

Oh he gets a mention when necessary and he often comes up as an example when I'm talking about food or training for instance and I did recently explain how he came to us from Manchester Dogs Home.  However I came here originally for information about showing our pedigree and stayed for all the useful information and advice and to give my experiences of buying a puppy, housetraining, etc ie  all the stuff we've been living through with our 18 month gundog!

I didn't mean to imply that rescues, crossbreeds etc aren't ever covered here but that the emphasis, particularly with regards to breeding, seems to be elsewhere.  This is somewhere I know I can find breed and showing experts should I need them, and over time I've got to know some of the strengths of regular posters which is valuable when I'm looking for some specific information.

> It is comments such as rescues are encouraging bad breeders that really hurt when they do such a lot of good work not only rehoming dogs but trying to educate the GP regarding these issues.

They do great work for dogs.  Is there a possibility though that good rescue places give casual breeders an escape clause they really shouldn't have?  That is to say that it doesn't matter to some people if they end up with unwanted puppies from their pet/accidental mating as they know they can always give them to a rescue facility?  If these irresponsible owners knew that any unwanted puppy would be pts rather than rehomed - would they be more careful?

Yes, yes,  I know - can - opener - worms !! :)

>If these irresponsible owners knew that any unwanted puppy would be pts rather than rehomed - would they be more careful?

No.

If there were no rescues they'd throw them in the river or dump them in the street. If they had any compassion they might leave them somewhere they think they'd be taken care of (near a vets).

Look at the care puppy farmers, careless (accidental pregnancy) or the "every dog should have one litter" owners take in finding new homes. All you need do is show up with money. They don't care where the surplus pups go.

Edit - personally I think anyone giving up a dog to a rescue (at any age) should pay a large contribution towards the dog's veterinary, food and kennelling expenses.

> don't think it is just irresponsible breeders that put dogs in rescue - there are a lot of older dogs in there as well.  Plus owners do get rid because of problems, financial, behavioural, splits in relationships, or even the fact that the dog cant run fast anymore.
>

Yes but all these dogs have breeders, and in most cases they should take responsibility.

I had a 9 year old bitch back last year, other breeders I know have taken back 10 - 14 year olds.  That is the point it is a lifelong responsibility, and no-one should breed unless they are prepared to take this on board.

Maybe there should be legislation to ensure this happens (except for genuine exceptional circumstances), the breeder and the owner have to be legally responsible for re-homing.  There would be far fewer dogs bred, but those breeding responsibly would not be affected, as they already take this responsibility.