why is one pup or litter worth less or more than another?
Look at what dogs are in any rescue centre anywhere in the UK and that will give you the answer.......

> These crossbred pups however, they would be competing for the very same homes as the rest of the dogs in rescue.

I have one rescue dog and may have another in the future. If I went to my local rescue looking for a dog, I would be extremely nervous of taking on any dog that had any connection to 'pitbull' type (including staffies). I'm not keen on staffies anyway, but more importantly, I would be very concerned of a) possible future behavioural problems and b) problems with reactions from neighbours and other dog walkers etc etc. Yes - I might be narrow minded, but that is how my thought processes would work and I would be drawn to other types of dog instinctively. My current rescue dog came with 'issues' (and still does have some 11 years later), so it's not that I expect a perfect rescue dog. Now, I can't be the only person who thinks like this, so what chance do rescue centres have in rehoming the huge numbers of 'staffy' type dogs ?????

Daisy

i agree 100% marianneB!.

>> I think even you would agree that people should be able to choose to buy a responsibly bred pup, not be forced to take an old dog from rescue.
> Yes, people should be able to choose a responsibly bred pup ... you ('even' you? But that would be rude) can't convince me that these particular pups come in that category.

So even I am allowed to choose a responsibly bred pup OR an old rescue but I'm not allowed to choose a young rescue pup?

> So even I am allowed to choose a responsibly bred pup OR an old rescue but I'm not allowed to choose a young rescue pup?

A and B are known quantities, the third should not exist, are an unacceptable risk (may turn out badly or totally different to expectations and keep returning to rescue) and additional drain on resources (need a lot more care than adult dogs who are missign out when staff/volunteer time is used to look after them).

They  should be reared and homed responsibly by their breeders or not reared at all.

> The same could be said about every responsible breeder, each puppy they breed is taking a home that might have been given to an older rescue dog.
>
> Not at all -because that isn't like for like in any way at all.

It is like for like. There are very few breeds (if any?) that don't end up in rescue.

I think people who care for rescue dogs and breeders will never agree on this issue. Breeders see pups as stock - and I remember a topic on here that most breeders said they'd regularly put to sleep excess pups from a litter.

>> So even I am allowed to choose a responsibly bred pup OR an old rescue but I'm not allowed to choose a young rescue pup?
> A and B are known quantities, the third should not exist, are an unacceptable risk (may turn out badly or totally different to expectations and keep returning to rescue) and additional drain on resources (need a lot more care than adult dogs who are missign out when staff/volunteer time is used to look after them).
>
> They  should be reared and homed responsibly by their breeders or not reared at all.

I'm quite happy with my unacceptable risks - I'd not have a dog if I had to go to a breeder and I'd be much less likely to rehome an older rescue dog.

> I think people who care for rescue dogs and breeders will never agree on this issue.

No I think you will find that  responsible breeders are just that and take responsibility for the dogs they breed, be that taking back and re-homing any whose owners can no longer keep them, or decide if culling is required (though that is now against KC rules).

With breeders worth their name the buck stops with them, and yes hard life and death decisions sometimes have to be made.

If ALL BREEDERS (that includes those who let fluffy have puppies, or let their bitch get pregnant) took responsibility for the dogs they own and breed there simply would be no dogs in rescue centres except for the very odd occasion where owner and breeder had lost contact, breeder had died or become ill etc.

> I'm quite happy with my unacceptable risks - I'd not have a dog if I had to go to a breeder and I'd be much less likely to re-home an older rescue dog.

But charities are over stretched and need to make decisions based on the best use of resources and the most likelihood of a successful homing.

A litter of unknown parentage (quite possibly turning otu to be of ilegal 'type') even with a  mother is a lot of work to rear, as has been found by the poster higher up whose son has a saved puppy, the resulting pups could turn out to be anything and as in that case several unsuitable for homing.

At the same time older dogs who are good candidates for homing are not being homed/can't be found space for.

It is like for like. There are very few breeds (if any?) that don't end up in rescue.

I think people who care for rescue dogs and breeders will never agree on this issue. Breeders see pups as stock - and I remember a topic on here that most breeders said they'd regularly put to sleep excess pups from a litter.

I'm replying to this and then putting you on ignore as I know full well you can never win with AR/PETA style posters. It is NOT like for like. A family with 2 young children decide to get a nice family pet dog, and decide on a Golden Retriever puppy. If they are told they cannot have one, are the going to go to a rescue and get an adult Staffie instead? Very unlikely. Same goes for the old lady who wants a small pet -she's not going to get one of them.  You may well see every breed in rescue now and then -because there are plenty of irresponsible breeders out there. But go along to any local rescue and how many Papillons do you see? How may Poodles? Irish Setters? Chihuahuas? Japanese Chin? Laekenois? I could go on. Then compare them to the number of Staffies and Staffy crosses.

Breeders see pups as stock? I've never heard anything as ridiculous and you have just insulted the majority of this board.  Regularly put to sleep excess pups in the litters? I don't know anyone who EVER has done this, and these days you are not even allowed to according to the KC. I think you owe all the good breeders in this forum a HUGE apology. I am sure somebody will tell me if it comes forth as I for one will not see it.

>Breeders see pups as stock -

Commercial breeders and puppy farmers do, but not responsible, ethical breeders

>and I remember a topic on here that most breeders said they'd regularly put to sleep excess pups from a litter.

I don't remember that, please could you provide a link? I remember one where several breeders said that they'd be prepared to if the need arose, but luckily it hadn't; and that a couple said they'd done it in the past but hated it, but not a single one who said they'd done it regularly.

How very childish to put someone on ignore:/ I thought this was a forum for adults and there valid OPINIONS, ... so if you do not like something that was posted, hey put them on ignore, nice....

The expression of differing points of view is welcomed; resorting to insults when others don't share yours isn't: that's why Admin instigated the Ignore button many years ago - it avoids threads degenerating into slanging matches. If you think the Ignore facility is childish you should take that up with Admin via PM.

I fail to see how my post was insulting!!!! good grief!

I've never before today  had to use the Ignore button twice in a day. I'm glad it's there -I try to give advice and opinions but will not do that at the price of being insulted.

Right I moved this thread once to edit out some comments and put it back hoping the discussion could continue in a reasonable manner but it looks like it can't so I'm closing it.