Mark RR has asked me to start a new topic:

I do think that there is the major issue/oversimplification in the idea of 'Demand' and 'Supply', and that all we need is better suppliers to squeeze out the poor quality producers.

The rescue situation shows that much of the demand is unsustainable, in other words people who want a dog but will not commit to it lifelong and 'get' rid' for quite spurious reasons.

There will always be situations where a dog needs re-homing for genuinely unforeseen reasons, and this is where the 'Supply' part of the chain which in the Casually/Commercially bred sector is lacking in absorbing (taking responsibility after sale) for those that need help.

So we need to reduce the demand from those who really should not contemplate owning a dog, as they can't/won't provide for it's needs long term.


If reduced demand didn't solve the issue, then we have the problem of improving quality of the supply/suppliers.

Responsible breeders can only breed the amount they feel comfortable being able to rear and provide this lifetime support for.  I would find it hard to breed more than one rarely two litters in a year, just fitting into my life and my canine activities and the attention my own dogs require.

So increasing supply really needs to come from more fully responsible breeders producing puppies rather than the few responsible increasing production. Unfortunately responsible breeding is pretty unprofitable., In the long run your passenger (non breeding non show/working) numbers increase, and increase financial costs.

Unlike inanimate objects we no longer feel it is appropriate to take unwanted items to the local dump (kill the dogs) so we try to recycle (rescue).

So we have the now very loud antibreeder message, quite similar to the voices in the consumer sector that champion recycling, re-use, think freecycle etc  For example sometimes it costs more to recycle than to make from scratch.

Very good response Barbara.

The problem is there is no reason financially or legally for people to take their puppies back if a customer decides that they can no longer have the dog . The breeders in the supply chain who are producing the increase in litters for commercial gain or on a whim will not take puppies back as why should they ? Morals and responsibly doesn't enter their minds in a lot of cases where as a good breeder has that in the forefront of what they do.

Some breeders will wash their hands once money has been exchanged and laugh all the way to the bank. They don't keep a relationship up with the new puppy owners as what do they have to gain ? That is why so many people turn to rescues or sell in the free ads.

Also it applies when a dog develops any health issues. Those types of breeders don't care and will continue breeding and seeking to unsuspecting  uneducated new owners . Unfortunately those people will continue to buy. Just look at the hundreds of Labradors that go through rescue is is awful .

I would be quite happy to breed more pups, I have the time etc (by "more" I mean perhaps 2 litters a year), BUT there is no way on earth that I could find more RIGHT homes than what I do now. It's a sad fact that in my breed the majority of breeders are now irresponsible and the majority of their buyers are unsuitable. If all the irresponsible breeders magically stopped breeding, I would still not sell to their buyers. So it's a no win situation. The good breeders breed for the responsible buyers, the bad breeders breed for the bad buyers.  The good breeders would not sell to the bad owners and the good owners would not buy from the bad breeders. Just such an enormous shame that the bad breeders and buyers outnumber the good!

> Just such an enormous shame that the bad breeders and buyers outnumber the good!

You don't really think that is the case across all breeds do you ?

> The good breeders would not sell to the bad owners

Agree, however

> and the good owners would not buy from the bad breeders

Yes they would, through lack of education etc, and that is actually one of the the biggest problems.

And as if by magic, posted 1 minute after I posted :

http://forum.champdogs.co.uk/topic_show.pl?pid=1412809

Now I don't know LynneB's niece but I suspect she is more like to be a "good owner" than a bad one.

You don't really think that is the case across all breeds do you ?


No, I was talking about MY breed and thought I made that clear.

    > and the good owners would not buy from the bad breeders

Yes they would, through lack of education etc, and that is actually one of the the biggest problems.

We will have to disagree on that one -to me a good owner can NEVER be an uninformed one. A good owner does all their research and so knows not to buy from the bad breeders. Yes the ignorant ones can be educated and can turn into perfect owners, but UNTIL that has happened, they will be classed  as bad owners by me.

I spend a lot of time educating people enquiring about puppies of my breed, and to be honest, again in THIS breed, I find that the majority of the ignorant ones that CAN be educated then decide the breed is not for them at all. They listened, they took the advice, they realised it was not a family pet breed -which is what the bad breeders claim.

In a similar story to my  own told not long ago, there is currently a pup of my breed in rescue. New owner gave up after 48 hrs and the breeder refused point blank to take the pup back -even though it was just 8 weeks old.

A good owner or bad owner , should we be talking about prospective as even if they bought a substandard puppy from a dubious breeder they could be an super owner and visa versa

It's only when you start to look for a really GOOD breeder, that you realise how few of them there are around.  The "supply" of good breeders is definitely not meeting the "demand" - just the supply of bad breeders and puppy farmers. 

I got a pup last year from a very popular breed, and it took me AGES to find a good breeder (admittedly the pedigree was important too, so the lines and genetics were part of it, not just the breeder).

The answer is there staring us all in the face........

Why is it....... that when a dog gets to a rescue it's future then becomes an adoption? Not a dog/pup for sale or a dog for re-home or rescue, but an adoption once it is called that word, the rescue will vet, sometimes extremely strictly (the outcry from some ) they will home visit, ask a multitude of questions, check that the owner is suitable and have a return policy to the rescue, along with a contract to sign, now some of these rescues are private, some council run, most charity run, but why is it that what should happen at the puppy stage, happens here? All under that word adoption.

Good responsible breeders do these things naturally, other breeders well.....they don't do they?

A puppy, should have better rights at the start....why do they only become apparent once handed over to a rescue?

This is what needs changing, if all breeders were licensed and given an agenda for breeding with rulings it would be a start. A breeder should make their pups a lifetime responsibility.

Sadly those who would draw up rules for any legislation would most likely see 'commercial' and licensed' as the gold standard.
Lots of steel and white tiles.....
those are the 'kennels' legislators would design their model around.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks for the hobby breeder would be Local Authority regs regarding running a business and the associated traffic and parking implications ...and any breeding regs would start with Local authority licensing..... ironically.

Even my dear hubby says he can see why buying from a 'Professional rather than an amateur"would be preferable to many and I'm sure that would be the case with government.

On point again...
I don't want to breed any more puppies than I already do although I often feel guilty when contacted by those searching around for pups of my breed.
("Health Tested" in my breed is a rather loose description,bandied about by those who do the bare minimum...)
But breeding too many puts pressure to sell and this, I find, tempts the breeder into compromise.

Mark

>Just such an enormous shame that the bad breeders and buyers outnumber the good!

You don't really think that is the case across all breeds do you ?

In my heavily exploited breed ..yes most definitely.

So, what is the answer.......if nobody takes control how can things ever change?

You see the main problem is, the responsible breeder is just that one thing, someone who cares and loves their breed meaning they will do everything possible to rear the best pups they possibly can and place them in good homes.

The ending result of a rescue centre is also full of people who love and care about dogs, most are volunteers they will also do everything possible to make sure a dog is given a good life.

Then we have this huge void in the middle of people, who aren't particularly doggie people, most are not even dog savvy, they barely know their dogs breed traits, let alone anything else, and here they are popping out pups for the experience of cuteness or for their next holiday, or sadly as a business, the majority of these people do not want educating, whoo....... you talk to these people on Facebook, Twitter or other dog sites and you get a couple of sentences full of choice swear words and mind your own business.......think many of us have experienced that, even when being extremely diplomatic.

Basically they can do what they like, when they like, with their property and if you don't like it you can whistle........ many are not KC registered so there is no-one looking over their shoulders.

If no-one steps in it continues........... and the only bodies left to step in are the council, I understand what you are saying Tooolz, it may well make things worse for responsible breeders, but rescues are filling up with unwanted dogs, people are breeding with no care at all........ proper vetting is none existent on many dog adverts...... you can't force people to take back dogs they have sold. It wipes out all responsibility.

Unless......... no dog is sold, but adopted with contracts........ maybe dogs need to and really should be removed from being bought and sold like a fridge freezer and come under a social/adopotive heading rather than a consumer product? Maybe that is what we should all fight for to move things forward?

I helped a friend recently to vet prospective owners for her puppies and honestly think that between us, and over the course of several emails, meetings and telephone conversations that we did a pretty good job.  12 months down the line we're still comfortable with the decisions we made.

BUT it was flipping hard work.  From the moment she decided definitely to go ahead with the mating (to say nothing of the years worth of conversations to even get that far) it was full steam ahead to get the best owners lined up that we could.  Lots of initial visits before the pups were on the ground then repeat visits once she had the puppies.  In most cases they are still coming back for play dates and advice - exactly as my friend had hoped

When I think back to that period though I really wonder why breeders sign up to do it again!  I know full well why the puppy farmers do it but to be a conscientious breeder is to lose sleep, worry about the bitch the puppies and the owners, spend money long before they get it back, clean their house every single day, paddle in poo, spend hours on the computer and telephone answering enquiries etc

Then on top of all that is the certain knowledge that not everyone who turns up for a puppy is really telling you the truth.  People lie all the time and not just to you.  I'm pretty sure I lied to myself when I got my very first pedigree dog from a breeder.  I'm damn sure I thought I was going to be a better owner that I actually was.  My poor Harry was our practise dog - loved and adored for sure but he had to live through all our mistakes.  I almost wish the breeder had seen through me at the time and told me to wait a bit...

It's a bit early (breakfast!) but I raise my glass to all of you who do this job well and are prepared to open your houses and your hearts to the many puppy owners you support x

Lovely, honest post dogs a babe..........

> Unless......... no dog is sold, but adopted with contracts

Hmmm - I'm not sure whether that is quite practicable. There are many reasons a breeder might not be able to fulfil their end of the contract in 0-16 years. Who would pick up on the failed contracts ?? Would breeders need insurance to cover this ? Why don't owners of any animal have to have a licence relevant to that animal. You would have to attend a course on responsible ownership (buying an animal) . Breeders would only sell to people who had the licence and, of course, would apply their own conditions. You would have to show your licence before registering at the vets etc.

I didn't lie in fact if anything I was too open I wanted her to know what our circumstances were and would have trusted her if she had said no. I had a rigorous vetting process demonstrating a good knowledge of the breed. home checks, vet checks etc and have in the process gained another friend.

Ah.... but you see Daisy, that is the whole point.

If something is easy, anyone will do it, if something takes effort and research only the really interested will continue....things are out of control because things got so easy.

Most of us did not wake up one morning and say "hey, I'm going to breed"....... took me quite a few years, took most of us years of being in the dog world and learning, to come to that conclusion.

Today, you don't have to.......... it needs making hard....er. You've only got to look at those sad faces in rescues to know that.

> Ah.... but you see Daisy, that is the whole point

Sorry - don't understand ?? :) Making breeders have legally enforceable contracts would only stop 'small' breeders breeding surely because they couldn't take the risk of being sued because they couldn't take back a dog etc (maybe because of ill health etc etc) ?? If the onus is on the buyer to have taken some steps to be educated a bit on best practice then they might stop buying from back yard breeders and if they know that they could only register at a vets if they had an 'ownership' certificate.

Cross purposes Daisy........... enforceable contracts for returning dogs is not what I meant.

Trading standards absolves any breeder from being forced to take back a 'product' they have sold, that is nil and void, it can never be enforced. I also agree with you that there are many, many reasons why that would not be viable, life changes all the time.

I would like it to be the first port of call, but if not possible then the OWNER in my world would then need to pay a fee for a dog to go to a rescue.

The contracts for breeders coming via a council that I would like to become a legal requirement for all breeders should be something along the lines of the KC's ABS scheme, where all breeders need to comply to the rules and that needs to include a very strict vetting process. If that is done a breeder should not be held responsible for things going wrong.

I would as said in my other post like to bring back the dog license, (ducking ) but hugely updated to include a contract of care for a dog and the public, making owners liable for fines, without clogging up courts and making dog ownership not a whim, but a serious responsibility.

And yes, all domestic animals should perhaps have the same requirements.

We are supposed to be a country of animal lovers, why wouldn't we wish to protect them all?

Totally agree with all you say, Carrington

>Just such an enormous shame that the bad breeders and buyers outnumber the good!

>You don't really think that is the case across all breeds do you ?

>In my heavily exploited breed ..yes most definitely.

~ Very true in Siberian Huskies.
(Even 10yrs on from the Snow Dog et al movies)

Watched Lady & the Tramp for the first time in years recently.  Found myself infuriated with Walt Disney!