Hi

Just after a bit of advice. We are looking to buy our first puppy and have a viewing soon. Its a lab male and is one in the litter. The breeder is registered with the Kennel Club so I'm sure is fine but are asking for a 50% deposit in cash on the day of the viewing.

Just seems quite sizeable given the pup is so young and hard to say if you will bond at that point (sure we will bond with him, more the other way round!).

I'm happy to pay a smaller deposit with maybe the remainder on second viewing when he's more like 4-5 weeks old.

Just wondered if this is normal and I'm being over cautious?

Any thoughts gratefully received

Very large deposit I would wonder why they need such an amount?

You don't say how old the puppy is, at the moment, but I'm guessing not yet 4-5 weeks old as you spoke about that as a possible second viewing...

>The breeder is registered with the Kennel Club so I'm sure is fine

Firstly, a breeder being registered with the KC means absolutely nothing.  There are awful breeders registered with the KC and zero health testing is required to register puppies with the KC, so it means nothing whatsoever other than that your puppy is pedigree. 

>Just seems quite sizeable given the pup is so young and hard to say if you will bond at that point (sure we will bond with him, more the other way round!).

I don't really get this concern, it seems very strange.  There are reasons someone might not want to pay a deposit on a puppy so young but being worried the puppy won't bond with you, isn't one of them!  You aren't going to see any signs of whether or not the pup will bond with you before you take him home at 8 weeks for starters, plus I've never really heard of people raising a puppy 'well' (ie not having multiple puppies at the same time) who've experienced problems with the puppy bonding with them.  (And I'm a behaviourist and trainer...!). 

However, the concerns I would have would be:

- if the puppy is very young (1-3 weeks old at the moment), that is too young for a reputable breeder to be inviting people onto their property to view the litter and to me would suggest there is something wrong/not reputable about the breeder.  Baby puppies are very fragile at this age and disease risk is a consideration, plus a lot of bitches are very protective over the puppies at this age and you simply would protect the mother-and-puppies unit by keeping people away until the pups are a bit older.  A breeder who doesn't realise this or doesn't protect the pups at this age, is a breeder lacking in knowledge IMO. 

- puppies sadly often pass away in the first couple of weeks of life.  There can be congenital issues that are not apparent until after birth, or diseases or infection - herpes, for eg.  The majority of responsible breeders don't count their puppies and breathe a sigh of relief until after they're out of the neonatal period (3-4+ weeks old).  Taking a deposit when they are they young, again to me, is not very responsible.  I personally would be worried about what would happen should the pup pass away and would want in writing that a full refund would be issued. 

- when pups are so small, there's no way of knowing what their personality, performance potential or showing potential is - so it's not really possible to match pups to suitable homes at such a young age.  The breeder needs to live with the pups, watch them grow and develop and see their personalities and/or assess them in some way, to know how to place which pup in which home.  If this pup is the only male pup in the litter, you are not going to get 'the best' pup for you, you will get this pup - whatever he happens to be like and however suitable or unsuitable. 

To me it really doesn't sound like the 'normal' way of doing things and I wouldn't really be interested in working with a breeder who wanted 50% deposit on a neonatal puppy, frankly...

It’s the size of the deposit that bothers me, also visiting the puppies when apparently so young. I paid a deposit for my current dog which was the first time I had been asked and then it was only £100 and it was returnable in certain circumstances. Also the puppies were nearly 6 weeks at the time.

Would the deposit required be returnable if your circumstances changed?

I NEVER ask my puppy buyers for a deposit. They pay in full on collection. I want them to be able to change their mind at any time and not take a pup they may have second thoughts about for any reason, just because they have paid a deposit.

I do know of one breeder in my breed taking 50% but I have always considered 10% as an act of good faith, enough not to have timewasters and missing out on good homes for pups.

My breed is low in numbers, and it is often feast or famine with people waiting on puppies ages, or several litters born at the same time.

I do the same as Goldmali and for the same reason.

> I NEVER ask my puppy buyers for a deposit. They pay in full on collection. I want them to be able to change their mind at any time and not take a pup they may have second thoughts about for any reason, just because they have paid a deposit.

With you all the way on this one.  And, as to them being able to change their mind - it means that I can too!

As others have said KC registration doesn’t tell you anything about how good a breeder is.  I’d be concerned about such a large deposit.  Do both parents have good health test results?

Hi all

Thanks for responses so far

Just to clarify - pup is a week old and breeder is an 'assured breeder' on the kennel club

I asked if i could get copies of certificates in advance for parents but was told I can see them in person on the visit.

Will ask about the refundable circumstances on the visit but I'm minded to say I wouldn't  pay full deposit until second visit and if they aren't happy I may have to walk away.

We won't be showing it, just want to make sure he is healthy and good personality

If you ask for/have the registered names of the parents then you can check the results in the KC website.

If you have the KC registered names of the parents (which you should have) you can look up their health tests on Mate Select:  https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/

This is the KC advice to Assured Breeders - clearly stating that if a deposit is taken the conditions should be in writing.
Particular  care  should  be  taken  where  deposits  are  taken  as  a  deposit  may  be  treated as part payment of a binding contract that has come into existence.  Where a deposit is taken, the terms of that deposit should be clearly stated in writing and should set out the rights of both  parties.  A  failure  to  do  so  could  result  in  a  legal  dispute  for  breach  of  contract  and  a claim for damages even if the deposit is returned. Legal advice should always be obtained if there is any doubt.

(Taken from this pdf: https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/343848/guidance.pdf )

Asking for a deposit on a week old puppy is just mad - anything could happen. It could turn out to be ill, it might not have the temperament you are looking for etc. Even the best planned matings can throw unexpected results and as regards temperament some people are more suited for the calmer pup in a litter, other wants the most OTT one etc and I always try to advice my buyers on the characters of the individual pups - which you won't see until about 6 weeks of age.

I'm one who didn't take a deposit.   I preferred to keep my options open when it came to my puppy buyers - asking for and taking a deposit works both ways!!   When buying my Whippet however, I did give her a small amount after the second viewing (we went more than once before the time we went to bring her home).   It was kind-of a stage payment, for me.  I think to ask 50%, at a very young age too, is not right.   What if the puppies, or one or two of them, don't survive.  No.  

Something about this story doesn't sit right.   And for sure, being 'registered with the KC', whatever that means?, is not a guarantee of anything.   BYBs know they can usually charge more for a KC registered puppy (although even that's not the case as mix breeders ask, and get, high sums for what they produce) so they register their litters.   Have you asked for names of known reputable breeders with the relevant Breed Club?  Hopefully the people you are buying from will be members which is at least some indication of a reputable breeder.   Breed Clubs have Codes of Ethics which should rule out BYBs.

ps   If you are concerned about 'bonding', how could you possibly know that if the puppies are only a week old?!   Also, make sure you get a written receipt for any monies you hand over - and find out whether it's refundable or not.  I'd not look at a 50% deposit if it's non-refundable!!

Thanks all for continued advice.

Have on the health check the mum has good scores, dad slightly high hip at 16 but otherwise fine. Inbreed COI is probably higher than i'd like at 19%, breed average is 6.5%, would anyone have concerns about that? i know its not an exact science..

Have asked about deposit refund circumstances so will see what the situation is there

I'm not a breeder just someone who has bought many puppies over the years and who always tries to do the "homework" to ensure, as best I can, that I am purchasing a happy healthy pup with a great temperament.

As such a buyer I would be concerned about the COI.

Also, you don't mention breed so it's not clear what the breed average hip scores are - or what other tests are recommended for the parents before breeding - such as various DNA tests etc.

The deposit you have been asked for sounds completely unacceptable to me in the circumstances you describe re. age of puppy etc. - as others have said.

i am sure experienced breeders may be along soon to advise re. COI and hips.

Good luck.

Hi

Its a male black lab pup if that helps but agree on your points

thanks

Ah - Labs! 

Well - there are SO many Lab litters bred, and plenty of of advice and recommendations regarding tests which should be done, including hips elbows and eyes as an absolute minimum.  There are a number of important DNA tests too.

It should not be difficult to find litters where the parents have been thoroughly health tested with good results, especially if you are prepared to wait a little while ...

Just looking at litters available on this site shows up straightaway those which are fully health tested, those which have the minimum, and some, sadly which have very few tests on both parents, and occasionally none at all!

With the knowledge we now have about Lab health and the prolific numbersin the breed,  there is really no excuse for not testing all breeding stock thoroughly - in my opinion!

> Inbreed COI is probably higher than i'd like at 19%, breed average is 6.5%, would anyone have concerns about that? i know its not an exact science..

Oh my goodness, I would not go anywhere near that litter with a barge pole!  A COI of 19% when the breed average is 6.5% is just irresponsible breeding.  You are lucky enough to be looking at a breed which still has a low-ish COI as an average (as compared to other breeds where you just can no longer get low COIs because breeders have bred irresponsibly and lost the genetic diversity or because the breed never possessed it in the first place).  Take advantage of that and look for a litter with a low COI.  Here is more information:  https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/coi-faqs-understanding-the-coefficient-of-inbreeding

Also, you should not be breeding from a dog with hips at 16 when the breed average is 9!!  And this is an Assured Breeder?  I rest my case: The KC Assured Breeder Scheme is just a money-making scam on the part of the KC and really does nothing to improve standards.  What is the point of the Assured Breeder scheme insisting on health testing if they then just register everything (no matter how high the result) because the dog was tested??  It's insane. 

Here is a link to the BVA website, where it clearly states that dogs over the median breed average should not be bred from " We recommend that breeders should strive to breed from a dog with a score below the breed median. " https://www.bva.co.uk/canine-health-schemes/hip-scheme/   Even more bizarre if it's the sire with the high hip score - the breeder could easily have chosen another stud. 

Does the breeder own both sire and dam?  It would really leave me thinking this is an accidental mating, what with the COI and the high hip score, if she owns both sire and dam really...

That plus the COI issue would have me running away screaming from this litter...

There you go Roguerose ... onetwothreefour as an experienced breeder has put it much better than I could!

As i'm not a breeder I was holding back a bit in my earlier posts, as a "puppy buyer", and trying hard not to rant!  I agree completely with what 1234 has said about testing and COI.

As said, you should have a good choice of healthy puppies in such a popular breed.

The other thing which is really important is that you want to be dealing with a breeder you trust and with whom you can build a good relationship while you are choosing and waiting for your precious puppy.

So if I were in your situation I would run for the hills ... !

thanks 1234 and blay

i think you're right. we've waited so long to be in the right position to get a pup and the  litter was even born on my birthday, which seemed like fate, but there's just too many issues here.

The highest COI I have bred was 13% and this was a half brother sister mating. 

I only did this close mating because both the parents sires were imports from different countries and the mother of both parents at the time was my 4th generation, and was already a healthy 9 year old with 3 healthy adult litters under her belt.

19% would be too high for me,especially in the most numerically strong breed in this country.

I'd not touch a breeding from a lab with that high a hip score either.  There are so, so many available dogs that there is simply no reason whatsoever, especially in a breed so prone to joint problems, to breed from one higher than average.  Or indeed 0.  The breed average for 2018 was 9 or 10; anything higher should be out of the gene pool IMO.

Cautionary tale re Labs.  My nephew phoned me for advice re whether to buy a Lab, or a Border Collie.  I said Lab, knowing him and his family.  I told him to wait and I'd dig up some names.   By the time I got back to him (and it was the SAME day), he was with a breeder and was buying a choc. Lab.    At a time when sales of this colour had gone through the roof.   And he lived in Yuppie Land.    So what happened - before the dog was a year, he'd had surgery on both hips and one elbow.   I do feel that his vet was a touch fast to operate, given the dog was still growing but thankfully he was insured.   The bill was high.   And bottom line, the kids and mum (who was a nurse) had to go through the recovery etc and what's worse, the dog was never sound.

Here is a link to the BVA website, where it clearly states that dogs over the median breed average should not be bred from

THIS I have always disagreed with and always will. First off it means that breeding from one breed with a score of 16 (just using the mentioned one as an example) would be using a dog over the BMS, but in another breed it could mean being below it. I have never understood why different breeds are given a BMS as to me it makes no sense at all. Yes it is more exact than the FCI with A, B etc, but why should what you choose to breed from vary between breeds? Hips are hips. It would make more sense if a figure was given that would cover ALL breeds and you should not breed if the score is above it. Yes the problem would be those few breeds with a high BMS, but by effectively allowing high scores to be bred from, how will they ever improve? There are breeds where the BMS are in the mid 30s to the 40s! That cannot be good hips!

Secondly, the BMS don't give a true picture. Lots of dogs that are being bred from are never hip scored, nor are their offspring. Some vets even tell the owners to not submit plates that look bad to the BVA. So in reality the BMS could be much higher, and probably is. So by saying that you should only breed from lower than average, in breeds of smaller numbers, where do you find those dogs? Should you really dismiss an otherwise excellent dog because it has a hip score of say 10 when the average is 7?

It's a similar case with the COI. I don't know about other breeds but in mine, the average is very low. The reason for that is simply that a lot of irresponsible people breed them, they don't bother with any health testing whatsoever but they will use a completely unrelated dog, as then they can tell the buyers the pups are not inbred at all so they will "automatically be healthy". And again it's not as easy as that. I agree that 19 % is high - but years ago nobody would have known the COI and again a high COI doesn't have to mean an unhealthy dog. My best dog ever (not homebred) had a COI of 20 %. She had health, temperament and looks, the entire package. I wouldn't do such a mating, but the main reason is because people would not buy the pups. I'd ask this breeder WHY they did this mating. And they should have a very good reason for it to be justified, that's for sure. If they don't, then definitely walk away.

I'm planning a future litter and I made up a pedigree for the mating I am considering to be able to study it. In the first 3 generations, I have personally known or at the very least met every single dog. Every one. I know what their temperaments were like, what their health was like, what they died of if applicable, etc. In the fourth and fifth generation I have not met every dog, but a fair few of them. This is what matters when planning a mating - knowledge of the actual dogs. We can't all know all the dogs in a pedigree, but if we do, then there's less risk of any problems appearing with a higher than average COI.

And I do wish the KC would not register pups from parents not health tested. At least with the ABS you have to test, even though it is minimal at times. I agree that it makes no sense that you can then basically ignore the results, but at least the results are known.

I also have personal experience of a Lab with bad hips (from a backyard breeder with no health testing at all, I was young and didn’t know better).

It’s horrible. Heartbreaking. My Summer was always so excited for a walk but we’d get halfway down the road and she’d be limping and asking to go home again. It took multiple attempts for her to get up from sitting or lying down, and she flat-out refused to attempt the couple of steps down from the decking onto the lawn so I’d have to lift her up and down every time she needed to do her business.

There’s absolutely no excuse for breeding Labs with high hip scores. Don’t give this breeder your money - I don’t care how good the parents are otherwise, it’s not worth the pain and suffering the pups might go through in later life.

MamaBas, did your nephew ever at least acknowledge that he made the wrong move and thank you for making the effort?  I do hope so.  It saddens me when people do things like that, especially when they've got someone with considerable experience looking for them.

Re the KC view about test results.   It's eyes with my main breed and one that fails the gonioscopy test (predisposition to glaucoma) has it's status recorded so any offspring are 'blighted'.  Fine, in theory, but for eg. I know of at least one otherwise excellent dog who had to be removed from the genepool of the breed, because of a g. failure.  And he never developed glaucoma as far as I'm aware.  This test only shows a possibility the hound might develop glaucoma, not that it will.   Baby and bathwater, to me. 

I would just say that the ideal is to know, personally, all the close relatives in a mating but it's not always possible.   When we left for an overseas country, I had no option but to choose my ongoing outside studs based on what I saw they had recently produced, which was a bit hit and miss - much as I had more hits, than misses going forward.   And at one point, I did import an English bred male with lines compatible to those we took out there with us.

Nikita - no he didn't.   We don't speak these days in any case.  For other reasons!!

>I asked if i could get copies of certificates in advance for parents but was told I can see them in person on the visit.

Is the breeder a member of Champdogs and does the litter appear on their account? If they are and it does, can you email me the breeders details please:

admin@champdogs.co.uk

Terms and Conditions of Use:

•Breeders must add and provide proof of all health test results for any dogs and litters they have listed on Champdogs.

https://www.champdogs.co.uk/info/conditions

Hi

Not that I'm aware of no, found them through KC

> So by saying that you should only breed from lower than average, in breeds of smaller numbers, where do you find those dogs? Should you really dismiss an otherwise excellent dog because it has a hip score of say 10 when the average is 7?

I prefer to look at functionally normal hips which are up to about 20 max. If you take the US grading comparison dogs under our 18 total would all be classed as normal, with grades of Excellent, Good or Fair, up to 25 would be borderline, and over 25 Dysplastic with grades of Mild, Moderate or Severe.

My best moving bitch had a score of 15, and continued a brisk hours walk until the day before she died at nearly 15 !/2, as sound as a bell and a pleasure to watch moving.

In my breed virtually every dog bred from is hip scored in the UK, that is probably 20% of all pups registered with the KC, so a truer representation of actual status in the breed.

When I started in the breed in 1992 the breed Mean was in early teens, and ahs now come down to around 10, but in a numerically small breed (50 pups registered annually) we would be foolish to discard dogs with scores higher than that but still functionally normal range.

> There’s absolutely no excuse for breeding Labs with high hip scores.

But 16 is not a bad Hip score, it is simply higher than the current Mean of dogs scored and submitted.

Here is a comparison chart comparing our scores with grading systems. https://www.ofa.org/diseases/hip-dysplasia/hip-international-ratings-matrix

OFA           FCI (European)      BVA (UK/Australia)      SV (Germany)

Excellent           A-1                       0-4 (no >3/hip)             Normal
Good                 A-2                       5-10 (no >6/hip)           Normal
Fair                    B-1                      11-18                            Normal

I think it has to be a case of taking all things into consideration.  But the dog would have to be outstanding or contribute something to the gene pool extra-special to warrant breeding from them with that hip score. 

I add again that it's the sire with the high hip score.  Presumably the breeder could have chosen freely a dog with a good score.  Unless the breeder owns both sire and dam and this is a cheap way to have a litter rather than pay a stud fee - or it's an accidental mating.

> I think it has to be a case of taking all things into consideration.  But the dog would have to be outstanding or contribute something to the gene pool extra-special to warrant breeding from them with that hip score.

completely agree, which is why  I always think it is wise to ask any breeder for their rationale behind choice of breeding partners.