I'm interested in this from a personal viewpoint Robert - have pm'd you for more info.

Moonmaiden, before you comment on how easy another persons chosen sport is I suggest you try it. I've done competitive obedience for years then 3 years ago decided I'd like to try my hand at agility - in my opinion it is far harder :-D

The rescue our dogs came from have a compulsory contribution - first dog cost £70 and our most recent addition cost £80. If you don't pay the charge you don't get the dog so voluntary doesn't come into it. I agree that charges should be made but not sure why they are termed voluntary? Is it because they are registered charities?

So if one has paid a voluntary contribution does this affect the contract you would sign with the rescue? Can you be legally bound to it if you didn't actually buy the dog but gave a contribution instead?

It's harder physically, however there are a lot of successful rehomed BCs & WSDs in Agility & Flyball far more than Obedience & yes I have done Agility & whilst my dogs enjoyed it, I didn't & physically I would now find it difficult to get round a course.

I'm not decrying anyone's "sport" & the enjoyment of the dogs is probably far higher in Flyball & Agility than it is in Obedeince. Horses for courses I suppose.

If we are all to only have rescue dogs, can you tell me which rescue can supply a good working hill sheepdog for my friend who is looking for a young dog to replace his oldest when she comes to retire. Must be able to handle 500 or so Herdwicks & Swaledale ewes, there must be loads up & down the country in rescue

BTW our rescue only asks for a donation to cover costs & accept anything offered the home being far more important thatn the money

If we are all to only have rescue dogs, can you tell me which rescue can supply a good working hill sheepdog for my friend who is looking for a young dog to replace his oldest when she comes to retire. Must be able to handle 500 or so Herdwicks & Swaledale ewes, there must be loads up & down the country in rescue

If there must be loads up an down the country then you won't have too much trouble helping you're friend find the right one, he would of course have to put in a bit of training, but then it would seem he;'s doing the right thing by planning ahead, getting a young dog to bring on and learn from his experienced dog before she retires. and actually you're probably not far from the truth in what you say, given that farmers tend to breed for ability selling on the surplus to pet homes ill equipped to cope with an intelligent dog looking for work, the pet homes then pass them on to rescues.

Er No You are the one saying that somewhere in a rescue is a dog that ticks all the boxes without getting one from a breeder so I was hoping you could point me in the right direction BTW BC/WSD that have been in unsuitable pet homes are rarely any use with hill sheep

So now we get to the point of your posts, you weren't hoping I could point you in the right direction at all, you were trying to be oh so clever, you don't want information or help or clarification, you're here to go over peoples posts with your magnifying glass making sarcastic comments along the way, you've done it before you'll do it again :D

I'm just making the point that is not going to happen when it is needed & this is one of the reasons that good breeders breed quality dogs. he has actually ordered a puppy from a tried & trusted source rather than hoping a rescue mught be able to help him

    > I find it surprising that you say breeders do not fund your breed rescue, if not who does. 

I'm presuming this is not a Breed Club rescue but a rescue that specialises in the breed.

Who funds our rescue, we do by working hard to raise the money we need to survive, as for health testing yes you have a less likely chance of having problems, either medically or temperament wise, but there is no guarantee

> What I find so sad about these debates is that the same old excuses pop up about rescues having all sorts of problems and needing dedicated owners, a rescue is an open book, the problems if there are any, are on show, a puppy from a breeder is a closed book that when opened may just jump up and bite you.
>

I don't agree that any problems a rescue dog may have are allready on show, they are in a strange situation and are not all going to be behaving as they would when the feel comfortable, in a stable home environment.
When we got our rescue dog it took a few months for him to settle in, then the 'problems' started to show up. When he was sat in the kennle at the shelter he was meek & mild, very obiedient and was fantastic when walking on a lead, when he felt settled with us he was the opposite - pulled like a steam train on lead, would bite us very hard while playing, would lunge & bark at strangers, was protective of his food...... it took an awful lot of work & time to get him to be 'normal'.
It can also be the other way around, a dog in rescue may appear to be confrontational (eg, barking at people), but once settles into a home be the 'perfect' dog.

It's much harder to change the behaviour of an adult dog then it is to mould the behaviour of a young puppy.

I agree with what you're saying.

My point is that the negatives always seem to be laboured upon, the behavioural issues etc. Many rescues come from stable homes that for reasons beyond their control find they have to re home their pets, these dogs often have been brought up as happy family members with children and have no vices at all.

Buying a puppy from  breeder doesn't guarantee the temperament or that the will grow up to be what you want.

Dogs don't get issues just because they are rescue dogs. likewise puppies don't grwo up to become well socialised because they came form a reputable breeder, they all need work to some degree.

> Dogs don't get issues just because they are rescue dogs. likewise puppies don't grwo up to become well socialised because they came form a reputable breeder, they all need work to some degree.

i don't think anyone would say otherwise. dogs are the product of what is put in to them. many of the people on the site are involved in rescue so know this or breed and have had to help rehome pups of theres so know it from that side to.

i think its strange that while the pedigree buying group etc have no problem with getting a rescue (many people on this forum have happily had both, myself included) why is it that people who rescue look down on quality breeders? rescue dogs plight is not their fault so why the attitude about it?

I read it that those buying pedigree did so because rescues don't come with all the health checks.

I'm in rescue and I certainly don't look down on quality breeders,  I applaud them for what they are, they are in the minority though. I look forward to the day when I ring a breeder up and ask for help with one of their dogs that's turned up in to rescue and I don't get the usual, "what do you want me to do about it as the phone gets put down".

I'm sure it will happen one day, maybe dogs from reputable breeders are less likely to to need rescue help since they take more care where there dogs go.

> I'm sure it will happen one day, maybe dogs from reputable breeders are less likely to to need rescue help since they take more care where there dogs go

very likely, but it does still happen- i know that brainless at least has been in that situation before i think due ot a change of circs for the new owners and i think several of the others but i can't think of names right now. you'll find the majority on this site would do everything in their power to take care of pups they are responsible for creating.

> I read it that those buying pedigree did so because rescues don't come with all the health checks.
>

thats 1 reason, others have been given- a dog that you do not know the full history of may not be considered completely trustworthy by some so those with kids will avoid (also many rescues won't home to families for that reason), a desire to know what your getting, a desire to show etc are all good reasons.

due ot a change of circs for the new owners

I made the point earlier on that dogs do find themselves in rescue for that reason, others chose to ignore that in their replies here and by PM, as I said before there are dogs with out problems in rescue, and on the flip side there are puppies bought from breeders that will grow up to have problems.

a dog that you do not know the full history of may not be considered completely trustworthy by some so those with kids

It is my opinion that no dog may be considered completely trust worthy, and to say you have a better chance of getting a dog with a good temperament from a breeder because you know who the parents are ignores the fact that every dog is an individual, and although you maybe able to predict temperament with some degree of accuracy, it's not a science and you could well be proved wrong.

I would argue that by taking in a dog that finds itself in rescue because of circumstances you could find your self with a dog with a known history, and track record, unlike a puppy that can turn in to anything despite your best efforts.

I base that comment in part on the three dogs I have been asked to advise on recently that have been returned to their breeder/s  because, despite they're owners doing all the right things have had to reluctantly return them because of behavioural concerns.

> It is my opinion that no dog may be considered completely trust worthy,

i'm not suggesting that either, sorry if it came across that way

> and to say you have a better chance of getting a dog with a good temperament from a breeder because you know who the parents are ignores the fact that every dog is an individual, and although you maybe able to predict temperament with some degree of accuracy, it's not a science and you could well be proved wrong.
>

of course it;s not science, but if you have a pup from a brilliant tempremented dam and sire and have raised it correctly you shouldn't have to many problems, of course you still do get them but such is life, nothing is certain

so do you feel as the op that we should only choose rescue dogs?

My point is that the negatives always seem to be laboured upon, the behavioural issues etc. Many rescues come from stable homes that for reasons beyond their control find they have to re home their pets, these dogs often have been brought up as happy family members with children and have no vices at all.

Our local rescue is a national one and the majority of dogs there do have behaviour problems of some sort. Yes some dogs are in rescue because of genuine reasons why an owner is no longer able to look after their dog but there are also a huge number whose owners have not bothered to train or socialise their cute little puppies and then pass them on when those funny little things  their pup did become very big issues as their dog gets bigger and older.

Most rescue centres are taking on problems that are caused by irresponsible breeding. Reputable, responsible breeders always take back dogs they have bred, however old that dog may be at the point of rehoming, they health test and breed only from the best specimens. Irresponsible breeders sell their puppies to anyone, they don't health test, don't breed for temperament, don't provide back up for the new owners and wash their hands of the pups as soon as they have left.

I am not knocking rescue centres at all, most do a difficult job in difficult circumstances, but there are good and bad rescues just as there are good and bad breeders. I don't think all rescue dogs are necessarily the best way forward for a first time dog owner but I do believe that a lot of rescue dogs can and do make wonderful dogs for some people.

If all breeders were responsible breeders there wouldn't be a need for rescues at all but going by the sheer number of dogs in rescue the irresponsible far outweigh the responsible.

I would argue that by taking in a dog that finds itself in rescue because of circumstances you could find your self with a dog with a known history, and track record, unlike a puppy that can turn in to anything despite your best efforts.

As long as the owner that has given up the dog has told the truth about the reasons for giving it up :)

At the end of the day people are free to choose. Not all rescues come with or without issues not all puppies come with or without issues people have to make their decision based on what they feel is best for them and their future animal. No one should be Forced down either route. I myself at diiferent times have gone to breeders and have rescued it was what suited my family.

I've always bought dogs from well respected breeders, carefully researched pedigrees and then usually went on a waiting list before the bitch was even mated. Most of them have been just what I expected but my last one despite me knowing every single dog in his 5 generation pedigree personally is a nightmare.

Then 5 years ago a friend gave me a collie pup as a present...now I know you shouldn't give dogs as presents but my old collie had been pts a few months before and I was talking about getting another one. My friend paid for the pup and all I had to do was to collect her. I went to the farm and was a bit horrified to be told to wait outside while 4 members of the family came out with a puppy each which they held in their arms and said 'which do you want'. Normally the puppy choosing process for me is a very long one.In this case I didn't get to see them walking, interacting - anything. I chose one simply because my friend had already paid - if not I would have ran away. She's a fabulous dog, the best collie I've ever had - obviously from a back yard breeder but a great dog.

Then earlier this year when one of my old zois passed away I decided to rescue an elderly hound to keep my remaining zoi company. I took on a 10 year old lurcher. I've never rescued a dog before, or bought an elderly dog so didn't know what to expect and was prepared for her to have lots of issues. What a fabulous dog she is :-) She has never made a mess in the house, she's great with my nieces, she's fun but never been a moments bother. She was off lead 5 days after I got her and has a great recall and is wonderful with everything she meets - 2 and 4 legged.

So from the 4 dogs I have in the house at the moment, ranking them in order of easiness - not in the order I love them because I love them all and probably the 'worst' two the most.

The 'best' dog in the house and out is the rescue
Then the backyard breeders dog
Then the one I bred myself
Then the one from the very good breeder with the wonderful pedigree

What does that say :-)

so do you feel as the op that we should only choose rescue dogs?

I think every one should have the freedom of choice to take on the dog they want, given that they are able to give that dog what it needs, whether that is a rescue or a puppy from a breeder.

> I'm sure it will happen one day, maybe dogs from reputable breeders are less likely to to need rescue help since they take more care where there dogs go.

They also go straight back to the breeder as agreed when they bought the pup.  I have just helped re-home one of my 8 year olds.  She was here for 3 1/2 weeks, and would have remained for as long as it took me to find the right home for her.

This is one reason the dog your rescue gets do not have the breeders biting your hands off to get them back.  Of course just occasionally an owner reneges on the agreement and passes the dog onto rescue without the breeders knowledge.  To help prevent this or make it easy for rescues to contact the breeder good breeders permanently identify their pups by tattoo or microchip.

i think its strange that while the pedigree buying group etc have no problem with getting a rescue (many people on this forum have happily had both, myself included) why is it that people who rescue look down on quality breeders? rescue dogs plight is not their fault so why the attitude about it?

this is what p's me off sometimes, having been a member of a rescue forum...now I appreciate the breed I own is not a breed of huge numbers and they rarely come into rescue, when they do, everyone (or so it seems) on the rescue forum cry out for them (this is a forum not linked to my breed).....and yet I, as a responsible owner, am made to feel a second class citizen for deciding to purchase my dogs, even though I own a rescue cross breed as well, and I had a lot of plain nasty comments slung at me when I announced that Leah was expecting a litter.....(though everyone was happy enough to look at the puppy pics ;) ) I was accused of being irresponsible even though I had waiting homes for all the pups!!

I am on my breed members list for fostering, and I would happily re-home a hound if one was in need of a home, but why does that make me a lesser person than someone who rehomes cross breeds?? I donate to rescues when I can

I dare say if I owned a more popular breed I may think differently, as I do know that some rescues are over-run with some breeds and cross-breeds, and yes it breaks my heart to hear their stories

there was a thread recently about culling litters if no demand etc....yet how many bitches in rescue give birth and the resulting pups are raised and then re-homed?? This also adds to the problem...

I would like a litter with one of my girls, she has to have a certain health test before I decide, I have a couple of studs I am interested in and theorhetical permission to use....and I know I can home 3 bitches and possibly 1 dog if a litter was achieved.... I am debating with myself whether I should just breed for what I need and consider culling any extra pups at birth (don't know if I can really do that) or my other consideration is to work out break-even costs for rearing the pups and selling the ones left over at that price with no papers....but is that even an option to consider?? Am I just adding to a problem??

the main issue in rehome vs buy may never be resolved, as dogs that aren't registered in any way are still having litters, and yes there are pedigree dogs in rescue too, the members of this forum are a miniscule proportion of the general public, and while we may never choose to buy or rescue a dog with no health testing etc, it is a mere drop in the ocean compared to Joe Public who has no grasp of this :(

Wot a bluddy good post!

One thing that comes up over and over again on the rescue side of the fence, is the utter horror and vehement disgust shown at rescuers who breed, ie those who breed the occasional litter but also work in breed (or, though more rarely non-breed) rescue.

These people are not, as I would have reasonably though, seen to be doign their bit to help with the rescue problem, nono, they are teh spawn of the devil for breeding and any 'help' they give by rescuing is utterly pooh-poohed. And then all manner of nasty accusations are slung around and any useful discussion vanishes.

Why cant good breeders and good rescues (and i make that distinction on purpose, there are some downright abysmal 'rescues' out there!) work together..

It is all very well ranting and laying the blame at breeders doors but it is BAD breeders, puppy farmers, byb's that supply the demand for instant, thought-free pups. When these debates take place, i note no one mentions the bad RESCUES, who hand dogs out to all and sundry, with no checks, no real interest, no back up, no return policy, just pick your dog and take your money and byebye... Or what about the rescues who bleat on and on and on that they cannot find homes for dogs... but when you dig a little deeper you'll find that to fulfil their requirements you have to leap through some damn ridiculous hoops. You cant take on a  spayed bitch if you have an entire male... you cant have a dog if you have ever or will ever breed (regardless of how responsibly) from any OTHER dog (not their dog), you cant have a dog if you support something they dont (again, irrelevant to the care of the dog in question), so that poor working bred spaniel going nuts in a kennel has to stay there rather than go to a cracking shooting home, because the human in charge is anti shooting. Never mind that the dog couldnt give a flying wossits...

Both 'sides' have a lot of sorting out to do regarding the bad apples in the barrel, but i still dont see rescues solving the 'rescue problem' until they take off the blinkers and recognise that it is the demand that causes the supply, and not the other way round.

reverse snobbery :)

it occurs to me that it's the puppies fault! if they were not so damn cute stupid people would not want them and the rescue situation would be far better.... :)

it really does annoy me the 'holier than thou' attitude you sometimes get. i can think of many threads where that sort of notion has come up and it genuinely offends me- why not keep the attitude for those abusing dogs, not those of us who spend a fortune in time and money trying to provide the best life possible for our dogs, i don;t think anyone on this site can be accused of neglect

> Or what about the rescues who bleat on and on and on that they cannot find homes for dogs... but when you dig a little deeper you'll find that to fulfil their requirements you have to leap through some damn ridiculous hoops.

Good point.
I remember about 4 years ago, when we first wanted a second dog...... I love choc labs, as it's quite a popular breed I though there would be plenty of puppies in shelters (having young kids I'd prefer a puppy). I rang a large rescue to find that yes, they had several litters of lab puppies and choc puppies at that. Wow, I was over the moon, I could get a puppy and provide a home for a rescue at the same time. They asked me a few questions and I was told over the phone that they would not let me have one. I wanted a male pup (I just prefer male dogs), who'd be neutered later on, but apparently the lab-cross rescue dog I allready have means that (due to labs being hard to control!!!!!) I couldn't manage 2 neutered males.

I must admit that that put my back up and I decided I would not be looking at another rescue dog for my next addition. How dare they judge me over the 'phone like that - I asked if somebody could be sent to assess me - I was told no. Blinking cheek. I think the problem is I have a broad 'farmer' accent and sound young on the 'phone? obviously young people with accents are all stupid & can't offer a decent home to a dog!.....grrrrr... my blood boiled for days, there is nothing I could have done to change the womans mind.

Strange that according to the woman at the rescue I could not handle 2 male dogs - I've no probs with my rescue lab cross & my entire male Mastiff (who is a  pure-bred bought from a good breeder and I am very proud of him :) as I am of my rescue mutt ).

Truth is though Cain, many people do actually already buy from rescue, rescues do and always have re-homed a good proportion of their dogs many don't enjoy the puppy stage and I know lots of my friends have and still do go to a rescue first. I know one who got a fab 6 month lab whose never been a days trouble.

Plenty of people already go to rescue for their pooches rather than a breeder of any type, these people will continue to do so, but on the reverse side there are those who want a puppy of good pedigree to raise and call their own too, no-one should ever dictate which side of the fence we go to.

The problem is only getting worse due to BYB's and puppy farms, in a way you are talking to the wrong people on site, we take our pups back and offer a life time of service, we are not the cause or the solution to this problem.

The problem is this country has no governing body to cease overbreeding, we need tougher laws, the KC try to set guidelines on breeding, health tests etc, but have very little power, and the general public will continue to buy unregistered puppies over and over again, this is the problem, it is time to come down hard on breeders who over-breed, do not do health tests, do not have KC reg dogs, breed without knowledge of what they are doing and take no responsiblilty for the lives they create. In an ideal world I am all for every breeder needing a licence which needs re-newing yearly, by KC inspections etc, those who breed without a licence should then face huge fines and even their dogs being seized and neutered.

We also to be frank need tougher guidelines on puppy/dog owners, I would like a solution on sporadic and implulse buying, whereas if someone wishes to drive a car they have to take a test and have a licence, they have to agree to do puppy/adolescent classes, possibly run via rescue to give them another area of funding.

Of course neither would happen, it takes away our human rights, but it is what is needed, it is the only way to stop over-breeding, and animals being brought into this world with little care for their futures.

> Plenty of people already go to rescue for their pooches rather than a breeder of any type, these people will continue to do so, but on the reverse side there are those who want a puppy of good pedigree to raise and call their own too, no-one should ever dictate which side of the fence we go to.
>
> The problem is only getting worse due to BYB's and puppy farms, in a way you are talking to the wrong people on site, we take our pups back and offer a life time of service, we are not the cause or the solution to this problem.
>
> The problem is this country has no governing body to cease overbreeding, we need tougher laws

definately

i have worked in 3 rescues for about 12 years. the occasions when we have received a fully KC registered dog with pedigree papers, myslef or one of my colleagues has rung the number on the papers, and we have neve rhad one breeder take the dog back.
these are otherwise deemed ethical breeders, as we questioned the owner of the dog about the breeder. they werent not puppy farms or byb.
sometimes the owner has also tried ringing the breeder and got nowhere. hence coming to us.
im not anti good breeders at all, but this is my experience.
the good ethical breeders on this site might not do this, so i thought it might be a good idea for me to start a thread where the professional breeders on here give their kennel/breeding details (prefix?) or whoever you term it, so if i receive a dog with any of your papers, i would have a guarantee i can contact you and you could collect the dog?

>it might be a good idea for me to start a thread where the professional breeders on here give their kennel/breeding details (prefix?) or whoever you term it

I'm afraid that would be seen as advertising, which is forbidden on the Forum, so the thread would be removed at the earliest opportunity.

wouldnt that depend how you write it (maybe mods can clarify)
ie, kennel name and breed?

it would be a checklist i would hold at my rescue in the event that any of your dogs end up there. that way i can help reunite you with one of your own, as i know, at least, the ethical breeders attached to this site would be very keen on principle to take back their own. this would give me a head start, as i havent had any luck yet.

i can do it thru pm or email if necc?

> Who funds our rescue, we do by working hard to raise the money we need to survive

I didn't ask how you funded it, I would assume you do work hard at fund raising as most rescues do I was merely commenting on the idea that breed rescue is not funded by breeders.  Breed club rescue is, very much so.

> as for health testing yes you have a less likely chance of having problems, either medically or temperament wise, but there is no guarantee

Do you mean buying from a breeder or from rescue?  I presume a breeder, well a reputable one anyway.

> these are otherwise deemed ethical breeders, as we questioned the owner of the dog about the breeder. they weren't not puppy farms or byb.
>

If they are not interested in helping then they definitely are not ethical breeders.  How many of these reg documents showed hip scores or other health tests for the parents?  I bet none.

Sadly the vast majority of KC registered pups are not bred by what any of us would call ethical breeders, they simply have bred from KC registered parents.  Joe Public won't know a BYB, which is why they buy from them.

yes, the breeders had done absolutely everything that you class as ethical breeding, apart from take the dog back when we asked.

it was usually something like we cant take the dog 'at the moment' as we are a bit busy or dont have the room  or are going away or moving

the owners new the difference about byb and ethical breeders, and we asked several questions just to make sure. quite often they had already tried the breeder before they came to us

as an ethical breeder yourself, what do you think of my idea of starting a database of ethical breeders that guarantee to take a dog back if its comes into rescue?

>the occasions when we have received a fully KC registered dog with pedigree papers, myslef or one of my colleagues has rung the number on the papers, and we have neve rhad one breeder take the dog back.

>these are otherwise deemed ethical breeders, as we questioned the owner of the dog about the breeder. they werent not puppy farms or byb.

And the people who bought the dog would know this for sure??     In most cases I'd be very surprised to be honest.  I know dozens of people who have bought dogs from what I would call BYB and puppy farmers and would never suspect/admit it. 

It's amazing how well puppy farmers and BYBs can 'dress things up' to look good, I know of one BYB who can talk the talk with the best of them, it takes more than a couple of visits to actually know what's really going on there ;) 

There's a whole world of difference between a responsible breeder who would drive for hours to pick up one of their own to rehome, and the type of breeder who would say "not my problem" ;)

if that is so, then wouldnt the database be a good idea, so you guys dont get tarnished with the same brush?

>wouldnt that depend how you write it (maybe mods can clarify) ie, kennel name and breed?

Not when there's a section of the site where people pay to advertise like that. ;-)

I make no apologies or excuses for my choices.I have 4(soon to be 5) pedigree dogs all from reputable breeders.I choose to pay a large amount of money for a pedigree dog that suits my requirements....my choices do not encourage BYB's or irresponsible dog owners who allow their pet dogs to have litters but support reputable breeders who IMO breed 'correctly'.
I feel very sorry for rescue dogs....but I don't want one.I applaud those who do but I should not be made to feel guilty for my choices.
The way to stop irresponsible breeders is not to penalise responsible breeders and to deprive people like me of our preferences but  for people to STOP buying from BYBs and irresponsible breeders....if they can't sell their 'produce' and make money from it they will stop! 

> if that is so, then wouldnt the database be a good idea, so you guys dont get tarnished with the same brush?

Those breeders who will always take back one of their puppies will tend to use a contract stating this so their dogs are unlikely to end up in rescue (unless as sometimes happens, the owner is too embarassed to contact the breeder and chooses to ignore the contract). I would guess most breeders who post regularly here will use contracts and will always take dogs back when asked to do so - it doesn't mean they would want to appear on any list/database of names though and such a list would definitely not be appropriate for this forum (although there would be nothing to stop you compiling a private list and asking those interested in appearing on it to contact you off the forum)

I would have thought that you would have been better to contact the appropriate breed club and/or breed rescue and asking them to contact the breeder for you?  You are not never going to get a comprehensive list for every breeder who is willing to take their dog back.

My experience is that the bigger rescues aren't interested in contacting the breeder as they ask more money for pedigree rescues than they do mongrels. :(

My experience is that the bigger rescues aren't interested in contacting the breeder as they ask more money for pedigree rescues than they do mongrels

Not always - the well known national rescue we went to charge the one price whether pedigree or crossbreed, small, large or somwhere in between. We paid £70 for our GR as a 10 week old puppy and, two years later, £80 for our terrier cross of 5-6 months. The rescue were not interested in contacting our GR's breeder even though they knew who had bred him and saw his  papers but did not keep them. We were told that he came from a reputable breeder but, despite several times of asking, were not allowed to have the details so we could contact breeder ourselves.

So on the one hand, rescues claim that breeders don't take dogs back and on the other we have rescues who refuse point blank to contact breeders or pass on details..

Thats hardly helpful is it? Nor particularly fitting under the 'in the best interests of the dog' banner that so many of these things are supposedly done under..

Not forgetting the general rescues that refuse to liaise with breed rescue who might well have the ideal home waiting ...

I feel very sorry for rescue dogs....but I don't want one.I applaud those who do but I should not be made to feel guilty for my choices

Exactly.  Nicely said. 

So on the one hand, rescues claim that breeders don't take dogs back and on the other we have rescues who refuse point blank to contact breeders or pass on details.. agree, and on the flip side of the same coin, breeders claim that they will always take dogs back and then we have breeders who refuse to.


Thats hardly helpful is it? Nor particularly fitting under the 'in the best interests of the dog' banner that so many of these things are supposedly done under..

agreed, on both counts

Not forgetting the general rescues that refuse to liaise with breed rescue who might well have the ideal home waiting .

this is also wrong. my rescues always liase with breed rescue. Battersea does as well.

so i thought it might be a good idea for me to start a thread where the professional breeders on here give their kennel/breeding details (prefix?) or whoever you term

I agree this is a none starter for many reasons as already stated, I'm quite happy with a body like the KC storing details of us all, and also chip and tattoo databases, but due to trust reasons would not be happy with small bodies cataloguing us and having details it could lead to fraudulant papers and registrations etc. None of us really know who we are talking to via the internet. I wouldn't advise anyone to give any details whatsoever.

Secondly a much better way for rescues to reunite dog to breeder would be via something like the tattoo.

If all breeders tattoed their dogs and that database were stored with the breeders details and new owners microchipped with their details, if a dog were to be sent to rescue, (do all rescues scan for chips?) then after a chip reading and the owner is the one who brought the dog in or they had sold the dog on, then a quick phone call to the tattoo database would give the breeders details for contact. If all good breeders tattoed then this would be an ideal way for rescue and breeder to always have contact, I think it would be an excellent practise it would ease a breeders mind that they always can be contacted and perhaps ease rescues numbers infact it would be great to make it a legal requirement.

This is what the tattoo register already do and I know of a number of dogs reunited with their breeders this way including one dumped on a major road.  She went on to become a champion when back with the breeder.

It is the reason I have all my pups tattooed.

The lady I by most of my dogs from found out one of her puppies was in a rescue centre...the rescue centre foiught tooth and nail to prevent her getting her puppy back and treated her like dirt.When will rescue realise that not ALL breeders are in it strictly for the money and that the welfare of their dogs in a concern for them from birth till death.Rescues need to treat people as individuals instead of tarring everyone with the same brush      

A dog by my Friend's stud dog who I bred ended up in the Blue cross.  She went to visit him, and he wasn't doing well in kennels, but they would not release him to her because she has several dogs, and they don't agree with dogs being re-homed to multi-dog households.  She was most upset and all she could do was leave her details for advice for the new owners.  The dogs breeder had emigrated.

This is what the tattoo register already do

2 Questions? :-)

I've had a cat returned via microchip, and have always microchipped my pups, but with change of ownership a change of details form is always filled in, I've always wondered if the breeders original details are stored or deleted once ownership transfer is done. Is a tattoo the same and transfers with change of ownership on record or does it always state the breeder?

You see I would like some form of identification which always states the breeder.

Also, just to clarify for all breeders and rescues out there, out of interest would it be a legal requirment if a dog were brought in with a tattoo, for rescues to have to call the breeder or is there no absolute requirement to do so?

Thanks. :-)