Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm new, but I figure I'm going to jump in and get to know people with a hot topic anyway.

I see alot of "black and white" thinking as I look around this board in regards to "show breeders" vs "byb's". I personally have owned dogs from both kinds, as well as shelter dogs during my life and here is the question I have:

Am I the only one who feels that "show breeder" vs "byb's" is NOT a strict dichotomy? I don't seem to see a lot of people here who believe in the "gray" area between those two groups.

I know this will upset some people but I'm just wondering whether people with my thought processes are truly in the minority or if they just keep quiet on these boards for fear of causing a ruckus.

My belief is that:

On one hand:
-Not all dogs need to come from show breeders.
-Not all dogs need to match the breed standards exactly (especially dogs that are going to be sterilized anyway).
-People should not have to go through a 100 question investigation before being allowed to have a puppy.
-People should not have to pay excessive costs for a pet.

On the other:
-People should not breed dogs that have known temperment/health issues.
-Dogs should not be registered with "crap" organizations like the CKC.
-People should not keep their dogs living outside in kennels. They should only own the number that they can reasonably keep in their house as pets (and quite a few show breeders do not keep all their stock inside as pets)
-Breeders should ask BASIC questions of potential owners in regards to whether or not they potential buyer is picking the right breed for them, and in regards to how knowledgeable the potential owner is about health. This should NOT however be an interrogation and shouldn't be so extensive that a person feels they're being peered at under a microscope. "Do you give heartworm preventative", "do you give your dogs annual vet visits" "will the dog be allowed inside on a regular basis" etc, ,should be sufficient. If your process is so strict that 95% of the population can't be approved, you are probably being excessive. The world is not divided into excellent owners and crappy ones....there are plenty that fall in the middle and those people deserve dogs too even if they aren't the absolute most perfect dog owners on earth. They can still love the dog and give a reasonably good home.
-Breeders should have health guarantees and be willing to take puppies back if needed.

Now, I'm sure that everyone of my dogs that I currently own comes from what some here would call "BYB's". However, I felt they were reasonably responsible non-show breeders.

Am I the only one who sees this gray area between show breeders and the worst of BYBs?

Here is what I would offer to show breeders:

1. Stop being over-dramatic. It just seems off putting and makes logical, reasonable people see you as being elitist. Show bred dogs are not the only decent dogs out there and not every dog from the "BYB" gets HD and has a horrible personality and dies a terrible death. I can name literally hundreds of dogs I've met who came from BYB who are healthy, well adjusted animals. Yes, some BYB dogs do have problems. However, it is a little dramatic to imply that you are setting youself up for absolute tragedy if you buy from a non-show breeder.

2. Ease the interrogation process. Screening people is fine....being excessively particular is not. This goes for rescue groups too. If you're mentally rating potential owners on a scale of 1-10, then release the notion that only 9s and 10's should get a puppy for you. Take a look at those 6-7s. If you do, you'll steal a lot more business from the puppy mills and BYBs. Let's face it...the 6s and 7s are still going to go buy a dog...and wouldn't you rather they buy from you the "responsible breeder"? Many average families simply don't meet the overly stringent requirements of a show breeder, leaving them no option for getting a purebred puppy other than going to the newspaper. For example, I had breeders who I spoke with who refused to sell to someone who was "out of the house more than 8hrs a day." Um, let's check out reality. Almost EVERYONE is out of the house more than 8hrs a day. Most of us WORK and that includes 8hrs a day plus driving time plus daily errands.

3. Sell CHEAPER! I grew up showing and breeding horses. It's a HOBBY. It's not meant to make money or even to recoup the money you spend. Having fun is the goal...NOT breaking even. Your average fisherman/hunter/golfer understands that his HOBBY costs money and doesn't expect to get anything in return other than happiness. I always knew that I wouldn't never recoup even 1% of the money I spent on horses, food, vet bills, entry fees, barns, trucks, trailers, land, tack, training, etc. It was the cost of playing the game. I respect that fact that show breeders are spending more to produce their puppies than BYBs. This does NOT mean you should charge more for those puppies. If you are doing it for the love of the breed, and you want to put BYBs out of business then you need to get your prices in line with theirs. Your average person is not going to pay $800 for a show puppy when they can get a puppy out of the paper for half that who is still a nice looking, well behaved dog. They can look down their street and see dozens of other happy, well behaved dogs that came out of the newspaper and therefore you are never going to logically convince that person that it's worth them paying twice the cost to buy from you, especially in today's economy. So suck it up, take a loss, and lower your prices. That's the very biggest way you can get people to stop buying from BYBs.

Now I'm sure I've thoroughly alienated 75% of the board members, but I might as well see how well people deal with my opinionated manner up front before I invest time in getting to know the community. Just my slightly more than 2 cents, and I apologize if people are offended by what I have to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,072 Posts
I agree with some of your points, but have issues with others. :)
I agree with:
On one hand:
-Not all dogs need to come from show breeders.
-Not all dogs need to match the breed standards exactly (especially dogs that are going to be sterilized anyway).
-People should not have to go through a 100 question investigation before being allowed to have a puppy.
-People should not have to pay excessive costs for a pet.
(But I would add, there's a strong degree of MY thinking that people should get what they apy for. If they don't want to pay more than $300 for a pet, they should not expect the breeder to pay $5K for the puppy's HD surgery if the breeder screened the parents and did their due diligence.)

I also agree with:
On the other:
-People should not breed dogs that have known temperment/health issues.
-Dogs should not be registered with "crap" organizations like the CKC.
I do not agree with this
-People should not keep their dogs living outside in kennels. They should only own the number that they can reasonably keep in their house as pets (and quite a few show breeders do not keep all their stock inside as pets)
I don't think it's a numerical thing. I think it's a time thing. Someone who works full time should not have 25 dogs. But you know, I don't think you could fit more than 4 wolfhounds, or danes :p- comfortably in most houses! And if someone is home all day and their dogs recieve adequate house time, I think kenneling is fine. (I will behonest, I would LOVE to have an air-conditioned kennel building so my guys could have kennel runs instead of crates for when I've got girls in season or need to separate for whatever reason. Having large secure yard areas for confinement would be FANTASTIC for when I'm away at work- especially for Lizzie, who is per force crated because she is NOT trustworthy loose in the house when unsupervised.)
I also disagree with this:
-Breeders should ask BASIC questions of potential owners in regards to whether or not they potential buyer is picking the right breed for them, and in regards to how knowledgeable the potential owner is about health. This should NOT however be an interrogation and shouldn't be so extensive that a person feels they're being peered at under a microscope. "Do you give heartworm preventative", "do you give your dogs annual vet visits" "will the dog be allowed inside on a regular basis" etc, ,should be sufficient. If your process is so strict that 95% of the population can't be approved, you are probably being excessive. The world is not divided into excellent owners and crappy ones....there are plenty that fall in the middle and those people deserve dogs too even if they aren't the absolute most perfect dog owners on earth. They can still love the dog and give a reasonably good home.
However, I also think this is a matter of degree. I don't believe in 15 page puppy applications- I but I ask all the above questions and more. However, it's conversatoinal. The purpose of a breeder interview should be to get to know them and see if you agree with how they want to bring up their puppy- not to find a reason NOT to sell to them.
-Breeders should have health guarantees and be willing to take puppies back if needed.
I agree with this one - but I would clarify further. Breeders should guarantee a reasonable amount of health. A replacement puppy (or the price of that puppy- some breeders I know will offer you a replacement puppy and if you don't want that puppy, you have the option of the purchase price once the puppy is sold - I think tha'ts fine too). They should guarantee for a reasonable amount of time, too. But even with everything done right, sometimes stuff happens - and pet owners need to realize that. They are NOT entitled to 10s of thousands of dollars of experimental surgery to fix a defect that no one could test for or prevent, all at the breeder's expense. And I think that breeders should be willing to take back their puppies at ANY time in the dog's life- not just puppyhood.

I also think that breeders should be DOING something with their dogs - the dogs should NOT just be pets. They need to be getting those dogs out there to work, or hunt, or trial in obedience or rally, or do therapy work. Conformation is okay too. Prove that those dogs have nice stable, trainable temperaments and basic soundness outside of their own comfortable environment- don't just give it lip service.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
342 Posts
This persons article and perspective sums up my feelings about the issue.

http://www.darnfar.com/FAQ/How_To_Choose_A_Breeder.htm

There is much debate as to what breeding certain working breeds for primarily "show characteristics " do/contibute in bastardizing particular breeds. For example changing leg structure in herding breeds such as the GSD and temperment value focus in Border Collies. Some "traditional " breeders and people argue against breeding in extensive rear leg angle in GSD's and a lack of focus on breeding Border Collies who are spastic and show little biddabilty and herding ability.. Are all GSDs supposed to be exceptionally friendly or have little prey drive?

Ever notice all of the pics of GSDs that look like they might fall over from the extensive horizontal rear leg angle and what about all of those spastic out of control Border Collies (that people warn against in owning the breed) that people get rid of because they act like they are on PCP? I was always told that a good herding dog should be calm, cool, and collective to control various types of livestock such as sheep,ducks, cattle,ect. On the other hand some like the over excited look of a GSD that is biting at the bit to be released to engage the bad guy. Who knows what is correct or proper as I am often confused about all of this. Are there or should there reasonably be exceptions to the general rule in some cases? Maybe reasonably so but who am I to say or judge.


Such people maintain that the working standards should be third in priority as health standards and biddablity should be number 1 and 2 before choosing a breeding pair. Many responsible,ethical,and reputable breeders of such dogs will admit that regardless of the health status or working ability a dog that has temperment and biddability issues should not constitute exceptable breeding criteria in most cases regardless.


Then there is the issue of dogs that fall outside of the working class and one could argue a increased or expoential level of vanity in even choosing to continue the reproduction of such dogs. Then there is the subject of it being ethical, moral, or responsible to even consider reproducing many of the breeds that are known to have major genetic health issues in the first place to which many were engineered into the breeds in the first place.

Why not simply discontinue producing such breeds only to know that they will experience a guranteed level of discomfort,limitations, and suffering?


Is there not vanity in any of the decisions to breed? Who needs herding dogs,gun dogs, sled dogs, ect in this modern world are there not alternative means now available to do these so called slave tasks.

Possibly in simply owning a dog smacks of a certain level of vanity as some suggest also the act of rescue of dogs are for many seen as simply a selfish gesture that often furthers the dog condition in a negative way and possibly as vainly no more than a ticket to heaven in itself.


Who really has the real list on what is right or is wrong when it comes to vanity and servatude.?

Not me for sure ...EEEEEKKKK!

Kali I hope I did not offend you or anyone else with my perspective. ;')


:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
I don't think having some sort of quantifiable accomplishments is necessary. I bred one litter between my chihuahuas before I had them spayed/neutered and I don't feel bad about it. Most people who buy a chi are looking for a great companion pet, and my two chi's had SUPERIOR temperments. I felt that was worth reproducing. There simply are not enough chi's with GREAT personalities out there. I've kept up with the puppies and they too have got absolutely stunning, sweet, non-fearful temperaments, so I count that as a success. I know many here will disagree, but I feel good about what I did. It did not do it for money I (I practically gave them away) and it was not an accident. I just genuinely felt personalities that wonderful needed to be passed into the pet chi gene pool.

People breed for different reasons...I don't think it's a black and white subject at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
:)Hrmmm...

I guess if someone wants to get a dog from a BYB, then that's their business.

I guess for me that if I didn't want to pay the $1,500 that I will probably end up paying for a show prospect, then I would just get a pup from a shelter.

I think that people should be very careful where they put their money, and that where they put their money should be a statement.

I realize most people don't want to pay as much as that for a puppy. I've been saving for about a year, and I'll end up saving for another 7 months or so before I've got the full amount.

For me, there is no inbetween with breeders. Either you're doing what you should be, or your not.

Maybe things are too black-and-white to me, but there are also quite a few pure bred dogs in shelters that people get from BYBs and petstores, and those people have no breeder to fall back on in case they can't keep the dog.

I'm not saying that all purebred dogs that comes from mills or bybs are automatically goign to be horribly deformed or anything. I don't think that's true.

I just think that if you DO end up getting a dog from a mill or a byb and you DON'T have health problems, then you are lucky. Health problems range from eye issues, to skin issues, to heart or hip, or whatever you can imagine.

The good breeders test for these things and so they know what they're getting wtih a certain breeding. The bad ones don't, and rely on the luck of the draw.

So, take from that what you want. I think the in between people are the reasons we have so many dogs in shelters. But, I could be wrong. It's happened before. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I would put out that there are an awful lot of "lucky" people then, as I honestly don't know but maybe one or two people that got their pets from show breeders. I have a lot of friends, and associate with a good many coworkers and aquaintances that are animal people and I can name on one hand the ones who've had dogs with serious "issues". In fact, only one such animal comes immediately to mind (a great pyr with excessive aggressive tendencies that was eventually put down. The owners spent literally thousands of dollars on training for the animal and never could get him to act as though he was "right in the head.")

But regardless of people's personal opinions, there is one thing that's a fact: the "in between people" are going to exist and prosper until the show breeders drop their prices. That's reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,761 Posts
I see alot of "black and white" thinking as I look around this board in regards to "show breeders" vs "byb's". I personally have owned dogs from both kinds, as well as shelter dogs during my life and here is the question I have:

Am I the only one who feels that "show breeder" vs "byb's" is NOT a strict dichotomy? I don't seem to see a lot of people here who believe in the "gray" area between those two groups.
There's an inherent problem with your premise. We would have to assume there is a definition for "ethical breeding practices" in order to see it as a black and white issue. There is no definition, thus, it can only exist on a continuum of opinion. You've detailed yours.

So, I think you really mean to ask if we agree with your definition of "BYB" and "show breeder". Some will in its entirety, and some won't...proving it *is* a black and white issue. However, in matters of opinion we all know "reality" doesn't exist at one point, always.

Personally I find your usage of "excess costs" and "hobby breeder" contradictory. As a "hobby cyclist" I can assure you my excess is quite substantial, and if I were to ask you to pay for this, you might find it unreasonable. However, if you *could* see the value in my excess, you'd be willing to pay for it, no? We can't answer for you what you find valuable and what you do not.

Furthermore, I find it odd that you'd ask for "leniency" when spelling out your "how things should be" in such detail. Again, I can only own my convictions, not yours. If you can't appreciate that, there's no real discussion to be had here, as I don't think you'll find unanimous approval for the "gray area".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Oh I know I won't find unanimous approval for the gray area. I just think that perhaps there are more people who believe in the gray area than internet message boards would suggest.

I think there are bad breeders, and average breeders and good breeders and great breeders. It's not black and white...it's a continuum. I don't feel my breeder has to be a "perfect 10" for me to feel good about buying from him. A 6 or 7 is fine with me, as it is with many others, and I find it tedious how often people with my mindset get villianized online.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
I agree with some of what you said, however I don't support BYB and I would personally never buy from one. That being said there are a lot of show breeders I wouldn't buy from either. Just because someone shows dogs it doesn't automatically make their dogs the best of the best either. I know a lady that has a dog that came from whom she thought was a great show breeder and the dog has had nothing but health problems. Not all show breeders are in it for improving the breed, some are in it for the money and don't do the proper testing and research to produce the healthiest puppies they possibly can. That being said, I think if you take your time and really do your research and find a reputable breeder that has good lines and does the proper health screening and testing on their bitches/sires you are far more likely to have a healthy puppy than you were if you just bought one from John Smith who was selling them out of his kitchen....in my experience and my personal opinion, you will not find a BYB that does the testing and research with their dogs bloodlines anywhere other than a show home.
They could be out there but, I've never found them....

As to show breeders being excessively particular, I agree with you that most are, but, I feel with good reason. Most have worked their entire lives to achieve the blood lines that they now have and they don't want their dogs going to just "anyone". They want to be ensured that they are going to a home where they will be well taken care. Most of the time, they need to ensure this as with many show breeders it is in their contracts if for any reason you cannot care for their dogs anymore, they go back to them. I have contracts on all four of my dogs and if anything were to happen to me where I could no longer keep them their breeders would take every one of them back without hesitation and give them a home. I don't know many BYB that require that....

As to the price, some I feel do over charge, but, I believe there are many show breeders out there that are not asking unreasonable prices.
It is their hobby, but it also is their life and what they do....if they gave away their puppies for 200-300 dollars, they would no longer be able to afford to care for the dogs they have, test their dogs and breed the healthy puppies that they do. If you look at it scale per scale, a BYB is charging just as much for what considering what they are doing and the money they are putting into their puppies, as a show breeder is charging...the reason show breeders have to charge more is because they are putting in more. Profit versus profit, most BYB on average make more profit on a puppy than a show breeder will. How you can expect someone to invest hundreds and thousands of dollars into something and then turn around and give their puppies away from free and still expect them to remain to a certain standard of quality and health is beyond me....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
I agree with some of what you say Munchkins, but I also find it contradictory that show breeders so vigorously push that "everyone" should buy from them vs backyard breeders, while at the same time making the application process so difficult and the cost so steep that those very prospective buyers have no choice BUT to go to BYBs. It seems counter productive. I have all the respect in the world for show breeders, but I wish they'd open their eyes enough to see that some of their methodology is doing more harm than good for their cause.

How you can expect someone to invest hundreds and thousands of dollars into something and then turn around and give their puppies away from free and still expect them to remain to a certain standard of quality and health is beyond me....
Because I expect that people will treat breeding as a hobby and not a business, and not choose to invest in that hobby if they can't afford to do it. The money invested into those show puppies should come out of their "fun money", that money that most people use to buy boats or golf clubs or go on luxury vacations or whatever other hobby they have. If you're depending on puppies to pay your bills, then I think you're breeding for the wrong reasons. Again, just my opinion.

They should care enough about taking business away from the supposedly evil BYBs to take a loss, and be ok with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,761 Posts
A 6 or 7 is fine with me, as it is with many others, and I find it tedious how often people with my mindset get villainized online.
"Villainized" is also matter of opinion. If I say your 6 and 7 are not good enough for *me*, am I "villainizing" you? It would be a statement of fact, so...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
"Villainized" is also matter of opinion. If I say your 6 and 7 are not good enough for *me*, am I "villainizing" you? It would be a statement of fact, so...

No, you wouldn't be villianizing me in that case. I'm more referring to some of the statements I've heard on various forums/message groups where individuals are positively flamed either for buying from non-show breeders or for for being a non-show breeder.

When I was looking for the puppy I have now, I suggested on an online forum that my budget was about $400. I was treated like the laughing stock of the message board for even presuming I could find a puppy from a show breeder in that price range, and then flamed relentlessly when I stated that if that was the case, I'd go with a non-show breeder. That's not to say I didn't screen the breeders I bought from, for I certainly did. However being a show breeder was simply not an important criteria when I assessed those individuals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,072 Posts
I don't think that show breeders are automatically responsible, but I *do* think people need to be doing something to prove, to an outside standard, that their dogs are temperamentally sound. PERIOD. I see WAY too many people who make excuses for crappy temperament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,296 Posts
Because I expect that people will treat breeding as a hobby and not a business, and not choose to invest in that hobby if they can't afford to do it. The money invested into those show puppies should come out of their "fun money", that money that most people use to buy boats or golf clubs or go on luxury vacations or whatever other hobby they have. If you're depending on puppies to pay your bills, then I think you're breeding for the wrong reasons. Again, just my opinion.

They should care enough about taking business away from the supposedly evil BYBs to take a loss, and be ok with that.
You've got it backwards. Under those conditions, you pretty much guarantee that only BYBs and puppy mills will be producing pups. The way to encourage responsible breeding is to make it more profitable, not less.

Personally, I think the closed breed books and rigid selection for arbitrary conformation standards are the source for a lot of the health problems we're seeing in purebred lines, and that, under those constraints, a lot of breeders' attempts to 'improve' a line are likely to make it worse in the long run. Those constraints aren't going away any time soon, though, so responsible breeding is necessarily an expensive and painstaking process. Making it even more expensive will pretty much eliminate responsible breeding, while the bad breeders will keep doing what they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FourIsCompany

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
I see alot of "black and white" thinking as I look around this board in regards to "show breeders" vs "byb's".
I wouldn't put the distinction between "show breeders" vs BYB, but instead, "Reputable breeders" vs BYB.

Not all dogs from a reputable breeder can be show dogs. Two of my dogs come from a reputable breeder, but they have faults (long coats) and one is clearly non-conformant.

-Not all dogs need to come from show breeders.
-Not all dogs need to match the breed standards exactly (especially dogs that are going to be sterilized anyway).
-People should not have to go through a 100 question investigation before being allowed to have a puppy.
-People should not have to pay excessive costs for a pet.
Of course not all dogs need to come from reputable breeders. There are shelters and rescues that have more dogs than they know what to do with. And certainly not all dogs have to meet the standard exactly. Very few do. If you don't want to go through being questioned because the breeder cares so much about where their dogs end up, then you can get a dog from a shelter. They don't ask too many questions. Excessive cost is relative. Just like everything else. You can pay $14,000 for a car or $75,000. The difference is in quality.

-People should not breed dogs that have known temperment/health issues.
What if they are unknown issues? That's where pedigree temperament and health testing comes in. That's why it's important to buy from a breeder who does health and temperament testing to screen out these problems. BYB generally don't do this, and end up breeding dogs with temperament and health issues.

2. Ease the interrogation process.
If I breed dogs, I have every right to do what it takes to assure myself that my dogs are going into what I consider proper homes. A reputable breeder carries responsibility for those dogs in their hearts.

Think of a babysitter. Would you rather leave your kids with someone who says, "Yeah, I'll take good care of them. Sure" or with someone who willingly fills out a questionnaire and answers all your questions?

3. Sell CHEAPER! ...I respect that fact that show breeders are spending more to produce their puppies than BYBs. This does NOT mean you should charge more for those puppies.
Why not??? If I'm spending more to provide a quality product (in this case, a dog) to the public, why should I not charge more for it? If you want a cheaper dog, go somewhere else and buy it. Reputable breeders do NOT make money on their puppies. They use the funds to get titles for their dogs, feed, house and care for them.

If you are doing it for the love of the breed, and you want to put BYBs out of business then you need to get your prices in line with theirs.
To do that, they would have to produce an inferior product like the BYB are doing.

So suck it up, take a loss, and lower your prices. That's the very biggest way you can get people to stop buying from BYBs.
It's not the job of reputable breeders to get people to stop buying from BYB. Reputable breeders have people WAITING in line for their puppies. They aren't losing business to BYB. They're just upset because BYB are ruining the breeds they LOVE.

I might as well see how well people deal with my opinionated manner up front before I invest time in getting to know the community.
I love your opinionated manner. It's a lot like mine. :) I think if people weren't afraid of voicing their opinion without personal insults, people on discussion boards could talk a lot better and learn a lot more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
I don't think that show breeders are automatically responsible, but I *do* think people need to be doing something to prove, to an outside standard, that their dogs are temperamentally sound. PERIOD. I see WAY too many people who make excuses for crappy temperament.
Oh I certainly feel that it's of utmost importance for a dog to have a good temperament, I just don't feel that necessarily needs to be validated by an outside organization.

If you want a cheaper dog, go somewhere else and buy it. Reputable breeders do NOT make money on their puppies. They use the funds to get titles for their dogs, feed, house and care for them.
That's exactly what I did. However, if a breeders take that attitude, they have no right to villianize people who take their advice and do indeed go to a cheaper breeder. Not that you or anyone else here is doing that per se, but it's something I've commonly seen in other online forums.

I'm just pointing out that it's paradoxical for breeders to rant and rave about the evils of backyard breeding while at the same time doing nothing to entice your average consumer to purchase from them instead and also driving said consumer straight into the arms of "lesser" breeders.

If the Show Breeder agrees to take a loss on his puppies and sell them more cheaply, he'll convince people to stop supporting BYBs. Who's going to buy a puppy with no champion bloodlines when he can get one who has them for the same price?

Or here's another suggestion. Let's say Show Breeder normally charges $1500 for show puppy and $750 for a pet quality puppy out of the same litter. He could decide instead to charge $3000 for the show puppy and only $375 for the pets, allowing him to both recoup his expenses AND prevent people from supporting BYBs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,761 Posts
When I was looking for the puppy I have now, I suggested on an online forum that my budget was about $400. I was treated like the laughing stock of the message board for even presuming I could find a puppy from a show breeder in that price range, and then flamed relentlessly when I stated that if that was the case, I'd go with a non-show breeder. That's not to say I didn't screen the breeders I bought from, for I certainly did. However being a show breeder was simply not an important criteria when I assessed those individuals.
You'll have to excuse me from reading into your comments, but I see this as more a personal issue than an actual discussion of what breeders are made of (your topic). People react in all weird kind of ways to dollar $ign$. I can't explain that in other forums, and not even this one. But, forums are not meant for the thin-skinned...that's for sure. I'm not suggesting anything one way or the other by stating this.

However if *I* had a $400 budget for a dog, I'd likely not have a dog. $400 is a marginal cost (so too $2K) considering the long term cost in keeping a dog. So I'd need a purchase price budget more flexible than that, to find the best dog for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Curbside, it's not always a case of what you can afford but more what you're willing to spend. In my case, I would have been willing to spend more and could have afforded to spend more...but I'm half of a couple, and it would have caused a ruckus between my boyfriend and I if I spent more. He's very very frugal about some things. We spend a fortune on training, food, vet care, etc and that doesn't bother him....but he set his foot down on the inital price, and I had to agree to that.

People look at money differently...Even if they have money, they have things they will spend it on and things they won't. For example, I'd think nothing of someone spending 50k on a truck, because trucks are "worth it" to me...but if someone spends 50k on a car, I'd call that foolish. For my boyfriend, upkeep is something he's willing to spend as much as necessary. Up front purchase price isn't. That's just the way his mind works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,761 Posts
We spend a fortune on training, food, vet care, etc and that doesn't bother him....but he set his foot down on the inital price, and I had to agree to that.
And in this dog community you should know that we would suggest getting rid of the bf for the dog. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
And in this dog community you should know that we would suggest getting rid of the bf for the dog. :p
LOL...nah, he's great. He's the only boyfriend I've ever had who truly loves animals as much as I do, which is saying something. The thing that won my heart with him was the way he invited me to a dog park for our first date (although we ended up not going). When I saw the way he treated his akita, I knew I could love him. I can't complain about a BF who's willing to have 2 akitas, 2 chihuahuas, a cat, and a frog all in the house and never complain about the messes they can make or the money spent on their care :) But I digress....
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top