If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Breeder Fees: What's Resonable/Ethical?
"sophie" wrote
I'd like to hear people's opinions on what an 'ethical' breeder's philosophy about price is. I've read that a responsible breeder is happy just to break even, and thus the price(at least for the small dogs I have been looking into) will range from $300-600. That seems pretty low, *especially* for small breeds which tend to have smaller litters. For my breed, which is an easy whelping breed with moderate litter size, average ranges from $500 - $800. I'd also like to mention here that price and ethics if anything might tend to rise together. I mean, unless you area aware of all the expenses, it would be difficult for you to decide whether or not you think someone is making a profit or breaking even. I've come across breeders who seem very knowledgeable and protective of their pups, but who charge double that. Seems reasonable (that's $600 - $1200), depending on the breed. What makes these folks seem knowledgable to you? Or even more confusing, will charge more for girls or certain colors (which I also read is unethical). Not unethical in and of itself, but a warning sign. Have you asked them why they do this? But what's wrong with a responsible breeder, whose life is consumed (I imagine) by taking care of their dogs trying to make a profit? "Trying to make a profit" and breaking even are two very different things. It's *expensive* to breed dogs well, so well bred puppies will tend to reflect that. But once you start trying to turn a profit it becomes a conflict of interest to doing it "right". Should I mark off those breeders that charge (way) more but seem upstanding based on this supposed red flag? Ask them why first. See what they say. See if the answer jives well with you. Keep in mind, every breeder is different. You may find a really great one who does one or two things "wrong" and you may find a really crappy one who does a few things "right". That's why the term "responsible breeder" is fairly subjective. There are certain basics that are no brainers (like health testing and not breeding sick dogs, taking dogs back etc) but there are grey areas too. -- -Andrea Stone Saorsa Basenjis http://home1.gte.net/res0s12z/ The Trolls Nest - greenmen, goblins & gargoyle wall art www.trollsnest.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Mud E Poz" wrote
snip On occasion. Then again, while I had thought that my puppies were well bred, I gave them away.... That's why I said "tend". ;-) -- -Andrea Stone Saorsa Basenjis http://home1.gte.net/res0s12z/ The Trolls Nest - greenmen, goblins & gargoyle wall art www.trollsnest.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"sophie" wrote in message om... I'd like to hear people's opinions on what an 'ethical' breeder's philosophy about price is. I've read that a responsible breeder is happy just to break even, and thus the price(at least for the small dogs I have been looking into) will range from $300-600. I've come across breeders who seem very knowledgeable and protective of their pups, but who charge double that. Or even more confusing, will charge more for girls or certain colors (which I also read is unethical). I understand that backyard breeders or puppy mills are only in it for the money and they are to be avoided. But what's wrong with a responsible breeder, whose life is consumed (I imagine) by taking care of their dogs trying to make a profit? I'm just wondering why this is a no-no. Should I mark off those breeders that charge (way) more but seem upstanding based on this supposed red flag? Thanks! I don't have any problem with a breeder making a profit on a litter if they are breeding responsibly. I doubt that when you balance the money they have put into their litters with the money they've spent overall on their dog "career" that they would come out profitable, though. When you take into consideration the costs involved in buying a quality dog, showing or working, health testing, etc. there is a pretty huge investment. Some folks don't think the costs of buying a dog and proving it through shows should be counted in the costs of breeding; from that perspective, it is possible to "make money" on a litter. However, I think that it is reasonable to pay a breeder for their hard work, since I'm not willing to do it myself. However, I have heard of some breeders charging *outrageous* prices for their puppies (reference a recent discussion about the Collie breeder who was prosecuted for animal cruelty when moving hundreds of dogs from Alaska to the lower 48) and if one isn't comfortable with a breeder, for any reason including price, they should look elsewhere. There are certain breeds which simply are going to have a higher pricetag - rare breeds, breeds that are difficult to breed and/or have small litters - and generally when one is looking for a show prospect they will pay more than for a pet, though there are always exceptions. However, the caveat "you get what you pay for" often comes into play when comparing prices (not always, but often.) I think that price is probably one of the last things that should be considered when deciding on buying a puppy. First, look for a responsible breeder, proven dogs, health tested, proper temperament, and so on. If you find a breeder who does all the right things, you will likely find your money spent to be a much better choice, even if paying twice as much as from a less responsible breeder. Buying a "cheap" puppy and price shopping to get a bargain is a really, really risky investment - and not just monetarily; the investment of time and love in a puppy is a thousand times more costly. The initial price you pay for a puppy is generally the smallest amount you'll be spending over the life of the dog - once you've paid for a decade or more of toys, treats, food, training classes, health care, and all the various other things that are must-haves, you'll end up spending a lot more in the long run than just the few hundred for the puppy itself. Chances are you'll spend a lot less overall if you get a healthy, good temperamented puppy from a responsible breeder. So yeah, if they make a few bucks on a litter, I have no issue with it. Christy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Christy" wrote in message .. .
I don't have any problem with a breeder making a profit on a litter if they are breeding responsibly. I doubt that when you balance the money they have put into their litters with the money they've spent overall on their dog "career" that they would come out profitable, though. When you take into consideration the costs involved in buying a quality dog, showing or working, health testing, etc. there is a pretty huge investment. Some folks don't think the costs of buying a dog and proving it through shows should be counted in the costs of breeding; from that perspective, it is possible to "make money" on a litter. However, I think that it is reasonable to pay a breeder for their hard work, since I'm not willing to do it myself. However, I have heard of some breeders charging *outrageous* prices for their puppies (reference a recent discussion about the Collie breeder who was prosecuted for animal cruelty when moving hundreds of dogs from Alaska to the lower 48) and if one isn't comfortable with a breeder, for any reason including price, they should look elsewhere. There are certain breeds which simply are going to have a higher pricetag - rare breeds, breeds that are difficult to breed and/or have small litters - and generally when one is looking for a show prospect they will pay more than for a pet, though there are always exceptions. However, the caveat "you get what you pay for" often comes into play when comparing prices (not always, but often.) I think that price is probably one of the last things that should be considered when deciding on buying a puppy. First, look for a responsible breeder, proven dogs, health tested, proper temperament, and so on. If you find a breeder who does all the right things, you will likely find your money spent to be a much better choice, even if paying twice as much as from a less responsible breeder. Buying a "cheap" puppy and price shopping to get a bargain is a really, really risky investment - and not just monetarily; the investment of time and love in a puppy is a thousand times more costly. The initial price you pay for a puppy is generally the smallest amount you'll be spending over the life of the dog - once you've paid for a decade or more of toys, treats, food, training classes, health care, and all the various other things that are must-haves, you'll end up spending a lot more in the long run than just the few hundred for the puppy itself. Chances are you'll spend a lot less overall if you get a healthy, good temperamented puppy from a responsible breeder. So yeah, if they make a few bucks on a litter, I have no issue with it. Christy Finally, someone's eloquent post does justice to the "reputable breeder" issue! I don't think it can ever be said any better. Lesley |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I've come across breeders who seem very
knowledgeable and protective of their pups, but who charge double that. Or even more confusing, will charge more for girls The only reason to charge more for girls is the potential $$ to be made from breeding them. So I'd say that anyoner who does that is a problem, since their pet puppies should come with a spay neuter contract, and "show" breeders are very, very picky about who they will sell girls with show potential to. Janet //Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a sna //Bedlam has many Mansions: have a ca //Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad: //You think your self inspir'd; He thinks you mad. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
(Fitjar7) wrote in
: My question is, who sets these ethic standards? I have never seen as many self-styled experts as in the breeding of pure bred dogs, Most breed clubs set out a Code of Ethics for Breeders of their particular breed. http://www.dog-play.com/ethics.html and http://www.dog-play.com/coe.html For good links. As Diane mentions. Some of them are useful, some of them are useless. You have to go through and decoide which codes of ethics fit with your personal code of ethics. -- ******************************************* Marcel Beaudoin & Moogli ******************************************* 'Dain Bramaged.' ******************************************* |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On 11 Jul 2003 15:14:23 GMT Fitjar7 whittled these words:
I hear so much about what is ethical and what is not. My question is, who sets these ethic standards? I have never seen as many self-styled experts as in the breeding of pure bred dogs, Ultimately YOU decide what YOU think is ethical or not. If you consider it ethical to support practices that contribute to the slaughter of millions of pet animals that is your choice. I know that not everyone thinks it is an important problem. For those who do think reducing the number of pet animals killed is an important goal then there is the issue of making decisions consistent with that belief. The breeder has control and thus the breeder's decisions can significantly influence what happens in the future of that animal. I believe in healthier pet animals. I believe in reducing the numbers killed. Thus I believe in supporting breeders who improve animal welfare and avoiding breeders who contribute to the problem. Instead of just shaking my head sadly at how we kill millions of dogs a year I do what is in my power, educate people about their choices. If everyone met *my* standards for ethical breeding our kill rate would plummet. That won't happen, but if people just raise their expectations a little bit then the health and welfare of dogs overall will improve. Diane Blackman |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:43:24 GMT Amy Dahl whittled these words:
snip Colors like blue merle must be bred for on purpose (avoiding sables, for example, because merle could go unnoticed in a sable, leading to an unintentional merle x merle breeding) and occur at a rate of 50% on average in blue x black breedings. Merle to merle result in the same ratio "On average over a large number of litters, breeding merle to merle will produce one fourth full colored dogs, one half merles and one fourth defective whites. Breeding merle to full color will produce one half full color and one half merles, but no defective whites. The merle to full color breeding, then, produces just as many merles as does the merle to merle breeding, and without the danger of defective puppies. The safe breeding for a merle, then, is to a non-merle mate. This breeding should produce all healthy puppies, and about half will be merles." http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/Genetics/Merle.html http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/Genetics/SableMerles.html In some breeds, the preferred colors only occur in breedings which also produce a proportion of mismarks--dogs that are disqualified under the breed standard. A lot of people wanting a purebred want the dog to meet the standard for the breed, even if they have no intention of showing. They might expect a discount on a dog that fails to meet the standard. This kind of thing is exactly why I believe that breeding for color is detrimental to dogs. Especially if the breeder's goal is to satisfy the market. So they breed for the color that can bring them income and at the same time produce dogs that are considered "undesireable." Bleech - that kind of thinking is what I used to think predominated the purebred fancy. I've been delighted to find out that it is not nearly as pervasive as I thought, although a lot more pervasive than is healthy for dogs. I don't breed for color, but it seems to me that if a breeder goes to the extra effort, expense, and selection necessary to produce a sought-after color, he/she could reasonably charge a price commensurate with that. If the litter included a less-sought-after color, the breeder might need to sell them at prices that would give the breeder a good choice of homes to select from. I have little empathy for this perspective as dogs as objects 'd art. I don't get it and I probably never will. Diane Blackman |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Going stud fee's for German Shepherd | me | Dog activities | 1 | August 4th 03 12:41 PM |