Labradoodle & Goldendoodle Forum
What Makes a Breeder a GOOD BREEDER?
There are all sorts of people who breed dogs for a variety of reasons. I'm not distinguishing between doodle and non-doodle breeders right now.
-- Nice families who want to let their kids experience birth or think their dogs are great and want to make puppies and heck why not make some cash (or not) in the meantime? Probably just have one or two litters.
-- Hobby Breeders -- those who have an income from other sources that can afford to breed 'for the betterment of the breed' and don't really make any more...in fact they may be merely spending money on their hobby. They don't breed too often...only when there's a really great match. Health and temperament and working ability is important in breeding choices. Health testing is done.
-- Untitled Breeders -- those who do it both for profit and for the love of the breed. May be very small scale or a little larger, but dogs are pets and they may or may not health test.
-- Backyard Breeders -- folks (may be a "nice" family or not) who repeatedly breed their pets on a smaller scale ('small' is relative though) and make some profit or a lot. This definition is not clear exactly but it's not really about a 'backyard'.
-- Puppy Mills -- large scale puppy producers whose claim to infamy is the sheer volume of puppies they put out and the general poor living environment/neglect of the breeding dogs and perhaps puppies.
Okay I'm sure we can fight about the categorization and titles...but I just meant it as a glimpse not real official definitions.
My question is when supporting responsible breeding...WHAT does that mean to you? What makes a breeder a "GOOD" breeder or "RESPONSIBLE" breeder?
Here is my list:
1) Dogs are PETs and well cared for...to me this is a no brainer. Anyone who can't take care of their own dogs and neglects/abuses their own dogs...should not have dogs..PERIOD...let alone be breeding. Not even sure this needs to be listed because it should be a given. But this is just basic good pet ownership---this has nothing to do with the undertaking of breeding.
2) Breeder has studied their breed intensively and knows what they are creating. They know DOGS in general and have a solid grasp of training, grooming, etc needs for their breed of choice.
3) Breeder knows his/her dogs' lines/pedigree VERY well and knows the health issues or temperament issues behind his/her dogs.
4) Breeder only breeds health tested dogs (because some things can be known and other things tested for).
5) Breeder offers lifetime support to the families buying puppies.
6) Breeder are CHOOSY about where pups go -- they won't sell to anyone the way one sells a toaster to anyone.
7) Breeder will always take a dog back.
8) Breeder wants to keep in touch with the family afterward...it's not a 'all sales are final' type of deal because they want to know how what they bred is doing in order to inform them of best breeding choices for the future and/or if any health disparities pop up.
9) Breeder stays up-to-date on issues in his/her breed of choice, is educated in whelping and all the stuff that can come up during puppy raising.
10) Breeder takes time to adequately socialize pups and get them acclimated to living with people.
11) Breeder breeds with a GOAL in mind. Not just my dog is wonderful and my neighbor has a stud. They might be trying to improve conformation, or health, or coat or something more doodle related to further the breed development of a new breed...but there is a planned goal in mind that makes sense and doesn't compromise the dog in any way.
To me ALL these things are of vital importance. HOW MUCH I'm willing to pay for a pup is a personal issue between me and my bank account ;-) But I just can't stand behind a breeder that doesn't do this stuff. My stand is that if the MAIN thing we look for in a breeder is that they are as nice as us with their dogs and we can afford to pay them...we're setting the bar too low.
-- Nice families who want to let their kids experience birth or think their dogs are great and want to make puppies and heck why not make some cash (or not) in the meantime? Probably just have one or two litters.
-- Hobby Breeders -- those who have an income from other sources that can afford to breed 'for the betterment of the breed' and don't really make any more...in fact they may be merely spending money on their hobby. They don't breed too often...only when there's a really great match. Health and temperament and working ability is important in breeding choices. Health testing is done.
-- Untitled Breeders -- those who do it both for profit and for the love of the breed. May be very small scale or a little larger, but dogs are pets and they may or may not health test.
-- Backyard Breeders -- folks (may be a "nice" family or not) who repeatedly breed their pets on a smaller scale ('small' is relative though) and make some profit or a lot. This definition is not clear exactly but it's not really about a 'backyard'.
-- Puppy Mills -- large scale puppy producers whose claim to infamy is the sheer volume of puppies they put out and the general poor living environment/neglect of the breeding dogs and perhaps puppies.
Okay I'm sure we can fight about the categorization and titles...but I just meant it as a glimpse not real official definitions.
My question is when supporting responsible breeding...WHAT does that mean to you? What makes a breeder a "GOOD" breeder or "RESPONSIBLE" breeder?
Here is my list:
1) Dogs are PETs and well cared for...to me this is a no brainer. Anyone who can't take care of their own dogs and neglects/abuses their own dogs...should not have dogs..PERIOD...let alone be breeding. Not even sure this needs to be listed because it should be a given. But this is just basic good pet ownership---this has nothing to do with the undertaking of breeding.
2) Breeder has studied their breed intensively and knows what they are creating. They know DOGS in general and have a solid grasp of training, grooming, etc needs for their breed of choice.
3) Breeder knows his/her dogs' lines/pedigree VERY well and knows the health issues or temperament issues behind his/her dogs.
4) Breeder only breeds health tested dogs (because some things can be known and other things tested for).
5) Breeder offers lifetime support to the families buying puppies.
6) Breeder are CHOOSY about where pups go -- they won't sell to anyone the way one sells a toaster to anyone.
7) Breeder will always take a dog back.
8) Breeder wants to keep in touch with the family afterward...it's not a 'all sales are final' type of deal because they want to know how what they bred is doing in order to inform them of best breeding choices for the future and/or if any health disparities pop up.
9) Breeder stays up-to-date on issues in his/her breed of choice, is educated in whelping and all the stuff that can come up during puppy raising.
10) Breeder takes time to adequately socialize pups and get them acclimated to living with people.
11) Breeder breeds with a GOAL in mind. Not just my dog is wonderful and my neighbor has a stud. They might be trying to improve conformation, or health, or coat or something more doodle related to further the breed development of a new breed...but there is a planned goal in mind that makes sense and doesn't compromise the dog in any way.
To me ALL these things are of vital importance. HOW MUCH I'm willing to pay for a pup is a personal issue between me and my bank account ;-) But I just can't stand behind a breeder that doesn't do this stuff. My stand is that if the MAIN thing we look for in a breeder is that they are as nice as us with their dogs and we can afford to pay them...we're setting the bar too low.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Adina P on
-
I agree that there are breeders who breed toward a goal. I believe there are labradoodle breeders with that in mind. It's a little different in that some have their own 'standards' for what the ideal LD is like, but they take it seriously and really want health and temperament, etc. As to the brachocephalic breeds...well I have NO idea who thought such a conformation was a good idea...but yes those breeders breed toward a goal (just not one I agree with).
Health testing/genetics when it comes to human kids is a whole diff ballgame. I am making a little kid right now (she's baking away) and the diff is that no matter what I have a 100% guarantee of a forever home with me (until she moves out!). So it's not like I'm breeding children and selling them...I'm KEEPING mine regardless of hip dysplasia or nearsightedness or whatever. -
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Tramell on
-
Good discussion - though I have to say, it's not nearly as spicy as the discussion that inspired it :-)
My 2 cents - the age at which a 'breeder' releases a puppy speaks to me about the character of the breeder. I've seen a couple breeders who let a pup go at 5-6 wks old. In my opinion, this is way to young for a physcologically healthy puppy. I don't like the feel that the breeder is just trying to get rid of the pups at the earliest possible time.
I also prefer the female having no more then 1 litter per year. I may be wrong about this but it just seems rough on a female to have a litter every time she comes into season.
My Webster came from a family/untitled/??? breeder who have a lifetime of animal (dog/alpaca/horse) experience. They made sure that both parents were on site whenever someone came to visit and encouraged puppy owners to come visit until the puppies were old enough to leave the mom. All the information they gave us (the puppy owners) was prefaced with "our experience with our dogs" and ended with "please do lots of research before making a decision". I have been contacted at 3 months, 4 months, and 6 months asking how Webster is doing and I have sent pictures. I am also in contact with some of Webster's littermates (at least their humans).
My cousin recently bought a purebred poodle from a reputable breeder with all the proper credentials, testing, etc. This pup came from a decent environment and was well cared for, however, I would much prefer buying from the type of breeder Webster came from then the type of "official" breeder from whom my cousin bought her puppy. I am less concerned about health testing and more concerned about the personality of the parents, the relationships between dogs and owners, and the care shown to the puppies. -
-
-
Why ARE things more spicy in the main forum???? LOL
The comparison between Webster's breeder and your cousin's breeder creates a false dichotomy. It's not either or. It doesn't have to be either a KIND, INTERESTED family breeder who cares for puppies and dogs OR a cold 'official' breeder who does health testing. I think you CAN have both. Really good breeders DO care deeply about their dogs and their puppies and show them excellent love and care ... AND ... they do all the 'official' stuff too.
Health testing, etc doesn't exclude doggy parents with excellent personalities. -
-
-
Another question I have on this issue:
Adrianne Matzkin is THRILLED with her Samantha (who did come from a mill she later sadly discovered)...she realizes she got lucky. Others whose dogs came from pet stores and puppy mills and BYB's also love their dogs dearly and are happy with them despite the fact they came from poor circumstances. Obviously a great dog is a great dog and we don't judge our dogs based on where they came from. Karen's Jack is the love of her life, despite the fact he's rehome of puppy mill origin. A dog isn't good or bad based on how much one spent on him/her.
Does one's satisfaction with one's dog make the BREEDER a good breeder or worth supporting? Is it a correct assumption to work backwards and say "My dog is GREAT...therefore my Breeder is great?"
Do the ends (a happy doodle owner with a less expensive dog) justify the means (buying cheaply from someone with poor breeding practice)?
I would say NO. No because although Thule is great...I'm pretty sure her breeder was not. Just because a puppy mill dog turns out great...doesn't justify the breeding practices of the mill. I don't think you can work backward like that. The breeder must be judged on many more factors. -
-
Permalink Reply by Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle on
-
I agree.
Often, when I try to educate people on the source of the puppies in pet stores, they become very defensive. "I love my dog" is the most common response, and then usually a testimonial to how sweet the dog is, how smart the dog is, etc. It is as if by derogating the source of the puppy, I am derogating the person's dog as well.
I can't understand this. It's just common sense that isn't the dog's fault that he was bred in a mill, so how is it an insult to your dog to criticize puppy mills? Maybe people are just being defensive about their choices when they use the fact that their dog is great as a testimonial that the breeder/source is also great, I don't know.
Everyone loves their dog and thinks he's great, regardless of health or behavior problems. Those are subjective things. So that's no testimonial of anything. You can love your dog and despise the circumstances of his birth. My issue about this is, do you want to use your hard-earned dollars to support irresponsible (and in the case of mills, abusive) breeding practices? Do you want to encourage and reward people for these things?
A great dog does NOT justify or validate a lousy breeder. -
-
-
Right.
My good friend's poodle mutt, Amaya, took to crating amazingly well. Amaya is from a rescued litter. The puppy foster mom for this organization keeps pups outside, they have a dog house and a yard to play in. They are well socialized with adults and kids, but not indoor pups. Amaya's amazing crated behavior has NOTHING to do with how she was raised. It's not because of some amazing attention to crating that she's this way. She just IS because of whatever luck-of-the-draw genetics and inherent temperament she received. Who knows who the dad is or where her mom came from? Amaya is a great dog...MOST dogs are pretty darn great...especially in the eyes of the owners who adore them. But that's not necessarily connected to whether they were bred properly or whether their breeders deserve compensation and reward for breeding. Doesn't mean the breeder is a good or responsible BREEDER. I think it's important to separate those two things and recognize they are different issues. -
-
Permalink Reply by LuvMyAbby&Kaela on
-
Of course people will love their dogs and can have great dogs no matter where they came from. The difference is Puppy Mills are evil abhorrations that should all be shut down, the unscrupulous owners locked up and the key thrown away! They hurt dogs! They harm dogs! Your next door neighbor breeding Mitzy and Rover once or twice because they want to experience puppies and make a bit of pocket money are not in this category. I dont think it is irresponsible to buy a dog from these people because they didnt do genetic health testing and provide a 2 yr guarantee. You take your chances. Odds in nature that 2 unrelated (non-inbred) healthy animals will infact create a healthy animal. Just like a humans, there are far more healthy, normal individuals than ones born with illnesses and defects. With Abby I paid good money for a guarantee that is null and void within 2 yrs of her purchase anyway. So what essentially have I paid for over and above for what I paid for Kaela? Abby's breeder's word on paper she comes from healthy stock? Kaela's family showed me the parents and said "they are healthy" I saw them they indeed looked healthy and beautiful with wonderful temperaments. Chances are she will be just fine for the rest of her life, just like Abby's odds. But on the other hand Abby could become ill with something at 4 yrs old even though I paid the extra money for all the genetic testing etc her breeder did.
I also dont ever purchase extended warranties on my vehicles. We always said the warranty the vehicle came with is good enough and any bugs would be worked out within the time frame of the original warrany. We have always been right and have never to date purchased a lemon. The vast majority of new cars are not lemons. Our cars have all outlasted us.
Now if I personally decided to become a breeder of doodles, I think I would definitely go the route of my breeder and do all the health testing etc, because I would get a tenfold return on my investment. I would sell the puppies with a guarantee, hope for the best that I dont have to pay out within 2 years (because even though her testing shows she doesnt have, hip, knee, blood disorders, there are no guarantees she wont get them anyways). Having done all this I could sell for $2000 instead of $500. It would be lucrative. I dont think my sole purpose for breeding would be "the betterment of the breed" Lip service! My sole purpose would be to make decent money doing something I actually enjoy doing. Nothing at all wrong with that.
Now I dont want any of the breeders on this site to think I am being negative towards their business. Nor am I saying they are being greedy. Every one has a right to make money as long as they arent hurting anyone or anything in the process. We all have bills and all have to make a living somehow. The whole point of the original conversation that got me wanting to respond was the connotation that only "breeders" should produce puppies. I dont think so. I dont think there is anything wrong with the layman doing it on a different scale. You are not nescessarily selling an inferior product if you are the Joneses next door. The vast majority of dogs for many many many generations did infact come from the Joneses next door and not from ABC DREAM DOODLES INC. -
-
-
I have more to say *grin* ... but am at work and writing from a phone.
A question: So then as long as someone isn't causing direct harm to parent dogs and puppies (i.e. not a puppy mill) would you say they are just as good a breeder as anyone else? Let's say 2,000 DK members (who I'd say are nice people who love their dogs) decided to breed (doodles or otherwise)...does this mean they are all, by definition, just fine as breeders simply because they like dogs? There's got to be more to it than that that sets apart a GOOD AND RESPONSIBLE breeder from one who is not. Puppy millers aren't just 'bad breeders' they are something far worse. So aside from animal neglect and abuse...which has nothing to do with training.... what ELSE makes a breeder not worth supporting? -
-
-
A question: So then as long as someone isn't causing direct harm to parent dogs and puppies (i.e. not a puppy mill) would you say they are just as good a breeder as anyone else?
I would pay $500 to the Joneses. I would pay them for their trouble nothing more.
I would pay $2000. to a good breeder. I would pay them for their trouble plus the extras (health testing guarantee etc...
I would not pay the Joneses $2000.
I would not expect my breeder to sell her dogs for $500.
I would expect neither to breed their dogs more than twice. (Yes I have always been uncomfortable with even the top rated breeders allowing their dog to be pregnant too often.)
Should I buy Ecco shoes over Hush Puppies??? Does it make me irresponsible to pay $30. for comfortable Dr. Scholls vs $150. for a pair of good Ecco's? No! Some people want the Ecco's they want the prestige of owning Ecco's and would rather pay the higher price because somehow they think they are better. I own both. But there is nothing at all wrong with Dr. Scholl's. A sturdy, reliable, comfortable shoe just as good a quality but not as good a name. Doesnt make the Dr. Scholls dollar store crap.
The chances of 2000 DK members wanting to breed their dogs (it is a lot of work I know! I never negated that!) are pretty darn slim. I think realistically you might have 20 DK members so inclined. I think if you want to buy a $500 dog off of one of them you are not being irresponsible, nor are they. Neither do I think they are taking away from business "breeders". -
-
Permalink Reply by 1xar0x2rcx0li on
-
"The chances of 2000 DK members wanting to breed their dogs (it is a lot of work I know! I never negated that!) are pretty darn slim. I think realistically you might have 20 DK members so inclined. I think if you want to buy a $500 dog off of one of them you are not being irresponsible, nor are they. Neither do I think they are taking away from business "breeders"."
If people keep talking about how easy it is, that its a sure thing money maker, and that people wil buy dogs from untested breeders, then the number will be closer to 500 than 20, and it will be a terrible thing for the breed. -
-
-
If people keep talking about how easy it is, that its a sure thing money maker, and that people wil buy dogs from untested breeders, then the number will be closer to 500 than 20, and it will be a terrible thing for the breed.
No I never said it is money for nothing! The $600 I paid for Kaela was well earned by the 'Joneses'. Puppies are lots of work bar none! I did it before! So it's not a "sure thing moneymaker" or an easy buck so to speak.
But I feel there is nothing at all wrong with me buying from the Joneses as opposed to a higher "breeder" because I am not interested in paying for the extra testing etc....
With Abby I paid for all that. I am sure she will grow old healthy and sound.
With Kaela I just bought a pup from the Joneses first shots and deworming the only extras. I am sure she will grow up healthy and sound.
My breeder who makes a living off her doodles did nothing wrong.
The Joneses who wanted to breed their 2 pets did nothing wrong.
No animals were hurt or exploited in either situation. They both recouped what they put into it plus a bit. -
© 2024 Created by Adina P.
Powered by
