Checking out a breeder

[DontShootMeDown]

Hi,

I want to make sure we don’t support an unethical breeder when we get our puppy. Please don’t tell me to go to a rescue, I know that’s what many people feel is the only ethical way to get a dog, but it’s not for us. We want a very specific type of dog, plus we have a four year old so many rescues won’t consider us.

So we have found a breeder who seems great. She interviewed us first, asked to meet us face to face, had us in her home where we saw the mum and dad dogs, saw mum feeding pups, she showed us all their paperwork and health checks, asked us to sign a contract including promise to return the puppy if we can’t cope. She has an FB group for all her past Puppy owners and the owners on their seem very happy. She clearly adores her dogs.

My only reservation is she owns thirty five dogs. Thirty five! We saw them all. And she has quite a few litters a year albeit from different mums and no mum will ever have more than four litters in a lifetime. After four litters she spays the mum but keeps them as a loved family pet. We saw our our pup’s great grandmother.

Is owning this many dogs a red flag or in the context do you think it’s ok? They were all clean and happy looking and she has a huge garden and seemed to lavish them with love.

Also is there anything else I should check?

Thanks

That's a puppy farm and incredibly unethical. She is profiting from her poor dogs' continuous pregnancies and if she is a cross-breed breeder then there is no ethical reason for her to have so many dogs and no ethical way for her to breed. I would avoid like the plague and massively rethink your breed choice.

I've just discussed this with other dog friends and we are all sat here in different combinations of fury and disbelief. It's people like this OP that are why there are so many crossbreeds in rescue. Why don't they understand that even with health checked parents their dog could still get the problems of both breeds. At once. And on this scale? My God, you'd have to be such an idiot to buy a dog from someone like this. Just insane.

Regardless of breed or cross breed, 35 dogs would worry me.

Actually your breeder sounds ok to me. She is certainly a large scale breeder. But not cruel or mercenary by the sound of it. She's screened you, given good advice and will have the dog back if there's a problem later. That's not a puppy farmer.

Our dog came from a large show-line breeder who raises the dogs in kennels and would therefore not pass the incredibly high bar set by some people on here. But she produces healthy, good tempered dogs who socialise beautifully despite only coming into a home environment at 8-9 weeks. The mothers are not overbred. The lines are not excessively inbred. It's not a puppy farm but it is a business. I don't have a problem with that.

You said about the parents being KC registered but also about meeting the grandparents. Yet this a breeder who breeds cross breeds

By average breed pups I mean breeds common enough not to have ridiculously high prices without being too popular to have over inflated designer prices (so breeds selling on average for around £900 for KC pup).

I guess what I’m trying to understand is whether it is intrinsically wrong to breed for money if you treat the animals with love, have them living in your home, do all the Health checks, socialise the puppies, don’t breed your bitches more than four times in their life, interview your buyers, require them to return puppies if they can’t cope etc etc etc. Is it just the morality of making money out of aninals that people object to or is there a practical real life reason for the opposition?

Basically is this like the breast vs bottle debate? The parent child parking spaces debate? or is it more than that?

I'm confused by what people regard an ethical reason to breed a litter to be? Doing so to produce a breed standard conforming show puppy is far from guaranteeing welfare and often the complete opposite. It makes me laugh that people can be so naive to think that that would ensure any better animal welfare. And we wouldn't have so many health conditions (I know it's not all) to genetically test for if competitive breeders hadn't so selectively bred for generations to achieve aesthetic standards. Every single breeder makes money from their litter. Putting competition and prestige ahead of welfare (which is what often happens) is no better than breeding for money and I would be just as cautious buying from a competitive, breed club associated breeder. Im sure there are many many competitive breeders who put welfare first and are shining examples of what should be done but in the same respect I'm sure there are plenty of breeders of crosses who are perfectly ethical in what they do too. OP was simply asking how to make sure that was the case.

OP, 35 sounds like A LOT of dogs and it would put me off but I guess only you can judge the situation. I guess I can see that someone could potentially have that many dogs if they had help (you mentioned daughters) and ran it very well but 35 dogs running round a house just sounds like madness. I know of a few people with house fulls because they take in every waif and stray and they look after them very well but if she has 35 (it really is a lot!) through breeding and has four littters from every bitch, then I'm afraid I think this is definitely one to avoid.

I hope you enjoy your lovely little mix when you find one.

In simple terms OP, reputable breeders do not cross breed. It really is as simple as that.

Define reputable?

The issue with breeding for money is that it’s nigh on impossible to reliably make any kind of profit if it’s being done properly.

If someone is making a living from breeding dogs then it’s highly likely they’re either cutting corners somewhere, even if it’s not immediately apparent where, or they’re breeding at high enough volumes so the care of individual dogs/litters is impacted.

Breeding well is a very expensive endeavour. There are health tests to pay for (not all of which are one off expenses), health screening for the puppies (dependent on breed), show/competition entries (plus the associated costs of getting there), various pre-mating health expenses for the bitch, stud fees (plus the costs of travelling to him and also potentially accommodation), health care for the bitch during pregnancy, whelping equipment, extra food (both for the bitch during pregnancy and for the puppies when they’re ready to start weaning), all the extra power involved in keeping the litter warm and the endless extra washing of bedding, toys and other enrichment objects for the puppies, registrations (if relevant), microchipping, vet checks for the puppies... The list really does just go on and on plus it’s very easy to incur extra costs if there are any complications, especially as most bitches whelp at night when vet care is more expensive.

On top of this someone needs to be present with the bitch from just before she has the puppies to at least several weeks after birth but preferably right up until the puppies go to their new homes. In the early days it’s literally a 24/7 job monitoring them.

If someone is managing to make an actual living from breeding dogs then something, somewhere is not being done to an appropriate standard.

The breeder we chose only bred to either get a puppy for herself to work or from parents that had proven themselves in some field (showing, working etc)
Ours had 9 dogs but only 2 were entire and had she had one litter a year only.

I wouldn't buy from a breeder that breeds dogs that are unproven in the use they are intended for. Anyone who just breeds for no good reason is irresponsible in my opinion and I wouldn't consider buying from someone like that.

Define reputable?

Someone who doesn't churn out mongrels and sell them as designer crosses?

ProfessorCat beat me to it.**

Good breeders breed to develop the breed (whether you agree with KC standards is a separate matter).**

This is more apparent in those breeding working dogs where their entire reputation is based on how well the dogs do.**

If you buy from a pedigree breeder, then they're breeding to show standard or working standard. If you're buying from a mongrel breeder, they're breeding to sell.

Paying top dollar for a cross-breed is mad.

Really? So aslong as you don't breed a cross with a designer name attached your reputable? Nope, doesn't answer what makes a reputable breeder or what is a genuine reason to breed. From a dog welfare point of view, not a human interest point of view, what is a genuine reason to breed?

And develop the breed for what purpose? I agree people breeding working dogs for working roles is a genuine reason to breed but that's a minority and we're not all looking for working dogs. Not to mention that many breeders of working dogs don't breed to KC breed standards at all.

Jiggly I just don't agree that breeding to show a dog and breeding to a show standard is necessarily any more ethical than someone breeding for money. Showing is for the breeder, not the dog. Obviously I'm not including puppy farms churning out litter after litter, or those that irresponsibly breed to make a quick buck with no regard for welfare. But other than breeding a litter for working purpose, I still can't see what people regard as a genuinely ethical reason to breed?

“Showing is for the breeder, not the dog.”

I dispute this. I do not show, but my best friend does. (I do flyball instead)
Her current pup absolutely adores the ring - he really comes alive! He’s a little poser though.
I have rarely seen any dog that hated being there.

Are people seriously arguing that breeding to show standard is ethical Did you see the GSD at Crufts this year?

OP you’re getting a lot of emotional responses here but from what you’ve said their don’t seem to be any specific welfare concerns from the info you’ve given.

Folk will debate the ‘rights and wrongs’ all night but what you’re asking is whether your pup and it’s fanily are likely to have had a decent welfare experience and from what you’ve described they have. A breeder with 35 dogs who only has one litter at the moment is clearly not ‘churning them out’ and it sounds as if a lot of those dogs are either male or retired breeding bitches, so she’s ensuring they have lifelong homes.

It is possible she’s a mad-dog lady and her husband funds her lifestyle - she may not be breeding for profit.

Oops4- you hit the nail on the head!

My personal believe is that dog breeding should be for purpose.
Now the purpose of the majority of dogs is to be a pet. We might choose a dog breed for looks, size or reputation, but they have to cope with being a pet.
What this means in regards to producing and raising puppies is open for discussion.

Oh I'm sure he does. Please don't think I'm suggesting people that show don't care about their dogs welfare, it's not that at all. I just don't think it's any more a guarantee of welfare. I go to a trainer that competes in fly ball and obedience and I would never question that the dogs gain a lot from this or her welfare standards. I had been interested in agility until my ddog decided he was just too stubborn. I'm just trying to point out that there are very few reasons to breed that are genuinely not for our own interest/benefit. People are just so quick to slam a poster who might be considering a cross breed because there is this assumption that no one that bred a cross breed could possibly care about welfare and I don't think that is fair.

I didn't say it was ethical. I said they were doing it for a reason that wasn't just about profit.

Yet again I agree with cornflake.
My bitch cost me over £1000.
It was a big litter.
The breeder had to pay for health tests of parents. Liver shunt testing of puppies. Mum ended up needed a c section and spay too. (Just too many pups and some breech.) Pups needed specialist food and milk and round the clock care. And insurance and microchipping. And first vaccinations. And they came with food and a book of advice and info. The puppies needed to be socialised and cared for night and day. Mum will have needed care after the birth.
It's a HUGE undertaking.
I wouldn't and couldn't.
Our breeder only does it when she wants a new pup. She wants to ensure the next generation.
Dogs should be fit for purpose. It shouldn't be about competition. It should be about preserving what's best in the breed.
Deliberately cross breeding? Why? What are you preserving? Or is it just an attempt to make money? If they breed enough and cut enough corners and charge enough then they will make money.
Decent breeders at least cover their costs!

There are all sorts of valid reasons for breeding. Wanting to breed a litter of absolutely cracking family pets is no less noble a goal than wanting to produce a dog who will excel at working/showing/dog sports/etc.

As long as a breeder is doing everything within their power to produce healthy and sound puppies of good temperament then it doesn't matter at all whether they're going to be "just" family pets, assistance dogs, the next BiS at Crufts, whatever.

The issue specifically with breeding in order to make money is as I said above, breeding well does not lend itself at all well to making much in the way of profit.

Vetinari I think a show stack can be deceiving in some GSDs.* I know of one (now a flyball dog) that looks horribly roach-backed when stacked but is actually fine.*
I’m not saying that was the case with that one as the patterns were almost on the floor, but I don’t think it can be a blanket statement.**