Breeders can't let puppies go to new home?

[hipslikecinderella]

I've had an email from a breed club committee member suggesting that breeders can't let puppies go to a new home at this time.

Also had a look on Kennel Club site, which is saying that collecting a puppy is not 'essential travel' so that ties in with this.

Does anyone know the actual situation?

So tricky all around, I wouldn't want to get anyone into trouble, or myself. But equally, people's businesses will surely suffer?

I can’t speak for another poster but as far as I am concerned it is worth talking to people about breeders because firstly, other people are reading and may make a better choice and secondly, people need to change their future choices. With no demand, puppy farmers and ‘I just want one litter from my amazing dog’ breeders will have to stop.

There are too many unwanted puppies and dogs of all kinds to justify adding to that number without having a very clear and morally defensible breeding aim. Which includes taking care of the breed’s health, so, for me, just because someone is breeding a recognized breed is not a good enough reason to breed. For example, breeding to create health problems like brachycephalic breeds is as bad as crossing two random breeds because it is fashionable, and as bad as breeding because you think your dog is particularly cute.

I have dogs from breeders and dogs from rescues but I don’t pay or in any way encourage anyone who breeds badly.

They should be able and willing to hang onto them a few weeks.
That depends on so many things, not just on whether the breeder is in it for the money. The breeder's personal circumstances may well have changed in the four months since the bitch was mated. The breeder may be in a high-risk group and needing to self-isolate and finding it impossible, under those circumstances, to socialise the puppies. The breeder may just feel that an individual owner with one puppy has better odds of socialising one puppy under the present circumstances than he or she does of socialising the whole litter.

This bit is very long. Apologies in advance.
It's all too easy to split breeders into Good and Evil, when IMHO there is a massive grey area in between. By pushing this split, as a society we have actively discouraged people from breeding the family pet. Breeding the family pet doesn't usually earn an A* rating, but it's a damn sight better than a puppy being produced either in a commercial facility (by which I mean somewhere that is clean and the dogs are well cared for, but are not given the one-to-one attention that they need, and are seen solely as money-makers) or a puppy farm (squalor).

In my mind there is a ranking of breeders:

1. The A*: those who are in it for the long haul, who health test, who keep a puppy from most of the litters they breed, who won't breed a dog who is not conformationally sound, who understand the risks of inbreeding and avoid it, who won't breed a dog from working lines unless it has been proven in work and/or trials, who have their dogs in the house (not necessarily all the time, but for much of it), who keep their dogs until they die. I include in this breeders of breeds that are conformational train wrecks, like pugs, but who are trying to breed more moderate dogs. They sell to vetted owners with a contract. They may or may not endorse their dogs (if pedigree), but if they do endorse they need to be open about the conditions under which endorsements will lifted. Will take a dog back/assist with rehoming.
2. The light grey area. This includes many of those who breed decent dogs together for a purpose (which can just be a temperamentally sound pet), pedigree or not; it also includes people who breed a pet, but educate themselves about breeding, take advice from someone more experienced, and make sure that they have some homes lined up before they even begin. These breeders consider health, inbreeding and temperament, keep their dogs with them all their lives, look after them well (health, stimulation, exercise, training, etc). They have the financial resources to pay for emergency vet treatment if necessary. They quiz the prospective owners and generally use a contract. Will usually take a dog back/assist with rehoming.
3. The dark grey area. People who breed their amazing pet without any actual understanding of whether their pet is amazing or not, and not much thought about the suitability of the mating, or any understanding of how to bring up puppies. People who slap any two dogs together, pedigree or not, and hope to make a quick buck out of it, but at least keep their dogs at home with them. It can be a bit hard to separate these guys from the light grey ones if they put on a convincing patter. In fact, the dividing line can be quite hazy: dogs can be purpose-bred in poor circumstances with little thought for their long-term welfare and without much care for what happens to the puppies, beyond the one that the breeder wanted to keep. What is considered ‘poor circumstances’, though, varies from person to person. I have no problem with puppies being reared in a whelping box in a stable under a heat lamp, provided someone is in and out all day to check on them and everything else is good too, but I’m sure some people would find that unacceptable.
4. Would not touch with a bargepole. Anyone, Kennel Club assured or not, who breeds puppies with a high COI. Anyone who breeds a dog they know to be temperamentally unsound (not just badly trained and therefore a bit barky) or fundamentally unhealthy (breeding a Cavalier you know to have syringomyelia, for example). Anyone who breeds dogs that are conformationally wrecked (and some breeds come into that category). Commercial facilities. And worst of all, puppy farms.

I’m sure that there are things I’ve forgotten or overlooked. Personally I would (and have) obtained puppies from the second rank of breeders. If that group was bigger, we might find that there was less of a market for puppy-farmed puppies, but this is a classic case of the best (the A* breeders) being made the enemy of the good (the second-rank breeders). Equally, if that second-rank group was bigger, it would probably be worth having some sort of KC or council scheme where a prospective pet breeder could sign up and do a course and get a homecheck, giving puppy buyers a level of confidence that they weren’t being scammed by some bastard passing off puppy-farmed fluff-balls as being lovingly home-bred.

And it should also be said that there are unwanted dogs in rescue, but these do not generally come from the breeders in the first two groups in my ranking. Puppy buyers definitely need to be educated that a dog is for a life, but a badly-bred, neurotic dog from a filthy barn is far more likely to end up with the Blue Cross than a cheerful puppy born in someone’s dining-room and reared around a family for eight weeks.

@Wolfiefan yes yes we get it. Your breeder amazing unselfish not in it for the money best breeder ever (conveniently and also breeding the dog you wanted - don’t seem to have enough convictions to have gotten a rescue!?) every other breeder bad evil and awful at breeding dogs.

Excellent post GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman.

This tendency to suggest there's a single way to be a "good breeder" and lumping everyone else into a scale of bad to terrible is reductive and unhelpful.

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman fantastic post 👏🏼

I would be also concerned about the allegedly altruistic breeder of expensive pedigrees in a breed that is prone to serious health issues and a terribly short lifespan.

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman is a voice of reason.

@Wolfiefan is passionate, thinks little of me, but she's not wrong about most of what she says.

Personally I'm hoping things maybe be relaxed by the time our pups are ready to be going to homes, and it's going to be very difficult if they are not, but I won't let them go unchipped, vaccinated or until homes are vetted.

Thanks, guys. I've thought a lot (perhaps too much) about this over the years.