Dog breeders advice for starting as a breeder.

[fluffbreeder]

I have a question as I’ve been thinking longer term about being a breeder, I’m 50 now and would something I would look to start in 5-8 years, I already own 3 dogs of the breed I love and I’ve had dogs for over 25+ years. We have acres and the space and funds for me to do this and my DH is onboard.

How does anyone start as the KC pups are all breed restricted? I’d love to hear from breeders, did you plan to become one?

this would be my only role as I’m aiming to retire so I’d like to do my research now.

How did you get your first puppy you could breed from and how frequently do you have litters?

Also I do hear there are enough dogs, and it’s an irresponsible thing to do, is that generally the thought of breeders as well? Is this something to just keep a pipe dream?

My plan would be to get the next pup, female and not restricted in the next 2 years, but would a KC breeder sell to me?

many thanks in advance for any advice, good and bad!

@LandSharksAnonymous I never said you were motivated by money and I haven't over simplified or missed the point. And you ask some daft questions such as the one about feeding your children.
Of course I understand you have to meet your monthly bills. I just said you can't count the money you earn from a job when you are not doing that job. And my maths tells me that you earn about the same for breeding as you do in your salaried job. Most importantly, it is your choice!
Also, if you can charge £3k or more for a pup, I don't see why you wouldn't.

Edited to say, one could argue that breeding dogs gives you three months off work - albeit to do other work - and allows you to pay your bills.

@redboxer321
Further, we human beings have bred so much and there are so many of us, we need animals to help us produce food. Or we think we do.
Even when there were far, far fewer humans around than there are now, we kept livestock. Even before humans societies had livestock, they had dogs to help with the hunt. We're an omnivorous species.

I personally broadly agree with the aims of Peta.
And I 100% don't. I think PETA's aims are wrong-headed and short-sighted. Also delusional, because animals in the wild don't have the perfect lives that PETA thinks domestic ones should enjoy. Which is not say that I think ditching a retired working dog at a rescue centre is acceptable, because it isn't, at all.

But let's think again about what dogs do, and thr real world in which they do it.
Police, military and security dogs: whatever we like to think about the human race, it is far from perfect. We will continue to benefit from the help of dogs in those roles indefinitely. Is it right to use them like that? I think so. Many working dogs have lives that give them massive fulfillment of their genetic drives - drives that deliberate breeding by people have accentuated, it is true, but are the dogs happy? The ones I've seen seem to be.
Guide dogs and other assistance dogs: irreplaceable. If PETA get their way, there won't be any.
Search and rescue dogs: currently also irreplaceable. Next time anyone who is signed up to PETA is lost on a mountain or stuck under a collapsed building, I hope they've left instructions that no tragic enslaved dogs are to be forced to help to find them.

Dogs only exist because, millennia ago, some people and a subspecies of wolf came to an accommodation. In my opinion, this was an incredible thing: two distinct species coming together for their mutual benefit. If you don't see how awe-inspiring that was, agreement is going to be difficult.

@redboxer321 why would I sell a dog for £3k though? I just need to cover my expenses and make the money I have lost through SUPL. I'm not in it for the money, which has been my point the whole time...

Dog breeding gives me three months off work...to do other work, in your mind. I suppose it does, if you think of it very simply. Except for the fact my day job is a doddle compared to raising a litter. It's like comparing a barnacle and a lion.

Agree
And feel the need to justify why they feel no guilt including those who perpetuate this as purchasers ….. interesting isn’t it.
I never hear people who go to rescue centres ever feeling the need to justify why they don’t feel guilt.
They have nothing to justify

How do you know I'm not?

That was kind of my thought too: bit of a leap to assume that because we care about dogs we don't care at least as much about children.

Oh come on: nobody is sitting there in judgement of people who get dogs from rescue centres telling them that they SHOULD, MUST, feel terribly guilty.

It's fucking tiresome when people assume you should feel guilty, and then when you tell them you don't, and explain why, they manage to turn that back on you too: 'Ooh, look, now they're justifying themselves. Proof of guilt!'

Nope. Proof of having a well-thought-out position.

I literally work with children I care about as much as I do my own. I have room to care about dogs too. As if care is measurable. But we all know what the Ban Breeding Brigade are like. Ban bad breeding, absolutely. Ban reputable breeding - nope.

But why wouldn't you? You are selling a quality product and you should be paid a fair price. You shouldn't be making a loss.
You have indicated that I am naive and pretty much called me simple which is not very nice. Not sure what your day job being a doddle has got to do with it either. I'll say it again: you choose to breed dogs but you are not performing some kind of public service for which we should all be grateful.
Also, you take home £4k a month. That's after tax I guess which means you must be on about £65kpa and your job is a doddle and you can take a three month sabbatical every couple of years? I want your job!

@EdithStourton Even when there were far, far fewer humans around than there are now, we kept livestock. Even before humans societies had livestock, they had dogs to help with the hunt. We're an omnivorous species.
Times change

And I 100% don't (agree with PETA). I think PETA's aims are wrong-headed and short-sighted. Also delusional, because animals in the wild don't have the perfect lives that PETA thinks domestic ones should enjoy.
I am not an expert on PETA but I don't think they say this.

ditching a retired working dog at a rescue centre is acceptable, because it isn't, at all.
The question is, what are we going to do about it? I am saying that I am willing to consider separating completely from other animals if it would benefit other animals in general. You are not and that's ok.

We will continue to benefit from the help of dogs in those roles indefinitely. Is it right to use them like that? I think so.
I don't.

Many working dogs have lives that give them massive fulfillment of their genetic drives - drives that deliberate breeding by people have accentuated, it is true, but are the dogs happy? The ones I've seen seem to be.
It would be what you don't see that I would worry about.

Guide dogs and other assistance dogs: irreplaceable.
We can put on a man on the moon and we can't build technology to help people with sight loss?

Search and rescue dogs: currently also irreplaceable. Next time anyone who is signed up to PETA is lost on a mountain or stuck under a collapsed building, I hope they've left instructions that no tragic enslaved dogs are to be forced to help to find them.
You're sounding rather unkind and a little bit silly. Human beings need to take responsibility for themselves. Animals are not ours to use as we see fit. Having said that I am not necessarily against some service animals.

Dogs only exist because, millennia ago, some people and a subspecies of wolf came to an accommodation. In my opinion, this was an incredible thing: two distinct species coming together for their mutual benefit. If you don't see how awe-inspiring that was, agreement is going to be difficult.
You have got to be kidding me! Some may be but many absolutely not. Honestly, your argument is straight out of the I give cows and sheep a life by eating them book!

@redboxer321
Having said that I am not necessarily against some service animals.
Well, you'd better wake up to your pals at PETA then:
'But PETA believes that it would be in animals’ best interests if they were no longer bred to be dependent on humans.'
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
Obviously, service animals are distinct from pets, but they are nonetheless dependent on humans.

About how anyone signed up to PETA shouldn't want a search and rescue dog to come looking for them:
You're sounding rather unkind and a little bit silly.
No, I'm just applying logic and rationality to the concept. If you don't think animals should be used by humans, you're being a total bloody hypocrite if you expect a dog to spend an icy night searching for you up a mountain.

And you have a nerve to call me 'silly' when you missed the 'mutual benefit' point entirely. I was talking about then, the time of domestication. I would entirely concede that some dogs have shitty lives, courtesy of people.

@EdithStourton I don't know why you feel the need to be so aggressive but just to be clear I am not pals with any one in PETA. I broadly support their viewpoint on most things but I am not an expert and I am sure you would be able to find things on their website that I don't agree with.

You say rational, I say silly. That's ok. And again, to be clear, I don't expect any dog or person to spend an icy night searching for me up a mountain.

Then doesn't matter. It is the now that matters.
As for your comment: "You have a nerve to call me 'silly'," honestly, who do you think you are?!

And so you know, I largely agree with this statement: "But PETA believes that it would be in animals’ best interests if they were no longer bred to be dependent on humans."
In my post, I said: "Having said that I am not necessarily against some service animals." I haven't decided which service animals and in what context they could be used because, you know what, none of this matters, nothing is going to change.

As for your comment: "You have a nerve to call me 'silly'," honestly, who do you think you are?!
Someone who objects to being called silly, maybe?

Someone who isn't 'aggressive', but who will notice logical inconsistencies and pull them out.

And please, understand that PETA wants us to have no domestic animals. That is their ultimate aim. It's harder to find that admission on their website than it used to be, but I do not imagine for a second that they have changed.

As for your comment: "You have a nerve to call me 'silly'," honestly, who do you think you are?!
Someone who objects to being called silly, maybe?
The reason I was calling you silly was because of your use of hyperbolic language. I noticed you got the "bloody" and the "fucking" out later on in the thread too which is also a bit silly.
And I was objecting to the word: nerve. It's aggressive and threatening. Not far from how very dare you.

Someone who isn't 'aggressive', but who will notice logical inconsistencies and pull them out.
Trust me, aggressive. Logical inconsistencies? No.

And please, understand that PETA wants us to have no domestic animals. That is their ultimate aim. It's harder to find that admission on their website than it used to be, but I do not imagine for a second that they have changed.
Fine by me.

@redboxer321 I'm not going to consider anyone who thinks PETA's aims are sensible as being entirely logical.

I'm also allowed to swear.

<shrugs>
We'll have to agree to disagree.

@EdithStourton
I think PETA's aims are worth considering. I think it is entirely logical to at least try to have an open mind.

I’m not on the wind up at all I’ve name changed BTW and I’ve only just revisiting this shitfight of a thread. It was a tad bonkers in the first half but the 2nd half has gone utterly crazy.

An open mind is a good thing, but sooner or later you shpuld probably draw some conclusions. I've thought about things like this over the several decades that I've been an adult, and I have some fairly clear opinions as a result.

I have some fairly clear opinions as a result.

And don't we just know it!

I can't imaging being a grown adult and believing PETA do or think anything of value. Embarrassing.

I know! Fancy being against the exploitation of animals! Embarrassing!

Not saying they get everything right, nor that I agree with them on every matter but at least they are trying to do something other than post on a forum about how much they care about children and how good breeders (however you define that) should be breeding dogs.

I don't agree with it but, on balance, I can see the value of good breeders breeding dogs.

I wonder if the children you work with would describe you as the caring person you think you are. Quite possibly not.

Careful, now. Last time you personally attacked me, you got a 24 hour ban ☺️

😯😮

munches popcorn, refreshes thread every two minutes

Did I? Well that is news to me.
Questioning whether someone who writes posts that are designed solely to belittle another poster, not to mention all the lol emojis you used to send to a number of posters, if they are really as caring as they claim to be counts for a personal attack? Now don't be a silly squid.

Try looking in the mirror for the real attacker.

The emojis are there to be used. I'm sorry you are so delicate that you can't deal with a smiley face. It must be very hard to cope with life.