How much for a KC registered chocolate labrador?

NoGoodNamesLeft

thorsoak wrote: »

You aren't going to find a cross-breed that has been health-tested. The trouble with cross-breeds is that you can get as many of the bad traits of both breeds as you can the good traits!

You can find plenty of cross breeds that have been health tested. My friend's labrador/retriever is a failed guide dog (didn't complete training) and both parents underwent rigorous health checks. I also have a cousin who bought a labrador/poodle which had been bred from two very healthy animals. Claiming that cross breeds are not health tested is just not true.

Not all good breeders stick to pure bred dogs. Some mix breeds in an attempt to create healthy animals that will make good pets.

Person_one

elsien wrote: »

Nothing wrong with mongrels, had several myself. But people like breeds for a reason, the looks, the temperament, the lifestyle they are more suited to. If all that went out of the window, we'd just be losing so much.

If that happened, I'd lose the ability to have dogs in my life at all. I'm pretty badly allergic to them and can only have pedigree breeds that don't shed. I still rescue, because every breed ends up in rescue and pedigrees aren't immune, but there's no way I want the ethical breeders of hypoallergenic dogs to stop! I'd be devastated!

Person_one

NoGoodNamesLeft wrote: »

You can find plenty of cross breeds that have been health tested. My friend's labrador/retriever is a failed guide dog (didn't complete training) and both parents underwent rigorous health checks. I also have a cousin who bought a labrador/poodle which had been bred from two very healthy animals. Claiming that cross breeds are not health tested is just not true.

Not all good breeders stick to pure bred dogs. Some mix breeds in an attempt to create healthy animals that will make good pets.

Its really really rare to find a breeder of crosses who carries out every health check on both parents.

The sad fact is that most of them are in it for the money that is available by selling gullible/ignorant people a 'cockerpoo' or a 'juggle' or whatever's currently trendy.

Rev

esmerelda98 wrote: »

thorsoak wrote: »

(1) I do not, and never will donate to the RSPCA - who are guilty of destroying animals unnecessarily, and who will do nothing to take an animal away from a horrendous situation if it has a bowl of water and a bowl of food - despite it having no shelter/no human contact.
I am sure many criticisms can be levelled at the RSPCA, and I am not in any position to critically appraise them, however I am sure that these 'unnecessary destructions' come down to resource issues. They are making difficult decisions about how best to support animal welfare and you may not agree with their decisions but unless you are willing to pay for the animals they want to put down or organise a fund to do this, you are not really in a position to criticise them on this issue. Especially when as a breeder you are probably providing dogs to people who would otherwise go to a rescue. I am sure that some people would rather not have a dog at all than anything less than a perfect pedigree puppy but I am sure that many are looking for the companionship of a loving dog rather more than the perfect designer accessory and would downgrade their ambitions if forced to.

The RSPCA is the 13th richest charity in the UK. They make hundreds if millions per year. They no longer take in stray animals. They also do absolutely zero when they're called 9 times out of ten. Unless of course you've got a big BBC camera crew with you then they'll jump right to attention.

Should they use the donations for their intended purpose instead of lining shareholders pockets then they'd be able to do a lot more for animals. I'd never give them a penny.



I've called them a total of three time. First because my next door neighbours had moved out and left their dog. The RSPCA refused to come out because I was feeding the dog through the letterbox. This apparently meant the dog was fine. Myself and a few others in the street kicked the door in and got the dog out ourselves. Also found it a new home.


Second time I called after finding a cat that had been run over. They said it would be too late by the time they got there so they weren't going to bother. I took it the local PDSA. The cat made a full recovery and thankfully was chipped so owners found.


Third time was an injured pidgeon. It was in my back year. I was told, and I quote 'let your dogs out, they'll deal with it'.


Yet each time they managed to call at on at least three occasions after asking for donations.


Ethical dog breeders are essential. Without them dogs would be in a hell of a state. Yes there's far too many in rescues. But that's not the fault of any ethical dog breeders. It's back yard breeders and idiot owners to blame for that.


People are entitled to spend their cash however they see fit.


Btw. I've never had a pedigree dog in my life. Currently have both rescue dogs and cats.

dandelionclock30

The RSPCA are shockingly bad and the exact opposite of the image they portray. They gave my vets 2 female cats both with young kittens and just told them to PTS. My vets didnt fortunatley and manage to find them foster homes until new owners could be sorted out.
They just put everything to sleep if they bother to help the animal at all.
Fortunatley people are now beginning to cotton onto this and increasing support local no kill animal shelters instead.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

I like to team the RSPCA with the words "chocolate", "teapot" and "as much use as a".

They didn't want to know when I rang them about dogs desperately in need, but they were quick enough to ring me when I cancelled my direct debit to them.

I'd make better use of my money by betting it on the Uk to win Eurovision.

esmerelda98

thorsoak wrote: »

esmerelda98 wrote: »

Each and every puppy that I have ever bred (and I go back almost 50 years) has gone to a family that I have personally checked out, that has been to visit my home and my dogs at on at least two occasions before they have got as far as going on my "puppy list". I know where all of my puppies have gone, I have photographs of them at all stages of their lives, where they have moved to - and when they have died. I have had to re-home three dogs during this period because the original owners' circumstances changed and they were no longer able to keep their beloved dogs. THIS IS WHAT GOOD BREEDERS DO.

I resent the implication that all breeders "feed" animal shelters. Good breeders don't. Greedy puppy farmers - aka greeders - do.

You say "Whilst responsible breeding is infinitely better than 'farming', it still has the effect of reducing the population of dog shelter clients." Is this not what we all want? No dogs in shelters!

You completely misunderstand my post. I'm not accusing you of producing puppies that end up in animal shelters, I'm accusing you of taking homes away from dogs in shelters by providing puppies.

There may be a role for dog breeding but I believe it should be a limited role and a licensed activity.

thorsoak

The people to whom my puppies have gone were not looking for a dog from a shelter, they wanted a specific breed, from specific parentage with a known behavioural background. I only ever bred a litter when I - or a family member - wanted a puppy. I took no homes away from dogs in shelters - in fact on at least two occasions, I have provided homes for dogs who would otherwise have ended up in Rescue (elderly dogs that for one reason or another could not remain in their own homes - and I'm not talking about dogs of my own breeding here).

You probably are not aware of the fact that the Kennel Club is now running an Assured Breeders Scheme- which breeders have to pay to apply for. They undergo annual inspections, which include checking feeding, record keeping - health testing and vaccinations and vet records - facilities for exercise and socialisation. Details here :- http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/press-releases/2014/january/all-assured-breeders-to-be-inspected-and-receive-ukas-accredited-certification-from-january-2014/.

Instead of attacking good breeders, you would be better occupied in publicising the fact that it is the puppy farmers and those who breed willy-nilly who provide the puppies who do end up in rescue.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

The KC assured breeder scheme is fantastic - it expects high standards of the breeders, both in the actual breeding and how the dog/pups are kept.

I am currently going through the process of applying.

Esmerelda98 - I don't think thorsoak did misunderstand your post. I think you misunderstand that as ethical breeders, we do take offence to being blamed for dogs in rescue centres, taking clients away from rescue centres etc etc.

Dog owners who buy from us are not likely to go to rescue centres.

Back street breeders and puppy farms make us mad.

We are forever tarred as evil for breeding dogs by people who do not know dogs and the dog world like we do and do not have the knowledge and experience we have.

That makes us mad. And rightly so.

thorsoak

In my ideal world, there would be no such things as animal shelters/rescue - and every dog/cat would be a wanted dog/cat - just as children should be - and would be in my ideal world :-D