# People Charging Different Amounts For Different Coloured Puppies?



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

What do you think? :whistling2:


----------



## RORCOV (Jul 19, 2005)

People charge different amounts for different coloured snakes and lizards... so why not?


----------



## bendigo (Jan 28, 2008)

some colours are more desirable or harder to find in certain breeds, so i dont see a problem with charging a little more for a more desirable colour


----------



## CreepyCrumpet (Feb 26, 2009)

Turtle Jo said:


> People charge different amounts for different coloured snakes and lizards... so why not?


 :notworthy:


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

midori said:


> What do you think? :whistling2:


Depends on the breed really, because some breeds are harder to find and breed/perfect into certain colours and markings, but with breeds such as Labradors, Lurchers, Greyhounds, Terriers, etc...I see no need for differing prices. At the end of the day no matter whether it's blue, yellow, brindle, red, fawn, black, got white toes, got a blaze, long haired, fine haired, curled haired, short haired etc it's still a dog, and providing it's well bred and healthy nothing else matters. :flrt:


----------



## ownedbyroxy (Jan 27, 2009)

I've no experience in breeding. So i can't say from a breeders point of view. Only as a potential home for a pup. 
when we were looking for a pup (when we bought home our whippet) i made loads of calls to many people. 
One woman had labs. 2 litters she had. Not KC reg. She charged: 
£200 for a male black lab
£250 for a female black lab
£250 for a yellow male lab 
£300 for a female yellow lab 
£300 for a male choc 
and £350 for a female choc. 

i asked her if the female choc's ate more than the male blacks. Or if they had super duper special jabs that cost more. Or if they had diff / more expensive food. Taken aback she said 'no they all have the same' So i replied that i wasn't interested and hung up. 

If they all cost the same to rear, then i think they should be the same price regardless of the colour of their coat or whether they have a Foo or a Woo. 

I can understand why dog breeds vary so much. I'e a large dog like a danes litter would eat more food (for pups and dam) than say a yorkshire terrier. 
I think pups should reflect a price of how much it costs to rear.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*rare colours*

some are advertised as rare and an inflated price asked for.Rare can mean that they are not bred for because they are not a desirable colour.The fawn pied in this link which is a big asking price is a colour not permissable for showing.Nothing wrong at all as a beautiful pet but to be asking such a price is a bit of a con .

Preloved | kc reg fawn pied french bulldog pups for sale in Ruthin, Denbighshire, UK


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

They all cost the same to raise (which is what your money is supposed to go towards), so unless they've had real trouble working towards a colour (eg one that has higher litter mortality, is harder to breed or is harder to get breeding stock of), I would think that they should cost the same.

But that's JMO.


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

ownedbyroxy said:


> I've no experience in breeding. So i can't say from a breeders point of view. Only as a potential home for a pup.
> when we were looking for a pup (when we bought home our whippet) i made loads of calls to many people.
> One woman had labs. 2 litters she had. Not KC reg. She charged:
> £200 for a male black lab
> ...


omg, choco labs are sooooooo stubborn, police or army tend not to ue these a not quick learners as the black and yellow labs.

I have seen advertiements for rare white boxers. they are not rare its just some so called dog lover breeders drown them as cant be shown in kc.


----------



## butterfingersbimbo (Jan 26, 2008)

personally I think they should all be the same price.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

clairebear1984 said:


> omg, *choco labs are sooooooo stubborn*, police or army tend not to ue these a not quick learners as the black and yellow labs.
> 
> I have seen advertiements for rare white boxers. they are not rare its just some so called dog lover breeders drown them as cant be shown in kc.


 
I resent that remark!
Having owned yellow, black and Chocolate labs, all from good breeding, then no, they are no different. It's idiot breeders who jumped on the bandwagon and bred them to stupidity.
However mine comes from 2 working parents and is being trained for Field Trails and full gundog work.


----------



## naja-naja (Aug 26, 2009)

yes our fox terriers are priced according to colour and posture, some are more desirable, and the people are willing to pay more.


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

naja-naja said:


> yes our fox terriers are priced according to colour and posture, some are more desirable, and *the people are willing to pay more*.


So you ("one") milk that to make more money? pleasant!


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

I could see charging *less* for pups that are NOT of the breed standard colour - for example, charging significantly less for a white German shepherd than you'd charge for a black and gold, or for a merle great Dane as opposed to his/her harlequin siblings, or a black Lab with a white chest spot ....


----------



## naja-naja (Aug 26, 2009)

LoveForLizards said:


> So you ("one") milk that to make more money? pleasant!


 the standard is there that pups of x color are worth more then pups of y color.
for nstance, the white pp is worth a lot more then his black and white and brown and white litter-mates, he will do better at shows etc, so it is only reasonable that this 'better' pup cost more then this 'normal' pup.
i dont see how charging diff amounts makes me a bad person, if i charged tenner for them it wouldn't matter, what matters is how i treat them, and i do very well.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Ssthisto said:


> I could see charging *less* for pups that are NOT of the breed standard colour - for example, charging significantly less for a white German shepherd than you'd charge for a black and gold, or for a merle great Dane as opposed to his/her harlequin siblings, or a black Lab with a white chest spot ....


 
Aye but people would just see that the better ones cost more and the whole arguement starts again.

I have successfully kept blue eyes and patchy coats out of my breeding completely and have never had one born. But if I was ever unlucky enough to do so, then I would sell them at pet price which would be a lot cheaper then my standard price for pups bred to standard.


----------



## purpleskyes (Oct 15, 2007)

I mean even something like a car, any car that is red or black is going to more expensive as they are more desirable colours.

When we get our own place then we want to get a dog thinking ahead we would like either a wolfdog or an akita I personally prefer the darker colours on these dogs and if I need to pay more to get the colours and pattern I like then so be it.

I mean I have looked at ad's and I have seen prices for wolf dogs between £400-£750 I would personally pay the higher price to get a good healthy dog from a respected breeder with the characteristics colour wise that I am looking for rather than £400 from a byb and the dogs are exactly what I want colourwise or healthwise, you get what you are willing to pay for. Its entirely down to the what an individual wants to do with their money.


----------



## Schip (Mar 31, 2007)

"I have seen advertiements for rare white boxers. they are not rare its just some so called dog lover breeders drown them as cant be shown in kc."

Responsible breeders do their best to avoid white boxers as the risk of deafness is high, those that are produced by responsible breeders are baer tested before they are pet homed, some are PTS for the animals sake as its very very difficult to find the right home for said pup. Any culling is nothing to do with Showing at KC licensed events, its based on Vets advice, many of the non show colours are recessive so crop up every now and again but are sold with restrictions to prevent the very behaviour the OP questions.

Of course you then got the lovely con artists advertising a colour/breed as Rare who are breeding without registering a litter because they have endorsments on their KC registrations in a bid by the breeders to protect the dogs.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

naja-naja said:


> the standard is there that pups of x color are worth more then pups of y color.
> for nstance, the white pp is worth a lot more then his black and white and brown and white litter-mates, he will do better at shows etc, so it is only reasonable that this 'better' pup cost more then this 'normal' pup.
> i dont see how charging diff amounts makes me a bad person, if i charged tenner for them it wouldn't matter, what matters is how i treat them, and i do very well.


 
Just out of interest, what "standards" would they be? Presumably they all cost the same to raise, and all come out of the same litter, if you are charging more for certain colours, presumably you breed for profit rather than just to recoup costs?

And if you believed that last line, why dont you charge a tenner?:lol2:


----------



## mrandmrsk (Nov 28, 2009)

i charge the same for dogs and bitches 

however i would charge less for a "mismarked" puppy if it was completely out of breed standard - ive yet to have one born mismarked so dont know how it would sell but it appears some breeders take off £200 to £300 

i disagree that you have to pay more for a "breeding bitch" as how at 8-10 weeks can you say that bitch would be suitable for breeding???

i aslo disagree with charging to lift endorsements once all health tests are complete, i do however want to know why people want to breed and do offer to whelp the bitch at my home with or without the owners help as they are welcome to stay in my house if they want

cheri


----------



## naja-naja (Aug 26, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> Just out of interest, what "standards" would they be? Presumably they all cost the same to raise, and all come out of the same litter, if you are charging more for certain colours, presumably you breed for profit rather than just to recoup costs?
> 
> And if you believed that last line, why dont you charge a tenner?:lol2:


 i don't know if we are profiting or not, it cost us 900 to buy the parents, and about the same to raise them from pups till now, and we spent about 300 on the pups themselves already, the breeder of our bitch told us what they were worth when he saw them, 2 are worth 400, one is 450 and the last is 500, we will charge what he says, as he is the expert, if they dont sell, then we will drop the price accordingly.
the standards are what is in demand, which is set by what does better at shows, and if we profit i dont think its a bad thing. we wont charge a tenner cos that's ridiculous for what weve put into them.


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

naja-naja said:


> the standard is there that pups of x color are worth more then pups of y color.
> for nstance, the white pp is worth a lot more then his black and white and brown and white litter-mates, he will do better at shows etc, so it is only reasonable that this 'better' pup cost more then this 'normal' pup.
> i dont see how charging diff amounts makes me a bad person, if i charged tenner for them it wouldn't matter, what matters is how i treat them, and i do very well.


Well, last I knew, there was nothing wrong with a 'normal' (as you put it) dog, I'd be bloody happen with any dog tbh normal or not, if it does its job then why should people say they're not special enough to compete 'cause they don't look 'ideal' and pretty in the show ring?
I understand charging less for a mis marked animal BUT why should there be so many differing prices just because somebody wants to make more money on dogs people are willing to pay more for?



LisaLQ said:


> Just out of interest, what "standards" would they be? Presumably they all cost the same to raise, and all come out of the same litter, if you are charging more for certain colours, presumably you breed for profit rather than just to recoup costs?
> 
> And if you believed that last line, why dont you charge a tenner?:lol2:


+1 : victory:


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

naja-naja said:


> we wont charge a tenner cos that's ridiculous for what weve put into them.


Breeding isn't about making money or getting the costs back to give you the joys of pups, it's about doing something you love and what will benefit the dogs. What's ridiculous is going into breeding and not expecting to lose some money here and there, and being happy doing so! :whistling2:


----------



## naja-naja (Aug 26, 2009)

LoveForLizards said:


> Breeding isn't about making money or getting the costs back to give you the joys of pups, it's about doing something you love and what will benefit the dogs. What's ridiculous is going into breeding and not expecting to lose some money here and there, and being happy doing so! :whistling2:


 we are losing money, we are selling for the rrp, as told by someone experienced in the breed.


----------



## naja-naja (Aug 26, 2009)

LoveForLizards said:


> Well, last I knew, there was nothing wrong with a 'normal' (as you put it) dog, I'd be bloody happen with any dog tbh normal or not, if it does its job then why should people say they're not special enough to compete 'cause they don't look 'ideal' and pretty in the show ring?
> I understand charging less for a mis marked animal BUT why should there be so many differing prices just because somebody wants to make more money on dogs people are willing to pay more for?
> 
> 
> ...


 they can compete, but the ones with more white on them are more likley to win, hence the demand, hance the price. and why shouldn't we charge more if peeps are willing to pay it? you wouldn't say to the hundred of royal breders to charge 60 quid for an albino because they cost the same as a normal to produce would you?


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

naja-naja said:


> i don't know if we are profiting or not, it cost us 900 to buy the parents, and about the same to raise them from pups till now, and we spent about 300 on the pups themselves already, the breeder of our bitch told us what they were worth when he saw them, 2 are worth 400, one is 450 and the last is 500, we will charge what he says, as he is the expert, if they dont sell, then we will drop the price accordingly.
> the standards are what is in demand, which is set by what does better at shows, and if we profit i dont think its a bad thing. we wont charge a tenner cos that's ridiculous for what weve put into them.


The 'standards' for any breed are not set by demand. 

At the age puppies leav eyou, you have no idea if they will make show dogs or do well in the show ring. Have you even shown the parents? 

You should never drop the price of puppies in order to sell them, it attract sthe wrong sort of home. Considering ho wmany dogs are being put to sleep in Ireland yearly, why breed without a waiting list anyway?! 

Personally, I think it is digusting to charge more for certain colours or sexes purely because you can get more. Those interested in breeding dogs for money shouldn't be doing it.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Ok, what if we changed the parameters slightly?

Is it reasonable to charge someone more if they want to buy a Labrador pup with no apparent working drive, that will make a fabulous pet, but isn't any good for hunting (which is what the dog *was bred to do*) and might make a better pet because of that?

Is it reasonable to charge someone more for a dog that fits the breed standard AND will do the job they've been bred to do - a Labrador who shows signs of being an excellent water-retrieval dog, with a lot of bird sense?

Is it reasonable to charge someone more for a dog that fits the conformation standard as a pup, has a reasonable chance of fitting the standard well as it grows - a Labrador that could win shows? Oh, wait, now we're getting into colour... a lab with a white chest spot won't do that well in the long run unless his overall conformation is head and shoulders better than any other correctly-coloured dog there.

I don't have a problem with a breeder arbitrarily deciding "That pup won't leave here for less than £450, those two can go for £400, and once I have that one neutered I'll give it to the neighbour's kid as a present." Their dogs, their choice what to charge AND why to charge that way. I didn't breed the pups, and that means I don't get to say "But I want a blue one at the price of the fawn ones...."

I do think that a breeder selling show-quality dogs AS show-quality dogs should really charge less for dogs that aren't show quality (because any litter CAN turn up with pups that don't make the show - or field trial - or agility - or obedience - or any other competitive canine sport - grade) - but then that's because they're selling pups that are for a purpose (other than just "family pets") and any pups that aren't fit for that purpose should be sold as family pets at a lower price. But that is, again, my opinion on it. 

If I produced a clutch of Amelanistic corn snakes, and:

- a quarter of them were rich bright orange with dark red saddles and no white borders,
- half of them were white-bordered but had the rich orange background colour,
- a quarter of them were white-bordered, with splotchy orange.... 

I would sell the splotchy orange ones for the least amount of money. Why? Because those are the ones I would LEAST like to get stuck with if only two-thirds of the clutch sells. I'd undoubtedly keep the "best of the best" (in my opinion!) for myself anyway (wouldn't have bred the clutch if I didn't intend to keep something) - but if I'm going to be keeping more than expected, I'd rather have the ones I personally consider nicer be the ones that stay... or know that selling them, as more expensive animals that are "A Grade" instead of "C Grade", will pay for feeding their less-desirable-to-me siblings.


----------



## naja-naja (Aug 26, 2009)

midori said:


> The 'standards' for any breed are not set by demand.
> 
> At the age puppies leav eyou, you have no idea if they will make show dogs or do well in the show ring. Have you even shown the parents?
> 
> ...


 we have homes for 2 defo, a possible on the 3rd and keeping the 4th. will you be selling your morph royals for the same price as normals then?


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

Ssthisto said:


> Ok, what if we changed the parameters slightly?
> 
> Is it reasonable to charge someone more if they want to buy a Labrador pup with no apparent working drive, that will make a fabulous pet, but isn't any good for hunting (which is what the dog *was bred to do*) and might make a better pet because of that?
> 
> ...


 
Breeders don't (or good ones anyway) sell show quality puppies, they sell them with show potential. No-one has any idea how they'll turn out. 

The fact is, a very high percentage of puppies sold end up in pet homes, or as pets only. ALL puppies from the same litter cost the same to rear and will have had the same health tests done on parents etc. The price refelcts the time, money and commitment the breeder has put into those puppies.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

naja-naja said:


> we have homes for 2 defo, a possible on the 3rd and keeping the 4th. will you be selling your morph royals for the same price as normals then?


 
Snakes aren't dogs.. I don't see thousands of royal morphs (or even normals) being put to sleep every year as they have no homes. Snakes don't form attachments with their owners either. 

I can tell you though, that I charge the same price for any puppies I breed, and you will find that all reputable breeders in the same breed charge roughly the same price as each other. Doesn't matter about the reputation of the breeder, or whether Dad was BOB at Crufts.


----------



## naja-naja (Aug 26, 2009)

the parents themselves are world champion pedigrees, the parents themselves have not been properly shown yet, we may, in the future, the pup will be shown.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

naja-naja said:


> the parents themselves are world champion pedigrees, the parents themselves have not been properly shown yet, we may, in the future, the pup will be shown.


 
Pedigrees really mean absolutely nothing unless the parents themselves are proven and even then it's no guarantee.

I have a bitch here who's sire has his stud book number, has been placed 2nd at Cruts (no mean feat in such a prolific breed) and whose breeder is judging the breed at Crufts in 2010. Her full sibling has qualified for Crufts and got his working test certificate. She was the pick of the bitches in her litter, with the most potential. Is she show quality? Well, she could hol dher own, but she's no Sh. CH. and she has been having fits, so will never be bred from. She probably wouldn't have been bred from anyway. She a nice dog, but not good enough, IMO. 

Good luck with your puppy though.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

midori said:


> Breeders don't (or good ones anyway) sell show quality puppies, they sell them with show potential. No-one has any idea how they'll turn out.


Maybe British breeders do things slightly differently to American ones (I grew up in the AKC dog showing circuit, my parents bred and showed Gordon Setters - and my mum also bred and showed German Shorthaired Pointers), but I think "show quality" as I intended it is the same thing as what you mean by "show potential". 

It is fairly obvious early on in a pup's life whether it's going to be *unsuitable* for show. A Gordon with a white chest spot is unlikely to win a championship. A mostly-liver German Shorthaired Pointer is more likely to win in conformation shows than a mostly-white one, although at least around us field triallers seemed to like the more white dogs. Probably easier to see out in the brown, brown scrub brush...


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Ssthisto said:


> Ok, what if we changed the parameters slightly?
> 
> Is it reasonable to charge someone more if they want to buy a Labrador pup with no apparent working drive, that will make a fabulous pet, but isn't any good for hunting (which is what the dog *was bred to do*) and might make a better pet because of that?
> 
> ...


 
White Chest spots are highly desireable in Hunting Labs and they do not get marked down in shows because of it.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Pimperella said:


> White Chest spots are highly desireable in Hunting Labs and they do not get marked down in shows because of it.


That sounds like a difference between AKC and KC standards in that case - the AKC standard says a small white spot is permissible, but not desirable, while the KC standard omits the "not desirable" bit.

Also looks like American Labs tend to be a little bit taller, particularly dogs - and the height requirement is stricter.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

clairebear1984 said:


> . some so called dog lover breeders drown them as cant be shown in kc.


 No they bleddy well do not :bash:
What proof do you have that anyone has drowned a puppy? Apart from being cruel and illegal what sort of person would be able to hold a struggling puppy underwater for several minutes if they were sane?
Breeders euthanase puppies for all kinds of reasons. Well their vets do, properly, with a needle and anaesthetic. I have never heard of anyone ever drowning a puppy. That's simply hysterical melodramatic ranting.


----------



## saxon (Feb 26, 2007)

I dont' know if I'm getting this right but are we saying in this thread that puppies of 'similar' sized breeds would cost the same to raise?
That if so they should be the same price whatever the colour/sex etc?

Are we only discussing 'show/trial/'obedience' dogs and breeds or all dogs?

If we are discussing all dogs then the whole thread is null and void!!!
Even cross breeds or mongrel litters cost the same to raise as a 'breed' litter of comaparable size.

In my mind a breeder can charge whatever they choose to charge...if people think it's too much they wont' sell the pups that is the only discussion.


In reply to the OP's first post..

I agree with different 'colours/sexes' etc being different prices as some colours are difficult to produce and therefore as someone else said may be more desirable.

Selling some pups in a litter at an elevated price will not 'make a profit' it may possibly 'lessen the loss' in breeding pups.
I've yet to find any breeder, other than puppy farms, that make a profit on a litter. The only profit is the joy in bringing up pups of exceptional health and temperament whether that be a pedigree litter or a cross breed litter.

I would be happy to pay that little bit more for a dog that I really wanted rather than 'make do' with his more 'normal' brother.

fenwoman,

They may not now, although I think differently, but they certainly did years ago...about 12 years ago now. No the RSPCA werent' interested when I rang them.
I rescued a full litter, well 5 from 8, of boxers because they were white.
I literally rescued them from a bucket of very cold water where a five year old was being made to watch them being drowned.
Thankfully the guy didnt' have the balls to hold them down, nor did he know how to, or his other son couldnt' have come and got me to save them.


----------



## Sirvincent (Jul 16, 2008)

butterfingersbimbo said:


> personally I think they should all be the same price.


So should all royals


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

saxon said:


> I dont' know if I'm getting this right but are we saying in this thread that puppies of 'similar' sized breeds would cost the same to raise?
> That if so they should be the same price whatever the colour/sex etc?
> 
> Are we only discussing 'show/trial/'obedience' dogs and breeds or all dogs?
> ...


I have yet to find a decent breeder who charges more for one colour pups than another. 

'Rare' colours, such as blue staffs, for example, are undesirable in the show ring as they usually lack the required pigment, so 'decent' breeder strive to avoid producing them. 

Maybe some people think a 'pet quality' puppy from the same litter as a couple of show potential puppies are worth less, but I don't, especially as they will mostly go to pet homes anyway, show potential or not. In fact, plenty of breeders refuse to let their puppies go to anything but pet homes.


----------



## saxon (Feb 26, 2007)

There are 'decent' breeders who do this...it's just kept under wraps.

There are breed colours that are more difficult to breed for/lees likely to occurr and in these instances then I see no problem in charging more for that pup.

If someone wants a less common colour then they will be prepared to pay more rather than wait for a breeder who will charge the same for whatever colour her/his bitch produces.

Even charging a bit more for these pups the breeder is unlikely to make a profit so I doubt this owuld be the reason for charging a little more.

As I say though if the argument is that all pups of comparable size/colour/sex/ coat costs the same to raise then surely all dogs should be 'mongrel' prices!!!!!!
That's never going to happen.

I'll say again I'd rather pay a little more for a pup that I 'want' than buy his brother or sister who is really not 'the one'!!!


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

saxon said:


> There are 'decent' breeders who do this...it's just kept under wraps.
> 
> There are breed colours that are more difficult to breed for/lees likely to occurr and in these instances then I see no problem in charging more for that pup.
> 
> ...


 
It must be... 

I am struggling to think of an example where a specfic colour is more difficlt to breed for, and also desirable within the breed standard, so maybe you can give one? 

Can't comment on anyone else, but I said all puppies from the same litter should cost the same. Mongrels don't cost the same to breed as pedigree dogs, as there is rarely health testing involved and as showing is argueably a neccessity to breed pedigree dogs, then one could consider the cost of this when considering the cost of raising a litter. On top of that, whther the dogs are the same size or not, care of the litter could cost hugely different amounts. A litter where the bitch or puppies are not wormed, the bitch is not premated or scanned, not health tested or checked after the birth by a vet, where the puppies aren't checked over by a vet whilst still with the breeder and the bitch and pups are fed on £10 sacks of food, is going to cost far less to rear than a litter than has all of that done and where the bitch and litter are fed on £50 sacks of food and sent to their new homes with £50 worth of stuff in a puppy pack, regardless of whether they are the same size.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

midori said:


> A litter where the bitch or puppies are not wormed, the bitch is not premated or scanned, not health tested or checked after the birth by a vet, where the puppies aren't checked over by a vet whilst still with the breeder and the bitch and pups are fed on £10 sacks of food, is going to cost far less to rear than a litter than has all of that done and where the bitch and litter are fed on £50 sacks of food and sent to their new homes with £50 worth of stuff in a puppy pack, regardless of whether they are the same size.


 
Yup, Mine are wormed with the decent stuff, not cheap petshop crap. Vet Checked, Vaccinated, Huge puppy pack where they are leaving with 2 bloody big bags of stuff and yes, Pro Plan Performance is around £50/£55 a sack. Then they also have 2 Kilos of Chicken each Supper. Each litter also goes through 5kilo of Puppy Milk Replacer. Add to that the constant cleaning. 
The hassle of having to deal with people lol 
Idiots who think you'll sell then a pup cause they have the money or haven't the money. The stress all comes from people! You get nice people but you have to wait for them, match the pup to the right person.

I also start all basic training. They go through toys aswell. I spend all my free time spending time with them aswell as ever hour in the day, being on call to their demands lol


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

midori said:


> Maybe some people think a 'pet quality' puppy from the same litter as a couple of show potential puppies are worth less, but I don't, especially as they will mostly go to pet homes anyway, show potential or not. In fact, plenty of breeders refuse to let their puppies go to anything but pet homes.


Fair enough - if breeders aren't wanting their pups to go to show/obedience/field/working homes they are breeding PET dogs and then all my statements about "If the dog isn't fit for the purpose it's sold for" are moot in terms of conformation/working ability - all the dog must be is a suitable PET dog. 

At that point they might as well be breeding health-tested mongrels, because they're not breeding for conformation show, working ability or obedience trials... unless the point in selling to pet homes is that they are not having their own pups compete against THEIR dogs.



midori said:


> It must be...
> 
> I am struggling to think of an example where a specfic colour is more difficlt to breed for, and also desirable within the breed standard, so maybe you can give one?


An Isabella Doberman - being the result of two recessive mutations - is not the easiest of colours to breed for. Say you are breeding for conformation show, and the best possible dog in your breed for your Isabella bitch is a black and tan, and the runner-up is a red. You WANT Isabella pups, but the Isabella dogs available aren't quite good enough to balance out the faults in your dog - and are also quite probably related to yours more closely than you'd like.

So you choose the Red - that'll at least give you a litter of red-and-tan pups who are "het for blue". You keep, say, the two best bitches from the litter, and again find the best possible dog in your breed for those two. Maybe one of them's a blue-tan dog; one of them's a black-tan dog who had an Isabella grandfather. Sure, you could breed them to an Isabella dog, but again, what if that's NOT the best choice for your breed, and you're actually breeding to improve the breed?

Trying to recover a double recessive in dogs is no easier than it is in snakes, and nobody screams that an Albino Pied royal python SHOULD be the same price as a normal, an albino OR a pied. No, there aren't thousands of snakes being put down every year because there are no homes for them... but if every baby snake born or imported into the country every year survived to see its third birthday, we'd be up to our ears in royals and corn snakes. There are THOUSANDS of baby CF royals being imported to Britain every year... where are the thousands of yearlings, two-year-olds and adults those CF babies should have grown into?

I'd expect to pay more for an Isabella Doberman if I was in the market for one - although I'm not, more's the pity, they're pretty-looking dogs - than I would pay for a Black Doberman of the same conformational quality.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

Ssthisto said:


> Fair enough - if breeders aren't wanting their pups to go to show/obedience/field/working homes they are breeding PET dogs and then all my statements about "If the dog isn't fit for the purpose it's sold for" are moot in terms of conformation/working ability - all the dog must be is a suitable PET dog.
> 
> At that point they might as well be breeding health-tested mongrels, because they're not breeding for conformation show, working ability or obedience trials... unless the point in selling to pet homes is that they are not having their own pups compete against THEIR dogs. .


Not really. Just because someone is trying to breed pupies of show quality it doesn't mean all, or even any of the litter will be. Even if every puppy in th elitter was show quality, the fact is, in this country, a high proportion of puppies bred go to pet homes only. They are not 'pet bred', they go to pet homes, and there's a ddifference. 

The reason most breeders who show themselves and onyl really want pet homes is that if someone buys a puppy specificaly to show, and it turns out to not be good enough, what do they do?! Sell it on... (not always, of course but it happens a lot) 




Ssthisto said:


> An Isabella Doberman - being the result of two recessive mutations - is not the easiest of colours to breed for. Say you are breeding for conformation show, and the best possible dog in your breed for your Isabella bitch is a black and tan, and the runner-up is a red. You WANT Isabella pups, but the Isabella dogs available aren't quite good enough to balance out the faults in your dog - and are also quite probably related to yours more closely than you'd like.
> 
> So you choose the Red - that'll at least give you a litter of red-and-tan pups who are "het for blue". You keep, say, the two best bitches from the litter, and again find the best possible dog in your breed for those two. Maybe one of them's a blue-tan dog; one of them's a black-tan dog who had an Isabella grandfather. Sure, you could breed them to an Isabella dog, but again, what if that's NOT the best choice for your breed, and you're actually breeding to improve the breed?
> 
> ...


 
Isabella's, despite being within the breed standard are certainly not seen as desirable by those in the show world, due to coat problems. (just like blue staffs are not desirable as it's hard to get them to meet other breed standards, such as pigment, due to their colouring) Of course, like the white dobes, blue staffs (and white GSD's and boxers) that doesn't mean they don't look pretty, or aren't desirable in pet homes, but it does mean responsible breeders are extremely unlikely to be trying to deliberately breed them. 

It's because of people who are willing to pay more for a pretty looking dog that isn't really desirable within the breed, so therefore not deliberately bred by good breeders, that BYB's jump on the bandwagon and start breeding these dogs and selling them for more than their 'standard coloured' litter mates. Usually the parents of these aren't health tested and they aren't aware of the potential problems within these colours. (aside from which, an Isabella Dobe wouldn't look very 'pretty' when it was bald, would it?!)


----------



## purpleskyes (Oct 15, 2007)

midori said:


> Isabella's, despite being within the breed standard are certainly not seen as desirable by those in the show world, due to coat problems. (just like blue staffs are not desirable as it's hard to get them to meet other breed standards, such as pigment, due to their colouring) Of course, like the white dobes, blue staffs (and white GSD's and boxers) that doesn't mean they don't look pretty, or aren't desirable in pet homes, but it does mean responsible breeders are extremely unlikely to be trying to deliberately breed them.
> 
> It's because of people who are willing to pay more for a pretty looking dog that isn't really desirable within the breed, so therefore not deliberately bred by good breeders, that BYB's jump on the bandwagon and start breeding these dogs and selling them for more than their 'standard coloured' litter mates. Usually the parents of these aren't health tested and they aren't aware of the potential problems within these colours. (aside from which, an Isabella Dobe wouldn't look very 'pretty' when it was bald, would it?!)


 
You asked for an example of a hard colour to create in dogs you were given one, when you started this topic you didn't say the dog in question had to be of the breed standard set out by the KC.

I don't want a breed standard dog, I want a dog that I find to be attractive and that is going to be a family pet. As long as it is fit and healthy and what I deem to find attractive then I will happily pay the asking price for it. When it comes to huskies and wolfdogs I know exactly what I find attractive in them, I like the black and white colours with a nicely marked face, I don't really find the other colours attractive.

Take pimperella's recent litter the little bitch who had the black markings was just stunning and I would have paid more for her than one of the others which are very attractive animals just not what I personally am looking for.: victory:


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

purpleskyes said:


> You asked for an example of a hard colour to create in dogs you were given one, when you started this topic you didn't say the dog in question had to be of the breed standard set out by the KC.
> 
> I don't want a breed standard dog, I want a dog that I find to be attractive and that is going to be a family pet. As long as it is fit and healthy and what I deem to find attractive then I will happily pay the asking price for it. When it comes to huskies and wolfdogs I know exactly what I find attractive in them, I like the black and white colours with a nicely marked face, I don't really find the other colours attractive.
> 
> Take pimperella's recent litter the little bitch who had the black markings was just stunning and I would have paid more for her than one of the others which are very attractive animals just not what I personally am looking for.: victory:


Actually, what I said was "I am struggling to think of an example where a specfic colour is more diffiicult to breed for, and also desirable within the breed standard" and whilst Isabella dobes might be within the breed standard, they are certainly not something responsible breeders strive for, mainly due to coat and skin problems. What's the point of having apretty coloured dog if it is unhealthy?! Ir are you sayng it is acceptable to breed dogs like that?! 

Of course, people should be able to get a do they want ands love, but why should they pay more because of how it looks. I am pretty sure Pimperella isn't charging more for certain puppies in her litter because of their colour. The point being, you should be able to find what you're looking for at a reasonable price. It simply isn't ethical to breed dogs for money.


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

I breed labradors. Many people charge more for chocs which is ridiculous IMO. They are not rare, there is nothing special about them so its just people trying to make money out of their animals. Its the same as people selling bitches for more than dogs, that is pretty much encouraging new owners to breed from them....

The only difference in price IMO should be paying LESS for mismarked dogs if buying for the show ring.


----------



## zon3k (Jun 7, 2009)

Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:whistling2:


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

zon3k said:


> Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> :whistling2:


 
:gasp:

These are living animals. Its nothing to do with supply and demand. These breeders are more interested in the money than the homes they go to...


----------



## zon3k (Jun 7, 2009)

Myjb23 said:


> :gasp:
> 
> These are living animals. Its nothing to do with supply and demand. These breeders are more interested in the money than the homes they go to...


its EVERYTHING to do with supply and demand.. even if its being sold to loving homes that go to shows, or loving homes that will have the animal as a family pet, or even to go to be working dogs in loving homes, everyone has an agenda. If their view of your dog/cat/car/reptile/house/goldfish/painting or anything is that it isnt quite right or "undesireable" they will want to pay less.. if it is perfect or "desireable" they will pay more 
something is only worth what someone is willing to pay and if people are willing to pay £xxxx then someone can charge that, if they dont someone else will. As sentimental as i would like to be about things its not going to stop, why is it any different for dogs than for reptiles? costs are the same, but some morphs go for stupid prices 
i know its not a direct comparison because of the genetics but if people will pay it, then people WILL charge it. And that applies to anything and everything, living, loved and... oh crap i cant think of anything else starting with "L"


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

zon3k said:


> its EVERYTHING to do with supply and demand.. even if its being sold to loving homes that go to shows, or loving homes that will have the animal as a family pet, or even to go to be working dogs in loving homes, everyone has an agenda. If their view of your dog/cat/car/reptile/house/goldfish/painting or anything is that it isnt quite right or "undesireable" they will want to pay less.. if it is perfect or "desireable" they will pay more
> something is only worth what someone is willing to pay and if people are willing to pay £xxxx then someone can charge that, if they dont someone else will. As sentimental as i would like to be about things its not going to stop, why is it any different for dogs than for reptiles? costs are the same, but some morphs go for stupid prices
> i know its not a direct comparison because of the genetics but if people will pay it, then people WILL charge it. And that applies to anything and everything, living, loved and... oh crap i cant think of anything else starting with "L"


 
I understand what you are saying, but GOOD breeders charge the going rate for their pups, to cover their expenses. It is only unethical breeders who are producing pups purely for profit who charge extra just because they can. The general consensus amongst most good breeders is that if people are stupid enough to pay extra for a dog of a certain colour/marking then let them go to those puppy farmers as the priority should be health and temperment NOT colour. Its no good having a pretty coloured dogs who's hips need replacing at 6 months old, or who is aggressive :whistling2:

I dont breed reptiles and dont know the specifics of breeding morphs, but as far as im aware there isn't a "standard" for reptiles and you dont show them. Each dog breed has a standard based on the purpose the dog was bred for, for health and function. Responsible breeders should be breeding as closely as possible to this standard and NOT concentrating on colour at the expense of the conformation or characteristics of the breed. Mismarks and un-recognised colours do crop up occassionally, even amongst the most conscientious of breeders. IMO those should be sold with endorsed pedigrees so that progeny cant be registered and at a reduced price with the owners knowing they are pets only as, no matter how attractive the colouring is, it is not correct for the breed of dog.


Im sure you get the same with reptile breeders - selling unhealthy stock for far too much money based on its pretty colour, to some idiot who is too stupid to know any better. Its very common with dogs and should not be encouraged. There are plenty of pretty coloured mongrels in rescue - people should take on one of those rather than going to a breeder who is intentionally producing puppies that are not correct, just to make money.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

purpleskyes said:


> Take pimperella's recent litter the little bitch who had the black markings was just stunning and I would have paid more for her than one of the others which are very attractive animals just not what I personally am looking for.: victory:





midori said:


> Of course, people should be able to get a do they want ands love, but why should they pay more because of how it looks. I am pretty sure Pimperella isn't charging more for certain puppies in her litter because of their colour. The point being, you should be able to find what you're looking for at a reasonable price. It simply isn't ethical to breed dogs for money.


 
Yes, I sell all the pups at the same price from this litter. Both parents are top show winners and mum is regarded very highly within the breed.
I personally, am not a fan of Black and Whites lol Not a colour I would keep myself.
Waited 3 years to have this litter (6 yrs really as thats how old Wayakin is) Having Bought a Stud in to complement her.) I have no other bitch here for him to go to, but He is a very much loved Dog and even tho Waya is to be Spayed in the New Year, Both him and Waya are going no where. I have Waya's mum and dad aswell. 

All the pups are the same price, and if someone does want one for showing, then I am happy to explain and try to help in chosing the right puppy. I do not mind people going out and winning with puppies from me, After all, it is my Kennel name on the dog and that gets noted down and also proves I'm doing a good job in matching the perfect dogs for type, Health, Quality etc


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

Pimperella said:


> Yes, I sell all the pups at the same price from this litter. Both parents are *top show winners* and mum is regarded very highly within the breed.
> I personally, am not a fan of Black and Whites lol Not a colour I would keep myself.
> Waited 3 years to have this litter (6 yrs really as thats how old Wayakin is) Having Bought a Stud in to complement her.) I have no other bitch here for him to go to, but He is a very much loved Dog and even tho Waya is to be Spayed in the New Year, Both him and Waya are going no where


 
Just an off topic question, but this is a litter of NI's right?? How can the parents be show winners as they are not a KC recognised breed and therefore cannot be exhibited at shows :?

I have seen the pictures of your pups though and they are stunning. NI breeders get a rough time from the dog world in general at times, it is good to see someone breeding them responsibly!!! :notworthy:


----------



## linda.t (Sep 28, 2007)

I paid 350 for my kc reg choc lab over 4 years ago
and both the dogs and bitches were the same price
and thats how it should be but alot of breeders 
charge more for a female than a male,but i've not ever noticed
if they charge more because of there colours.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Myjb23 said:


> Just an off topic question, but this is a litter of NI's right?? How can the parents be show winners as they are not a KC recognised breed and therefore cannot be exhibited at shows :?
> 
> I have seen the pictures of your pups though and they are stunning. NI breeders get a rough time from the dog world in general at times, it is good to see someone breeding them responsibly!!! :notworthy:


Because the Breed society's run shows under KC rules using KC Judges.
So, Therefore, they are Judged as the breed itself against other members of that breed, to a breed standard by KC Judges who have reviewed that standard. They can also be show at all Companion shows as a Pure Pedigree Bred dog.

I've been breeding Northern Inuit Dogs since 1999 and in those 10 years I have developed my own line. I can see my dogs in others people have bred from them because I spent a lot of time, effort, money, stress, life changes etc, in order to develop my line and sucessfully kept out Blue Eyes and Patchy Coats.
I have bred this litter purely because the bitch is 6, I have waited 3 years, reared the stud dog, health tested, all because I planned to keep a pup from her as I bred her and have both her parents and full and half brother who are both Neutered pets.


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

Pimperella said:


> Because the Breed society's run shows under KC rules using KC Judges.
> So, Therefore, they are Judged as the breed itself against other members of that breed, to a breed standard by KC Judges who have reviewed that standard. They can also be show at all Companion shows as a Pure Pedigree Bred dog.
> 
> I've been breeding Northern Inuit Dogs since 1999 and in those 10 years I have developed my own line. I can see my dogs in others people have bred from them because I spent a lot of time, effort, money, stress, life changes etc, in order to develop my line and sucessfully kept out Blue Eyes and Patchy Coats.
> I have bred this litter purely because the bitch is 6, I have waited 3 years, reared the stud dog, health tested, all because I planned to keep a pup from her as I bred her and have both her parents and full and half brother who are both Neutered pets.


 
Ahh, ok, so they are KC shows just without the KC recognition? :2thumb: Good idea. A good step in the right direction towards recognition : victory:


I have to admit, i have heard horror stories about NI breeders and the clubs problems. My BF desperately wants a NI but i keep telling him no as i wouldnt be able to show it (he is in Canada for 3 months out of every 6 so i'd be the one looking after it :whistling2: ) so he cant have one lol Maybe one day he will get one though... And its nice to know that there ARE good, responsible breeders out there! Good for you :no1:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

midori said:


> Actually, what I said was "I am struggling to think of an example where a specfic colour is more diffiicult to breed for, and also desirable within the breed standard" and whilst Isabella dobes might be within the breed standard, they are certainly not something responsible breeders strive for.


I like how you keep repeating "responsible" breeders.

If an Isabella or blue Doberman is properly bred, it will be as healthy as any other Doberman - the coat issues present in both dilutes can be minimised. However, when people start intentionally breeding, say, an Isabella stud to an Isabella girl because they're focusing on the colour ALONE and don't wish to explore studs of other colours that might be more appropriate to correct any issues present ... then they're being irresponsible.

Isabella Doberman breeding can be done responsibly, just as Caramel Albino royal python breeding can be. Or it can be done irresponsibly at the expense of the animal.



Myjb23 said:


> These are living animals. Its nothing to do with supply and demand. These breeders are more interested in the money than the homes they go to...


If it wasn't to do with supply and demand, then puppies would have an essentially fixed price, regardless of breed, colour, show potential, behaviour....

I don't see why it is unethical to breed "Species X" for financial gain when it is considered perfectly normal to breed "Species Y" for financial gain.

If you buy dog food or hamburgers, you're buying products made from animals that were bred *exclusively* for financial gain. If it's OK to buy animals or animal parts that were bred for financial gain when it's a cow... then as far as I am personally concerned, it is also OK to buy animals that were bred for financial gain if it's a dog. Either it's OK for all, or it's OK for none. 

At least the breeders I would choose to buy a dog or a snake from are not breeding them *exclusively* for financial gain; they're doing it for the love of the animal. I can't say the same for the breeders from which I buy my rump roast and cat food.


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

Ive seen blue GSD being sold for a lot of money and advertised as a rare colour which in reality is rubbish as it an actual fault and good breeders are very careful to stay away from matings that would produce this colour


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

Ssthisto said:


> I like how you keep repeating "responsible" breeders.
> 
> If an Isabella or blue Doberman is properly bred, it will be as healthy as any other Doberman - the coat issues present in both dilutes can be minimised. However, when people start intentionally breeding, say, an Isabella stud to an Isabella girl because they're focusing on the colour ALONE and don't wish to explore studs of other colours that might be more appropriate to correct any issues present ... then they're being irresponsible.
> 
> ...


 
I agree 100% with the highlighted comment above. Any pups i breed are the same price and are all sold as pets (any show quality pups are kept but would also be sold at the same price as i only sell mine as pets) so there is no reason to sell them at anything but the going rate for that breed. There is no "fixed" price across the breeds due to difference in cost of getting litters and some people charging stupid money for their dogs, but i keep mine the same for all sexes and colours within the breed. The only reason that would change would be if i ever got a mismarked pup, that would be cheaper.

I dont think i said anywhere that any species should be bred for financial gain :gasp: I believe that people should only breed to produce dogs for the show ring/field (for themselves) and only when they have a suitable length waiting list to ensure good, vetted homes for the rest of the litter. I dont agree with people breeding purely to sell the entire litter as pets, that is for financial gain and nothing more.


I cant even comment on comparing a dog (living animal!) with a hamburger... Thats just stupid and irrelevant :gasp: I certainly dont keep hamburgers (or even cheeseburgers!!) as family pets :lol2:


----------



## ukphd (Mar 29, 2008)

Shell195 said:


> Ive seen blue GSD being sold for a lot of money and advertised as a rare colour which in reality is rubbish as it an actual fault and good breeders are very careful to stay away from matings that would produce this colour



Well I guess it is rare, it may be a fault but if people avoid producing it then it's rare. I think the thing is people take rare to mean "desirable" which aren't the same thing. So people think that by saying something is rare it gives them a license to charge more for it. Various deformities and genetic disorders are rare, doesn't mean I'd want them...


----------



## gone fishin (Oct 14, 2009)

offcourse people should charge different amounts, if one came out rainbow coloured you would crank the price up by thousands, no different just more extreme


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Myjb23 said:


> II cant even comment on comparing a dog (living animal!) with a hamburger... Thats just stupid and irrelevant :gasp: I certainly dont keep hamburgers (or even cheeseburgers!!) as family pets :lol2:


But there are people who do keep pet cattle....

Those cattle were living animals before slaughter ... and they were bred exclusively for financial gain.


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

Ssthisto said:


> But there are people who do keep pet cattle....
> 
> Those cattle were living animals before slaughter ... and they were bred exclusively for financial gain.


 
If they are going for slaughter then they are not PET cattle :whistling2:

My mums neighbour has a smallholding and she does have pet cattle and they would never, ever go for slaughter. 

Given that dogs are not eaten in the UK as a rule its not a very good comparision. Some muslim (i think lol) countries would be horrified at the prospect of killing and eating cattle :whistling2:


----------



## ukphd (Mar 29, 2008)

Myjb23 said:


> If they are going for slaughter then they are not PET cattle :whistling2:
> 
> My mums neighbour has a smallholding and she does have pet cattle and they would never, ever go for slaughter.
> 
> Given that dogs are not eaten in the UK as a rule its not a very good comparision. Some muslim (i think lol) countries would be horrified at the prospect of killing and eating cattle :whistling2:


It's Hindus that can't eat cattle. I do research in a Hindu community in Indonesia and they have cattle they keep (and don't eat). The males are sold for more than the females. The black ones are also sold for more than the red ones. Is that wrong too? :whistling2:


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

ukphd said:


> It's Hindus that can't eat cattle. I do research in a Hindu community in Indonesia and they have cattle they keep (and don't eat). The males are sold for more than the females. The black ones are also sold for more than the red ones. Is that wrong too? :whistling2:


 
My knowledge of religion is not good, sorry :whistling2:

I have no idea about cows or breeding or selling of them, and prefer to comment on only what i know about so i shall leave that discussion to someone else :notworthy:


----------



## ukphd (Mar 29, 2008)

Myjb23 said:


> My knowledge of religion is not good, sorry :whistling2:
> 
> I have no idea about cows or breeding or selling of them, and prefer to comment on only what i know about so i shall leave that discussion to someone else :notworthy:



Fair enough


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*high prices*



ukphd said:


> I think the thing is people take rare to mean "desirable" which aren't the same thing. So people think that by saying something is rare it gives them a license to charge more for it. Various deformities and genetic disorders are rare, doesn't mean I'd want them...


thats exactly it.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Myjb23 said:


> If they are going for slaughter then they are not PET cattle :whistling2:
> 
> My mums neighbour has a smallholding and she does have pet cattle and they would never, ever go for slaughter.


The point is that they are still living animals that are bred for financial gain.

Dairy cows don't go to slaughter (until they're no longer financially viable) but you can bet your bippy they're bred for commercial gain.

And everyone who's ever bought a corn snake or a royal python from a pet shop could well have bought an animal that was bred SPECIFICALLY for sale.


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

Ssthisto said:


> The point is that they are still living animals that are bred for financial gain.
> 
> Dairy cows don't go to slaughter (until they're no longer financially viable) but you can bet your bippy they're bred for commercial gain.
> 
> And everyone who's ever bought a corn snake or a royal python from a pet shop could well have bought an animal that was bred SPECIFICALLY for sale.


Ok, fine... I dont understand your point though. We're talking about dogs here aren't we??

Just because those animals are bred for financial gain does not mean that i have to agree with it :whistling2: And it is a completely different thing to breed animals for food and to make money out of it, and to breed them as pets to live in someones home. It is a fact that many, many puppy farmers churn out pups for financial gain, nothing anyone says will make me agree with that!


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Sure, we're talking about dogs. But why is it OK to breed cows for financial gain - or snakes for financial gain - but NOT dogs? What makes a dog so intrinsically special that it is suddenly unreasonable for a breeder to want to make NO loss - and ideally A GAIN - from breeding a litter?


----------



## Gemstone Dragons (Jul 29, 2009)

I had a few thoughts reading this thread i thought i would share to add to the discussion -

Breeding human babies to sell and make money is against the law but incurred expenses can be payed if their reasonable in surrogacy for eg.

1 persons pregnancy expenses will also be more/less to anothers so the amount payed out varies as does the pedigree/genes/health/background of the mother and cost put into that pregnancy through IVF/quality of health care etc.

But then who made these rules and does that make them right or wrong just because their law?

Personally if very small litters (1/2 pups), sections are common in the breed or big litters of a large breed cost alot more to feed then yes the overall cost of the litter would be higher.

Should different sex/colour be priced differently? I don't know.

Would i personally use that to indicate price/worth? Nope.

The breeder is the only person who can put a price on their pups which depends on what they think they are worth.

The buyer is the only person who can decide how much they would pay for a pup depending on what they think it is worth.

IMO buyers need to be made more aware of what to look for when choosing/buying a pup but i have no idea how this can be done.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

Ssthisto said:


> Sure, we're talking about dogs. But why is it OK to breed cows for financial gain - or snakes for financial gain - but NOT dogs? What makes a dog so intrinsically special that it is suddenly unreasonable for a breeder to want to make NO loss - and ideally A GAIN - from breeding a litter?


Most breeders make a loss on breeding a litter. Even if they break even or make money on that litter, it is likely outweighed by the cost of owning/showing the parent/s for their lives. That is fine. Dog breeding is (or should be!) part of a hobby. I have owned horses most of my life, as many people do, a hobby they expect to spend thousands of pounds per year on, without ever expecting it back, so why should the hobby of keeping/showing/breding dogs be any different? Just because you CAN make money from it, doesn't mean you should. 

The reason dogs are so 'special' is that there are thousands per year in pounds/rescues/being put to sleep, in the main because of the idiots who bred them in the first place. Ask anyone who works inor has experience of rescue, and they will tell you the type of breeder the majority of the dogs there come from, and most of them are exactly the type who would charge different prices for different coloured puppies... because they 'can'. 

Back to the Isabella thing, whilst I don't disagree coat problems can be lessned with good breeding, the fact that people think they can charge more for different coloured puppies is precisely the reason someone would breed dilute x dilute, to make money... different prices for different coloured pups. Out of interest, have there ever been any dilute dobes have a successful show career? I know not many blue staffs have at all. 

Ands whilst I don't think for one second snakes or snake breeding can be compared to dogs, odd that you would consider owning an Isabella dobe, but wouldn't own a spider or caramel albino royal...


----------



## izzey (Dec 15, 2009)

We breed Great danes and do charge diffrent prices for diffrent olours for us this is due to the fact that our danes are priced low compared to others and if the harlis were the same price as a mismark (merle) they would never sell as people already belive the price is to low
We will also take back any dog we have breed if we need to


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

midori said:


> Dog breeding is (or should be!) part of a hobby. I have owned horses most of my life, as many people do, a hobby they expect to spend thousands of pounds per year on, without ever expecting it back, so why should the hobby of keeping/showing/breding dogs be any different? Just because you CAN make money from it, doesn't mean you should.


And just because someone else thinks you should make a loss on a hobby doesn't mean you should.

I really don't think that it is wrong to want to make a bit of money - recoup costs AND make a bit of extra - from ANY hobby, so long as all ethical, moral and legal obligations are met. 

If you paint as a hobby, and sell a few paintings that more than pay for your time and equipment (and report your income!), why is that wrong?
If you breed dogs as a hobby, and sell a few pups that pay for your time, the tests done on your bitch, the stud fee for a health-tested dog, the food and medications your pups and bitch need, plus a bit extra (and you report the income!) why is THAT wrong?

Who would intentionally set out _planning _to make a loss?
Expecting to make a loss (and hoping to break even or better) is the better plan.



> The reason dogs are so 'special' is that there are thousands per year in pounds/rescues/being put to sleep,


Ah, so my query about "where are all the subadult/adult corns and royals" is immaterial, then. Dogs are special because people put them down intentionally instead of letting them die or escape through ignorance.

Surely that's an argument for not allowing ANY pups to be sold unless neutered/spayed before sale - and for all rescue dogs to be done before they leave the rescue - and not "responsible breeders don't deserve a bit of extra cash for actually DOING THINGS RIGHT."



> Back to the Isabella thing, whilst I don't disagree coat problems can be lessned with good breeding, the fact that people think they can charge more for different coloured puppies is precisely the reason someone would breed dilute x dilute, to make money... different prices for different coloured pups. Out of interest, have there ever been any dilute dobes have a successful show career?


Yes, there are champion Blue dobermans out there. Unfortunately the DPCA doesn't list what colour their "Any Other Acceptable Colour" BoB, BoOS and BIS dogs are, and it's taking me a bit to search through breeders' records to see if I can't find an Isabella champion.



> Ands whilst I don't think for one second snakes or snake breeding can be compared to dogs, odd that you would consider owning an Isabella dobe, but wouldn't own a spider or caramel albino royal...


I personally consider a skin condition (CDA, which can affect red and black Dobermans too - it's not exclusive to dilutes, although more *common* in dilutes) to be of less concern than "can't keep itself right side up" or "spine like a crinkle chip".... although after looking into the *other *problems known in Dobermans, I probably *wouldn't* buy one at all, of any colour.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*charging more for rare colours*



Ssthisto said:


> Who would intentionally set out _planning _to make a loss?
> Expecting to make a loss (and hoping to break even or better) is the better plan


Nobody I should think.I set out worrying about ending up with huge vet costs and no litter and I have had it happen.Money isn't my motivation for having a litter,producing a well bred healthy puppy for me is .I accept the risk of being out of pocket but would hope to break even.
A lot of the mismarked ,I mean rare of course, dogs are coming from puppy farming/non caring breeders.Thats the real problem as always.I wouldn't want to line the pocket of these people.My first french bulldog had blue eyes,I didn't pay extra for her,it's a fault.Now days she would have been rare and exclusive and touted as a great oppurtunity for breeding from.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

sarahc said:


> A lot of the mismarked ,I mean rare of course, dogs are coming from puppy farming/non caring breeders.Thats the real problem as always.I wouldn't want to line the pocket of these people.


Believe me, I'm in total agreement with you. I do think that a lot of the people who advertise "rare" mismarked not-acceptable-in-the-standard dogs are also skimping on other aspects of care and necessary testing for health. But it is the BUYER'S responsibility to make sure their breeder of choice is doing the tests and the care that needs to be done.

But if all the "responsible breeder" things are done - health tests, proper veterinary care, proper feeding, proper puppy packs, willingness to take back a dog that the future owner can't keep for whatever reason (and no, I don't think the owner is entitled to a refund, either) - then I really, really don't have a problem with the breeder wanting to charge enough to cover all of that AND a little extra, nor do I have a problem with them arbitrarily deciding to charge more for this pup than for that pup. 

As I said, if I hatched out a clutch of corns and figured "OK, these are my two keepers, the other twelve are going to be up for sale, but I want to price those five to sell faster because I don't want to be stuck with them; I want to price these other two higher because I'm not sure if I want to sell them or not; if someone's willing to pay the higher price, I suppose I'll sell them...." I don't see a problem with that, either.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*charging more for rare colours*

Ah well thats the thing isn't it, being responsible.If an odd colour crops up as the result of responsible breeding fair does.If the colour is the be all for profit ,its no good.My blue eyed dog developed back problems and to propegate her for the eye colour would have been totally wrong.Thats what the unscrupulous do.We all know that and it seems nothing can be done.Its ultimately the buyers who are driving the market.I would have another blue eyed one as a pet but wouldn't be willing to pay extra as I would be put off by someone wanting extra for what essentially is a fault.I'd vote with my feet and go else where.


----------

