# Ethics in Breeding



## animal addict (Jun 1, 2008)

To those breeders out there - what ethics do you adhere to when breeding? Who sets these ethics? What is classed as wrong or bad practise?? How important or how much value to you place on ethics in breeding? Would you breed from say a rescue animal within 2-3 months of you acquiring it? Or an animal that has an unknown background or history? How mush does ethics differ between species?

Please discuss it would be interesting to know peoples views : victory:


----------



## enola69 (Aug 27, 2008)

I would breed from a rescue providing it was 100% healthy.

I recently was given an aph that had lost a good 30% of its quills. It had some kind of skin complaint and was slightly underweight. 

I have had her nearly a month now and she has regrown all of her quills, her skin has responded to the treatment and she has put on over 100g in weight. 

I would have no problems in breeding her now!

HOWEVER - i have no guarantee on her age. Was told she was roughly 8 months, I have no original paper work to tell me and also do not know the name of the pet shop she originally came from - so i will not breed her. 

She is taking up valuable space - ie could have another breediing female in my herd but I know I have her best interests at heart by not breeding her.


----------



## saxon (Feb 26, 2007)

I dont' breed any rescues, not even my own returns that I have bred in the first place, I can only take the word of the owner as to how they have been raised.

I also will take back any of my animals and I take responsibility thoroughout their lives.

I try to find homes where they will stay forever but this is not always possible for various reasons.
I have my animals back for holidays etc. 

To the point that I am haivng two does back for a 6 month period as hte owner is working away for 6 months.


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

I would NEVER breed from a rescue. I only breed from gerbils with a known genetic background.
I only breed when i know i am going to keep 1 or 2 pups for myself and any pups that don't sell stay with me


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I bred cats for 20 years and I wouldn't have bred from a rescue unless I had her papers, knew her pedigree and her circumstances and only if it was right for the queen. 

I sold all my kittens on the proviso that if at any time they had to be rehomed the owner would come back to me and if I couldn't take in the cat myself (for good reason), then I would help find the home so that I could continue to monitor the cat. Over the 20 years I brought one back into the house because she was still a kitten, had never been allowed outside the house, so no infection risk and at that time we only had 5 cats. Since then I've found homes for about 5 others that have needed to be rehomed for various reasons, 2 of them were in Banff in the far north of Scotland! 

I have never neutered and rehomed one of my queens when she was past breeding age, as this is a practice that I particularly disagree with. Because of that particular ethic I am no longer breeding because when my last breeding queen was due to be neutered, I didn't have the space to keep a kitten to carry on my lines.

I neutered my Siamese queen after she reabsorbed her first litter and needed an aural ablation because of polyps on her eardrum. My vet assured me that neither problems were genetic, but I wasn't prepared to take the risk, as I would not have wanted to produce a kitten with those problems again. 

Finally I would never breed from any animal that I knew had specific genetic problems anywhere in the breeding lines.

Therefore, I considered myself to be an ethical breeder.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

*To those breeders out there - what ethics do you adhere to when breeding?* 

My own. I breed from healthy friendly rats with known histories from the best lines I can find. I'm aiming to better the health and temperament of a specific variety, rather than breeding for the sake of it. I dont breed for profit. I will only breed from a doe once, twice if necessary but never more than that. I breed one or two litters at most at a time. I breed for myself primarily, and for pet homes secondary. My rats are all pets, I dont have "stock". I dont sell my pets via pet shops. I choose who is the best home for my rats. All owners have to sign a non-breeding contract unless otherwise arranged. I sell to over 18s only, anyone under that age or still needing parental permission needs to get their parents to apply. My contract also states if circumstances change and they need to rehome their rats, they must come back to me, and I'll find them a new home (and this is not for profit either, as I dont charge for rehomes, but to ensure they go to a good home where I can keep in touch).

*Who sets these ethics?*

Me. 

*What is classed as wrong or bad practise??*

Ask different people they'll all give you different answers. Ethics are very personal. What one person might find ethical, another might not. 

*How important or how much value to you place on ethics in breeding?*

Depends what you're talking about. 

*Would you breed from say a rescue animal within 2-3 months of you acquiring it?* 

Absolutely not - it's a huge break of trust, as most rescues are homed on a non-breeding contract or understanding.

*Or an animal that has an unknown background or history?*

I wouldn't personally, but it would depend on the circumstances. Eg. I know people have had to resort to feeder breeder rats or pet shop rats to start a new variety. However this shouldn't be an excuse for Joe Bloggs to breed from his pet shop or BYB rats (IMO). 

*How mush does ethics differ between species?*

Cant say, I only breed rats. Most of my personal "ethics" would be the same regardless of species (eg breeding only from healthy animals from the best breeders, never breeding from a rescue etc).


----------



## animal addict (Jun 1, 2008)

well there are some really good replies there - and a lot higher standards that I expected to be honest - all too often I hear 'Its my pet and I will do what I want I'm not stupid etc' its good to know that people still hold high values and aim always to breed to that level and that its across the board - do you think that there are a lot of people that dont think enough about these things? or why not more people strive to aim to these standards??


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I think too many people get into breeding because they think they can make money out of it, especially when they see the prices pedigree dogs (and 'designer crosses') and cats are.

However, a good breeder seldom ever makes money out of breeding, not if they're doing it right!


----------



## thalie_knights (Jan 19, 2007)

i think by taking even a quick glance at the shelters and seeing the amount of staff/crosses which are there day in/day out, and which are bred purely as a means of making 200-300 per puppy per litter, its clear that more and more people are trying to fund their own pockets rather than actually leave the breeding side out of it..


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

feorag said:


> I think too many people get into breeding because they think they can make money out of it, especially when they see the prices pedigree dogs (and 'designer crosses') and cats are.
> 
> However, a good breeder seldom ever makes money out of breeding, not if they're doing it right!


I totally agree.

I make a loss on every gerbil. I don't gain any extra money and i'm glad. I breed for the love of the animal :2thumb:


----------



## akai-chan (Sep 7, 2008)

I breed only from animals whose lines I know are healthy. I would never breed form a rescue animal.

I will take back any unwanted animals that I have bred.

None of my rats will be bred more than 3 times in their life and I will never breed them under 4 months.

Any babies that are obviously showing signs of ill health that will affect them long term are euthanised (luckily this doesn;t happen often )

Peace
Akai-Chan


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

akai-chan said:


> I breed only from animals whose lines I know are healthy. I would never breed form a rescue animal.
> 
> I will take back any unwanted animals that I have bred.
> 
> ...


I've seen pics of yours and they are fantastic quality and in perfect health :2thumb:


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

A couple of weeks ago I was walking with a friend and our dogs and he asked me if would consider breeding my male border collie with his bitch.
His bitch is only 6 months old at the moment.
His bitch is very pretty and I do think it has the potential for a good pairing, however she isn't KC registered. We speculated about it for a bit and because we would both want a puppy from them, I told him that:

He had to have her tested for HD and CEA etc.
He would have to wait 2 years because I don't want another dog just now, and also to see how she develops in temperament and, physically.
I would have to have mine tested (he is from tested parents).
He would have to have at least another 4 top homes lined up and waiting.
I would have my boy neutered straight after the mating since it won't be a regular occurance.

Even after all this, I'm still not sure I would feel comfortable with the idea.


----------



## akai-chan (Sep 7, 2008)

Thanks Marcia  I try not to make breeding machines of mine, unlikle a couple of people I know >_< Mine are pets first, breeders second. Always.

Peace
Akai-Chan


----------



## akai-chan (Sep 7, 2008)

Evie said:


> A couple of weeks ago I was walking with a friend and our dogs and he asked me if would consider breeding my male border collie with his bitch.
> His bitch is only 6 months old at the moment.
> His bitch is very pretty and I do think it has the potential for a good pairing, however she isn't KC registered. We speculated about it for a bit and because we would both want a puppy from them, I told him that:
> 
> ...


Should wait at least 18 months before mating the bitch, then you have all the health tests etc you need to do... Probably isn;t worth it to be honest. 

Peace
Akai-Chan


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

akai-chan said:


> Thanks Marcia  I try not to make breeding machines of mine, unlikle a couple of people I know >_< Mine are pets first, breeders second. Always.
> 
> Peace
> Akai-Chan


Same here


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

akai-chan said:


> Should wait at least 18 months before mating the bitch, then you have all the health tests etc you need to do... Probably isn;t worth it to be honest.
> 
> Peace
> Akai-Chan


I did say he would have to wait *2 years*. 
Just out of curiosity, when you say not worth it, what do you mean?
If you are talking about finance - it doesn't come into it. 
It's about breeding and rearing some fantastic dogs for us. Obviously it will be an expensive undertaking but the potential outcome could be outstanding.


----------



## akai-chan (Sep 7, 2008)

Evie said:


> I did say he would have to wait *2 years*.
> Just out of curiosity, when you say not worth it, what do you mean?
> If you are talking about finance - it doesn't come into it.
> It's about breeding and rearing some fantastic dogs for us. Obviously it will be an expensive undertaking but the potential outcome could be outstanding.


Aha, didn;t read that part. I'm a bit preoccupied with newborn rats...

I mean if you want another dog, rather than breeding and bringing more pups into the world, why not rescue? I odn;t think her being pretty is a good enough reason to breed, it should be about improving the breed as a whole.

Does he know the background and lineage of his dog and do you know the same of yours?

I know that finance doesn;t come into it, the best thing to do is get them health checked and consider if you will be making the species better or just breeding because you can?

Peace
Akai-Chan

[EDIT] sorry that sounded a bit harsh, I honestly didn;t mean it to. I'm not here to start an argument!


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

akai-chan said:


> Aha, didn;t read that part. I'm a bit preoccupied with newborn rats...
> 
> I mean if you want another dog, rather than breeding and bringing more pups into the world, why not rescue? I odn;t think her being pretty is a good enough reason to breed, it should be about improving the breed as a whole.
> 
> ...


Haha did you actually read any of my post - don't worry I'm not taking offence - happy to hear your thoughts. 

Health testing is one of the conditions which I told him must be met. 
I do know the lineage of my dog - he is from a top kennel and I waited a year for a puppy from his litter. I know several dogs from the same kennel and all have a similar attitude. I have rescued more dogs than I have ever bought, but when I want a dog to work, I want a dog that has been bred and reared with care. 

My friend doesn't know much about the background of his bitch except that she is from working stock (sheep). This is where I have concerns - however if she passes her health tests and is of sound temperament - I won't rule it out.

Like I said, If we can produce good dogs that will have the right kind of homes (experienced working homes) lined up, then yes I do believe that it would be of benefit to the breed. So many collies end up in rescue because they are pure farm bred workers and have OCD. my other collie is one of these. The dog I am talking about using is bred from a combination of obedience and sheepdog lines and as a consequence he is high drive but without all the noise sensitivity, staring and stalking behaviour.


----------



## akai-chan (Sep 7, 2008)

Don;t worry I know you;re going to health test them, I respect you for that. So many people breed without health testing or checking lineage it;s unbelievable >_<

I didn't realise you wanted a dog to work  In which case I agree a pup you;ve raised yourself is better. Eventually I want a lurcher to come rabbiting with me and I'll be making damned sure that I know the pup from an early age!

The only problem with now knowing lineage is not knowing health problems that can't be picked up by health checks (Though correct me if things like genetic diseases can be picked up by health tests etc, I don;t know much about health testing). Is there any way the guy can get in contact with the breeder and ask them about the parentage?

So long as there are homes waiting for the pups, that's all that matters really  I say good luck to you. I love border collies, I can;t wait until I can have my own...

Peace
Akai-Chan


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

akai-chan said:


> Don;t worry I know you;re going to health test them, I respect you for that. So many people breed without health testing or checking lineage it;s unbelievable >_<
> 
> I didn't realise you wanted a dog to work  In which case I agree a pup you;ve raised yourself is better. Eventually I want a lurcher to come rabbiting with me and I'll be making damned sure that I know the pup from an early age!
> 
> ...


You can test for some genetic defects in collies, like hip displasia and CEA. 
I did ask him about contacting the breeder, but really we were just musing about the idea. Probably won't actually happen because back in the real worls, I don't think anyone would good enough to have one of my puppies so it would be really hard to deal with. :blush:
My dog is such a cracker and I would love something similar. I could just go back to his breeder when Im ready for another but this just came up as an option. 

Another friend of mine has a couple of lurchers, and she was very picky about where they came from. Both fab dogs who do heelwork to music as well as tearing along the beach at a million miles per hour every day.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I think if it was me, it'd have to be an exceptional pairing, not just "ok". Border collies are ten a penny in rescue, as are staffies, GSDs, etc and their crosses. IMO some breeds should be left unless it is imperative. If it's just a case of wanting another dog, there's rescues or other breeders breeding from dogs with histories on both sides. If there's a glut of these breeds in rescue, and they're easily available through established breeders, I dont see the point in making any more - there simply aren't the homes for them. Or there might be for yours, but you'll be denying those in rescue a good home.

Of course that is just my opinion.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

LisaLQ said:


> I think if it was me, it'd have to be an exceptional pairing, not just "ok". Border collies are ten a penny in rescue, as are staffies, GSDs, etc and their crosses. IMO some breeds should be left unless it is imperative. If it's just a case of wanting another dog, there's rescues or other breeders breeding from dogs with histories on both sides. If there's a glut of these breeds in rescue, and they're easily available through established breeders, I dont see the point in making any more - there simply aren't the homes for them. Or there might be for yours, but you'll be denying those in rescue a good home.
> 
> Of course that is just my opinion.


Excactly why I'm only toying with the idea - I admit to being torn between wanna and should I.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Evie said:


> My dog is such a cracker and I would love something similar. I could just go back to his breeder when Im ready for another but this just came up as an option.


I'm not saying that what you are planning is wrong, but what I would say is that the 'golden rule' with animals is when you see a dog/cat/whatever that is fabulous and you really want one like that, you don't go for that dog/cat/whatever's progeny, you go back to the parents! Just a thought??


----------



## cathspythons (Jun 29, 2008)

I dont class this as ethics,just common sence.I won't be breeding my two till there hip scored and eye tested.Then it will only be if i want a pup to keep for myself out of the litter


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

animal addict said:


> To those breeders out there - what ethics do you adhere to when breeding? Who sets these ethics? What is classed as wrong or bad practise?? How important or how much value to you place on ethics in breeding? Would you breed from say a rescue animal within 2-3 months of you acquiring it? Or an animal that has an unknown background or history? How mush does ethics differ between species?
> 
> Please discuss it would be interesting to know peoples views : victory:


I would not breed from a rescue cat or dog, but I might breed from a rescued goat or chicken. In my mind , pets and livestock are different. Are ethics the same as morals?
I would not breed from a cat or dog that had something physically wrong with it or was temperamentally usound. Nor would I breed from a particular breed that already had problems which where breed specific, for instance, although I like staffies and rotties and GSD, if I had those breeds, I would not breed from them because of the numbers of them in rescue already. It seems to be that the majority of the people wanting those breeds are morons so ethically I could not see myself trying to sift through applicants, trying to select good responsible permanent homes where none exist.
So I would not breed from rescue cats and dogs, I would breed from livestock, I might or might not breed from rodents or birds, but it would depend on how easy it is to find homes which meet my exacting standards. On the whole, it's easier not to breed from any pet species I might take in and to that end, I spend a fortune on neutering.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

feorag said:


> I'm not saying that what you are planning is wrong, but what I would say is that the 'golden rule' with animals is when you see a dog/cat/whatever that is fabulous and you really want one like that, you don't go for that dog/cat/whatever's progeny, you go back to the parents! Just a thought??


And a very valid point - I think I'm just being clucky really. 
Not planning - that sounds waaaay to definite - I was merely considering the pros and cons. :lol2:


----------



## spider_duck (Feb 25, 2008)

I do not, as a rule breed my animals. I bred rabbits and hamsters as a child, I have bred ferrets and have bred mice for food.

I personally would never breed from a rescue, I have no way of telling what kind of upbringing the animal has had, nor details of any genetic faults. Plus the majority of the rescues I've taken in have been ill/in poor condition when they came to me.

I also disagree with the notion a lot of people have that breeding animals will make them money. I don't think animals should be bred over and over again to line the owners pockets. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with serious breeders doing so in order to improve their line and to produce strong healthy and genetically sound animals, I hate the way so many people these days see £signs when they look at their animals. 

Why can't a pet, just be a pet?


----------



## akai-chan (Sep 7, 2008)

spider_duck said:


> Why can't a pet, just be a pet?


Some people buy animals specifically to breed? some want to continue their line or want to get a new pet but want it to b from their current pet. I breed because I want to improve the quality of the species I breed (rats) as well as making beautiful, healthy babies.

But still, even though I breed my rats they are pets first. Always.

Peace
Akai-Chan


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

Personally I would welcome some legislation which required dog breeders to acheive some kind of qualification before they were allowed to breed dogs. In addition to the basic mechanics of it all, part of the test would be an indepth knowledge of their breed, an awareness of how puppies develop psychologically and physically. It would stop impulse breeding and ensure that breeders were fully aware of their legal and moral responsibilities.
Those who are committed and serious would probably enjoy the learning experience/exchange of ideas, and those who aren't committed enough - well they shouldn't breed.


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

Evie said:


> Personally I would welcome some legislation which required dog breeders to acheive some kind of qualification before they were allowed to breed dogs. In addition to the basic mechanics of it all, part of the test would be an indepth knowledge of their breed, an awareness of how puppies develop psychologically and physically. It would stop impulse breeding and ensure that breeders were fully aware of their legal and moral responsibilities.
> Those who are committed and serious would probably enjoy the learning experience/exchange of ideas, and those who aren't committed enough - well they shouldn't breed.


I couldn't agree more :2thumb:


----------



## mattm (Jul 18, 2008)

I would not breed from a rescue animal because I do not agree with breeding from animals with a complete unknown background. The only time I would breed from a rescue is if there was a strong genetic reason to (i.e. a new mutation that I think would be worth working on and "making" more of for that particular fancy) AND it would have to be in the peak of health/condition. Having said that it is a very rare case scenario and not really worth discussing.

The breeder themself has to be responsible for the ethics and how seriously they take them. You can not rely on anyone else to do so.

And as others have said just because you breed an animal it doesn't mean it is not a pet. All domesticated animals that are supposed to be "pets" should be that first and foremost. You shouldn't keep them for the sole purpose of breeding in my opinion. I breed Syrians and I although I know any animals I breed are from a good genetic background, I don't assume they will give birth to or sire litters. I assume quite the opposite - if they happen to be suitable, that is a bonus.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

mattm said:


> And as others have said just because you breed an animal it doesn't mean it is not a pet. All domesticated animals that are supposed to be "pets" should be that first and foremost. You shouldn't keep them for the sole purpose of breeding in my opinion. .


Totally agree, which is why I'm so against ambitious breeders moving on older breeding stock to give them space to keep new breeding stock.

My attitude is, and always will be, that any breeding stock that has produced young for a breeder has earned their place in the household and should not be 'shifted off' because it's too old to be of any use!!

My cats are all my pets, first and foremost! The success I had breeding and showing them was a bonus, but not the "be all and end all" of my ownership of them.


----------



## LauraandLee (Nov 11, 2008)

Please can I ask if any breeders ask new owners questions etc??? If im looking into getting a new pet, I like to ask questions on the baby/background/parents etc. 
thanks


----------



## enola69 (Aug 27, 2008)

i have a questionnaire for aph i use


----------



## spider_duck (Feb 25, 2008)

akai-chan said:


> Some people buy animals specifically to breed? some want to continue their line or want to get a new pet but want it to b from their current pet. I breed because I want to improve the quality of the species I breed (rats) as well as making beautiful, healthy babies.
> 
> But still, even though I breed my rats they are pets first. Always.
> 
> ...


 

I was reffering to the people who see how much young animals go for (puppies are a classic example), and decide to breed their own to make some quick cash. If you read my post you'd see I'm all for people breeding to improve their lines, it's when people are in it for the money that the problems arise : victory:


----------



## Stan193 (May 27, 2009)

From what ive seen its ok to breed brother and sister and ok to breed different species lol. what are ethics?


----------



## Stan193 (May 27, 2009)

spider_duck said:


> I was reffering to the people who see how much young animals go for (puppies are a classic example), and decide to breed their own to make some quick cash. If you read my post you'd see I'm all for people breeding to improve their lines, it's when people are in it for the money that the problems arise : victory:


hey whos the fat man playing the bongos or whatever hes doing?
I've seen him before, was on youtube on a video someone made to go with franks zappa song I come from nowhere.


----------



## spider_duck (Feb 25, 2008)

Stan193 said:


> hey whos the fat man playing the bongos or whatever hes doing?
> I've seen him before, was on youtube on a video someone made to go with franks zappa song I come from nowhere.


 Don vito, he was on the bam margera thing :lol2:


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

Evie said:


> Personally I would welcome some legislation which required dog breeders to acheive some kind of qualification before they were allowed to breed dogs. In addition to the basic mechanics of it all, part of the test would be an indepth knowledge of their breed, an awareness of how puppies develop psychologically and physically. It would stop impulse breeding and ensure that breeders were fully aware of their legal and moral responsibilities.
> Those who are committed and serious would probably enjoy the learning experience/exchange of ideas, and those who aren't committed enough - well they shouldn't breed.


Learning the biology of breeding would not solve the overpopulation of certain breeds, nor make some breeders take more care in selecting the new owners,nor will it make purchasers more caring or responsible. I have always maintained that if it was law for puppies to be microchipped to the breeder for life, and that if the new owners could not keep the dog, that the breeder had to have it back and take responsibility for it and rehome it, or pay a fee for it to go into rescue, more breeders might think twice before having a litter. Being forced to accept lifelong responsibility for every pup bred might scare off the irresponsible type of breeders. It won't make a difference to me because in the 25 years I have bred puppies, mine have always gone on a return contract.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

fenwoman said:


> I have always maintained that if it was law for puppies to be microchipped to the breeder for life, and that if the new owners could not keep the dog, that the breeder had to have it back and take responsibility for it and rehome it, or pay a fee for it to go into rescue, more breeders might think twice before having a litter. Being forced to accept lifelong responsibility for every pup bred might scare off the irresponsible type of breeders. It won't make a difference to me because in the 25 years I have bred puppies, mine have always gone on a return contract.


Too right it would! :2thumb:

I see it all the time, even on here, where people decide to rehome a dog/cat/whatever and the breeder doesn't want it back and has said they can rehome it. They're the "take the money and run cos it's not my responsibility" kind of people that wouldn't know the meaning of ethics!

And no amount of legislation or biological knowledge will change them!


----------



## ferretman (May 11, 2008)

The animals I breed are healthy and happy stock. I would never breed from a rescue. But their are rescue who breed their own and sell them on though it does go on.

They given the best care.

When homed any animal bred by me must come back to me. 

As breeder of primarily ferrets now i belive their should be some kind of licenseing on breeding animals and i would happily pay for a license.

What i dont agree with also is certain types of animals being bred when they have known and well documented health problems. These also tend to be bigger money animals i.e pugs and angora ferrets. All which can fetch 3 figure sums money. I belive that owners pocket is the main concern and not the animal. But if theirs a demand people will supply it.

People also forget owning animals is a privalage not a right.


----------



## animal addict (Jun 1, 2008)

some excellent points raised and discussed!!

I agree- I think there should be some sort of regime in place to make breeding safer - I would happily go through something like licensing or equivalent to be deemed fit to breed - I think any breeder should own an animal for a certain period of time say 6-12 months before being allowed to breed so that they fully understand the tempraments oftheir animals and that research has been done etc- I think it would save hot shots jumping in - I think breeding for colour without consideration of temprament is way out of order also.

Its probably been around for many years - but lately its irked me say the people that collect and breed for demand or say in the case of APH for example - breeding for colour because its deemed as 'unusual' without taking the due care and attention of the female - because who cares that it may be x age or condition and it may put her at risk - she will produce nice babies etc but its ok!!! I think breeding animals without any correct boundaries is just unacceptable but its seemingly far too common place at the moment - inc 'accidental breedings' of say, for example, a resuce cat being taken in and the speying being put off and the cat being allowed to wander and hey-ho some time later is pregnant!! I am glad that ethics is still an important factor for a lot of people - shame more people dont return to the breeder as a matter of natural course - seems money is too muh of a poweful influence in some instance


----------



## mattm (Jul 18, 2008)

Yes I do indeed "quiz" people in an informal way before they take on any of my animals, I also keep in contact with them (not regular with all but updates every now and then). I have turned people away in the past and that is my/your right as a breeder - do not be afraid to do so.

The argument regarding pricing of rarer animals or breeds/mutations is a very subjective one. You have to imagine the sheer amount of people that would "apply" for a skinnypig for example if they were the price of a normal guinea pig. It would make vetting much more difficult for the breeder. But I understand there are many breeders that are thinking about pockets and not the animals.

In my opinion if you bring an animal into the world that animal is then man made. That "breeder" should then be responsible for it for life, and if the animal is to be homed they are responsible for finding it a home with the same or similar level of care that the breeder would give. AND a lifelong guarantee of taking it back should things not work out later on.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

animal addict said:


> I agree- I think there should be some sort of regime in place to make breeding safer - I would happily go through something like licensing or equivalent to be deemed fit to breed - I think any breeder should own an animal for a certain period of time say 6-12 months before being allowed to breed so that they fully understand the tempraments oftheir animals and that research has been done etc- I think it would save hot shots jumping in - I think breeding for colour without consideration of temprament is way out of order also.


I used to breed Somalis and The Somali Cat Club has its own code of ethics for breeders, one of which is not to sell a stud cat to _anyone_ who hasn't bred at least 2 litters of kittens, in the hope of stopping people rushing out and buying a male and female cat to breed thinking they can make loadsamoney!! And I've had them come to me, saying they want to buy a male and a female kitten because they want to start breeding!

In over 20 litters of kittens I've refused to sell stud cats and have actually only sold 3 breeding queens, the rest have all been either kept by me or sold as pets and unless a kitten has been booked as a breeding queen before I've registered them, every kitten has been registered on the non-active register. Also I've never charged more for a breeding queen or a show quality kitten, because to me the most important thing is that they are pets and breeding and winning at shows can never be guaranteed when assessing a 12 week old kitten.

The Cat Fancy has an active and non-active register which allows breeders to register cats they don't think should be bred from on the non-active so progeny cannot be registered. Great idea! However, it doesn't stop someone going to a breeder, buying a pedigree kitten as a pet, not neutering it, as agreed, and deliberately breeding from it and selling the kittens as pedigree kittens, but without a registration certificate and by gum, does that go on!!! Then again, there are the ones who buy a pedigree kitten as a pet, don't neuter it and then mate it to their own non-pedigree cat and sell the kittens as half-pedigrees!


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

LauraandLee said:


> Please can I ask if any breeders ask new owners questions etc??? If im looking into getting a new pet, I like to ask questions on the baby/background/parents etc.
> thanks


I send out a questionaire for all enquiries - but it's not a pass/fail thing, just a few questions to a. get people's contact details and b. see how experienced/ready they are for rats and see if there's anything I can help them with. I expect owners to ask questions and am happy to answer them. 



Stan193 said:


> From what ive seen its ok to breed brother and sister and ok to breed different species lol. what are ethics?


Not quite sure about breeding different species (eg cat to dog?!) but brother/sister matings can be helpful in breeding (at least in my limited rat breeding experience) as you can find out what your lines are carrying (not just colour/variety wise, but health etc) and should something sinister pop up you can work away from it. Whereas outcrossing every time means a genetic faults or illnesses could be carried by all the rats in the gene pool and you wouldn't know it - until you found another rat carrying the same problems and then found out your whole line was now useless.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

fenwoman said:


> Learning the biology of breeding would not solve the overpopulation of certain breeds, nor make some breeders take more care in selecting the new owners,nor will it make purchasers more caring or responsible. I have always maintained that if it was law for puppies to be microchipped to the breeder for life, and that if the new owners could not keep the dog, that the breeder had to have it back and take responsibility for it and rehome it, or pay a fee for it to go into rescue, more breeders might think twice before having a litter. Being forced to accept lifelong responsibility for every pup bred might scare off the irresponsible type of breeders. It won't make a difference to me because in the 25 years I have bred puppies, mine have always gone on a return contract.


It's not so much about what they learn as about making them jump through a few hoops before embarking on breeding a litter. I think that making people stop think and learn would put off those who just wanted to breed a litter as a one off for all the wrong reasons. I acknowledge that it wouldn't put off those who are doing a crap job and therefore making money out of it.

Forcing breeders to take back puppies they have bred might seem like a good idea, but is it realistic to compel anyone to have a dog they can't accomodate or don't really want? Even dog breeders are subject to changes in their circumstances - financial, residential or otherwise. What would happen if someone bred a litter, got divorced, lost their home or financial security etc? When a person takes ownership of a dog, the responsibility lies with them to provide for it. If the breeder is in a position to take it back or offer support when it goes wrong, thats great.

Microchipping dogs to breeders and fining them, or naming and shaming if they have a high percentage of their offspring ending up in rescue, might be a way to go. I suspect that there are a fair number of breeders who wouldn't even know where their pups end up - a letter to them everytime a puppy they bred changes hands could be another useful tool.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

I wouldn't breed from a rescue of any species, no. 

As for ethics in dog breeding, I agree with Evie that breeders shoudl have to undergo some sort of 'test' and not legally allowed to breed unless they have done so. I also think that they should be forcedl egally to take back any dog they have bred for the life of that animal, if they are required to do so (of course, they should be able to rehome it, with care, but again, willing and able to take it back if the need arises). 

If we had some sort of licence, and NOT the sort of breeders licence that exists now, and it limited the number of litters per year a person could produce, without obtaining prior permission and having a very good reason to breed more, and you coulod only breed if you had that licence, and had health tested, then the dogs in this country would be done a HUGE favour. 

I don't really agree with cross-breeding dogs, although I do appreciate there are some genuine reasons people cross breed. (working dogs, for example) Not because of the dogs themsleves, but because the sort of people who usually (not always) do it are the sort who don't care less about the dogs concerned, or where the puppy ends up. If the breeding of cross breeds was regulaated the same way, so limited number of litters per year, mandatory health testing, and legally bound to take back any puppy you have bred, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. 

I wonder whyt he governemtn don't bring in laws like above, or whether it simply hasn't occurred to them? Anyone know how to get anything done about it, or if it's even possible?


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

Evie said:


> It's not so much about what they learn as about making them jump through a few hoops before embarking on breeding a litter. I think that making people stop think and learn would put off those who just wanted to breed a litter as a one off for all the wrong reasons. I acknowledge that it wouldn't put off those who are doing a crap job and therefore making money out of it.
> 
> *Forcing breeders to take back puppies they have bred might seem like a good idea, but is it realistic to compel anyone to have a dog they can't accomodate or don't really want? Even dog breeders are subject to changes in their circumstances - financial, residential or otherwise. What would happen if someone bred a litter, got divorced, lost their home or financial security etc? When a person takes ownership of a dog, the responsibility lies with them to provide for it. If the breeder is in a position to take it back or offer support when it goes wrong, thats great.*
> 
> Microchipping dogs to breeders and fining them, or naming and shaming if they have a high percentage of their offspring ending up in rescue, might be a way to go. I suspect that there are a fair number of breeders who wouldn't even know where their pups end up - a letter to them everytime a puppy they bred changes hands could be another useful tool.


I don't think it should be a case that the breeder must them keep the dog forever, but the breeder remains responsible for the dog. So, if the new owner cannot keep it, it is returned to the breeder, who, may keep it or rehome it themselves. 

Personally, having bred litters, I feel I am responsible for them regardless of my own person circumstances, just like I am responsible for my own dogs regardless of my own personal circumstances. I wouldn't rehome my own dogs if I got divorced, (although it's highly unlikely) and my husband's job is secure, as he is in the army. If I didn't feel able to offer that level of commitment for life, I wouldn't have bred in the first place, simple. 

Breeding dogs is not a right we have, it is a priveledge, and as such, it is something we should only do if we can do it properly. You have to consider all outcomes before embarking on it.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Evie said:


> Forcing breeders to take back puppies they have bred might seem like a good idea, but is it realistic to compel anyone to have a dog they can't accomodate or don't really want? Even dog breeders are subject to changes in their circumstances - financial, residential or otherwise. What would happen if someone bred a litter, got divorced, lost their home or financial security etc? When a person takes ownership of a dog, the responsibility lies with them to provide for it. If the breeder is in a position to take it back or offer support when it goes wrong, thats great.


But surely nobody on here is suggesting that breeders are _compelled_ to take back animals they have bred that their owners are rehoming. Yes breeders' circumstances can change just as much as owners, but that doesn't mean to say that they shouldn't be involved in helping the new owners find a suitable home for the animal, surely?

As our cat household increased (because of my propensity to fall in love with male cats and keep them as neutered pets!) and because cats are not pack animals and large numbers of cats in a house can become stressed and exhibit anti-social behaviour, such as spraying, we were not in a position to bring some of the cats we had bred back into our home, but that didn't mean to say that we just left the rehoming of kittens we had chosen to bring into the world to their owners. In every case of an owner coming back to us because they needed to rehome their cats, we found the home, vetted it, collected the cat and delivered it to the new home, whether the cat lived in Banff or was being rehomed in Yorkshire. We took responsibility for those animals.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

feorag said:


> But surely nobody on here is suggesting that breeders are _compelled_ to take back animals they have bred that their owners are rehoming. Yes breeders' circumstances can change just as much as owners, but that doesn't mean to say that they shouldn't be involved in helping the new owners find a suitable home for the animal, surely?
> 
> As our cat household increased (because of my propensity to fall in love with male cats and keep them as neutered pets!) and because cats are not pack animals and large numbers of cats in a house can become stressed and exhibit anti-social behaviour, such as spraying, we were not in a position to bring some of the cats we had bred back into our home, but that didn't mean to say that we just left the rehoming of kittens we had chosen to bring into the world to their owners. In every case of an owner coming back to us because they needed to rehome their cats, we found the home, vetted it, collected the cat and delivered it to the new home, whether the cat lived in Banff or was being rehomed in Yorkshire. We took responsibility for those animals.


Maybe I've misinterpreted what was said, Fenwoman did say 'had to have it back but maybe I read it out of context. That aside I don't see how what you do for your cats can be enforced or legislated. Finding an animal a good home has to come from the heart and from a desire to do the right thing. It is a moral responsibility and its wonderful when breeders embrace that responsibility the way you do, but if a breeder doesn't want to, they aren't going to do the best for the animal concerned.

A fine paid to rescue is a good idea, but suppose the option was either rehome it yourself or pay the fine - breeders might decide to just do a half arsed job of rehoming or worse still a one way trip to the vets.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

To be honest I don't see how it could be enforced either, more's the pity! But I do seriously think that anyone with any kind of moral code would not just wash their hands of an animals they've chosen to bring into the world when it falls on hard times, just because they've got the money and handed over the responsibility to the new owner.

I for one couldn't do it, but I know there are a lot of people out there who can and do!


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

feorag said:


> To be honest I don't see how it could be enforced either, more's the pity! But I do seriously think that anyone with any kind of moral code would not just wash their hands of an animals they've chosen to bring into the world when it falls on hard times, just because they've got the money and handed over the responsibility to the new owner.
> 
> I for one couldn't do it, but I know there are a lot of people out there who can and do!


People do it with adult dogs they've had for years - rehome them and then refuse to get involved if the new home doesn't work out :bash:

It's good to have proper breeders leading by example though.


----------

