# Another 2 cents worth



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

There's a thread going "How much is too much?" $1900 for a puppy from a reputable breeder. 

I know getting all the clearances and getting a quality, healthy litter whelped is expensive. I have to think tho that if a litter of 10 puppies sells for $1900 that it didn't cost $19,000 to get that litter whelped.

When does it become a problem that instead of promoting the sale of a really great puppy the price actually drives people to the hobby breeders and ads in paper? 

As a forum, do we advocate that if people can't afford the purchase price they shouldn't have a Golden or possibly a dog at all? I have heard "If you can't afford to pay the price, you can't afford the health bills" but not all puppies from un-reputable breeders have problems. It's a bigger crap shoot going that way but getting ANY animal is a crap shoot to some extent.

I think if I were faced with no puppy at all or a less expensive one, I would choose to have a puppy. :uhoh:

I don't mean to argumentative, just a discussion.

So, despite the cost of getting a litter whelped, do reputable breeders have ANY responsibility to price their puppies reasonably, affordable in order to promote a healthy breed?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I have to think tho that if a litter of 10 puppies sells for $1900 that it didn't cost $19,000 to get that litter whelped.


But who knows, it might cost that much though. That was in California.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I sell my dogs for a lot less, because I don't look at it as a money making venture... My sister's first Ecocker was $800 and now the dogs are $1400..


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I don't breed, but I want to offer this as something I haven't seen mentioned. Please read thru to the end, even though it's long. It might change your thinking.
First, these reputable breeders have put THOUSANDS of dollars into the female to prove that she's worthy of breeding. I've read that the average amount it takes to put a CH on a golden retriever is well over 10,000. I believe it. Add to that training, routine vet bills, grooming, travel to dog shows, and you're already losing money. I'm not including in this the routine costs of owning a non-breeding dog, you'd incur those either way, so I'll just leave them off.
Remember, the female will typically have 2 litters of 8-10 each. Let's say 2 litters of 10 puppies each, selling for $1500 a puppy, although of course the litters could be smaller or larger.
If you've spent $15000 training, traveling, and showing her, your first litter is a wipeout, without even including the expenses of the litter itself.
Now let's say for each litter you spend $1000 on stud fees (a rather modest stud fee), $2000 on vet bills including progesterone testing several times, vet bills for the female and the puppies, possible vet assisted breedings (not even mentioning AI here), etc. So that's another $3000, times 2 litters, so $6000 you need to subtract. There is also the $1000 for health clearances for the female. Now we're at $8000 "profit" for 2 litters, and of course haven't taken into account if you need to make arrangements to get the female to the stud dog, which can incur some rather hefty travel fees. But I'll set that aside for now, although I know one of Tito's breedings they incurred a couple thousand in travel fees, but just to be generous I'll leave that off.
So the breeder is making $4000 on the litter, if it's a litter of 10 and all goes well. 
Not including the time it takes to get the female to the male, take the female to the vet several times, etc., the breeder will have to take care of those puppies for 8 weeks before they go to their homes. 
Just for the sake of argument, let's say the breeder spends 7 hours a day taking care of the puppies (and anyone who breeds will tell you it's probably closer to double that, as they often sleep near the whelping box, etc, the first 3 weeks). But still. Lets just say 7 hours a day for 8 weeks, which is roughly 400 hours.
So our "greedy" breeders are making $10 an hour for their time and expertise, IF they're lucky and all goes exactly right.
What's minimum wage these days??


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I've heard it is something like $30,000 to finish a dog in the United States. That one litter certainly doesn't cover it. Then you wonder how often does that large litter happen? A breeder I know of had her first two litters and both only had about 3 puppies and I know the last one resulted in a C-section. Now I do think $1900 is a ton for a pet puppy but $1000-1200 is reasonable. 

And what are you going to do when you purchase a less expensive pup from a questionable background and that pup come down with hip dysplasia? That surgery alone is probably going to cost you in excess of what you would have paid for a pup from a reputable breeder. And sure, reputable breeders do produce dysplastic dogs but they are responsible for what they produce and would take the dog back and provide it care if you could not. That is not going to happen with your BYB dog. So--you could not afford the puppy with a solid pedigree you are not going to be able to fix this pup's hips. Dog is rehomed and you are again dog-less.


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> I don't breed, but I want to offer this as something I haven't seen mentioned. Please read thru to the end, even though it's long. It might change your thinking.
> First, these reputable breeders have put THOUSANDS of dollars into the female to prove that she's worthy of breeding. I've read that the average amount it takes to put a CH on a golden retriever is well over 10,000. I believe it. Add to that training, routine vet bills, grooming, travel to dog shows, and you're already losing money. I'm not including in this the routine costs of owning a non-breeding dog, you'd incur those either way, so I'll just leave them off.
> Remember, the female will typically have 2 litters of 8-10 each. Let's say 2 litters of 10 puppies each, selling for $1500 a puppy, although of course the litters could be smaller or larger.
> If you've spent $15000 training, traveling, and showing her, your first litter is a wipeout, without even including the expenses of the litter itself.
> ...


Great job explaining everthing and that is just for a litter where nothing goes wrong. Example: C-section, hand feeding a baby, etc..
Don't forget you need to feed the pregnant/nursing momma and all those little babies. That is a lot of food. My food is $50.00 per 30 lb. bag. 
Vet visits, shots and wormers for puppies.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> And what are you going to do when you purchase a less expensive pup from a questionable background and that pup come down with hip dysplasia? That surgery alone is probably going to cost you in excess of what you would have paid for a pup from a reputable breeder. And sure, reputable breeders do produce dysplastic dogs but they are responsible for what they produce and would take the dog back and provide it care if you could not. That is not going to happen with your BYB dog. So--you could not afford the puppy with a solid pedigree you are not going to be able to fix this pup's hips. Dog is rehomed and you are again dog-less.


The one thing I would add to this is that while hip dysplasia STILL happens with dogs who have those hip clearances going back 5+ generations, it hopefully will not be the type of dysplasia that requires surgery.


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

Can I ask why a pet quality pup should cost less. Do the get less care the a show pup.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

MGMF said:


> Can I ask why a pet quality pup should cost less. Do the get less care the a show pup.


I was thinking more in terms of performance...if I were a very competitive performance trainer I would be more inclined personally to spend that much on a pup from a very nice working pedigree with multiple titled dogs from a very experienced and well-known breeder. However, personally, if I were just looking for a nice pet with a solid health background that price would be high and probably drive me to a different litter. So, I guess maybe it depends more on the litter/pedigree. 

I did not mean to imply that pets should cost less, but just that I would be willing to spend more money as a competitive person on a really nice litter because of things that might be important to me (proven, titled dogs) that are not going to matter to a pet owner who just wants a dog with solid temperament and health but does not need a OTCH/MACH/CH/etc potential dog.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

I understand totally about the expense of showing and building a reputation not to mention starting out with quality stock. We did it with horses...much less profit there. Very easy to spend upwards of $50k on a horse, $20k a year to promote and then 1 foal every 11 months. There's an old joke in horse circles. "How do you make a small fortune in horses? Start with a big one."

What I am wondering is: if people find reputable puppies outside their budget, doesn't the high price actually ENCOURAGE back yard, hobby and puppy mill breeding? Seems it makes more sense to flood the market with well-bred pups at a lower price if breeders want to put those other guys out of business. If I have $500 to spend on a puppy and I can chose one from a back yard breeder or one from a reputable breeder, I would pick the better breeder pup. 

Again, I'm not advocating for poorly bred pups. Just talking...more about human nature than anything else.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Can I ask why a pet quality pup should cost less. Do the get less care the a show pup.


Maybe I've got this wrong, but I was told that there is no difference between a pet quality and show quality pup from some breeders _other than the registration_.  This was during an interesting conversation I had with a local highly-recommended breeder before I got Jacks. I told her I wanted a show quality puppy, believing that the "pet quality" dogs were going to be gauche or wrong looking or stupider in some way. 

And she of course jumped to the conclusion that I was an aspiring byb trying to get my hands on one of her dogs. And omg did I get a lecture. :


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

Again going to my background in horses. Yes, a trail horse for casual riding doesn't cost near what a show horse does. Another thing in horses is that one competitor could sell a horse for more money than another competitor could sell the same horse for. There's a perception of quality with one person and thus brings a higher asking price than there is with another person which thus brings a lower price. For the same horse. 



GoldenSail said:


> I was thinking more in terms of performance...if I were a very competitive performance trainer I would be more inclined personally to spend that much on a pup from a very nice working pedigree with multiple titled dogs from a very experienced and well-known breeder. However, personally, if I were just looking for a nice pet with a solid health background that price would be high and probably drive me to a different litter. So, I guess maybe it depends more on the litter/pedigree.
> 
> I did not mean to imply that pets should cost less, but just that I would be willing to spend more money as a competitive person on a really nice litter because of things that might be important to me (proven, titled dogs) that are not going to matter to a pet owner who just wants a dog with solid temperament and health but does not need a OTCH/MACH/CH/etc potential dog.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

To me the only distinction between pet quality and show quality would be price.

When I tell somebody I only want pet quality, it means I don't want your pick of the litter, most expensive dog you have. I'll take the cull that you don't think will show well, for a lesser price.

I have come to understand that a well bred litter doesn't really have 'culls'. They are all top-notch dogs. The price is the price, whether the buyer choses to show or not.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Penny's Mom said:


> Again going to my background in horses. Yes, a trail horse for casual riding doesn't cost near what a show horse does. Another thing in horses is that one competitor could sell a horse for more money than another competitor could sell the same horse for. There's a perception of quality with one person and thus brings a higher asking price than there is with another person which thus brings a lower price. For the same horse.


Absolutely! And it is not to say one way of thinking is better than another. I betcha that Secretariat's offspring cost a pretty penny--perhaps worth it to serious competitors but not someone who wants a horse that they can casually ride on the weekends. And this is what I meant by saying $1900 is a lot for a pet dog.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

I've never really found a difference between "show quality" and "pet quality". To be honest, for my purposes I'd rather just get a healthy dog with a sweet temperment. I have been very fortunate in my purchasing of both of my two dogs, they have been fantastic. If 1900 dollars gaurantee's that my dogs don't have any health issues or temperment problems.... then that's money well spent.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

'And what are you going to do when you purchase a less expensive pup from a questionable background and that pup come down with hip dysplasia? That surgery alone is probably going to cost you in excess of what you would have paid for a pup from a reputable breeder. And sure, reputable breeders do produce dysplastic dogs but they are responsible for what they produce and would take the dog back and provide it care if you could not. That is not going to happen with your BYB dog. So--you could not afford the puppy with a solid pedigree you are not going to be able to fix this pup's hips. Dog is rehomed and you are again dog-less.'


IF a breeder takes back a dog whose owners can not afford surgery, is the dog returned to them once the dog has recovered? Or are they now -dog-less?

It is a rather broad assumption that if I cannot afford/or choose not to buy a 'pedigreed' dog because of the price, that I shouldn't have a dog because I can't pay for the health care it needs. Two of my dogs came from 'hobby' breeders, one is healthy and solid as a rock, the other is healthy, but has mild hip dysplasia, (could have happened even if they were 'pedigreed') and yes, they do, and always will, get the care they need.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Penny's Mom said:


> What I am wondering is: if people find reputable puppies outside their budget, doesn't the high price actually ENCOURAGE back yard, hobby and puppy mill breeding? Seems it makes more sense to flood the market with well-bred pups at a lower price if breeders want to put those other guys out of business. If I have $500 to spend on a puppy and I can chose one from a back yard breeder or one from a reputable breeder, I would pick the better breeder pup.
> 
> Again, I'm not advocating for poorly bred pups. Just talking...more about human nature than anything else.


I think this is exactly why we have BYB and why they will probably never go away. It is unfortunate, but people are going to do what they want to do regardless.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

The problem with Backyard Breeders is that they put nothing into their dogs and can produce an animal most people understand to be the equivalent to a well bred dog. The AKC and CKC are the ones who are responsible for the success of the greeders and mills. The general public think of this as a health clearance or an acknowledgment of excellence. How many people have said "I purchased my dog from Pennies Pets for 1200 dollars and he's a purebred and they can trace his legacy back 100 years". They are also shocked when they find out their dog has hip displaysia or Elbow Displaysia.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Charliethree said:


> It is a rather broad assumption that if I cannot afford/or choose not to buy a 'pedigreed' dog because of the price, that I shouldn't have a dog because I can't pay for the health care it needs.


It is one thing to choose not to buy a dog that comes from a reputable breeder because you don't want to spend the money; it is another to not purchase one because you cannot afford it. I don't understand how someone cannot afford a 1k dog could afford 2-3k surgery for a $300 dog or even just thousands in vet care such as prescription drugs. JMO.

Granted, people will purchase dogs from BYB and not experience severe problems but I personally cannot and will not advocate for it. Rescue, certainly, but not BYB dogs.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

Penny came from a hobby breeder with only basic clearance on hips. I didn't know anything else at the time except to ask about hips in the parents so I am far more aware now than I was then. 

I admit that I shopped 'dog' first, then price. The one, self-promoted reputable breeder had all the trappings of a golden mill and we ran like the wind from her.

I found Penny through an ad in the paper, there were 2 puppies left when we bought her.

Our big expense was not hd but acl, which can happen to anyone. So it's entirely possible to pay for the well-bred puppy AND get hit with a huge medical bill.

I think, as a puppy/dog owner, one has to be prepared to face a big medical bill at some point. Some get hit by cars, some eat socks. Fortunately most dogs live pretty uneventful lives, but puppy buyers should be prepared to face a big expense.

As I mentioned before, my husband is not on board with the theory that an expensive puppy from a r.b. is going to have a healthier life. The risk is still there. He basis HIS opinion on our first Golden who came from a true byb: my friend had a female, her friend has a male = let's have puppies. Polly was a great dog who lived until she was 14 1/2 and had no clearance related health issues. Penny came from a hobby breeder with some sort of clearances. So we discuss the pros and cons at length. I'm on the fence.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Charliethree said:


> IF a breeder takes back a dog whose owners can not afford surgery, is the dog returned to them once the dog has recovered? Or are they now -dog-less?


Many reputable breeders stand behind their dogs and provide a health guarantee. If the dog presents with dysplasia there are certainly breeders that have been known to help with the expense and even refund entire purchase price (or more) and yes the owner gets to keep the dog. They will also take back any of the dogs they breed at any time and re-home or keep and care for the dog themselves.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

DH and I were just talking about guarantees and likened it to prepaying insurance on the puppy.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> As I mentioned before, my husband is not on board with the theory that an expensive puppy from a r.b. is going to have a healthier life. The risk is still there. He basis HIS opinion on our first Golden who came from a true byb: my friend had a female, her friend has a male = let's have puppies. Polly was a great dog who lived until she was 14 1/2 and had no clearance related health issues. Penny came from a hobby breeder with some sort of clearances. So we discuss the pros and cons at length. I'm on the fence.


This reminds me... and I guess this question needs to be thrown out there. 

I know a lot of people like Elizabeth's husband. My barn lady owns 2 German Shepherds who are 13 going on 14. These dogs were byb and as puppies were handed out for free at the race track. 

Both guys are HUGE. The one boy had hip dysplasia in his first year and needed surgery. And recently he needed surgery to fix his ACL. 

But the fact is these dogs are both OLD, but VERY healthy and agile for their age. They still try herding horses. They kill cats, but they are perfect family dogs and friendly to everyone that comes on the farm. And overall, they have had very few health problems. 

As long as people have good exerience going byb stories like this, how could you convince them to pay _anything_ for a dog?

ETA - I should probably say that when I heard how much my barn lady spent when she purchased a new race horse, I felt so much better about what I spent on my show horse (who was a few thousands more than the $4800 I spent for my first car). And what is more mind boggling is she earned every penny back after his first race.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

That's a very good point, Megora. The fact is MOST dogs live pretty healthy lives eating pretty cheap food, living in less than ideal conditions.

When I was growing up, our neighbor had a little b.c./terrier mix, Foxy. She lived in a dog house, could come in to the first landing during really cold weather, nobody had a/c then, she wandered the neighborhood and every year had puppies by another neighbor's terrier, Bootsy. Foxy's dad built a lift up roof on her dog house so we could all reach in a play with the puppies. Foxy had a great life and lived a long time.

I think what is preventing the full-scale swing to reputable breeders/high priced pups is that most of us have known dogs and dog situations like this and it doesn't seem out of the ordinary to "just get a dog."

I think most people, DH, believe that most dogs are destined to live pretty unremarkable lives. I know if Penny had been owned by our hay guy, who is a salt of the earth type farmer, her acl would not get fixed. She would hop around on 3 legs until the other one went and then he would 'euthanize' her out behind the barn and get another dog. I don't doubt for a moment that he loves his dogs despite his matter of fact way with them. Just last week he told us about his old b.c. who had died and he got teary.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

I hear you on the price of the horse thing. DH was 'fairly taken aback', to put it mildly, at what I paid for Harry. Until I told him that I had MORE THAN THAT into Daz who isn't rideable for me because I lack the skill. So getting one ready to go, not a project, was the cheaper way to go.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

I feel the need to clear up the definition of "hobby breeder" as I think it has been misused by the OP. I hear it used synonymously with Backyard Breeder all the time on the street and even on the forum. 

A COMPARISON OF: Responsible Hobby Breeders and Backyard Breeders/Irresponsible Breeders

Can someone more experienced give a definition of the term?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

The following shows that this truly is not a Black and White issue. My guy came from a big kennel, not a hobby breeder. They do not compete in anything. They breed dogs. They know their dogs. They train their own dogs. They are involved with local clubs and rescue organizations, but are not show people. 

The following I was hoping to past over in the same format as on the link, but it didn't work out. But these in blue are exactly the positives that I could say about my guy's breeder.

The breeders I've been looking into since then are involved in actual AKC groups, show and train their dogs, breed once a year or less, etc... But I would not say that breeders who do not do all that are BYB's! 

Belongs to dog clubs and organizations​ 
Pups' pedigrees are filled with dogs who have obtained show titles/working certificates; never breeds dogs without "papers"​ 
Supports rescue groups; knows his actions inevitably play some part in pet overpopulation and euthanasia (one of every four dogs in shelters is purebred). Even with all his efforts to stem over- population, he knows "cracks" will lead to canine deaths ​ 
Knowledgeable in every facet of breed, including that of health issues/defects; researches genetics when choosing mates ​ 
Knowledgable about house breaking, training, socializing, breeding, health; constantly reads dog-related materials ​ 
Can and will help and educate puppy buyers re these issues ​ 
Willing to give you his references ​ 
Knows his puppies' ancestry​ 
Follows up on puppies' well-being; collects health information affecting his dogs​ 
Breeds to improve his own dogs, his bloodlines and the breed​ 
Rarely repeats a breeding​ 
Breeds only dogs which meet breed standard ​ 
Breeds only dogs with stable temperaments​ 
Breeds only dogs over 2 years old, and a limited number of times​ 
Does all genetic testing and will provide proof; does not breed animals with genetic defects or which are carriers of defects ​ 
Pet-quality pups generally cost $500-600+ (show-quality costs more)​ 
Puppies are sold with health guarantees​ 
Puppies are sold with contracts ​ 
Requires pups back if new homes don't work out ​ 
Dogs on property are friendly, socialized, trained ​ 
Does not own more dogs than he has room, time or money for; Dogs are groomed, exercised, healthy, happy ​ 
Will show you pups' parents if available, or if not, will have pictures ​ 
Raises puppies indoors​ 
Stays home to care for puppies​ 
Feeds only premium dog food​ 
Keeps pups with mom and litter a minimum of 49 days to ensure sibling socialization and important lessons from pups' mother​ 
Socializes pups by systematically handling them and exposing them to various noises, children and other animals before sending them to new homes ​ 
Can honestly evaluate pups' quality ​ 
Understands dogs are "pack" animals; sells pets only to buyers wanting to make pup an indoor dog and part of the family​ 
Sells only to buyers who make pup's safety a priority 

Encourages or requires buyers to spay/neuter pet-quality pups ​ 
Encourages buyers to train pups; refers to good trainer ​ 
Makes sure buyers understand pup's considerable need for time, attention, exercise and training ​


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

Excellent!


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> I was thinking more in terms of performance...if I were a very competitive performance trainer I would be more inclined personally to spend that much on a pup from a very nice working pedigree with multiple titled dogs from a very experienced and well-known breeder. However, personally, if I were just looking for a nice pet with a solid health background that price would be high and probably drive me to a different litter. So, I guess maybe it depends more on the litter/pedigree.
> 
> I did not mean to imply that pets should cost less, but just that I would be willing to spend more money as a competitive person on a really nice litter because of things that might be important to me (proven, titled dogs) that are not going to matter to a pet owner who just wants a dog with solid temperament and health but does not need a OTCH/MACH/CH/etc potential dog.


 
I just believe golden retrievers should be breed to be all round dogs. They should have the temperament to be a great pet, fit the standard which could possibly make them showable, have the great instinct to possibly be a hunter and very intelligent to make them trainable. Even some of the top show litters in the country only produce family pet. I just think all litters should be produced with the goal of making them better. I know the perfect golden does not exist but I would rather get a puppy from someone who works hard to try.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Think about it this way: why should I discount all of my time and effort with my dogs to compete with BYB's? I work ****** hard with my dogs. In addition to the expenses of clearances and entry fees and travel, I have 1000's of hours of training into them. I finished my first MH this weekend and I sure as hell am not going to discount her puppies to compete with the puppies produced by no-title, no-clearance Fluffette and Joe-Goldie down the street, who have papers that say they are Goldens, but not much else to recommend them. 

Also, since when do we need to hold everyone's hand? It is a free society and if people don't like my price, I really don't care!! They do not have to have one of my puppies, nor am I obligated to make it affordable to them within their real or perceived budget. If they choose to take a risk on a cheaper dog with less care and effort put into the breeding, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE! Would you expect to get a Cadillac for the price of a Chevy Aveo? Because really that is essentially what it amounts to!

Reducing the price of well-bred pups to compete with BYB pups will not drive the poor breeders out of the "market". People still want what they want when they want it. People will save to pay $2000 for a flat screen TV to hang on the wall that will quit working in 5 or 6 years, but won't invest in a living companion who will enrich their life. Sorry, but if the main goal is a cheap companion, then go to the pound and rescue something. If you want a Golden for _*all*_ that Goldens are *supposed* to be, then expect to pay for it because as far as I am concerned it is a privilege and not a right. And if that makes me an elitist dog snob then so be it; I will wear the label with pride, right alongside my camo and muck from the field.


Also:
Must clarify as this is driving me crazy, and the terms have been used interchangeably in this thread--*HOBBY breeders and BYB's are not the same thing.* Hobby breeders are the dedicated fanciers of a breed who are involved in dogs as a hobby not a livelihood. Hobby breeders train, show and compete with their dogs, do full clearances, and carefully plan and research their breedings. They give their time back to dog sports as judges, committee members, and workers at club events. They are they backbone of your local Golden clubs. I consider myself a hobby breeder. and devote a lot of my free time to the breed through club involvement and hunt test judging, and being lumped in with BYB's drives me nuts!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Shelly, even though the description of the hunt tests leaves my head swirling and I'm too much of a bird-lady to feel right about throwing birds around (I watched Barb's video with Tito retrieving a goose and gasped in horror when the goose got tossed).... 

I can understand why the puppy of a MH (and a zillion other titles) would cost $2000.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

Be back later...have to go clean the barn. Changed my mind.

If a person wants a well-bred dog for a specific competition, of course the price goes up. And those people aren't dickering about price. They know what they want and they know what it costs.

And I'm not making a case that breeders SHOULD lower their prices to compete with other sellers. I'm just saying that for some people, they don't have as many choices/options as other people do. And for those people, taking the risk of possible problems vs no dog; they will take the risk. 

It's also a choice to become a breeder, to decide what type of breeder, how much to show, how deep to get into it. Not all breeders are judges, not all breeders volunteer, not all breeders compete. It is really all about choices, responsibility.

I get madder at people who come here because their 7 1/2 week old puppy is 'aggressive' than people who buy less than perfect dogs.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

Shelley, I think you actually make my point.

People don't begrudge you your experience, devotion, expertise, knowledge. I, for one, admire it...although I couldn't do the bird thing either. I love birds and am too conflicted.  While I understand hunting, I could never hunt. 

So, people who don't want to pay for everything you offer, don't. I don't think they should be vilified for it. When we do that, we start to make value judgements on people and that's never a good thing. This is a complicated issue.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> So, people who don't want to pay for everything you offer, don't. I don't think they should be vilified for it. When we do that, we start to make value judgements on people and that's never a good thing. This is a complicated issue.


I don't think I ever get upset at people necessarily who choose the puppies that they do for whatever reason. 

I get upset when people get into "breeding" when they do not have the knowledge and love of the breed behind that drive to build their lives around their dogs and aspiring to do the best by their dogs. Or worse, when they don't even have that drive to build their lives around their dogs.

I get upset when people get all "family business" about buying, breeding, and selling dogs. I think love of animals, love of dogs, love of their own dogs and the puppies they produce should come first. And that love should necessarily demand that they go about things the right way - including training, socializing, working with their dogs. And so forth.

Otherwise they are just glorified chicken farmers.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Penny's Mom said:


> Shelley, I think you actually make my point.
> 
> People don't begrudge you your experience, devotion, expertise, knowledge. I, for one, admire it...although I couldn't do the bird thing either. I love birds and am too conflicted.  While I understand hunting, I could never hunt.
> 
> So, people who don't want to pay for everything you offer, don't. I don't think they should be vilified for it. When we do that, we start to make value judgements on people and that's never a good thing. This is a complicated issue.


I guess the problem I see with this kind of argument is it opens up the door for breeders who don't feel like they need to adhere to the standards of reputable breeding. As in - hey, if someone is okay with buying a dog that has no championships in its background and only half the clearances done, then I think I'll start breeding my dogs.

To me, it goes above just buying a dog that has a strong background and parents with health clearances. By buying a dog from a reputable breeder you are also supporting the continuance of reputable breeding practices and saying "No." to the less than stellar breeders (i.e. puppy mills, not hobby breeders).

But maybe I am misinterpreting what people are saying - the internet does wonders at making one thing sound like something completely different.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

The thing about a $1200 or even a $1900 dog is that, if the breeder is really doing everything possible to minimize the chance of health and behavioral problems, it's a cheaper dog on average than a $500 pet store or BYB dog. It's just a matter of whether you pay the extra $1000 up front or keep it in your pocket and gamble it (and the dog's health and happiness).

There are always going to be people willing to buy poorly bred dogs, but the answer isn't to make the well bred dogs cheaper. The key is to work on educating people about what gives a dog the best possible shot at a long, healthy life. That won't eliminate badly bred dogs, but it's the best we can do.

I mean, if you look at what people are willing to pay for badly bred dogs with good marketing ($2000+), hobby bred dogs start to look like a bargain. The extra $800 or so that represents the premium of a well bred dog over a BYB dog is a drop in the bucket of healthcare costs for a dog, especially when it represents a whole lot more than $800 worth of protection for the dog.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

I am hoping this is still a discussion of why people do what they do. I'm starting to feel a little bit of a need to defend myself and it wasn't my intention to choose a side.

What do you, then, say to the person/family who wants a Golden Retriever but can't pay thousands of $$ for one? 

And yes, Brian, education is always a huge part of improving situations. Education is what helps to prevent fraud. I don't believe anyone has EVER bought a poorly bred dog because they wanted a poorly bred dog or wanted ongoing health problems and vet bills. So education that these scams are out there is the only way to make a dent in them. But again, what do you say to the ones who just don't have that money?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Penny's Mom said:


> But again, what do you say to the ones who just don't have that money?


Well I would say rescue.

But another point someone once made was that there simply is not enough puppies produced by reputable breeders to fulfill the demands of people wanting dogs. If people really tried to only get dogs from reputable breeders, there just would not be enough available for everyone. I don't know actual figures, but I would think that dogs bred by reputable hobby breeders only makes up a small portion of the total number of dogs currently out there. Then what happens? The cost of dogs goes up even more? It becomes a competition to see who will be the best owners?

Anyway, I don't have a point to mentioning that, I'm certainly not trying to promote irresponsible breeding, I just thought it was an interesting view not often heard.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Penny's Mom said:


> Be back later...have to go clean the barn. Changed my mind.
> 
> If a person wants a well-bred dog for a specific competition, of course the price goes up. And those people aren't dickering about price. They know what they want and they know what it costs.
> 
> ...


Not intending to pick at you here, but at the idea that anyone who THINKS that they WANT one should be able to have one. It is not about perfection, it is about the integrity of the breed--that standard is what defines a Golden. Absolutely there are choices, and even the best breeders emphasize some characteristics over others, and doing all of the giving back in addition to the study and care to health and the whole dog is what sets the responsible, reputable hobby breeders apart. The breeders who don't do their utmost are just breeders IMHO--they could be breeding any kind of dog-- not reputable hobby breeders with the integrity of the breed in mind. People who breed only with the goal of winning are not doing any more to promote that integrity, either. Yes, people will take that risk then of buying the cheap BYB, because of what they think they want or think they are getting, this notion of the Golden as the "perfect family dog" or a "couch potato companion". Less popularity could well be in the breed's interest. It is that very popularity, which has done so much to propogate the breeding of dogs who vary from the standard so much in conformation, temperament and working ability that it is a stretch to call some of them a Golden retriever. I don't think the good ones are for everyone--they can be more than some people can handle!


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

I've always felt like it was a slap in the face when someone said if I couldn't afford a $1200 to $1500 price tag for a puppy, I couldn't afford to have a dog. 

No I can't plunk down that much money for a puppy, but my dogs do, and will always get what they need, and I have before and would again pay for expensive vet care if it's required.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Penny's Mom said:


> What do you, then, say to the person/family who wants a Golden Retriever but can't pay thousands of $$ for one?


I tell them that the $1200 dog will cost them a lot less over its life and that the $500 dog has a lot more than $700 in hidden costs waiting around the bend. If you can't afford to buy a dog that's properly bred for health, you certainly can't afford to buy a dog that has far higher risks of expensive health problems. The $1200 is the cheaper dog. I'd also point out that you're not just risking thousands of dollars but also the suffering of an innocent animal. And if you're paying a BYB or mill for the dog, you're paying for more animals to be brought into the world under those conditions.

Would you rather pay $500 for a car that has a high risk of costing you $5000 in the first three years you own it or a $1200 car that probably won't need anything but routine maintenance? From a financial standpoint, it's a no brainer. And if your car isn't a living, breathing animal who won't understand why he's suffering and why he can't run and play with you when it's the only thing in the whole world that he really wants to do.

I would also tell people that if they have $500 today for a dog, they should practice saving $100/month, since that's what a dog will cost them anyway. In just seven months (less than the time you might spend on the waiting list at a great breeder), you'd have $1200. 

And I think you asked an honest, relevant question. I hope people's annoyance at hypothetical puppy buyers doesn't bleed over into annoyance at you. It seems clear to me that you're not advocating that people go to bad breeders, but rather you're asking what to tell those people.


----------



## MissKitty (Sep 29, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I tell them that the *$1200 dog* will cost them a lot less over its life and that the $500 dog has a lot more than $700 in hidden costs waiting around the bend. If you can't afford to buy a dog that's properly bred for health, you certainly can't afford to buy a dog that has far higher risks of expensive health problems. The $1200 is the cheaper dog. I'd also point out that you're not just risking thousands of dollars but also the suffering of an innocent animal. And if you're paying a BYB or mill for the dog, you're paying for more animals to be brought into the world under those conditions.
> 
> Would you rather pay $500 for a car that has a high risk of costing you $5000 in the first three years you own it or a $1200 car that probably won't need anything but routine maintenance? From a financial standpoint, it's a no brainer. And if your car isn't a living, breathing animal who won't understand why he's suffering and why he can't run and play with you when it's the only thing in the whole world that he really wants to do.
> 
> ...


i have been researching and looking for a breeder for over a month now and every "reptuable" breeder is anywhere to $1,700 to $2,400 I would jump at a 1,200 well bred puppy!


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

MissKitty said:


> i have been researching and looking for a breeder for over a month now and every "reptuable" breeder is anywhere to $1,700 to $2,400 I would jump at a 1,200 well bred puppy!


I've seen a lot of breeders who sell "english creams" asking that amount of money. Miri and Harley both came from extremely respectable breeders and neither were that much.


----------



## MissKitty (Sep 29, 2011)

Braccarius said:


> I've seen a lot of breeders who sell "english creams" asking that amount of money. Miri and Harley both came from extremely respectable breeders and neither were that much.


i am not looking for "english creams" i am referring to the breeders who show there dogs and listed on GR breeder referral sites


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MissKitty said:


> i have been researching and looking for a breeder for over a month now and every "reptuable" breeder is anywhere to $1,700 to $2,400 I would jump at a 1,200 well bred puppy!


They're out there, but you would generally have to go by word of mouth or through your local club to find people. But even the $1700 dog (properly bred + clearances) is cheaper than a $500 dog in the long run.


----------



## jagmanbrg (Jan 4, 2011)

Braccarius said:


> The problem with Backyard Breeders is that they put nothing into their dogs and can produce an animal most people understand to be the equivalent to a well bred dog. The AKC and CKC are the ones who are responsible for the success of the greeders and mills. The general public think of this as a health clearance or an acknowledgment of excellence. How many people have said "I purchased my dog from Pennies Pets for 1200 dollars and he's a purebred and they can trace his legacy back 100 years". They are also shocked when they find out their dog has hip displaysia or Elbow Displaysia.



Totally agree. I hear it all the time around people. Gotta love the phrase.."He's got papers"....lol so what. If you have 500 bucks to spend on a "purebred" dog, you should be able to wait another 2 months to spend a little more money and get a better dog and do the breed some justice. Gotta love instant gratification.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Man, am I glad I lived in the Midwest when I got Flora. I got her from a very respectable breeder for $950. $1700 would have taken me quite a bit longer to save up for!


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

mylissyk said:


> I've always felt like it was a slap in the face when someone said if I couldn't afford a $1200 to $1500 price tag for a puppy, I couldn't afford to have a dog.
> 
> No I can't plunk down that much money for a puppy, but my dogs do, and will always get what they need, and I have before and would again pay for expensive vet care if it's required.


Most people are not going to spend over a $1,000 purchase price on a pet, that's a fact. This is why we have BYB's and puppy mills. They cater to common people. 

I'm going to go way out on a limb here :curtain: and say that not all BYB's are created equal, some are better than others, or maybe they're just lucky, I don't know. Daisy's from a BYB, I could never have afforded the premium price for her at the time I got her. She's had her share of health issues over the years but we've managed to find our way through all of them. She's almost 11 and going strong...just had her umpteenth surgery to remove some lipomas and do some biopsies, all came back clear. Daisy wouldn't meet the standards of any breeder on this forum ... but she's been the light of day in one person's life ... and there's a BYB to thank for that.

What are you going to do, what _should_ you do?


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

jagmanbrg said:


> Gotta love instant gratification.


Daisy was instant gratification for me. It's not always bad. Maybe most of the time it is, but not always. Maybe sometimes it's fate


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

If pet owners won't spend money on a well breed, healthy Golden Retriever why will they pay 2000. Plus for a mutt.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

MGMF said:


> If pet owners won't spend money on a well breed, healthy Golden Retriever why will they pay 2000. Plus for a mutt.


Because people do what they want, and because the $2,000+ mutt is what they want.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

Unfortunately there are also BYBs to thank for the faces I look at at work every day...

But at least I'll always have a job because as long as animals are seen as "I want therefore I will have even if I have to support a questionable business to get it" this will not change. There's gotta be a much greater change in consumerism. But that's a much bigger issue, isn't it... 

Off my soapbox now!


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

my last litter was 1200 two years ago... about 300 less than others in my area.... my next litter will probably be 1500 just a guess. I do not charge more for show pups than pet pups... I cant guarantee that any pup will be show quality... is there potential sure but I can't tell you if a bite will go off or anything else could happen that makes a show pup into a pet pup and the care is the same for both so it doesn't matter if its a pet pup or a show pup. 

unlike some of the others I do see a place for commercial breeders ... who do clearances and are producing healthy dogs, the reality is that hobby breeders really can't produce enough puppies as is... the reality is that I as a hobby/show breeder might have a litter every few years, only when I want to keep a pup... so have a litter of 8 lets say, i keep a pup, send a pup to another show home and that gives me six pups to sell to highly screened families... now if there are 400 million people in the US and how many have dogs.. .and how many are looking for dogs, how can my measly six puppies every 2-3 years even make a dent in how many folks want pups. 

so that is just my opinion... 

that having been said as far as cost is concerned... keep in mind that this litter you might make a profit.... but the next you might have a pup like my bing who we took back due to a liver shunt and he needed a very expensive surgery in order to survive... could we have euthanized him sure... but we didnt... so not including what it costs to show the dogs, compete in the other venues... care for the dogs, pay the stud fee (usually the cost of one puppy) do an artificial breeding if necessary and pay for shipping semen... then the cost of a c section if necessary and caring for the pups... and the phone bills and other expenses associated with screening and placing pups and the ongoing high phone bills checking in wiht puppy people and the unexpected costs of caring for a sick pup or like in our case the 10K spent on surgery for the pup we got back... etc etc etc.... it doesn't take long for you to crank through that money that you got from the sale of the pups. If I look at my last four litters I have made 14 dollars on one litter but as you can see that is clearly taken up by the expenses from the litter with Bing and his surgery.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

You also have irresponsible owners to thank for those faces, maybe as much or more so than BYB's perhaps? A BYB golden in a good home is not always a terrible, terrible thing.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

Jo Ellen said:


> You also have irresponsible owners to thank for those faces, maybe as much or more so than BYB's perhaps? .


Actually no. In 9 years we've never had a well bred dog in the shelter. Those dogs usually go to owners who will not give a dog to a shelter or they will take the dog back. Are there great owners who buy from BYBs? Sure. It doesn't make it ok in my books.


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

Jo Ellen said:


> You also have irresponsible owners to thank for those faces, maybe as much or more so than BYB's perhaps? A BYB golden in a good home is not always a terrible, terrible thing.


You love your dog and that is wonderful. The truth is when people by from a breeder who don't do health clearences or breed without the dogs wellbeing as a first priority keeps the bad breeders in business.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> A BYB golden in a good home is not always a terrible, terrible thing.


Not for the dog that somebody gives a good home to (unless he has crippling health problems throughout his whole life), but when money goes to a BYB, that BYB will produce another litter, and another, and more and more dogs get brought into the world to suffer.

So a BYB Golden in a good home isn't a bad thing, but paying a bad breeder to produce more dogs absolutely is.


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Not for the dog that somebody gives a good home to (unless he has crippling health problems throughout his whole life), but when money goes to a BYB, that BYB will produce another litter, and another, and more and more dogs get brought into the world to suffer.
> 
> So a BYB Golden in a good home isn't a bad thing, but paying a bad breeder to produce more dogs absolutely is.


Well said!


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

It's not my one-time purchase 11 years ago that keeps bad breeders in business -- I think it's more that a well-bred golden retriever is too expensive for most people.

*Cost* keeps bad breeders in business.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I think it is ignorance. Most people just don't know any better.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> It's not my one-time purchase 11 years ago that keeps bad breeders in business -- I think it's more that a well-bred golden retriever is too expensive for most people.
> 
> *Cost* keeps bad breeders in business.



I know you're feeling defensive right now so I hate to pile it on, but I don't like this argument. It's like someone not picking up after their dog. "Well, ONE poop isn't going to make a difference," and the next thing you know there's 15 turds all over the park. Don't place the blame on the breeders. That's in bad form.

Daisy is a wonderful dog and I always enjoy her fish stories, but I think people just want to emphasize that no matter how good the dog is, in the end when someone buys from a greeder/byb, they are only helping to continue a nasty business.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> Daisy was instant gratification for me. It's not always bad. Maybe most of the time it is, but not always. Maybe sometimes it's fate


Max came to us from a byb, and yes, he was instant gratification. I had no clue what I was getting into, but I have absolutely no regrets. I agree, Jo, it's NOT always bad - sometimes it's just meant to be.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> It's not my one-time purchase 11 years ago that keeps bad breeders in business -- I think it's more that a well-bred golden retriever is too expensive for most people.
> 
> *Cost* keeps bad breeders in business.


I don't really want to make it about your dog or your purchase because it sounds personal, and I don't want it to be.

But when a person gives a BYB $500 (or $300 or whatever it is), that helps them turn a profit on the litter, and that encourages them to produce another litter. One purchase doesn't keep them all in business, but one purchase is the tipping point that makes them produce another litter.

If they can't sell all the dogs and they're stuck with extra puppies and less profit or no profit, then that's less incentive to do it again.

People who pay them keep them producing litters. If they couldn't make money, there's no incentive to do it.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

Here most BYBs and certainly all pet stores sell for more than reputable breeders - the average dog in a petstore goes for $2000 and a BYB can be as much as 3000, so that argument...

My experience is that people are turned down by other sources, they don't have the education, or they want a pet NOW. 6 years ago I paid an extra $200 for a kitten because I could get it tonight and I didn't need an application.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

It's a quandry, it truly is. I can understand the arguments against BYB's and I am horrified at the suffering that some golden retrievers must endure because everyone wants one but few will afford a well-bred one. And it's not just the poorly bred goldens but also that BYB's will often place a puppy with just about anyone ... that's the most unfortunate of all. 

I do need to say though, in my defense, that I don't think my one purchase through a BYB over a decade ago is keeping BYB's in business. It's the cost of a well-bred golden that is doing that. I won't get another golden retriever from a BYB, I won't go that route again, but it didn't turn out bad for me at all, or for Daisy. And I don't think we're the exception ... I wonder how many BYB goldens are out there doing just fine in good homes that we never hear about. Many, I imagine. I know of one on my own block and several more among acquaintances. 

Great discussion. Golden retrievers are so popular, for good reason. Good breeders can't meet the demand, and most people can't afford the cost. How are we going to get rid of BYB's as long as that is the case? What can be done? 

I'm not the enemy here.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

My last litter was $1000/pup with an Am/Can Ch sire and a CanCh/U-Ch dam with all 4 clearances as recommended by the GRCA.... actually, my girl also had a thyroid OFA clearance.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> *I do need to say though, in my defense, that I don't think my one purchase through a BYB over a decade ago is keeping BYB's in business. It's the cost of a well-bred golden that is doing that*.


I think lack of education is the biggest reason bybs are in business. If it were cost, then why do "breeders" like White Dove, that charge upwards of 3k for a poorly bred dog, do so well?





Jo Ellen said:


> I'm not the enemy here.


Of course not! No one here is the enemy, the only enemy are those looking to profit off of a breed we all love so much.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Don't get me started, did you all see my thread, "here's my 2 cents"?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

laprincessa said:


> Max came to us from a byb, and yes, he was instant gratification. I had no clue what I was getting into, but I have absolutely no regrets. I agree, Jo, it's NOT always bad - sometimes it's just meant to be.


My first dog was from a family in town who put their pet dogs together, a classic BYB scenario. I loved him just as much as I've loved my dogs who were bred according to best practices and the GRCA's CoE. 

However, the litter was riddled with health problems, and a lot of the dogs (including mine) suffered through surgeries and lifelong issues. I don't know if those people put their dogs together again, but selling 12 dogs at $300 or so each was quite a bit of incentive.

So let's differentiate between the dogs we love and the ethical questions. If anybody paid a BYB or a pet store in the past, it's over and done with. It doesn't mean that you have an inferior dog that's less worthy of love, and it's not an attack anybody's dog. What's important is that we don't rationalize giving any more money the BYBs or millers in the future.


----------



## jweisman54 (May 22, 2010)

My Izzy also came from a BYB and she has turned out fine except for an OCD issue which she is on Prozac for. I went into the purchase of her blind of the fact that I had no idea about all the clearances that her parents should have had and did not. That being said, I would not use a BYB again. I love Izzy and wouldn't trade her for the world......


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

This is not about you but the byb who keeps breeding bad dogs and the public keeping them in business. It is not the good well breed goldens doing this. How do you explain the local pet store here selling a golden pup for $2300 dollar that looked like a poor representive of a Cocker Spaniel. The paper work comes back to a puppy mill. This puppy will sell because they will say it is AKC Ch. Bloodline and number one it was cute. Cute overrides, price and the right thing to do but stop the breeder from making a profit.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

kdmarsh said:


> I know you're feeling defensive right now so I hate to pile it on, but I don't like this argument. It's like someone not picking up after their dog. "Well, ONE poop isn't going to make a difference," and the next thing you know there's 15 turds all over the park. Don't place the blame on the breeders. That's in bad form.
> 
> Daisy is a wonderful dog and I always enjoy her fish stories, but I think people just want to emphasize that no matter how good the dog is, in the end when someone buys from a greeder/byb, they are only helping to continue a nasty business.


I'm doing okay, kdmarsh, thanks 

Part of me just doesn't get the absolutes of the arguments here. If it weren't for that BYB "nasty business," I wouldn't have Daisy. Who knows if I would ever have had a golden at all ?? Can't imagine that. How can something so good come from something so bad ?


----------



## Jax's Mom (Oct 16, 2009)

BYB do not sell for as much as reputable breeders, at least NOT in the USA. I also have to state that the general public does not understand why backyard breeders are bad and have no clue what health clearances are for. The first time I spoke to a breeder (at the time I was thinking of a labrador), my head was spinning at all the informatin he gave me. I had NO CLUE NONE. Talk to the regular Joe Schmoe on the street, and most will probably NOT understand why BYB are bad. Hell, I consider myself a pretty smart and savvy person and I didnt know why they were so bad until a few years ago. I am now 50. So I went through most of my life not knowing why BYB are bad. Many people, do not undersatnd why buying from a puppy store is not good. They dont understand that puppy store dogs come from puppy mills. These people are the ones paying as much for a puppy store dog as a reputable breeder, not the BYB. They are the ones who either want instant gratification to get the puppy when it suits them, or they really, honestly dont understand the commection between them and puppy mills. Believe it or not, even with all the recent media hype, some people dont understand or prefer not to understand this. 

Heck, most people dont undersatnd why I would need to go on a dog forum..for what?? to own a dog?? Its just silly and superfluous to them. They want a pet to cuddle next to at night, take for walks and love. Thats it. 

While I do undersatnd that a dog from a reputable breeder is LESS LIKELY to have problems, it is not a guarantee. Maybe I will get my money back from the breeder for any majoy surgery, but maybe not. In either cae, I would still purchase pet insurance (most people dont get that either by the way) . Who wants to give their dog back after loving it for 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, or 1 month for that matter. Thats absurdddd i tell you. 

I am not advocating BYB, I in fact advocate rescue, since even people buying from a reputable breeder lower the chances of a dying dog finding a home. Truth is though, you cant tell someone who cant afford a reputable breeder (or choose not to want to spend that much on a purebreed Golden) to get a rescue "mutt" since, chances are, they want a particular kind of a dog, and getting a puppy rescue doesnt make it very clear what type of dog you are rescuing. 

I dont judge people who go to a BYB, but i do reserve my contempt to people who buy from a puppy store KNOWING they are buying a dog from a puppy mill. How can you buy a dog from that background and say you LOVE DOGS, if you have just purchased a dog from a suffering mother and father? 

When you speak of the general public, please try to remember that many are lacking the knowledge to make an informed decision. To convince someone that a BYB doesnt do clearances and this is bad, they say...well, when I rescue a dog they dont get clearances. And also let me add, that rescuing a dog sometimes costs just as much as buying from a BYB (or very close). My Conclusion.....The $$ market will make it hard to end the BYB's....


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> I'm doing okay, kdmarsh, thanks
> 
> Part of me just doesn't get the absolutes of the arguments here. If it weren't for that BYB "nasty business," I wouldn't have Daisy. Who knows if I would ever have had a golden at all ?? Can't imagine that. How can something so good come from something so bad ?


Good to hear. I know sometimes I can get so wound up when people are arguing against me. 

I don't think anyone here is saying that the dogs coming from bybs and puppy mills are bad. I think of them as innocent victims. They're victims of a careless, money-grubbing practice that is not interested (at least for most of the bybs) in the welfare of the dogs. 

The dogs that come from bybs are as wonderful and beautiful as the ones that come from reputable breeders, I just don't agree with the way that bybs/puppy mills go about producing (for lack of a better word) their dogs.

It's like Nike shoes. I have heard people say that Nike uses child labor to make their shoes. I'm sure the shoes are just as nice quality-wise as say, New Balance shoes, but people often opt for the NB shoes over the Nikes because they don't agree with how Nike goes about making the shoe. (Obviously this is a hugely hypothetical comparison, but bare with me!) And I'm actually a ginormous hypocrite here because I wear Nikes, but only because I have a size 12 women's foot and NB doesn't make shoes that are comfortable for me. And... I will end my tangent there.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Want to just say that I understand no one here is attacking Daisy  I'm not offended by anyone's comments, not even close.

My only argument here is that BYB's can and do produce good outcomes. What are we to make of that? 

And I'm not talking about pet stores. I'm talking about the casual breeder that makes puppies in their backyard, or in their home ... casual breeders that don't make a living doing this but perhaps a little bit of profit but not much because they keep their cost down and put the golden retriever in common people's homes. Like me and Daisy. Like Susan and Max. Like Joyce and Izzy.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Jax's Mom said:


> BYB do not sell for as much as reputable breeders, at least NOT in the USA.


This is not always the case. Plenty of BYBs sell their puppies for as much as if not more than reputable breeders, especially for the so called "rare" colors. That's why I always make sure to tell people to never go by price alone, (or fancy websites :uhoh.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> Part of me just doesn't get the absolutes of the arguments here. If it weren't for that BYB "nasty business," I wouldn't have Daisy. Who knows if I would ever have had a golden at all ?? Can't imagine that. How can something so good come from something so bad ?


I can think of several situations in which a bad event has at least one outcome that's positive That doesn't make the bad thing a good idea or something that should be advocated for as OK.

Just because it worked out for you and wonderful Daisy doesn't mean that anybody else should be giving money to a BYB.


----------



## janine (Aug 8, 2009)

Jo Ellen said:


> Want to just say that I understand no one here is attacking Daisy  I'm not offended by anyone's comments, not even close.
> 
> My only argument here is that BYB's can and do produce good outcomes. What are we to make of that?
> 
> And I'm not talking about pet stores. I'm talking about the casual breeder that makes puppies in their backyard, or in their home ... casual breeders that don't make a living doing this but perhaps a little bit of profit but not much because they keep their cost down and put the golden retriever in common people's homes. Like me and Daisy. Like Susan and Max. Like Joyce and Izzy.


And like Janine, Chester and Murphy


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

But Brian, it's more than just me and Daisy. Haha, it's also Janine, Chester and Murphy  And really, maybe it's most members here on GRF. 

I guess my principle argument is that BYB's can and do sometimes serve a useful and good purpose. If it weren't for BYB's, how many people would not know and love a golden retriever? Would golden retriever ownership be an elite club? 

How many reputable golden retriever breeders are in the US anyway, does anyone know?


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

janine said:


> And like Janine, Chester and Murphy


And Sam and Enzo! 


Also...



Loisiana said:


> I think it is ignorance. Most people just don't know any better.



THIS bothered me. There is a big difference between being uninformed and being ignorant. 

Did I know better when I got Enzo? No. Would I have done anything differently?? Probably not. While I know that he's more likely to have hereditary issues than a dog from a reputable breeder, I also know that pet insurance will cover him just as well as it'll cover any other dog, which is why I was able to get Enzo. There is NO way I would've been able to afford a dog that cost me $1000. For me, the $250 dog (yep, he cost a whole $250) is cheaper in the long run than a $1000 dog because I'd be paying for the insurance on him either way. Also, I will say that there are a lot of times where I feel like Enzo is looked down upon on the forum because he's from a BYB. That's just not right. 

(I will say, though, that because of my poking and prodding, Enzo's dad was neutered and his mom was rehomed so that she is an only dog after being spayed.)


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

People, it's not about your dogs! It's about (breeders') poor choices that land animals in gas chambers and in pain. All of us love all dogs and we want them all to have good welfare but they will not if some breeders continue to produce dogs at this rate with little forethought about health, temperament and why they're breeding.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

I don't consider mine a poor choice. I have the dog of my dreams. He is happy and healthy. Me buying Enzo didn't land anybody in a gas chamber, thanks.


----------



## Debles (Sep 6, 2007)

As we learn we make better choices. I have had goldens since 1973. My first three were from backyard breeders. The first two never had a health issue and lived to be 12 and 15. After Max developed health issues related to hypothyroidism, we did more research and learned alot besides just hip clearances and heart checks.

Even though Gunner came from two well respected and thorough breeders we got a golden with GR Pigmentary Uveitis and Glaucoma. Selka came from the same breeder and never had a health issue in his life till he got bone cancer at 11 and a half. My belief is that the cancer in his shoulder developed from vaccines in between his shoulder blades for years. I don't believe it was hereditary.
Now we have Sasha from a well known and respected breeder and stud dog. 
All health clearances. He is fed an excellent food, gets adequate exercise and socialization as well as minimal vaccines. We'll take it one day at a time.

I look for a quality breeder with a long history and all health clearances. I would pay a high price for with a better chance at good health, even though my BYB goldens lived long lives. I just don't want them to go through what Max and Gunner have. Sasha was $1200.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

My golden is a former breeder girl, I'd gladly give up my life with her if it meant she didn't have to live through what she did prior to her rescue. She was sold 3 times before the age of 4. Her dad has SAS and some physical deformities--she was bred to him repeatedly--I wonder if all of their pups and their own siblings hit the jackpot in terms of homes--most likely not. I've seen what HVB's and BYB's produce and while I've seen some great pups come through rescue I've also seen those with temperament flaws that no amount of training could "fix" or be managed and health issues that no dog should have to experience. Our breed deserves better.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> But Brian, it's more than just me and Daisy. Haha, it's also Janine, Chester and Murphy  And really, maybe it's most members here on GRF.
> 
> I guess my principle argument is that BYB's can and do sometimes serve a useful and good purpose. If it weren't for BYB's, how many people would not know and love a golden retriever? Would golden retriever ownership be an elite club?
> 
> How many reputable golden retriever breeders are in the US anyway, does anyone know?


There's nothing elitist about insisting on standards that protect dogs' health. I don't think anybody sane could call my career lucrative with a straight face, but I've been able to save what it takes to get dogs with full, multigenerational clearances. I mean, I did have to sell my yacht... 

I think the "elitist" argument is disingenuous. It costs more to own uncleared dogs on the whole, so I could turn that around and point out that it's more "elitist" to have enough money to throw around on dogs that might need expensive surgeries. It's also more careless.

You cannot rationalize playing fast and loose with dog's health, no matter what argument you throw at it. Daisy isn't a testament to the positive role of the BYB. She's a testament to the great breeders who have protected the standard well enough that she has classic GR characteristics, despite the BYB's carelessness with the last couple of generations. 

Ethical dog ownership doesn't need to be an elite club at all. Just like anybody would take out credit cards and pay them back slowly if their dog had hip dysplasia and they didn't have the cash on hand, anybody can put money aside slowly in advance in order to save money and suffering in the long run.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nobody's attacking anybody's dog. Everyone who's made a point against BYBs has been careful not to accuse anybody who's patronized a BYB in the past. So let's not start making it about that. I can say that buying from a BYB is a bad choice without loving my BYB dog any less.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> While I know that he's more likely to have hereditary issues than a dog from a reputable breeder, I also know that pet insurance will cover him just as well as it'll cover any other dog, which is why I was able to get Enzo. There is NO way I would've been able to afford a dog that cost me $1000. For me, the $250 dog (yep, he cost a whole $250) is cheaper in the long run than a $1000 dog because I'd be paying for the insurance on him either way. Also, I will say that there are a lot of times where I feel like Enzo is looked down upon on the forum because he's from a BYB. That's just not right.


I like Enzo just as much as any dog on the forum, seriously.

But your math doesn't add up. I don't know your insurance policy specifically, but aren't you paying deductibles and percentages on the costs? So the more issues the dog has, the more you pay?

And if you can afford a monthly insurance bill, why can't you afford to save? Take the amount of money you spend each month on dog stuff, and divide $750 by that amount. That's how long you'd have to wait to have a dog with dramatically better odds at a long, healthy life.

And lastly, your math doesn't take into account the suffering of dogs who are at higher risk. Even if the dollar cost is exactly the same because of pet insurance, the risk of suffering is much higher, and that's not OK. Maybe that HD surgery is covered completely by insurance. The dog doesn't know that. He's the one who's in pain, who goes under the knife, who has to recover and spend the rest of his life on reduced activity. He's the one who will have earlier arthritis in old age and a shorter life.

I love you guys, and I love your dogs, but this rationalizing of buying at-risk dogs really doesn't hold water.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

duplicate post


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Brian, I'm not talking about elitist in the sense that well-bred dogs cost a lot of money ... though they do, but that's not what I meant. What I was asking is how many reputable breeders do we have and how many well-bred golden retrievers are available? My guess is not enough to go around, but if someone can correct me on that, I'd love to be wrong.​ 
Are BYB's a fact at least in part because there aren't enough reputable breeders to meet the demand?​


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I'm not sure where this thread went while I was in class, but thought I'd throw this in here.... 

We worshipped our first golden who was a $250 byb (born under the front porch, poorly socialized, grumpy old man in a young dog's body etc). Who had his papers, btw. And even had some field title dogs in his background. 

I know for a fact that my parents would not have agreed to spending $1000 on a dog. We were not in the financial position back then to do so. 

And fwiw - back then $1000 was the top price for a show dog. Pet quality was more like $500-700. 

That did not mean we could not take care of our dog or pay the vet bills. We certainly did. 

So I can understand why people buy or adopt from bybs, even if wouldn't buy from a byb today.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

While getting so caught up in the aspect of health and BYBs, let's not forget temperament. Chance came from a HVB...60-70 puppies at any given time and charging a couple thousand dollars per puppy. His health is not great, severe ED, digestive issues along with skin issues. 

I've often said that Chance is one of the sweetest most loving dogs you will ever meet, and he is, _but_...he's also one of the most timid and unsure. I can't take him anywhere that I know will have crowds of people. He would shut down. He's scared every time we go to a new place, which is not that often because he'll be sick for days afterwards from the stress. If I change any furniture around he won't go into the room right away. I have to take him around _slowly_ and show him what's changed. Then he's okay. 

I read about dogs like Jordan who are so confident and outgoing and it makes me really sad that Chance won't ever feel that excitement that a dog with more confidence must feel when going places. Don't get me wrong, I still take him, but we often have to leave early when I notice him stressing. So temperament as well as health should be considered.

Chance was a rescue...I would never buy from a BYB or a HVB, _ever_. I would rather rescue than give these "people" any money to continue to exploit their dogs and dupe the public .


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy a dog from a BYB. I'm just saying that I would've been paying for insurance for a dog, whether I got him from a reputable breeder or a BYB. There are PLENTY of dogs from reputable breeders who have issues an suffer just as much or even more than dogs from BYB's. I just think that if you want to educate people about BYB's, there's a way of doing it without making people who DO have dogs from them feel like crap. There have been times that I've opened threads that basically go like this: "Oh, I saw this dog at the park and I asked where they got it and they said blah blah blah...can't believe they were stupid enough to go to a byb!" Then, a bunch of people have a good laugh at it. There's NOTHING productive about that. Saying that by buying a dog from a BYB, I'm sending dogs to the gas chamber?? Not fair, not productive, not helpful.


And I've never gotten the vibe that you had an issue with Enzo...others, though...


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Enzos_Mom said:


> THIS bothered me. There is a big difference between being uninformed and being ignorant.


the term ignorace means "lack of knowledge." So I don't know how being uninformed is a big difference (or any difference) in being ignorant of something. Didn't mean it as a slam against anyone, just saying that I think a lot of people buy from backyard breeders because they don't really even know that the person really is a BYB. I bought Conner from a backyard breeder. I didn't know any better, I figured since he came with AKC paperwork and the lady said the parents had hip xrays I must be going with a great thing. And heck, he's a good dog, he even got into the GRCA's Obedience Hall of Fame. But I would never go back to her knowing now what I do about breeding over what I knew before.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> the term ignorace means "lack of knowledge." So I don't know how being uninformed is a big difference (or any difference) in being ignorant of something.



But the way people perceive the words ignorant and uninformed are very different.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

My main point is that if you're thinking about buying from a BYB why not just rescue? Both are from uncertain backgrounds and their future health might not be the best, but at least with a rescue, you're helping a homeless dog and you're not lining the pockets of those that are in it strictly for the money and to h*ll with their dogs or the health of the puppies they're producing.

And I hate it when people say they want a puppy so they can't rescue...there _are_ puppies in rescue, you just might have to wait a little while. Which is not always a bad thing...


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Rescue wasn't an option for us at that point...we tried. We were in an apartment at the time that we got Enzo. The rescues weren't listening when I told them that we were moving into a house soon. Not that the house would've been okay with them. Our yard isn't fenced.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> There are PLENTY of dogs from reputable breeders who have issues an suffer just as much or even more than dogs from BYB's.


This is a common argument against the need for clearances, but just as an emblematic example, a rough estimate of just OFA for hips shows that clearing both parents cuts the incidence rate by about 50%. Multigenerational clearances, it seems to follow, could cut it more. As Sally's Mom pointed out, clearing also seem to limit severity of HD when it does occur (which would make sense).

So it's not accurate to say that they suffer just as much or more. At most, they suffer half as often, at least when it comes to HD. The proportions are different for other clearances, but the principle is the same. Any individual dog could have problems, but just because some properly bred dogs can doesn't mean you can equate properly bred dogs with carelessly bred dogs.



Enzos_Mom said:


> I just think that if you want to educate people about BYB's, there's a way of doing it without making people who DO have dogs from them feel like crap. There have been times that I've opened threads that basically go like this: "Oh, I saw this dog at the park and I asked where they got it and they said blah blah blah...can't believe they were stupid enough to go to a byb!" Then, a bunch of people have a good laugh at it. There's NOTHING productive about that. Saying that by buying a dog from a BYB, I'm sending dogs to the gas chamber?? Not fair, not productive, not helpful.


I have some sympathy, particularly when the comment comes from somebody who works in a shelter or rescue. It has got to be hard to see poor, unwanted dogs euthanized because of health or behavioral problems, at least some of which could be prevented by more careful breeding practices.

At the same time, I do agree that mocking or putting people down for having bought from a BYB isn't productive or friendly. Like I said, many of us have had a BYB dog, at least at some point. And mocking people or attacking them doesn't work to change minds anyway.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

My chances of getting a golden retriever from a rescue are slim. I don't have a fenced yard. Not saying I couldn't, just saying I probably wouldn't be able to find one that would accept me.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

Sam I think you misread my last post. I clarified it. 

Unfortunately we cannot run from the fact that there are too many dogs in the world and many of them are killed every day because of it. I certainly don't see the lack of dogs that some are seeing - am I missing something???

I've never seen threads that talk badly about any dog - just owners who say silly things or praise bad breeders.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> This is a common argument against the need for clearances, but just as an emblematic example, a rough estimate of just OFA for hips shows that clearing both parents cuts the incidence rate by about 50%. Multigenerational clearances, it seems to follow, could cut it more. As Sally's Mom pointed out, clearing also seem to limit severity of HD when it does occur (which would make sense).
> 
> So it's not accurate to say that they suffer just as much or more. At most, they suffer half as often, at least when it comes to HD.
> 
> Any individual dog could have problems, but just because some properly bred dogs can doesn't mean you can equate properly bred dogs with carelessly bred dogs.


There are other issues that clearances aren't done for. So maybe dogs from reputable breeders suffer less from HD...but maybe they suffer from problems with their ACL. They could have something like PU, which pops up even in dogs from reputable breeders. They could get blockages. If we're not getting a dog because of the fear that the dog may suffer at some point in their lives from some vague unknown illness, then really, nobody should have a dog. 

My intent wasn't to turn this into me defending BYB's, because I obviously know that people are better off getting a dog from a reputable breeder. I'm just saying that reputable breeders and rescues aren't feasible for everybody. Doesn't mean that those of us who can't afford a dog from a reputable breeder or who don't have fenced yards or live in apartments or have small children don't deserve to have goldens, too. And if someone has to buy a dog from a BYB for one reason or another (or has bought from a BYB because they didn't know better at the time), that doesn't give anyone else the right to make them feel like crap about it.


----------



## Laurie (Sep 20, 2009)

Jo Ellen said:


> Want to just say that I understand no one here is attacking Daisy  I'm not offended by anyone's comments, not even close.
> 
> My only argument here is that BYB's can and do produce good outcomes. What are we to make of that?
> 
> And I'm not talking about pet stores. I'm talking about the casual breeder that makes puppies in their backyard, or in their home ... casual breeders that don't make a living doing this but perhaps a little bit of profit but not much because they keep their cost down and put the golden retriever in common people's homes. Like me and Daisy. Like Susan and Max. Like Joyce and Izzy.


And like Laurie, Reno, Austin and Lincoln (and Phoenix at Rainbow Bridge).


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

The whole "lack of dogs" thing...people aren't saying there's a lack of dogs now. They're saying if people ONLY bought from reputable breeders, there wouldn't be enough for everybody who wanted a golden. If there were only reputable breeders that took back their dogs if their homes didn't work out, we wouldn't have goldens in rescues as an option for people who can't afford a $1000 dog. There's already waiting lists for reputable breeders. How much longer would people be waiting if those were the only places that we could get goldens??


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> There are other issues that clearances aren't done for. So maybe dogs from reputable breeders suffer less from HD...but maybe they suffer more from problems with their ACL. They could have something like PU, which pops up even in dogs from reputable breeders. They could get blockages. If we're not getting a dog because of the fear that the dog may suffer at some point in their lives from some vague unknown illness, then really, nobody should have a dog.


A well bred dog is either at the same or reduced risk for everything you mentioned, not higher. ACL tears I'd think would be lower, since hobby bred dogs are evaluated directly for structure (in the breed ring) or have to perform and prove their structure. PU is definitely lower, since it's eventually caught if a breeder does yearly eye exams the whole dog's life.

You're drawing a false distinction. I'm talking about saving a relatively small amount of money (and in the grand scheme of dog expenses, $750 is relatively small) by delaying a purchase so you can use cost-effective tools to limit suffering. I'm not saying not to get a dog because of a fear of suffering. I'm saying to take prudent, cost-effective steps to reduce the chances of it.



Enzos_Mom said:


> My intent wasn't to turn this into me defending BYB's, because I obviously know that people are better off getting a dog from a reputable breeder. I'm just saying that reputable breeders and rescues aren't feasible for everybody. Doesn't mean that those of us who can't afford a dog from a reputable breeder or who don't have fenced yards or live in apartments or have small children don't deserve to have goldens, too. And if someone has to buy a dog from a BYB for one reason or another (or has bought from a BYB because they didn't know better at the time), that doesn't give anyone else the right to make them feel like crap about it.


I still think the "can't afford it" argument is specious. If you can afford a dog, you can afford to wait a few months to save up for one that's been bred carefully. It has nothing to do with the difference between your and my salary. Like I said, I'm hardly rolling in it. 

Nobody's trying to make you feel like crap. But I'm also not going to pull punches about the idea of buying from a BYB. It's a bad idea from both a financial and an ethical perspective. I can't get around the fact that I don't think your decision was the right one. I can still appreciate that something great came from it (Enzo) and I'm sympathetic to why you made it, but I'm sorta stuck either letting the idea of a BYB get a pass or risking making you feel crappy.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Sorry, maybe not everybody gets me on this one, but sometimes waiting isn't an option. I was in a dark place when we got Enzo. Nothing had been able to get me out of it. I was depressed and desperate for a companion. Waiting while I saved up would have left me in a very bad place, mentally. Enzo has healed me in a way that nobody else could.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> Sorry, maybe not everybody gets me on this one, but sometimes waiting isn't an option. I was in a dark place when we got Enzo. Nothing had been able to get me out of it. I was depressed and desperate for a companion. Waiting while I saved up would have left me in a very bad place, mentally. Enzo has healed me in a way that nobody else could.


Not trying to open up a can of worms, but if you were so desperate for a dog, why didn't you go to the shelter and adopt a dog? If time was of the essence, a shelter would give the quickest fix.

I also don't agree with this "can't afford it" argument. I worry that that type of thought is what encourages bybs and hvbs. Sure, they might not clear their dogs for elbows and hips, but that's okay because they're supplying the general public with the puppies that they want? I do not agree with that.

Fwiw, I got a dog from a very reputable breeder and have already had to put down money for one expensive surgery and will likely have to do something about her hips in the future. But the other dogs from the breeder, save for one that I know of, are in excellent health. Does this change my feelings on reputable breeders?  Absolutely not. I still believe that by going with a reputable breeder that I am reducing my chances of having health problems in a dog.

(Btw I think Enzo is gorgeous and I did not know he was from a byb until now! Doesn't change my opinion of him or his momma in the least.)


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> How much longer would people be waiting if those were the only places that we could get goldens??


If we get to the point that there aren't BYBs all over the place and there are no dogs in pounds being euthanized for lack of space, then we can talk.

Look at GRF. We have lots of threads about the price of Goldens, about waiting lists, and about breeders, but there's nobody saying that they just couldn't find a dog. Everybody who's gone looking carefully and patiently has gotten a well-bred dog.

If that changes, I'll be more sympathetic to the argument, but right now we have dogs suffering unnecessarily and no shortage of well-bred dogs.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

The only time I've seen any mocking in a thread is when someone posts that they met someone who had a "rare white golden" or a goldendoodle. I can't think of any time I've seen someone mock a BYB golden. That would offend a large population of the forum....so I'm not sure why anyone would do that. I do think that there's a bit of hypersensitivity to this particular issue, though, so that may be where the disconnect lies. I don't think it's the intent of anyone to make anyone feel like crap about their dog....JMO. 

It is a bit concerning to read posts somewhat validating and justifying intentionally purchasing a puppy without health clearances though. Certainly purchasing a BYB bred golden is likely to happen if people are ignorant of the necessary clearances... I'm not embarrassed to admit that I was ignorant regarding health clearances and pedigrees when we first started looking for a puppy (pre-Jack). I was fortunate enough to meet some people who informed me regarding clearances and the COE and was directed towards breeders who did those clearances and competed with their dogs. I'm just not sure why anyone wouldn't at least want (what I perceive as) a better shot at a healthy dog by ensuring there are generations of health clearances in the pedigree of their puppy. It doesn't mean you're buying a puppy from the #1 bitch in the country last year, but a well bred dog with health clearances. As an example less discussed than HD/ED, SAS is one of the illnesses that isn't perfectly understood, but they know that dogs without SAS are less likely to produce dogs with SAS. Why wouldn't you want to avoid that if you could? 

I have to admit, it is frustrating when people know better and just through caution to the wind. A friend of mine (not on GRF) was looking for a golden puppy and emailed me to ask what they should be looking for and anything she should watch out for when meeting a breeder. I did a ton of research for her and directed her to a number of breeders in her area (she lives out of state) and educated her on the COE. They had already emailed a BYB prior to talking to me, and decided to "just go see" the puppies. I sent her a list of questions to ask the breeder and cautioned her that the woman did not appear to have all her ducks in a row regarding health clearances. That night I got an email that they brought home a puppy from the BYB. He is not even a year old now and has some very unusual health issues already. She has emailed me for advice, and I've been compassionate and helped as much as I can, but it's frustrating when she KNEW what she was getting herself into. She just saw the ball of fluff and all logic and reason went out the window. This isn't to say that she shouldn't have her dog, her dog isn't worthy of love or that she doesn't love her dog, but it's still a bit frustrating from my vantage point.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> Sorry, maybe not everybody gets me on this one, but sometimes waiting isn't an option. I was in a dark place when we got Enzo. Nothing had been able to get me out of it. I was depressed and desperate for a companion. Waiting while I saved up would have left me in a very bad place, mentally. Enzo has healed me in a way that nobody else could.


Hey, fair enough. But it's not an argument that BYBs are OK. It's an example of how sometimes a decision that isn't empirically the best still has an amazing outcome.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

kdmarsh said:


> Not trying to open up a can of worms, but if you were so desperate for a dog, why didn't you go to the shelter and adopt a dog? If time was of the essence, a shelter would give the quickest fix.


At the time that we were looking, the only puppies in the local shelters were pit mixes, which weren't allowed in our apartment building.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> At the time that we were looking, the only puppies in the local shelters were pit mixes, which weren't allowed in our apartment building.


Ah, that I understand completely. And the question was a bit unfair anyways, as I am thinking you were probably looking for a golden and I get the feeling goldens aren't SUPER common in a shelter. As in, you're not going to walk in a shelter one day and find a row of golden retrievers waiting for you.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

............................


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

I never said that BYB's were okay. I said that there are reasons that people go to them and making them feel like crap for it isn't right. Educate respectfully and I have no issue with it. Like I said, my intent wasn't to start advocating for BYB's. But the post about the gas chambers got my backles up (and I get that you clarified now, Jackie, but you have to see how that would've looked to me when you posted it).


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

jackie_hubert said:


> If people here agree that it is better to have full shelters of suffering animals than to have to wait a few months for a carefully bred dog than maybe this forum is not the place for me :--hmpf:


NOBODY SAID THAT. You're taking things SO FAR out of context that it's ridiculous. I'm saying that sometimes, waiting isn't something that you can do. If I wouldn't have bought Enzo, maybe he'd be in a shelter. But he's not. He's with me, happily chewing his antler in the living room, surrounded by the stuffing from his toy that he just ripped to shreds. Not all dogs that are bought from BYB's end up in shelters. Don't put that on us.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> I never said that BYB's were okay. I said that there are reasons that people go to them and making them feel like crap for it isn't right. *Educate respectfully and I have no issue with it.* Like I said, my intent wasn't to start advocating for BYB's. But the post about the gas chambers got my backles up (and I get that you clarified now, Jackie, but you have to see how that would've looked to me when you posted it).


THIS I agree with 100%. I got upset a few days ago in a thread where people were jumping down the throat of a wanna-be byb and I just didn't understand why we couldn't be slightly more civil about it. it is possible to disagree with someone and be respectful about it, no matter how strongly you feel about the subject. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Enzos_Mom said:


> At the time that we were looking, the only puppies in the local shelters were pit mixes, which weren't allowed in our apartment building.


^ To add to this, I know with our family way years ago before we got our first dog - my parents specifically wanted a purebred golden retriever (no mixes). And they wanted a purebred golden retriever puppy. 

Not too many of those in shelters.

And at the time the only thing that we heard about or read about as far as buying puppies was making sure we saw the parents, making sure the puppy had papers... and that was about all. So definitely ignorance was at the root of my parents decision to go with a byb. 

That and Charmy clung to my mom's arms when she picked him up. He was 10 weeks old and probably was going to be on his way to a rescue group since he and his two sisters were unsold. My mom fell in love with him - and she was the one who was the most hesitant about bringing a puppy home.

He was the one who died of kidney disease when he was only 6... as did his dad, which probably tells you there was something hereditary going on. That's the price of going with a byb.


----------



## Laurie (Sep 20, 2009)

When I got both Reno and Phoenix back in 2000, I had no idea about reputable breeders. I wanted a Golden Retriever and bought the first male puppy I found (Reno) and 2 months later, bought Phoenix. 

When Phoenix passed away in 2009, we wanted to add another Golden right away. I called a couple of breeders but neither had puppies available. I also couldn't convince hubby at the time to pay $1,200 for a puppy. Reno was grieving Phoenix's loss so once I again I went the way of a BYB and got Austin....a month later, brought home Lincoln. It's not that we couldn't afford $1,200 for a puppy...hubby just didn't think it was necessary.

Like others, I am not condoning BYBs but I have 3 wonderful, well adjusted and healthy boys. Up until this past June when Reno was diagnosed with hemangio, he had been at the vet four times (for issues other than his annual shots). In 8 years, Phoenix had been at the vet twice (for issues other than his annual shots). He passed away following surgery for bloat. My other 2 boys have had a couple of visits for ear infections and an abscess. Again, my point is not to condone BYBs but I really get miffed when it is alluded to that all BYB dogs are painted with the same brush. I could not ask for 3 better dogs. 

Someone commented above (believe it was Tippykayak) something to the effect that "buying his dog from a BYB and knowing it isn't right doesn't mean you love your BYB dog any less". That is how I feel...my guys may not be well pedigreed with generations of champions but they are my well loved, spoiled rotten, cherished, treasured companions and I wouldn't trade them for anything.

And to end my rant (which I normally don't do), any future puppy will be coming from a reputable breeder and hubby is now on board with this!!!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

jackie_hubert said:


> If people here agree that it is better to have full shelters of suffering animals than to have to wait a few months for a carefully bred dog than maybe this forum is not the place for me :--hmpf:


I really don't think anybody has taken it this far. I do think that waiting for a carefully bred dog is something people can do to reduce the number of dogs that end up in shelters, but drawing extremes like this doesn't seem productive.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

I'm not at all convinced there are enough well-bred golden retrievers to meet the demand. We need more reputable breeders who sell their puppies at affordable prices.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Laurie said:


> Again, my point is not to condone BYBs but I really get miffed when it is alluded to that all BYB dogs are painted with the same brush.


And when people who buy from BYB's are all painted with the same brush. My BYB dog will never be in a shelter. Dogs that end up in shelters do so because of the poor owners. There are a lot of things that we can blame the BYB's for, but that's not one of them. They aren't the ones that put the dogs in shelters. If more people would take the responsibility of dog ownership seriously, there wouldn't be so many dogs in shelters.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

Better?  I'm the last person to engage in arguments on the forum but it's hard when there are justifications made for poor breeding practices. I hold the forum to a higher standard.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> I'm not at all convinced there are enough well-bred golden retrievers to meet the demand. We need more reputable breeders who sell their puppies at affordable prices.


Like I said, we haven't had a single person on the forum who couldn't find a well bred dog with a little care and patience. If we actually see a shortage of these dogs, that would be a different problem.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Brian, there's a world of people out there who never come to a golden retriever forum.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> Brian, there's a world of people out there who never come to a golden retriever forum.


My point is that you would think we'd hear about it if people were simply unable to get a properly bred dog. People come on here to complain about darn near everything else, so some representative population would surely have found the forum if it existed.

In the absence of any evidence of these hypothetical people who are unable to get a GR because of a shortage of properly bred litters, I don't think we need to address the issue as if it's real.

Having been called twice in the last year to see if I wanted a dog from a litter that turned out larger than expected, I just don't see this shortage. I think it's a lack of patience, a lack of saving up, and a lack of education that leads people to BYBs, not a lack of carefully bred dogs.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

On a completely different note here is my BYB kitty Oscar. I love him (despite the fact that he's got some screws loose, lol).


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

My husband says I love him more than the dog - I think he's partially right


----------



## monarchs_joy (Aug 13, 2011)

This is only kind of on topic, but I had to comment. I must be the unluckiest pet owner on the planet... I've read several posts about folks that have bought from byb's, pet stores, etc. that haven't had health issues. I have to say, not the case over here. 

All of ours are/have been rescues. None of them started at a reputable breeder. *All* of ours are/have been sick. In order: 

Joy - My first golden and what a sweetie pie... I rescued her at 5 and enjoyed every minute of the 9 months I had her before I lost her to bone cancer just after she turned 6. She was hypothyroid and had hip dysplasia and spondylosis. She was from a "I have a girl, you have a boy, let's make puppies" situation. I was her 4th home in 5 years. 

Rosie - Our current 9 y/o Golden girl that was diagnosed with hemangio 2.5 months ago. She's also hypothyroid, has spondylosis, hip dysplasia, chronic UTI's, uveal cysts, and a cataract. She's riddled with lipomas and is possibly the lumpiest/bumpiest dog I've ever met. Rosie also has some behavior issues. Some are associated with her previous home, but some are temperment. I rescued her at 4. I don't know for sure, but I have good reason to suspect she's from a BYB. 

Frankie - Our current 6 y/o Boxer, Rosie's best buddy, and my pillow warmer. Once upon a time, she was our "healthy" dog, and my husband and I laugh everytime we think of how dumb we were to think that. She was diagnosed at 4 y/o with a genetic version of cardiomyopathy that runs in the Boxer lines. Managing this heart problem means $100 in meds per month, $300 holter monitors 2x per year, $100 cardiologist visits 2x per year, $150 echo's 1x per year, and the joy of trying to get 6 pills in one dog everyday. 

Our running joke is that if we ever need a specialist maybe one of the dogs will lend us one of their cardiologists, neurologists, internists, opthamologists, or surgeons. Thankfully, our girls have had otherwise great lives, have had manageable conditions until recently, and we've been able to get them to the needed vets. 

On the next one though, I'll gladly pay $1900 for a chance that we could have a healthy dog and avoid an early heartbreak. I suspect none of our girls breeder's would really care that they've all been sick. I appreciate that $1900 is a lot for a puppy, but from experience, the $300 puppy can cost a heck of a lot in the long run too. 

This is rhetorical, but if you couldn't afford a $1900 well bred puppy, would you still want the $300 puppy if you knew in advance that it was going to come with $5k+ in vet bills before you lost him/her too early and in some tragic and possibly preventable fashion? Say you got to keep them an average lifespan, but a good chunk of it was spent telling them not to run so hard or stop them from swimming so much because they won't be able to walk the rest of the day because of their dysplasia? 

I didn't know all the problems that Goldens have. I rescued because I didn't want a puppy at the time and wanted to give a good home to a dog that needed one. I learned when my dogs kept getting diagnosed with stuff, and I learn more everyday.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

monarchs_joy said:


> I suspect none of our girls breeder's would really care that they've all been sick.


I will say that even though Enzo's breeder wasn't a good one, she did find me on Facebook and has kept up on him. She's always commenting on his pictures or asking how he's doing. She may not have had clearances, but she does take an interest in him.


----------



## monarchs_joy (Aug 13, 2011)

Enzos_Mom said:


> I will say that even though Enzo's breeder wasn't a good one, she did find me on Facebook and has kept up on him. She's always commenting on his pictures or asking how he's doing. She may not have had clearances, but she does take an interest in him.


That's wonderful!

Enzo is a cutie pie by the way! I was laughing at your post a bit ago about him laying on the floor enjoying an antler near his freshly shredded toy.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)




----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

jackie_hubert said:


> On a completely different note here is my BYB kitty Oscar. I love him (despite the fact that he's got some screws loose, lol).


Cats always have a few screws loose. It's that slightly insane nature that makes them precious.  

The below was our byb and backyard dumped (they drove up to a random barn, tossed him and his bed and his litter box into a dark arena where horses were loose and the resident cats could have killed him) kitten shortly after I brought him home. Fortunately for him I fell in love with him at first sight.... 










Now if he hadn't learned his hunting skillz from watching Jurrassic Park (attack, rip belly of prey open, eat innards while prey is still alive and screaming), he would be absolutely perfect. :yuck:

Of course, I do think that cats are a lower nature than dogs who are almost human in their sweetness and lovableness.


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

Enzos_Mom said:


> And Sam and Enzo!
> 
> 
> Also...
> ...


 
I isn't about the option to get pet insurance. Yes that is easy to do to protect your cost if he get the hereditary issuse. The point is that we do not keep the breeders in business that don't care if this happens in the first place. To protect the dogs that if they have a better chance to not have these problems they could live a long healthy life. Example: Someone buys a puppy from a bad breeder, gets the insurance for potiential vet bills, but the dogs has hip displasia by 6 years old and lives a painful life. Yes, some can be loved by wonderful families but it does not stop these breeders who breed dogs with a chance of a life of health problems.


----------



## MGMF (May 13, 2009)

Jo Ellen said:


> Brian, I'm not talking about elitist in the sense that well-bred dogs cost a lot of money ... though they do, but that's not what I meant. What I was asking is how many reputable breeders do we have and how many well-bred golden retrievers are available? My guess is not enough to go around, but if someone can correct me on that, I'd love to be wrong.​
> 
> 
> Are BYB's a fact at least in part because there aren't enough reputable breeders to meet the demand?​


 
If puppy buyers only bought from good breeders that follow all the rules. (GRCA code of ethics, clearances, etc...) Then it would eventually force the bad breeders to step it up. Maybe their dogs would have good clearances but if they don't stop breeding dogs that produces dogs with terrible health problems. The bad breeders are more then welcome to follow the rules to become one of the reputable breeders to meet the demand.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

MGMF said:


> If puppy buyers only bought from good breeders that follow all the rules. (GRCA code of ethics, clearances, etc...) Then it would eventually force the bad breeders to step it up. Maybe their dogs would have good clearances but if they don't stop breeding dogs that produces dogs with terrible health problems. The bad breeders are more then welcome to follow the rules to become one of the reputable breeders to meet the demand.


I think this already happens or WILL HAPPEN with those big kennels or startup hobby breeders who are genuinely trying to maintain their reputation. Even if they still cut corners where they can. 

I think that bybs probably aren't going to care since they might only breed 1-5 litters in their dogs lives. Maybe they are in it for the experience, or accidents happened...


----------



## DaisyGolden (Jan 4, 2008)

When I bought my Daisy I really didn't know anything about anything. I had only ever had shelter dogs. She wasn't from a great breeder and I paid 800.00 for her. I understand why people would buy a 500.00 dog instead of a 1500.00 dog. I mean 1500.00 is a lot of money. I do get the point that you could wait and save up for the more expensive dog but people aren't perfect and sometimes you just really want a puppy. It's kind of the same thing as when you go shopping and you see something you really like but you know you don't need to spend money on it except you do anyway because maybe you just needed something that day to make you feel happy. Everyone I'm sure has done that because like I said people aren't perfect and not everyone wants to wait and no one should be judged for that. Why does anyone have a toyota when if they wait long enough they could get a bmw? In a perfect world every puppy would come from a great breeder and people would be able to pay 2000.00 for their puppy. This is not a perfect world. Daisy died of hemangio at 6 years old. A friend of mine had a golden who got cancer at 4 years old and he was from a great breeder and cost 1800.00 I do think that getting a puppy from a breeder that has all the clearances will keep your pup from hip problems and all of that but it certainly does not mean they won't get sick and die from something else. If I could get a puppy from a breeder who could make sure they never got cancer or anything else and would live till they were 20 I would save 5000.00 dollars to pay for it. It's a shame there is no such breeder. I won't get another golden puppy without making sure it has clearances again. At this time I can't afford to get another puppy no matter what it costs but I do know of a breeder near me who has puppies that have all their clearances but her dogs aren't show dogs or anything. If I could afford to get a puppy from her would I? Yes I would. The reason I would get a puppy from her and not wait is because I loved my Daisy so much and I miss having a golden so much that just seeing golden retriever stuff in the store sometimes brings me to tears. The hard part is that I would be hesitant to tell you all where I got the puppy from and would worry I would be judged for it. I think that's a shame because I love this forum and the people here and hate that I feel that way. The breeder that I will never agree with is the high volume breeder. I don't think there is anyway for so many dogs to get enough attention at those places. I just don't think that someone who gets all the clearances, but doesn't choose to show their dogs and has a couple litters a year is that bad. Sorry this is long.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

DaisyGolden said:


> I mean 1500.00 is a lot of money. I do get the point that you could wait and save up for the more expensive dog but people aren't perfect and sometimes you just really want a puppy. It's kind of the same thing as when you go shopping and you see something you really like but you know you don't need to spend money on it except you do anyway because maybe you just needed something that day to make you feel happy. Everyone I'm sure has done that because like I said people aren't perfect and not everyone wants to wait and no one should be judged for that.


I don't judge the people, but I do judge the decision, and it's a bad one. You're not gambling with just your credit. You're gambling with the health of a living being. If people want to buy a sweater or a gadget they can't afford, and if they want to get a knockoff one that might break, it's no big deal. If people want to make bad financial decisions, they're really only hurting themselves. For me, the important part of this is when those bad financial decisions are also decisions that cause more suffering for dogs. And when you give money to a bad breeding operation, that's what you're doing. A lot of this issue is gray, but that part is pretty black and white.



DaisyGolden said:


> Why does anyone have a toyota when if they wait long enough they could get a bmw? In a perfect world every puppy would come from a great breeder and people would be able to pay 2000.00 for their puppy. This is not a perfect world.


The fact that the world isn't perfect is no excuse for gambling with the health and suffering of a dog. I know you're not saying anybody should make that gamble, but whenever we talk about health problems that could be averted if people would be careful with their money, I have little sympathy for any argument that doesn't challenge that it's OK to just get what you want right now and ignore the consequences. The world isn't perfect, but it gets better when we make choices that make it better.



DaisyGolden said:


> I just don't think that someone who gets all the clearances, but doesn't choose to show their dogs and has a couple litters a year is that bad. Sorry this is long.


I think if you're talking about somebody who does all clearances but doesn't show, you're in a whole other ballpark. It's certainly more ideal to go to a breeder who shows so you know they're really protecting the breed's heritage, but it's not the same ethical issue as going with a breeder who doesn't do clearances. I think that's a much grayer area than a breeder who's willfully putting dogs' health at risk because they can't be bothered to spend money on clearances.


----------



## DaisyGolden (Jan 4, 2008)

I do believe that I said I wouldn't get a puppy without clearances. I wouldn't support a breeder that doesn't care enough about the health of their dogs to have those kind of tests done because I know better now. I would not support a bad breeding operation. I am saying that I don't think less of people who made the decision to get a puppy from a not so great breeder because maybe they didn't know any better at the time. I'm not going to judge other peoples decisions. I don't want any dog to ever suffer, but not everyone knows all the information about what to look for in a puppy. I didn't when I got Daisy. I also said that I understand why someone might buy a cheaper dog, I never said it was the right thing to do. I also think that some people have an elitist attitude and think that if your dog isn't from show lines it's just not as good as dogs that are. If you're really looking to save dogs lives and are worried about the suffering of dogs then you shouldn't get a golden at all. You should get a shelter dog. That really saves a dogs life. We all don't get shelter or rescue dogs though, do we? That's because we love golden retrievers and that's the kind of dog we want to have and that is our choice to make. I will say it again so that it's clear. I don't support bad breeders. I don't think people should buy a puppy from a bad breeder.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I just want to add my thoughts, i have had both, byb, and breeders that took pride in the breeding of their dogs, did all the clearences, one of the two ,of byb, had to have both hips done, at 6 months old, they were very bad, the next one was from a really good breeder , did all correctly, and he spencer,was never sick, a day,until he got cancer at 12 plus, his dad was a well known stud, many rewards, apollo, of tairis goldens, spirit is also from this line, i hope he has as good health as spencer did,we will see.i think some is from the genes.


----------



## DaisyGolden (Jan 4, 2008)

goldensrbest said:


> I just want to add my thoughts, i have had both, byb, and breeders that took pride in the breeding of their dogs, did all the clearences, one of the two ,of byb, had to have both hips done, at 6 months old, they were very bad, the next one was from a really good breeder , did all correctly, and he spencer,was never sick, a day,until he got cancer at 12 plus, his dad was a well known stud, many rewards, apollo, of tairis goldens, spirit is also from this line, i hope he has as good health as spencer did,we will see.i think some is from the genes.


I think a lot of it is from genes. I also think you can buy a puppy from a breeder who does all the clearances, but whose dogs aren't champions or in shows and are just pets and that's ok too.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

DaisyGolden said:


> If you're really looking to save dogs lives and are worried about the suffering of dogs then you shouldn't get a golden at all. You should get a shelter dog. That really saves a dogs life. We all don't get shelter or rescue dogs though, do we? That's because we love golden retrievers and that's the kind of dog we want to have and that is our choice to make.


And there are plenty of people that do just that. And just a FYI, there are a lot of Goldens in shelters and rescues. Both my Goldens were rescues and yes, I will rescue again. 

And for those of you that said you couldn't qualify for a rescue or shelter dog....have you checked craigslist lately? Tons of dogs, yes Goldens too, that are being placed. Many if not all are one step away from the shelter. So there are many ways to "rescue" and not give $$$ to breeders that are in it totally for themselves and could give a **** about what they're doing to their dogs. As long as the puppies sell, they will keep pumping them out.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Yes, I checked Craigslist. I still do about every other day. I don't know what I'd do with a dog that I got off of Craigslist since we aren't ready for another one, but I always check.

There are BYB's that aren't just pumping out puppies in order to get money. There are people who are just uninformed and let their dogs have puppies because they don't know any better. Doesn't mean they're horrible people who are scheming to make loads of money. Doesn't mean that they just see their dogs as puppy-making machines. They love their dogs, too. Enzo's "breeder" was a woman who let her dog have puppies whenever it happened. She didn't keep them separated because she didn't know better. As I became more aware of how things should be done, I talked to her about it. Now that she's informed, her male dog has been neutered. Her females (the mother of the pups and the pup that she kept from Enzo's litter) have been spayed. The mother was rehomed because she seemed to prefer being an only dog. Was she a bad breeder?? Yes. Do I blame her for it or think it makes her a bad person?? Not even close.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> And for those of you that said you couldn't qualify for a rescue or shelter dog....have you checked craigslist lately? Tons of dogs, yes Goldens too, that are being placed. Many if not all are one step away from the shelter. So there are many ways to "rescue" and not give $$$ to breeders that are in it totally for themselves and could give a **** about what they're doing to their dogs. As long as the puppies sell, they will keep pumping them out.


But buying a dog off of CL or whatever - that isn't the best either or it doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't helping bybs out that way. Even though you may feel like you are "rescuing" that puppy by plopping down $$$ for him.... You can't sell puppies on CL, so people use "rehoming fee" language instead.

There are also dog brokers who take dogs for free and resell them on craigslist or other places. And these people do come across as very genuine to those people who actually think their pet is going into a good home.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Ithink, there will always be byb, i also think, alot of people will always buy the pups, some don't know about clearences, some just can' afford the dogs from good breeders, lets face it a puppy is cute, it is hard to walk away from a cute puppy, until you are educated, in buying puppies, you go with what your heart says.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

DaisyGolden said:


> I do believe that I said I wouldn't get a puppy without clearances. I wouldn't support a breeder that doesn't care enough about the health of their dogs to have those kind of tests done because I know better now.


I tried to be careful not to say that you did. I apologize if mischaracterized anything you said.



DaisyGolden said:


> I also said that I understand why someone might buy a cheaper dog, I never said it was the right thing to do.


I'm sympathetic too, so I was mostly agreeing with you.



DaisyGolden said:


> If you're really looking to save dogs lives and are worried about the suffering of dogs then you shouldn't get a golden at all. You should get a shelter dog. That really saves a dogs life. We all don't get shelter or rescue dogs though, do we? That's because we love golden retrievers and that's the kind of dog we want to have and that is our choice to make.


I'm talking about preventing your money from _increasing_ the suffering of dogs. Buying a Golden from a great breeder instead of going to the shelter to adopt doesn't increase the number of unwanted dogs and doesn't take unnecessary gambles with dogs' health. 

In fact, I believe by advocating for good breeding practices, we help prevent unwanted dogs from ending up in shelters. A great breeder is going to produce more even Golden temperament, and they're going to provide support for puppy buyers. Those two steps alone will keep tons of dogs out of shelters, since so many dogs are abandoned for easily prevented behavioral issues. Great breeders will also always take a dog back instead of letting him go to a shelter, so that keeps the rest of their dogs out of shelters, unless the owners deliberately break the contract.

So if we can get one more owner that goes Googling for Goldens to read threads that push them away from BYBs, HVBs, and pet stores, and towards more responsible breeders, we might do a little bit to reduce the uneducated demand that drives profits at those places. There might be fewer litters produced with reduced quality of life and fewer dogs in shelters.

I do think that more people should put their money and their time behind their local shelters, but buying a Golden from the right place doesn't contribute to the suffering of unwanted or unhealthy dogs at all.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Megora said:


> But buying a dog off of CL or whatever - that isn't the best either or it doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't helping bybs out that way. Even though you may feel like you are "rescuing" that puppy by plopping down $$$ for him....


Both of mine were off of craigslist and they were free. You pay money for the dog or puppy at a rescue also. Many of these pets are in much worse conditions than at those at rescues where at least they're safe.

And how do you help BYBs if you happen to pay for a puppy/dog on craigslist if the people selling or placing them just didn't know what they were getting into? Or if the owner passed away and the family doesn't want them anymore? Or any number of reasons why dogs aren't wanted...the BYBs already got their money from the original purchasers just like they got their money already when the dog ends up in rescue or a shelter.

I can understand the puppy/dog flipper aspect...that's a very good point and would be a huge concern when getting a dog off of craigslist. When I got my two, I was not going to pay a fee. If they had asked for money, I would have walked. So yeah, I can see that as a valid concern.


----------



## Maggies mom (Jan 6, 2006)

I think its a gamble either way... Abbie came from a hobby breeder who does clearances etc, and guess what she has seizures, there isnt a history of this in her breeding stock....Maggie hobby Breeder and she has low thyroid,, same thing... no history.... Hootie BYB been healthy for 6 years this Aug and he had a tumor removed from his jaw which was Spindle cell, Cruiser from a BYB has a heart murmur and allergies. On the boys I knew where they came from, BUT I chose to give them a home and deal with whatever health issues they had/ have...Do I think the BYB need to be out of business YES, would I rescue and give another BYB dog a home again..YES, they cant help where they came from, they deserve a loving home as well....will I get another dog from a Good Hobby Breeder again, yes......


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I've seen a bunch of dogs that have been brought from different areas of the country to CT, either through Craigslist or purported rescues that I felt were probably being sold for profit but marketed as "rescues." It seems like some HVBs are doing this with young dogs they weren't able to sell as puppies. They move them to a different state and "rehome" them for $300.

I have no idea how widespread the practice is or if my suspicions are totally off base, but I would be very careful and skeptical.

I would hate, though, if legitimate rescues had a harder time placing dogs because of scammers tarnishing the idea of rescuing.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Maggies mom said:


> Do I think the BYB need to be out of business YES, would I rescue and give another BYB dog a home again..YES, they cant help where they came from, they deserve a loving home as well....


All dogs deserve a loving home, no matter where they come from. The ethical question that's really hard is when you have a badly-bred dog that deserves a good home, but in order to get him, you have to give money to a person who's probably going to turn around and produce more dogs like him.

And it's always a gamble. But we have tools to improve the odds dramatically, and it's a crying shame when people won't use them.


----------



## Maggies mom (Jan 6, 2006)

tippykayak said:


> All dogs deserve a loving home, no matter where they come from. The ethical question that's really hard is when you have a badly-bred dog that deserves a good home, but in order to get him, you have to give money to a person who's probably going to turn around and produce more dogs like him.
> 
> And it's always a gamble. But we have tools to improve the odds dramatically, and it's a crying shame when people won't use them.


And I am guilty of this... Cruiser was put in a box after the breeder couldnt sell him and was on his way to have him put down at 8 weeks old for a heart murmur, I didnt not give the price he was asking but did give him something....


----------



## DaisyGolden (Jan 4, 2008)

If you can afford to buy a puppy from a breeder with champion lines whose dogs are show dogs then that's great, but I think it's also ok to buy a puppy from a breeder whose dogs have all their health clearances but they aren't show dogs or champions. I believe there is a place in the golden retriever world for breeders who breed goldens intended just to be healthy pets for people and if they don't show their dogs, but have all the necessary tests done I think that's ok.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

kwhit said:


> And how do you help BYBs if you happen to pay for a puppy/dog on craigslist if the people selling or placing them just didn't know what they were getting into.....


I understand and agree for the most part. And I'm sure I would pay a fee if I really wanted the dog, who cares if the person was a broker or a byb. I'm just saying you are assuming that bybs aren't actually using craigslist to unload puppies for a small profit. If they are asking $50-300 per puppy, it's more money than they'd get if they take the litter and surrender to a shelter. 

Back when I was going on Craigslist every day earlier this year, making sure somebody's dog didn't show up under sales or lost, I saw certain patterns as far as puppies or young dogs.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Megora said:


> And I'm sure I would pay a fee if I really wanted the dog, who cares if the person was a broker or a byb. I'm just saying you are assuming that bybs aren't actually using craigslist to unload puppies for a small profit.


I'm not assuming anything...please don't imply that I am. I'm nowhere near naive enough to assume that BYBs aren't using craigslist, of course they are. In fact they're probably the majority of the ads, (aside from the rescues that list their dogs there). 

The ads that I'm talking about involve older puppies and dogs, ones that are definitely not BYBs:

Male Golden Lab

Shitzu-Bulldog Male $5

Chihuahua/Doxie mix

Gigi needs a home asap

These are just a few examples of the many dogs that need homes on craigslist that are not BYBs looking for a quick buck. No, they're not Goldens, but I just quickly picked a few out of the hundreds that need homes.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Penny's Mom said:


> There's a thread going "How much is too much?" $1900 for a puppy from a reputable breeder.
> *
> I know getting all the clearances and getting a quality, healthy litter whelped is expensive. I have to think tho that if a litter of 10 puppies sells for $1900 that it didn't cost $19,000 to get that litter whelped.*
> 
> ...


That's how i looked at it until recently. However, I would imagine that it wouldn't be hard for a breeder to have $800+ into each puppy...between regular visits, certifications, food, facility cost/maintenance, etc. If they're breeding for a living or it's a significant investment of their time (which I think it would be for most GOOD breeders), then they have to get enough out of the breeding for it to at least sustain their "operation."

Yup. That's where I am. I didn't have, nor will I likely ever be in a position to spent $1,000+ on a dog. At the end of the day, MOST people just aren't in a position to spend that kind of money on a dog. For many people...that's a mortgage payment, 5+ months of power bills, almost half of what I spent on my last car, etc.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

Just a side note, there are plenty of purebreds (many with papers) in shelters and rescues. Adults and puppies.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

kwhit said:


> These are just a few examples of the many dogs that need homes on craigslist that are not BYBs looking for a quick buck. *No, they're not Goldens*, but I just quickly picked a few out of the hundreds that need homes.


Yes, I saw a lot of those too. But then if you are looking for a purebred golden puppy, that's not going to help you.... 

ETA - *I think I should say I'm not supporting bybs*. We went through that with our first golden and while we loved him deeply, he was not an ideal golden in various ways. He died when he was six from something that was far worse than cancer. He suffered so much more than our two cancer dogs. And besides that, he had a rough temperament and pretty bad cataracts. Even if he was more retriever than some goldens out there. <- When we first brought him home, the one thing that brought him out of his shell was when he saw a toy thrown. He went rushing out after it and brought it back in a beautiful retrieve like that was what he'd been waiting for. He turned into a different dog when he was rushing out to retrieve something. It made him shine.

Because of that first golden, my older sisters pooled their paychecks together to save up for our second dog from a responsible breeder. And then the third from an even more responsible breeder. Etc. The important thing though is that without that first purebred golden, we probably would not have been into dogs so much as to even THINK of having more than one. And forget about adopting. Growing up with dogs made us better and more mature adults. 

I'm just asking people to get off their high horse and educate people about breeding their dogs for profit when they shouldn't. Breeding their dogs irresponsibly. And so forth. Encourage people to join golden retriever clubs and get involved with the breed. Encourage people to DO MORE with their dogs and understand why it's so important to preserve all of those traits that should be in the breed. And all of that LONG before they think about breeding. 

People who buy puppies from bybs generally do know the difference between their dogs and those that are better bred. And that difference is going to make them hunt a little more the next time they get a puppy. It happened with us between our first dog and the second dog. And I've seen it personally with other people. 

A friend's female golden (Shammy) died the same week our Sammy died - she died of the same exact thing he did. When I brought my Jacks-puppy out to the barn and showed him off, it got them asking questions about where I got him. They wound up buying a puppy from an even better breeder than I went with. And good on them. These were people who always picked up random puppies from friends, no buying or selling involved. 

Hope that clarifies things. Somebody privately mentioned that she felt that this thread had a lot of pro-byb stuff on it. I reread my comment here and realized it SOUNDED like that. When in reality, there are strong reasons why my family steered away from bybs after our first guy.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

DaisyGolden said:


> If you can afford to buy a puppy from a breeder with champion lines whose dogs are show dogs then that's great, but I think it's also ok to buy a puppy from a breeder whose dogs have all their health clearances but they aren't show dogs or champions. I believe there is a place in the golden retriever world for breeders who breed goldens intended just to be healthy pets for people and if they don't show their dogs, but have all the necessary tests done I think that's ok.


But who is doing this?? I could never find them.


----------



## DaisyGolden (Jan 4, 2008)

Claire's Friend said:


> But who is doing this?? I could never find them.


You just have to look around and you'll find them. I know it's hard to find people who don't charge a fortune and still do all the tests but there are some out there.


----------



## Deber (Aug 23, 2011)

Everyone's post here has much merit, but honestly, the ignorance lies not with the fine people here and how or where they got their dogs, nor the prices that the public will pay, but to me it lies in simple marketing.

Think on this from an intirely different angle. WE the public are the ones that decide what dogs are good for families, good for companion, working, etc. WE built the breeds and as such WE have the ability to ask for what we want. Feel the total health care and responsible breeding tendencies would all be strengthened if we could get out a fantastic marketing campaign. If we turned the public into thinking it was "Popular" to have health clearances, again "Cool" to be able to produce obedience certificates on your dogs and "Prideful" to have a healthy dog, people would do it, just as we go look at the new mini-vans that say they have a removable back seat that when moved can hold dog crates.

If it became popular for cities to have monthly Open House for families and their pets, given discounts at Vets and Pet stores for people showing health certificates, telling breeders, no matter what they are that they need parents clearances with their puppy packages....because if they didn't, then it wouldn't be popular, the general public would flock to have this done. If the country would become much more dog friendly and people policed each other on the behavior of their animals, people would do it, even if they normally wouldn't, but WOULD because they want to fit in and be part of the "IN" crowd. Most people love their pets but unless you stumble into a forum or a kind mentor, know nothing but they want and love their pet. We as "The People" can change what breeders look for in their dogs, breed for and what is out for the public to purchase. It is all in the marketing of correct health methods, clearances and training. Know I am old, but the more I am involved in the dog world, it still amazes me to see the pull the public has on what shows up in the ring. I have nothing against breeding, but facts are that with screening and selective breeding we can help many of the debilitating conditions that rack many breeds. But to say we don't need family breeders, in my opinion, isn't there. We just need a HUGE information marketing to allert people of the joys of getting pets with these clearances and then show them how much fun it is to own a dog who's chances of getting these are less. Nothing is foolproof, but if the public demands something, the breeders quickly try to conform to this. 

And Yes you can find a good hobby or beginning breeder who does clearances without a huge price tag. Go to some shows and talk to the breeders there, but be honest, get referrals from Vets on their client base. Many breeders do not advertise and litters are more rare, but amazing you can find them. Most Kennels will do right by you with a lot of work, but honesty and working hard to establish a repore with them. Remember most are just as scared of you as you are of them. They only want the best for their babes or adults. 

We just need a Nationwide Marketing Promotion showing how "Cool" it is to own a dog with a chance of Health and back it up with MUCH more dog friendly things to do and make that popular too.


----------



## SeaMonster (Jul 4, 2011)

1900 is too much. Like any other business, I assume there are great breeders who produce quality pups AND they want to make as much money as possible. Plus, millions of people have mutts and they love them to death!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Know I am old, but the more I am involved in the dog world, it still amazes me to see the pull the public has on what shows up in the ring.


I'm sure people in conformation will have more knowledge on this than I do, but I think breeders breed what wins in the show ring. And judges don't care about popular opinion. 

I think that GRCA (at least) has stepped up in trying to emphasize what clearances need to be done. And you have responsible breeders who are getting that message out and doing their part in screening and educating the public looking for puppies. Heck, I've seen a lot of breeders on groups like this one and others putting their "nice person" reputation on the line and even acquiring "bully" labels while try to educate the public on what needs to be done. And I feel this does make a difference for some people at least. 

The other thing is that I think that the breed groups (GRCA, for example) are very uncomfortable about government getting involved with regulating the dog breeding world. The AKC fights legislation that they might even agree with to a certain extent. Considering what anti-breeder and anti-dog owner stuff city governments are doing at various spots around the country... it's probably why.

I think people would take pride (and relief) in having a healthy dog. And they don't need to feel bad or worse if their dog does have a health issue, like their dog is imperfect. Health problems happen even from breeders who do complete clearances and have 5+ generations of complete clearances.

Our Danny had all his clearances behind him. His elbows were horrid though and I know some of his littermates were put to sleep because they had both horrid elbows and hips. This happens even with good breeders.

One thing I was thinking as far as how cities and local governments could work hand in hand with the AKC.... 

If a dog has an owner-trained-handled obedience title (CD, for example - which pronounces him a Companion Dog), has a sheet from the vet showing he's up to date on vaccinations and covered for everything, and this same dog passes a yearly behavioral test to ensure he is completely sound and safe around other dogs and people.... wouldn't it be nice if people were permitted to take this dog out to places where dogs are usually banned?


----------



## DaisyGolden (Jan 4, 2008)

I think your post is very good. I do hope that someday everyone knows what to look for in a dog. I hope that the good breeders out there as well as the dog clubs do more marketing geared toward the average person who is buying a pet for their family because I think they are the ones that get taken advantage of more than anyone by bad breeders.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

SeaMonster said:


> 1900 is too much. Like any other business, I assume there are great breeders who produce quality pups AND they want to make as much money as possible. Plus, millions of people have mutts and they love them to death!


Just because a reputable breeder is charging more than you are personally comfortable with paying doesn't mean they are in it to "make as much money as possible." I really don't appreciate that statement, and I'm not a breeder. Sorry, but I just couldn't bite my tongue on this one.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Just because a reputable breeder is charging more than you are personally comfortable with paying doesn't mean they are in it to "make as much money as possible." I really don't appreciate that statement, and I'm not a breeder. Sorry, but I just couldn't bite my tongue on this one.


Completely agree.  

One thing I was going to say is that if somebody has 2 dogs that they haven't put any money into (time is money, training is expensive, shows are a luxury, all the required tests and checks, etc), and they are still breeding and asking for $$$ for the puppies, then they are just in it for the money. 

From watching and listening to various responsible and active hobby breeders I know - the money they ask for puppies goes right back into the dogs. That's care, training, travel, and showing.


----------



## Jax's Mom (Oct 16, 2009)

I know this thread has already been beaten to death, but I have a question. Why is it we must take into consideration the money the breeder spends on training/showing etc. I dont think its fair to incliude this in the "cost" of the pup. Wouldnt they, being involved and loving "owners" be doing this anyway? Sorry....but IMO this should not be counted as an expense in the puppy price. 1900 is "too much" for alot of people.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

It's within your right to not consider it when looking for a puppy. 

But IMO, if a breeder is spending the time and money showing their dog to show that they are a good representative of the breed standard prior to breeding, doing all the recommended health clearances on their dogs, making educated and informed breeding decisions and caring for my puppy for 8-10 weeks before it comes home, then I would not ask them to go in the hole thousands of dollars on every litter. Breeders aren't all independently wealthy and whelping a litter is very time consuming and extremely expensive.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Iagree, $1,900, is too much, unless your planning on showing the dog, but for pet quality, alot of people can not pay that.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I get that there are people who cannot afford to pay that amount for a puppy. But I'm not sure why it seems ok to ask these breeders, who make a lot of sacrifices (both financially and otherwise) for their dogs and are not in a different financial situation than the rest of the general population, to eat the cost? Why is that fair but it's not fair to ask the puppy buyer to do the same thing?


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

If they are doing it for the love of the breed, making the breed better, by doing all clearences, and can afford to not make quiet as much, why not?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

FWIW - I somewhat agree that if you do not care about conformation, or obedience, or any other performance sport that a breeder might be breeding their dogs for... then those things are not going to matter to you. 

For other people who love their hobbies (conformation, obedience competition, agility competition, hunt tests, etc) - these things matter. And they would be willing to pay extra for a dog who has been selectively bred to have the qualities that would take him very far in your chosen sport. 

Don't buy from these breeders if you don't like how much they ask. It's that simple. 

At the least, though a pet home should be concerned about the health, trainability, temperament, and calmness behind that puppy that they hope to buy. That is why they want all clearances on their dog. And then they want to ensure that the breeder is not just breeding everything that they can get their hands on. 

If a breeder is not competing in anything or doesn't even DO anything with their dogs, how can they prove they are breeding the best stock? If their dogs do not go out in public or off their property? If their dogs are not frequently around other dogs. If their dogs are not kept inside the home. If their dogs are not trained at all. And so forth.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

goldensrbest said:


> If they are doing it for the love of the breed, making the breed better, by doing all clearences, and can afford to not make quiet as much, why not?


But it's not them not "making quite as much," you're asking them to lose money on every litter. I guess the breeder's time and money is not relevant to this discussion?


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I AM SAYING, THRE ARE GOD FAMLIES, THAT WANT A GOLDEN, WITH CLEARENCES, AND CAN NOT AFFORD THAT HIGH OF A PRICE, THAT WILL LOVE, CARE FOR ,JUST AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE MONEY, TO SPEND ON THAT HIGH PRICE. I PAID 1.500, ON CAMBRIDGE, HAD TO FLY HER IN FROM OREGON, SO THAT ALSO COST, I WANTED A RED HEAD, BUT WANTED ALL CLEARENCES, I SPENT ALOT ON HER. nOW BE IT A RED HEAD, OR OUR BLONDES, COST OF A GOLDEN, CAN BE ALOT.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

good, i meant to say.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I don't think typing in all caps is necessary. I understand that it's a lot of money, it's a lot of money to me and spending that kind of money on our dogs was not a decision that my husband and I took lightly. 

I just get the sense that people have visions of breeders jumping around gleefully throwing around their stacks of hundred dollar bills after a litter of puppies goes home. That is just not the case with the reputable breeders I know. They make sacrifices to show and breed their dogs and the money for puppies goes right back into their dogs and covers the costs of whelping the litter. I also know many people who lose money on litters, even while charging the prices that people are criticizing.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

goldensrbest said:


> I AM SAYING, THRE ARE GOD FAMLIES, THAT WANT A GOLDEN, WITH CLEARENCES, AND CAN NOT AFFORD THAT HIGH OF A PRICE, THAT WILL LOVE, CARE FOR ,JUST AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE MONEY, TO SPEND ON THAT HIGH PRICE. I PAID 1.500, ON CAMBRIDGE, HAD TO FLY HER IN FROM OREGON, SO THAT ALSO COST, I WANTED A RED HEAD, BUT WANTED ALL CLEARENCES, I SPENT ALOT ON HER. nOW BE IT A RED HEAD, OR OUR BLONDES, COST OF A GOLDEN, CAN BE ALOT.


It can... if you are being very selective about what you want in a golden retriever. I know there are other people with reddish goldens who spent less for all clearances. It really depends on where you buy the puppy from. 

15+ years ago, my family spent $400 on a purebred golden who had a dark red mom (Kiowa bloodlines) and a light blonde show boy dad from Florida. That was full clearances. Because the owner was not a show breeder and did not have too many expenses in raising her golden + she did not have a high demand for her puppies at a time when everyone else was jumping on the bandwagon and buying blondies, she charged only $400 instead of the $800-1000 that some other top bred show bloodlines puppies were going for at the time. 

If we were purchasing Sammy today, we probably would be spending about $800-1200 for him. At least based on breeders here in Michigan and over in Wisconsin where I checked out a breeder. That's because the cost of living has gone up for a lot of us. Raising a dog is a bit more expensive today. 

Long schpeel short - I spent $1200 on my one computer and am RELIEVED that it's still alive and kicking at 6 years old. I know plenty of people who buy $600-1000 cameras, computers, brand new cars, IPADS, IPODS, whatever else. They spend more for the quality of something that will start to lose value as soon as it goes home with them. 

Dogs never lose value...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

People have every right to charge whatever they like. If somebody is charging $5000 for wonderful pups, more power to 'em. I won't pay that much, so that breeder's not for me, but I think that people have the right to charge whatever the market will bear.

What I care about is whether they're clearing their dogs according to the CoE. That's nonnegotiable in my book. I don't believe people have the moral right (they certainly have the legal right, but that's a different question) to take unnecessary risks with the health and potential suffering of dogs.

Second on my list is whether they compete. Personally, I'd only by a dog from a breeder who competes, but I don't see a big ethical problem with buying from a breeder who clears but doesn't compete, or who doesn't compete much. They're not doing everything they can to protect the breed and its standard, but they're also not hurting dogs.

Price is something breeders get to set wherever they want. If it's too high and people don't buy the dogs, they'll lower it. If they're asking for $1900 and putting all their pups in great homes for that amount, they should be able to do so without being called greedy, especially when that $1900 probably doesn't even cover what they've put into the dogs. If it's too rich for your blood, you don't have to pay it. There are cleared dogs out there from competition breeders that sell for much less.

Personally, I will only patronize a breeder I believe is in it for love of the breed. Somebody who loves Golden Retrievers more than any other kind of dog in the whole wide world. Somebody who loves to compete with wonderful dogs and breeds in order to have another generation of dogs that embody the breed even better. Somebody who loves their dogs deeply and would do anything to protect their health and happiness. In my experience, these breeders are only selling dogs to recoup some of the costs of their hobby, and they care more about placement than about profit, so the prices actually tend to be lower than at many other places, and the interview process tends to be more complicated and difficult.

But there's a big difference between what I personally would do and what I think is worth insisting that other people do. I think it would be great if everybody completely followed the GRCA's suggestions in choosing a breeder, and I think it would be better for people to save up and buy a dog from those ideal breeders. But the thing I think is nonnegotiable is the idea of buying from a breeder who doesn't take all possible steps to ensure health, longevity, and temperament.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

*in caps*



goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't think typing in all caps is necessary. I understand that it's a lot of money, it's a lot of money to me and spending that kind of money on our dogs was not a decision that my husband and I took lightly.
> 
> I just get the sense that people have visions of breeders jumping around gleefully throwing around their stacks of hundred dollar bills after a litter of puppies goes home. That is just not the case with the reputable breeders I know. They make sacrifices to show and breed their dogs and the money for puppies goes right back into their dogs and covers the costs of whelping the litter. I also know many people who lose money on litters, even while charging the prices that people are criticizing.


 I just type, that way, no offense, i mean nothing by it, okay?


----------



## Jax's Mom (Oct 16, 2009)

Cost of showing and training shouldnt be entered into the cost of the litter. That is something they would do anyway. As with any dog you own, you would do that as well as pay for any medical costs that dog incurs (if in fact that is what you are "into"). I'm pretty much assuming most breeders are "into" that and would be doing it even if they arent breeding. A puppy buyer shouldnt take on that cost. The only cost figured into the litters should be the pregnancy related bills and the puppy related bills. I dont know how pet insurance works, but isnt a female covered for pregnancy and any complications it comes with?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Jax's Mom said:


> Cost of showing and training shouldnt be entered into the cost of the litter. That is something they would do anyway.


You know the sad thing is that they are not even putting the total cost of raising the dogs, training the dogs, showing the dogs, caring for the dogs, breeding the dogs, medical expenses, travel expenses, feeding expenses, time off work to raise the ltter, etc... 

I can only imagine - especially since a lot of these people have to feed a lot more mouths, train a lot more brains, and take care of more bills than most. Especially if they have 5-8 dogs in their program. 

To put this in perspective, I'm just a pet owner. I spend about $900 for training classes every year for 1 dog. $900 worth of gas driving to those dog classes in a year, on average. I feed my dog $200-300 worth of dog food every year. He gets $120 worth of preventives in a year. And the few show trials we've entered in the past 3 or 4 months without traveling more than 100 miles away from home cost me $160 on entries and about $100 worth of gas driving back and forth. 

And that's not much considering I'm not so deep in this hobby as some show/competition breeders that I know. Their expenses go right through the roof with all the dogs they have and shows they go through year round. 

Very little of that goes into the price of the puppy. I think if reputable breeders really were greeders, they would be breeding a lot more often and charging higher prices if they felt they could get away with it. As it is, I think a lot of breeders set a price that's reasonable for where they live.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Jax's Mom said:


> Cost of showing and training shouldnt be entered into the cost of the litter.


I disagree with this. Showing is for the owner, yes, but it's also for future puppy buyers. It proves the breeder went to a "third party" to get their dogs evaluated to be worthy of breeding. So I definitely think that it should be factored into the price of the puppies. 

And as far as training, the higher levels of competition and hunt and field work should also be included. The puppy buyer _benefits_ from both showing and any advanced levels of competition the breeder is involved in. It's what _dedicated_ puppy seekers look for in the prospective parents of their future pup, (or they should be looking for, anyway).


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Jax's Mom said:


> Cost of showing and training shouldnt be entered into the cost of the litter. That is something they would do anyway. As with any dog you own, you would do that as well as pay for any medical costs that dog incurs (if in fact that is what you are "into"). I'm pretty much assuming most breeders are "into" that and would be doing it even if they arent breeding. A puppy buyer shouldnt take on that cost. The only cost figured into the litters should be the pregnancy related bills and the puppy related bills. I dont know how pet insurance works, but isnt a female covered for pregnancy and any complications it comes with?


Our pet insurance will not cover anything related to whelping/pregnancy. 

I'm still just really confused by this mentality. Why are puppy buyers entitled to reap the benefits of a reputable breeder's time, money and dedication to the breed? Because they want a puppy? There are a lot of things I want that I can't afford, so I don't buy them or I save up for them. I'm just sensing a feeling of entitlement to a well-bred puppy from titled parents who have a nice pedigree with generations of health clearances that happens to fall within their budget...that's just not how things work.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Our pet insurance will not cover anything related to whelping/pregnancy.
> 
> I'm still just really confused by this mentality. Why are puppy buyers entitled to reap the benefits of a reputable breeder's time, money and dedication to the breed? Because they want a puppy? There are a lot of things I want that I can't afford, so I don't buy them or I save up for them. I'm just sensing a feeling of entitlement to a well-bred puppy from titled parents who have a nice pedigree with generations of health clearances that happens to fall within their budget...that's just not how things work.


I guess my thought about this is that it's been said on this forum time and time again that dedicated breeders are breeding so that they can get their next show dog. They aren't doing it just to breed. So, they would be doing these things anyway in order to get their future dog. I'm not saying that they should give away the puppies that they don't choose for free, but some of the fees that are out there are so extreme. That's like me wanting a roll with my dinner, so I buy all of the ingredients for the rolls and after I make them and eat the one I wanted, I try to find people to buy the ones that I didn't want. Either I'm a baker and I'm in it for the money, or I'm not and I'm trying to sell my "left-overs". It sort of seems like some (not all) breeders want to have their cake and eat it, too. Not saying that I agree with all of this, but I can certainly see why people would have that mindset.


----------



## Finn's Fan (Dec 22, 2007)

Just to respond to those who say they cannot get a purebred golden retriever from shelters or rescues, please go to www.goldenrescue.com right now. The available dogs listed are only about half of the dogs in the rescue. Then go to www.petfinder.com and put in golden retriever and your zip code. You will find page after page of purebred golden retrievers in rescues, shelters, humane societies and ad hoc "rescues". Depending on where you live, you can buy purebred goldens (not necessarily well bred, but purebred nonetheless) on Craigslist, Kijii, and whatever other Internet sites allow the sale of dogs, whether it's called a "rehoming" fee or not. Some rescues require fences or children over eight years old or no apartments, but many others rely on a case-by-case assessment, including a home visit. This entire thread makes me a little nuts. No one is saying that BYB dogs themselves aren't lovely, wonderful creatures and their owners aren't kind, compassionate people who will care for their dogs forever. The real question, it seems to me, is whether people who don't know or don't care about the health, temperament and standards of the breed should be breeding dogs. The answer in my book is a resounding NO!!!! I have had BYB dogs and adored them and currently have a rescued dog whose previous owners broke his back, and I adore him. If I weren't willing to go the rescue route, I would save whatever monies it took to purchase a pup from a breeder who was a member and followed the best breeding practices according to the GRCA.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Enzos_Mom said:


> I guess my thought about this is that it's been said on this forum time and time again that dedicated breeders are breeding so that they can get their next show dog. They aren't doing it just to breed. So, they would be doing these things anyway in order to get their future dog. I'm not saying that they should give away the puppies that they don't choose for free, but some of the fees that are out there are so extreme. That's like me wanting a roll with my dinner, so I buy all of the ingredients for the rolls and after I make them and eat the one I wanted, I try to find people to buy the ones that I didn't want. Either I'm a baker and I'm in it for the money, or I'm not and I'm trying to sell my "left-overs". It sort of seems like some (not all) breeders want to have their cake and eat it, too. Not saying that I agree with all of this, but I can certainly see why people would have that mindset.


I understand what you're saying, but breeders aren't independently wealthy people. I'm sure there are some, but not the ones I know. 

There was a post once (that I cannot find for the life of me) about the cost of breeding a litter....it's not something you get into for the money. And if I want reputable breeders to be able to logistically and feasibly breed litters, they need to be able to at least not be in the red all the time. That's why I have no problem with breeders covering their costs (including their time, showing, cost of the whelping, etc.) with the price of a puppy.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I understand what you're saying, but breeders aren't independently wealthy people. I'm sure there are some, but not the ones I know.
> 
> There was a post once (that I cannot find for the life of me) about the cost of breeding a litter....it's not something you get into for the money. And if I want reputable breeders to be able to logistically and feasibly breed litters, they need to be able to at least not be in the red all the time. That's why I have no problem with breeders covering their costs (including their time, showing, cost of the whelping, etc.) with the price of a puppy.


I see what you mean but (just playing devil's advocate here), how is a breeder finding homes for puppies that aren't the ones that they want any different from people rehoming dogs on Craigslist?? If someone came on here and said they were rehoming their dog on Craigslit for $1900 because the dog had a great pedigree and a history of clearances, we'd tell them they were nuts. They'd made the choice to get this dog and why should the new puppy buyer have to pay such an astronomical price for a puppy that they didn't want. The same thing could be said for the breeders. They bred their dog for their dream puppy. Why should someone else have to pay such a huge fee for one of their cast-offs? (No, I don't really think of the pet home puppies - or any puppies - as cast-off's. I'm just saying for the sake of discussion...) Puppy buyers may not be independently wealthy people, either.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> There was a post once (that I cannot find for the life of me) about the cost of breeding a litter....it's not something you get into for the money.


Here's one from my Dane board...it's from 2003 so I'm sure prices have gone up, (take out the cropping cost):

Breeding Costs-The ABC's of buying a purebred puppy

There's a couple more, I'll try to find them.

Here's another post made by a Dane breeder:

*How it all began*

In the Beginning...
You got your dog ($1500-2500), a real show dog, and quickly realized that you needed the correct collar to show him on.
Which in turn led you to that wonderful buttery smooth three foot leather lead.
At your very first show, you noticed that you just HAD to have the proper grooming supplies also.
Slicker Brush $9.00
Comb $10.00
Spray Bottle $4.00
Good Conditioner $15.00
Water Bottle $4.00
Pin Brush $15.00
Bait $10.00
NEW Collar (your dog has now out grown that first one)
$14.00
Chalk $9.00
Chalk Brush $15.00

YOUR FIRST POINT.*****YOU' RE HOOKED****** **
Bait $10.00
Dog show calendar $12.00-don't wanna miss ANY shows. By now you're beginning to realize the back seat isn't a proper way to transport your dog.
Dog Crate for the car $80.00
At your very next show you begin to feel a bit more confident and relaxed at dog shows
Borrowing and waiting to use your friends grooming table is so inconvenient.
Grooming Table $95.00
Grooming Arm $50.00
Bait $10.00
You begin to start collecting dog show things, old towels, skirts with
pockets, dresses with pockets, Good comfortable shoes, rain gear, umbrellas, water jugs, etc $100.00
Too many grooming supplies?
Tack Box for supplies $50.00
Good comfortable Camp Chairs $35.00-we seem to be spending much more time at shows lately.
Suddenly you realize all of these items AND your dog don't fit in the family car anymore.
Used Mini Van $15,000.
Somewhere around this point you get tired of waiting to use your friends blow dryer.
New blow dryer $150.00
Extension Cord for Dryer $15.00
Five-way plug for sharing electricity with your new dog show friends $10.00
New and improved dog show collar and lead $40.00
New type of improved Coat Conditioner $15.00
Bait $10.00
Your friends favorite Shampoo and Whitener $35.00
New Comb and Slicker brush $25.00 (you lost the old ones at the last show)
Scissors $30.00 (kitchen shears just don't trim those pads right)
Muddy Show grounds..Roll up mat for covering ground $45.00

YOUR DOG PICKED UP HER NINTH SINGLE
The hunt for majors begins.
After wasting much money on entries where majors didn't hold you begin to get frustrated and search out and find that new male show puppy and a perfect match for your female! ($1500-2500)
Crate for new dog $80.00
Show collar and lead for new dog $50.00 (your tastes have been refined now)
Handling classes for new dog $40.00
The very first show teaches you, your Mini Van will not carry both crates and all your equipment.
Brand New Larger Mini Van/SUV $25,000.00
Now having two dogs to show and get ready quickly teaches you a generator is required! Generator $325.00
Two Dog Kennels for outside $1,000.00
Just gotta pick up one of those majors on your female
Handler for those major shows $200.00 (+/-)

YOUR FEMALE FINISHES!
Your new male is too young to breed.
Updating & Health Clearances on Female $500.00+
Stud Fee $1,000.00
Progesterone Testing $200.00
Whelping box $250.00
Vet bills-x-rays, sonograms, well mother checks $400.00
Putting first aid whelping kit together $300.00
C-section $1500-2000
Vaccines for new litter $150.00
X-pen for puppies $80.00
Whelping pads, fleeces, toys for puppies, weaning supplies, etc $450.00
Baby Scale $45.00
Well puppy and mother exams $150.00
Spectacular puppy in litter will be new show dog.
Immediately realize Mini Van will NOT hold three dogs and show equipment Motor Home or Full size dog show van $30, 000 to $100,000.00! !!!!!!!!
You suddenly realize you are eating macaroni and cheese while your dogs are eating Human Grade Dog food at $55.00 a bag.

Congratulations!
You have now earned the title of "Dog Breeder!"
Aren't you glad you are finally making those big bucks breeding dogs?

So far you have invested $75,652.00 in showing your two dogs. This figure does NOT include dog food, the initial cost of your dogs, entry fees, motel bills, general vet bills, toys and Many other ownership incidentals.

Your litter of pups yielded six puppies, you kept one and sold the other five for $800 each. (Dane pups $800-2500) 

Congratulations you just made $4,000.00 breeding your dogs!
Now if you can just breed 25 or more litters you MAY just break even with your initial investment of over $75,000!

Author Unknown
__________________


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Finn's Fan said:


> Just to respond to those who say they cannot get a purebred golden retriever from shelters or rescues...


I actually looked a couple years ago when we were searching for a golden. We had just lost a 13 year old dog and had an 11 year old who was getting up in age... and were essentially told by the one rescue we interviewed with that the only dogs they'd adopt to our home (no fences) was another senior. 

I admire people who rescue seniors and I wish we could do so ourselves, but it was something we couldn't do at the time. There were already too many broken hearts in my family. Even now, we need years to recover before we go through that again. 

Then last year when I was in rescue mode after losing my Danny, I asked about a golden mix (looked all golden, but some rescues are very hesitant to refer to a dog as "purebred" without seeing a pedigree) from an allbreed rescue group by my house. I also checked with another rescue group about a very pretty setter mix. Never mind the fact that both dogs were neutered. I was treated very rudely because we have an intact dog in the house. 

The fence thing is a mandatory rule with the rescues here.

With other rescue groups, intact dogs are another mandatory rule. And I'm there are others that I haven't encountered just yet.

This is aside the point on a thread discussing puppies, but you gave me an opening to whine about my favorite thing. <- Rescues who would turn down good homes who actually have experience with training and raising goldens. 

It did work out, because we found a rescue that would adopt to us, even if it meant going with a different breed.  That and I feel no guilt going with another puppy from a breeder.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

In simple terms, if breeders can get more for their dogs, many will, money seems to speak loudly, be it in this, or many other things, i don't think breeders are any different, they want to make money, it just seems it is pricing out many people, on what they can spend. And i looked on pet finder, look into rescue, when i was looking for a red head, asked on here several times, could not find red puppies.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

kwhit said:


> Here's one from my Dane board...it's from 2003 so I'm sure prices have gone up, (take out the cropping cost):
> 
> Breeding Costs-The ABC's of buying a purebred puppy
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but this whole thing is slightly ridiculous. I know there are a lot of fees that go into showing and all that, but shampoo, brushes, a collar because your dog outgrew the old one, crates, etc. are things that you need to get whether your dog is a show dog that is meant to be bred or not. A puppy buyer shouldn't have to pay for those things. A mini-van and then a bigger van?? Really?? Puppy buyers shouldn't be paying for your vehicles. Camp chairs?? Like that's something that wouldn't have been bought even if you weren't showing your dogs?? I understand puppy buyers paying for the screenings and clearances...the pregnancy-related vet bills...maybe even the actual showing/handling fees. But SO much of the stuff on that list is stuff you'll need with a dog, regardless of whether or not they're a show dog. That's called being dog owner. If you don't want to have to pay for that part yourself, you shouldn't have a dog.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> I'm sorry, but this whole thing is slightly ridiculous. I know there are a lot of fees that go into showing and all that, but shampoo, brushes, a collar because your dog outgrew the old one, crates, etc. are things that you need to get whether your dog is a show dog that is meant to be bred or not. A puppy buyer shouldn't have to pay for those things. A mini-van and then a bigger van?? Really?? Puppy buyers shouldn't be paying for your vehicles. Camp chairs?? Like that's something that wouldn't have been bought even if you weren't showing your dogs?? I understand puppy buyers paying for the screenings and clearances...the pregnancy-related vet bills...maybe even the actual showing/handling fees. But SO much of the stuff on that list is stuff you'll need with a dog, regardless of whether or not they're a show dog. That's called being dog owner. If you don't want to have to pay for that part yourself, you shouldn't have a dog.


I think this wasn't really trying to implicate that we as puppy buyers should be reimbursing the breeders for all of their costs but rather to get across to us just how much money a breeder spends on a dog or two. There are a lot of people who think breeders are swimming in diamond encrusted swimming pools filled with nuggets of gold, and we all know that's not the case.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

kdmarsh said:


> I think this wasn't really trying to implicate that we as puppy buyers should be reimbursing the breeders for all of their costs but rather to get across to us just how much money a breeder spends on a dog or two. There are a lot of people who think breeders are swimming in diamond encrusted swimming pools filled with nuggets of gold, and we all know that's not the case.



Exactly! Very well put.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

kdmarsh said:


> I think this wasn't really trying to implicate that we as puppy buyers should be reimbursing the breeders for all of their costs but rather to get across to us just how much money a breeder spends on a dog or two. There are a lot of people who think breeders are swimming in diamond encrusted swimming pools filled with nuggets of gold, and we all know that's not the case.


Yeah, but as a dog owner, I'm ALSO spending that much money on a dog or two, minus the cost of showing/handling and whelping. I'm not saying that breeders are wealthy, but I'm saying that any dog owner would have spent money on that stuff. And including the breeder's vehices on that list is a little silly, IMHO.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Enzos_Mom said:


> Yeah, but as a dog owner, I'm ALSO spending that much money on a dog or two, minus the cost of showing/handling and whelping. I'm not saying that breeders are wealthy, but I'm saying that any dog owner would have spent money on that stuff. And including the breeder's vehices on that list is a little silly, IMHO.


I think that list was supposed to be tongue in cheek. hvgoldens was the one who posted something about the cost of a litter but I couldn't find the post.

A friend of mine recently bred her female, she incurred a stud fee of $1,500, the cost of progesterone testing and an emergency c-section ($2,500) and ended up only with 2 dead puppies. She is already almost $5,000 in the hole without any puppies to show for it and without even adding in the costs of puppy supplies, puppy care, show costs for the dam, health clearances, etc. If she decides to try the breeding again she may have some live puppies (fingers crossed) but she's already lost a lot of money on that breeding and the puppies haven't even been conceived yet. That's why this whole "breeders are making so much money by charging high prices for their puppies" mentality (that's not directed at you, Sam  ) just bothers me. They may recoup some of their money spent on their dogs eventually, but they aren't raking in the big bucks.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> hvgoldens was the one who posted something about the cost of a litter but I couldn't find the post.


Here it is:

I had posted this in another thread but here you go:

I have a litter of 10 puppies and sell them at your price of $1000 each.

Now for my expenses......

SHow dog at AKC events to ascertain quality (avg. championship costs between $7-12,000 to achieve)



Travel to meet and compare various stud dogs (if not own stud)

$400 



OFA, CERF and CHD certifications of health for Mom

$480.00


4-7 Progesterone tests to pinpoint accuracy of timing @75/every 2 days

$350.00


Brucellous test & health check for bitch

$100.00


Stud Fee to Stud Owner

$1000-2,000.00


Lost wages (time off work to travel to stud dog)

$200.00


Travel to Stud dog (gas, tolls, meals) (local vs. out of state
$250.00

4 nights at mid-priced dog-friendly lodging @$80/night (not counting hours on phone finding it)

$320.00


Non refundable security deposit per night because of dog $20/night

$80.00


OR Airline fare and boarding to fly bitch to dog for 2 wks

$500 


Semen Collection if Stud won't/can't breed the bitch (veterinary expense)

$350.00


Implantation (surgery) or Trans cervical introduction of collected sperm into bitch

$800.00

2nd Trans cervical (better results with second attempt) 

$350.00


Ultrasound to check on status of breeding - did it take?

$100.00


NO PUPPIES YET, just preliminaries (double if breeding doesn't take) 





Accumulate needed birthing supplies (clamps, heat lamp, heat mat, siphon bulb, replacement milk, etc.) assuming already have some things from previous litters
$50.00

Update website & get puppycam ready (hosting)

$50.00


Extra food in anticipation of pregnancy
$100.00

Prenatal vitamins for bitch

$20.00-50.00


X-ray to confirm pregnancy (Reproduction Specialist Vet), make sure vet is on call that weekend

$100.00

(it's always on a weekend or most inconvenient day)



Miss work to deliver puppies (sick time or lost wages)
$140.00


Birth Expenses - Natural (have oxytocin, other drugs on hand for complications)

$80.00-100.00


Birth Expenses - C-section/Complications

$1,000.00-3,000.00


Emergency visit cost (weekend, after hours or fading puppy vet visit)

$100-200.00


PUPPIES ARE BORN!



AKC litter registration $25 + $2 per puppy
$50


More premium food for nursing mom & puppies (once weaned)

$200.00


Nursing Mom refuses eat premium food, demands steak and cottage cheese instead

$100.00


Vet Emergency that always happens (stepped on puppy, Mastitis in mom)

$100-500.00


Start puppies on solid food (hamburger, cottage cheese, premium Puppy food varies by breeder)

$50-200.00


Worm puppies 3 times (assuming 4-12 puppies) - stool sample $35 each & meds
$175.00




First DHLPP shots for 4-12 puppies (1 shots each) & Vet checkup $95 & 
$300.00

New & replacement puppy toys, towels, baby gates, other misc. necessities

$50-100.00


Home Destruction (replace chewed woodwork, cords, repair furniture & rugs etc.)

$100-300.00


24/7 job of supervising new mom, making sure puppies are safe & fed, laundress, playmate and poop picker upper 
????



Assemble puppy "going home" packets (copying, food samples, collar, etc.)

$75.00


Photos/developing, communication w/puppy buyers (digital/film - email/long distance charges)

$100.00

Added utility bills and laundry costs for washing puppy blankets and heating for puppies when they are first born.
$200


Eventual Sleep and a Healthy Mom & Puppies - Puppy breath and cuddles



PRICELESS
PRICELESS
TOTAL COST TO BREED A LITTER OF GOLDEN PUPPIES? TOTAL
$18,395. 

Yes, some of these costs may not be required for every breeding but this will give you an idea of what the costs are that go into a successful breeding. Then there are times when you do a breeding and spend a few thousand dollars and mom doesn't take. We just had that happen with one of our girls.....hey, it happens. But, I digress......given this level of costs that go into a litter and there will be more if you need to replace or buy a wehlping box, puppy pen, bedding, etc. How is a breeder supposed to offer an all inclusive guarantee??? The cost of a puppy as many other posters have said would be beyond exhorbitant and no one would be breeding.

__________________


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

My dog is my companion--hopefully for 10+ years. I think SterreGold hit it right on the head when she said people will happily go out there and buy a big expensive TV, a nice car, etc but they don't want to invest in their living breathing companion who will enrich their lives. 

I am sorry it just irks me to no end. When you actually personally know some wonderful, reputable breeders who love the breed and who truly, truly care about the well being of every dog they have ever owned or bred. It is a huge contrast to those less thoughtful. 

Seriously though, I bet many of you would change your minds if you ever had to live with a devastating problem because of purchasing a dog from a breeder who is not careful. Do you know how heartbreaking it is to live with an aggressive dog? To see your dog in pain? To see your dog drop dead at a young age due to SAS?


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> Seriously though, I bet many of you would change your minds if you ever had to live with a devastating problem because of purchasing a dog from a breeder who is not careful. Do you know how heartbreaking it is to...see your dog in pain?


I do. 

Chance, as I've stated before, has severe ED. Surgery wasn't an option for him, so he makes do with Rimydal and supplements. He can't go for long walks, he can't play as hard as he wants, (you could see him _want_ to, but he stops himself because he self regulates and knows his limits), he can't extend his leg past a certain point where I can see it hurts him, his medicine can cause liver damage so he goes in every 3 months for blood work (I like to stay on top of it). Some days he just wants to/has to zoom and he lets himself go for a moment, but he pays for it later...those are the days that he also get Tramadol.

As stated above, it's extremely heartbreaking. It's gut wrenching to think that the medicine that keeps him comfortable could shorten his life. That scares me every day and if I think too much about it, like now, I start crying. That's why I advocate buying from breeders _*that care*_ about what they're producing.

Good for everyone that has BYB dogs whose parents weren't health tested and so far their dogs are okay. You gambled and, this time, you got lucky. But there are so many that were not as lucky as you and are suffering the heartaches because of careless money hungry "breeders" that are producing dogs that are doomed to suffer because of their negligence. 

Chance and what he has to endure every day for the rest of his life is the reason I am such an advocate for health testing and giving your money to those that actually _give a da*n_ about our breed and are in in for the dogs and not the almighty $$$$.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

As long as this thread is still kicking around.... lol, I thought it was going to die yesterday so I didn't jump in. Now I will.

In my mind, it's slightly inaccurate to say that a breeder is breeding for their next "show dog." Well, yes... they will likely show the dog. In my mind it's a little more accurate to say they're breeding for the next great link in their breeding program. But to really get to the heart of it -- they are breeding to maintain this breed that we love so much. To maintain the characteristics that make a Golden Retriever a Golden Retriever. They are breeding in order to provide that wonderful, superior golden temperament and beauty to other families. But they sure as heck do not intend to do it entirely at their own expense... nor are they capable of it unless they happen to be independently wealthy. The families and individuals who wish to own a Golden Retriever (a real deal honest to goodness Golden Retriever with all the qualities one would expect including health and longevity) have a responsibility to contribute to this breed -- by being responsible owners and by contributing to the responsible, reputable breeders that work so hard to protect, maintain and produce this breed to the standard set by the GRCA (also by rescuing and all that goes along with that... but that's another topic). 

I really do get frustrated when people say: I just want a pet, I don't need those fancy show dogs. Those fancy show dogs -- whether it's conformation, hunt and field, obedience and/or agility -- have legitimate proof that they are superior representatives of the breed in looks, temperament and/or working ability. It is only by selecting for those traits that the breed can remain as it was intended to be (yes, there are fads in the conformation ring and sometimes field dogs are smaller than the standard and all of those arguments that we always have. Yes, that needs to be debated and breeders need to be held accountable... but again, that's another topic). How can one select for those traits with no empirical way of measuring them? I think my dog is pretty so I'll breed her? My dog retrieves a tennis ball well so I'll breed him? I taught my dog to sit, what an all star... let's have puppies?! Sorry, that doesn't cut it in my book and it shouldn't for anyone who truly loves this breed. 

So yes, training and competing are the breeder's hobbies... but so is the breed itself and it's the love of this breed and the desire to preserve it that drives them to compete at the very top levels.... to go for the MACH 7 instead of stopping after one... to continue campaigning their dog after he becomes a Champion.... seemingly fruitless title upon title upon title... because they wish to breed from the best of the best -- and that's a status that does not come cheap or easy! Breeders are able to compete at these top levels, able to pour this money into their hobby because they know (or hope) that their next litter of dogs will provide the next payment to their handler or allow them to send their upcoming dog to a pro trainer for field (or whatever). And sometimes they lose their shirt because the breeding doesn't take or as someone said above the pups simply don't make it -- and that next campaign or training needs to wait. These folks lose money on pretty much every litter, regardless of how extravagant you feel their costs are.

Do you want to own a Golden Retriever? Do you want the Golden Retriever to continue to exist as it was designed to be -- that is a medium sized dog with superior biddability and trainability, with a soft mouth and a drive to retrieve, and friendly in disposition to friends and strangers alike (to pick and choose a few of the more obvious characteristics)? Well then it is your responsibility to acquire one in a responsible fashion - either from a reputable hobby breeder or from a rescue or shelter. And if that means taking the time to save up your money to do so, then that's what it means. Anyone who can afford to feed, vet and care for a dog can afford to save a small amount each month to put toward to purchase of one. Instant gratification may work in the mall or with a car, but this is a living breathing being. As with children, whether you give birth or adopt there is most certainly a waiting period.

I didn't touch on clearances because I feel that part of the topic has been discussed at great length -- but I do feel they are a vital part of what makes a reputable breeder reputable. As Brian said earlier, that's non-negotiable to me as well. So I just thought I'd take aim at a different part of the conversation.

Julie, Jersey and Oz

Edited to add: This is not intended to make anyone who purchased their dog from a BYB or other source feel bad. Our first golden was from a pet store... yup, that's right, we supported a puppy mill. Brandi was an incredible dog and was my best friend growing up.... I wouldn't have traded her for the world then or now. But when we know better we do better... and every person who is a member of this forum now knows better... so I honestly believe it is up to us to continue to do better each and every time we search for a dog and to help educate others so that they can do better too. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, it's not intended that way. I love all dogs and I do not blame them or think less of them if they came from a BYB or a HVB or a mill.... I blame the irresponsible people who treated this breed in an irresponsible way and I blame the disreputable person who pushes dogs like product. I blame the person for their behavior, nothing more.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

This is random, but I just saw that if I wanted a full registration puppy whose dad might be a member of GRF, it would cost $1800. 

I don't think anyone would complain about spending that much for one of his puppies... 

Now if you don't want a conformation golden or a breeding prospect, you don't have to pay that much. It's only going to be $1400 in that case. Lot of money, but still worth it, I imagine...


----------



## Jax's Mom (Oct 16, 2009)

Firstly, let me say that I believe in rescue, more and more with each passing day. In as much as I love the thought of having a purebred Golden from wonderful lines, I feel there is a dire need to home dogs that would be killed unless someone adopts them. My questioning and commenting here, is solely based on trying to make sense of this whole thread in relation to people who really want a purebred puppy but arent able to save or spend alot of money, a category in which I most defintely fall. 

While I understand the breeder has the litter and whelping expenses, the point about the puppy buyer not paying for the expense of training and showing the dog still comes to mind. Yes, the puppy buyers reap the benefits of a dog that has been bred by competition winning dogs, does that make it right for the breeder to charge for it, if in fact this is something they do because they love to do it? Why is the puppy buyer subjected to paying the bill for something they WANT to do. Its not like you want to become a breeder first, then show your dogs to better yourself as a breeder. In fact, from what I understand, if I understand correctly, it is usually the other way around. Why should the litters fund something they want to do anyway?

The bottom line is supply and demand, just like any other business. You have people who WILL pay the highest price for a puppy because they can and then the others, who cant afford it, get the message.... if you cant afford it or cant save for it, then you shouldnt have it, and THATS exactly when they go to the BYB, or to rescue. BUT in that I will also say, the people that go to a BYB, and my Lucy is included in that, is sometimes because they WANT a golden, not an older rescue, or a puppy that you really dont have ANY idea how he will turn out (puppy can turn into something completely different as he ages). Lets also throw in there how difficult it can be to rescue not only a golden puppy, but a golden adult. Some of the restrictions and qualifications can become seemingly absurd. If you are not a person who struggles on a daily basis to get your bills paid, nevermind save, then please, dont make judgements on these statements. And if I hear someone say then maybe you shouldnt get a dog if you are in this situation, then I beg of you to not even go there, since most of America is in that particular situation and many people on this very forum wouldnt have a golden, or for that matter a dog. 

My only point for even commenting on this thread, is there has to be some kind of happy medium for the people who have a hard time spending 2000 on a dog, when they struggle to pay the mortgage/rent/bills. Again, while there are people in this world who will pay the extreme prices for a puppy, then the breeders that charge it will continue to be able to charge it, as evidenced by the long waiting lists they have. If Client A cant afford it, client B will take it. Doesnt really give the breeders an incentive to worry about the price. PLEASE if you are abreeder on here reading this, dont take offense as I do not mean to say breeders are greedy, I am just trying to shine a light on the reality of what some people are thinking, but cant put into words on here. 

Bottom line...some of us cannot afford to pay the prices that are SOMETIMES being asked and on top of that, they are being made to feel guilty about even wanting a Golden, or a dog for that matter if they cannot _afford it. _


----------



## Jax's Mom (Oct 16, 2009)

Megora said:


> This is random, but I just saw that if I wanted a full registration puppy whose dad might be a member of GRF, it would cost $1800.
> 
> I don't think anyone would complain about spending that much for one of his puppies...
> 
> Now if you don't want a conformation golden or a breeding prospect, you don't have to pay that much. It's only going to be $1400 in that case. Lot of money, but still worth it, I imagine...


 
Now I find the fee of 1400 reasonable and fair (although still more than I could afford right now...not that I am looking) ....when you start going into the 2000 range, it starts to blow my mind.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Actually if you are a client and the progesterone goes to Idexx, the charge is now $100 per sample... I get it for 1/2 our cost as a professional discount... but when I had my girl at the stud dog owners, I was charged $100 for the progesterone test... Between the stud fee and the testing(brucellosis, progesterone) and the AI, itwas close to $2000 before the pups were born. Not to mention OFA's, paying for shows, paying for handlers, etc. Then the coup de grace was the emergency c section which fortunately my husband did, but I would've gladly paid someone to do it... There were 3 live pups, but decided to own 2 with a co ownership... 

The golden I got for free was unspayed and needing a patellar luxation repair. My husband spayed her. Her patella was fixed at Angell Memorial(20 years ago) and the surgery was $600 with a professional discount. Then at 7 years she needed part of her mandible removed and with a professional discount it cost $1000. Finally in the last month of her life, I spent about $1500 at the neurologist.

My second golden was $600. Other than shows and OFA's, the only added expense I had with her was the ultrasound done the day she was euthanized at almost 12 years.

My third golden was essentially $1800($900 purchase price, plus the price of a pup from her first litter). Again, other than shows and OFA's, the only money I ever spent on her health was the last four days of her life and it was about $1200...

My experience is that when I got dogs from breeders doing their homework, I have gotten some very healthy dogs in terms of soundness, skin, and temperament. It costs money on the breeders' part to do all that....


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Jax's Mom said:


> Now I find the fee of 1400 reasonable and fair (although still more than I could afford right now...not that I am looking) ....when you start going into the 2000 range, it starts to blow my mind.


You must understand there are nice reputable breeders out there selling pups at even 1k you just have to look. Sure, you might not be getting from a big name kennel or the parents might not have multiple titles...but heck, sometimes they do. I know some very good breeders that can't bring themselves to charge that much.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> You must understand there are nice reputable breeders out there selling pups at even 1k you just have to look. Sure, you might not be getting from a big name kennel or the parents might not have multiple titles...but heck, sometimes they do. I know some very good breeders that can't bring themselves to charge that much.


Flora's breeder has multiple Ch dogs and they're reputable breeders and they only charge $950 a pup. So it IS possible to find a reasonably priced puppy - you just have to be patient and knowledgeable.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

hmmm, wonder who that is? 



Megora said:


> This is random, but I just saw that if I wanted a full registration puppy whose dad might be a member of GRF, it would cost $1800.
> 
> I don't think anyone would complain about spending that much for one of his puppies...
> 
> Now if you don't want a conformation golden or a breeding prospect, you don't have to pay that much. It's only going to be $1400 in that case. Lot of money, but still worth it, I imagine...


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Jax's Mom said:


> While I understand the breeder has the litter and whelping expenses, the point about the puppy buyer not paying for the expense of training and showing the dog still comes to mind. Yes, the puppy buyers reap the benefits of a dog that has been bred by competition winning dogs, does that make it right for the breeder to charge for it, if in fact this is something they do because they love to do it? Why is the puppy buyer subjected to paying the bill for something they WANT to do. Its not like you want to become a breeder first, then show your dogs to better yourself as a breeder. In fact, from what I understand, if I understand correctly, it is usually the other way around. Why should the litters fund something they want to do anyway?


First comes love of breed, always, for a reputable breeder. In order to preserve the qualities that make a golden a golden they need a way to separate out the superior dogs -- competition is a necessity. Does the breeder enjoy the competition? Sure. Everyone loves competition. And breeders tend to flock to a type of competition that interests them (field versus obedience versus conformation). But the bottom line is that competing is a necessity, not just a luxury, to the reputable breeder. And yes, the price of a puppy will reflect that to some extent. But don't imagine for a minute that a $1200, $1400, or even $1900 price tag comes near covering the expense the breeder incurred for training and competing. It doesn't. It just keeps them from going belly up.




Jax's Mom said:


> My only point for even commenting on this thread, is there has to be some kind of happy medium for the people who have a hard time spending 2000 on a dog, when they struggle to pay the mortgage/rent/bills.


I'm curious why we're debating $2000 price tags. Though there are some out there that do, _most_ reputable breeders don't charge nearly that much. Most are more in the $1200 to $1500 range. Not picking at you, many people have mentioned it, you're just the most recent.

You make a lot of good points about rescue. Rescuing a golden isn't always as easy as it should be... but without reputable breeders the Golden Retriever as we know it will eventually disappear. Left in the hands of millers and BYBs, classically golden traits frequently go by the wayside. Rescue is very important.... but so are the folks out there advocating for this breed and striving to preserve it. We need both sides of that coin. But reputable breeders can't continue what they are doing without charging a reasonable fee. Where is the middle ground where someone says that this breed is worth waiting for... worth working for... worth saving for? That's the middle ground I would like to see. I struggle with my bills too. I've overdrafted my bank account multiple times in the past few months. I can't put money away right now. I may want a golden retriever puppy... but I cannot afford one. Why is it my right to demand someone else put themselves in the hole in order to provide me one?

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm sorry if this has already been answered, I didn't read the whole thread, but no, to a lot of breeders showing the dog isn't their hobby at all. It's a necessary part of being a good breeder.
The purpose of showing a dog is to determine which dogs are worthy of breeding, period. It's expensive and time consuming, and a lot of breeders send their dogs out with handlers because they don't have the time to take care of it themselves. Hardly a hobby.
My dog, for example, has been proven in the breed ring, the obedience ring, and hunt tests. When I say he's worthy of breeding, it's not just me saying gee I have a nice dog, I think he's good looking, let's make some puppies. It's lots of people (judges) giving independent, unbiased opinions that yes, this dog has traits that are worthy of being passed on in the breed. 
Yes, I personally did it as a hobby, because breeding isn't one of my goals for him (although he has been bred). But for people whose goal is to breed, it's a necessary part of breeding--proving the dog/bitch is worthy of breeding.




Jax's Mom said:


> I know this thread has already been beaten to death, but I have a question. Why is it we must take into consideration the money the breeder spends on training/showing etc. I dont think its fair to incliude this in the "cost" of the pup. Wouldnt they, being involved and loving "owners" be doing this anyway? Sorry....but IMO this should not be counted as an expense in the puppy price. 1900 is "too much" for alot of people.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

A little off topic and not trying to be a total smarta$$ here, but who exactly decided what the best representation of the breed is?? I was bored one day and started going through and looking at show goldens, historically, and OMG, the difference! My Enzo looks more like show dogs of the past. He looks NOTHING like the ones that are winning in the ring right now. What exactly causes such a change over time?? I've always wondered but never thought to ask around here....

Examples (from GRCA's website):

First American Champion









First Best in Show:









First Dual Champion:









SOOO different looking from the dogs winning in the ring today...


----------



## Laurie (Sep 20, 2009)

I'm pretty new to all of this stuff so forgive me if my question is a little off topic. 

I have 3 BYB goldens and unlike some people, have been lucky in the health and temperament department. Mind you, my youngest 2 are not quite 3 years old so time will tell. And, of course, Reno is 11 and has hemangio. They are wonderful dogs but having said that, I want to do things the right way with any future puppy. 

I've read it over and over again that reputable breeders breed for the betterment of Goldens (didn't want to say breed again)..to improve the gene pool of the next generation. So, take a breeder who bred their nicely pedigreed female to an equally nice pedigreed male. Puppies are born: breeder keeps one; co-owns a couple of others with other breeders; sells one to a breeder and sells the others to joe public. So, here we have some puppies with a great pedigree full of conformation champions, but relatively no other participation in other venues. 

Now the same breeder has bred the same female to another nice male (5 months after the previous litter was born) who is also a champion but doesn't appear to have any other titles. What is the breeder hoping to achieve by breeding this female again? Was the previous breeding not what she hoped for and is hoping for better results with this upcoming litter? If breeding is as costly as it has been alluded to, does it make sense to have litters so close together? 

Again, I apologize if this is OT, I'm just trying to understand what constitutes betterment of the breed??????


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

The litter that is being talked about specifically has a price tag of $1400 for puppies on a limited registration.
The $1800 is for people who want BREEDING RIGHTS. It is very typical to charge more for puppies that the people may want to breed at some point.




Jax's Mom said:


> Now I find the fee of 1400 reasonable and fair (although still more than I could afford right now...not that I am looking) ....when you start going into the 2000 range, it starts to blow my mind.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Another point I'd like to make...

Someone posted that good breeders don't have enough dogs to meet the demand for Golden puppies. My question is...*why should they*?!? Not everyone who wants a Golden puppy, or any puppy for that matter, should have one. Why is it up to breeders to meet _any_ kind of demand at all?

Unfortunately, that's why BYBs will never go away...because they supply those buyers that don't give a sh*t where their puppy comes from, (_or don't know any better_), and the reputable breeders wouldn't sell to. 


This is where _education about rescues and shelters_ comes into play. I'll bet that the average Joe Blow on the street has no idea that there are purebred dogs available in shelters or that there are rescues that deal exclusively with purebreds. No idea! :no: I would hope that if a breeder turns down a prospective buyer because, in their opinion, the time isn't right for this person to raise a puppy, they would _always_ refer them to a rescue or shelter in the area. Better yet, that the breeder is actively involved in a rescue or rescuing themselves and knows of older dogs available.

This subject really wears me down because it sometimes seems like such a losing battle...


----------



## Laurie (Sep 20, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> The litter that is being talked about specifically has a price tag of $1400 for puppies on a limited registration.
> The $1800 is for people who want BREEDING RIGHTS. It is very typical to charge more for puppies that the people may want to breed at some point.


And just for the record, I would gladly pay $1,400 for one of his puppies!!!!!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Actually if you dig further back you will find that the goldens winning in the show ring now look a lot like the earliest European champions, which is after all where our breed originated. They have more hair, but their structure is very similar.



Enzos_Mom said:


> A little off topic and not trying to be a total smarta$$ here, but who exactly decided what the best representation of the breed is?? I was bored one day and started going through and looking at show goldens, historically, and OMG, the difference! My Enzo looks more like show dogs of the past. He looks NOTHING like the ones that are winning in the ring right now. What exactly causes such a change over time?? I've always wondered but never thought to ask around here....
> 
> Examples (from GRCA's website):
> 
> ...


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

I get that. I'm not bashing show dogs now or saying that the look is wrong or anything. I just wondered how exactly that change over time happened.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

You might like this website, it's kind of interesting:

http://www.englishgoldens.net/pdf/WhatExactlyIsAnEnglishGoldenRetriever.pdf

look at page 2, the dogs 1st row center and right, 2nd row center and right, 3rd row left, and page 3 look at Rockhaven Raynard.

They're not groomed and stacked the way we do now, but their basic structure is the exact same as what's winning in the ring right now. 




Enzos_Mom said:


> I get that. I'm not bashing show dogs now or saying that the look is wrong or anything. I just wondered how exactly that change over time happened.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Thanks! The faces look a little slimmer in the older dogs. And is it just me or did the dogs up til the 40's look a little, uh, chunky? lol Beautiful dogs, though.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

First time I saw that website I was surprised at how similar the dogs look to todays dogs. 
Yep, some are a little chunky, especially the one 2nd row I think it was, on the left, that produced 8 champions!!!


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Supply and demand is actually one of the most common reasons that people do go to BYB's. Many litters are sold before they are born and some breeders are unwilling to sell to people that are first time owners. My first experience buying a well bred dog was quite discouraging. Only one breeder even bothered to respond to my requests regarding available puppies.This was many years ago and now that I have titled dogs and know a lot of people I can easily get what I want. But I can see both sides of this.
The many posts on here suggesting that people go to rescues or shelters are missing the point that this is often not feasible. I would be considered ineligible for most rescues as I own an intact bitch, work full time, and dogs are exercised off leash to give several reasons. I do have 2 rescue dogs that I got privately from bad situations. They are lovely dogs with lots of issues and not for a first time dog owner. 

Perhaps its demographics because the shelters here do not have sweet golden retrievers and cute designer breeds, they have pit bulls. Same with craigs list. These are not a dog for just any owner. I see many posts on here from people who cannot handle normal puppy behavior. Had they gone to a shelter and adopted a dog with real problems it would be a disaster.
FWIW I have a well bred golden sitting next to me with bone cancer and a 7 month old well bred golden that I pray lives to old age. There are no real health guarantees. You just try to increase your odds.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

This is probably bad of me, but looking at my guy's pedigree (which I'm sure is behind most of today's goldens if you go far enough back) I always thought that whatever changes that have been made in the golden breed (both the fieldies and show dogs)... they are much prettier dogs today. 

Or at the least more predictable and recognizable as goldens. 

Like this one who was an English dog and a CH even though I kinda thought he was homely... :uhoh:






And a few years later from him...



And a few years later...



And then over the years produced this guy...



And I know today's show type goldens _look_ shorter and heavier boned, have shorter muzzles... 

I would gather the changes can be blamed on the popularity of the breed going up with the companion only pet owners out there?

*** And the scary thing for me is when I go far enough back on k9data (I'm assuming before 1900's), I start finding labs, flat coated retrievers, and possibly curly coated retrievers?


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Just have to point out something that is just a little disturbing to me. I do not see the logic in wanting to buy from a BYB that sells the puppies for $400 to $500 and makes exactly that much back...then buying from a reputable breeder that might make $300 to $400 off each puppy.

Say the BYB has 10 puppies...sells them for $400..he is netting 4,000 (that is if they do not do 1st set of shots)
Say the Reputable breeder has 10 pups...sells them 1500 (makes 500 off of each one)

**Just in reproduction cost alone**
The reputable breeder will make an extra $1,000 (if that), but the Reputable breeder put that money they make into other cost for their dogs
Whereas BYB it is pure profit!

Talking about Reputable breeders and making money....I really have to disagree there!


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

TrailDogs said:


> The many posts on here suggesting that people go to rescues or shelters are missing the point that this is often not feasible.


Maybe not, but if it stops just _one_ person from purchasing from a BYB and they go instead to a shelter or rescue...then it's a start. That one person will tell their friends about their experience and those people will tell others, and so on and so on.

My last three have been rescues, two from private parties, (more like adoptions I guess), and my third from a rescue. The private parties couldn't have cared less if I had an intact animal at home. The rescue I adopted from were very through, but made many exceptions if the home was deemed appropriate. No fence, no problem as long as you were responsible. Kids, not an issue as long as, again, you were responsible. In an apartment, no problem. This was an extremely strict rescue. They were having a event at my shop, they knew me and my pets and I still had to go through a home check and an extensive adoption process to get Lucy, my Chi mix. 

A friend of mine breeds and shows Great Danes and also fosters for a rescue. She has intact animals and she still fosters, so there are rescues that will bend the rules. They might not be easy to find, but they're out there.


----------



## Jax's Mom (Oct 16, 2009)

kdmarsh said:


> Flora's breeder has multiple Ch dogs and they're reputable breeders and they only charge $950 a pup. So it IS possible to find a reasonably priced puppy - you just have to be patient and knowledgeable.


While its nice to know this option....How many people will come across ths information. When someone knows NOTHING about getting a Golden, its hard to find the right places to look nevermind finding it.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Jax's Mom said:


> While its nice to know this option....How many people will come across ths information. When someone knows NOTHING about getting a Golden, its hard to find the right places to look nevermind finding it.


That's why this forum is here! 

But no, in all seriousness, I know what you mean. Not everyone knows of this forum or even has the means to access it, so how do they go about finding a reputable breeder? Word of mouth, I suppose, and that's not always a reliable way of going about it.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Megora said:


> This is probably bad of me, but looking at my guy's pedigree (which I'm sure is behind most of today's goldens if you go far enough back) I always thought that whatever changes that have been made in the golden breed (both the fieldies and show dogs)... they are much prettier dogs today.
> 
> Or at the least more predictable and recognizable as goldens.
> 
> Like this one who was an English dog and a CH even though I kinda thought he was homely... :uhoh:


Trying _really_ hard not to take this personally right now, but the dog you just called homely looks almost exactly like my Enzo...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Enzos_Mom said:


> Trying _really_ hard not to take this personally right now, but the dog you just called homely looks almost exactly like my Enzo...


I didn't and don't think so, otherwise I would not have said that.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

He does, though. lol No joke...looks just like him. I wish I had a picture of him at that exactly angle...this is about as close as I can find...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I think Enzo has a prettier head and sweeter expression.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> A little off topic and not trying to be a total smarta$$ here, but who exactly decided what the best representation of the breed is?? I was bored one day and started going through and looking at show goldens, historically, and OMG, the difference! My Enzo looks more like show dogs of the past. He looks NOTHING like the ones that are winning in the ring right now. What exactly causes such a change over time?? I've always wondered but never thought to ask around here....
> 
> Examples (from GRCA's website):
> 
> ...



Ummm...and how many dog shows have you been too? Or are you just guessing based on pics (which can be deceiving).


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> Ummm...and how many dog shows have you been too? Or are you just guessing based on pics (which can be deceiving).


I'm talking about the shows that I've seen on TV and from pictures. I wasn't being snarky...I was honestly wondering how the show dogs have evolved. No reason to get so snippy with me...


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> I'm talking about the shows that I've seen on TV and from pictures. I wasn't being snarky...I was honestly wondering how the show dogs have evolved. No reason to get so snippy with me...


....and I wasn't being snipey. But, if you are curious it would serve you well to actually go to a real dog show instead of watch them on tv. Put your hands on some dogs, learn how to evaluate structure. Buy the GR blue book and then you might learn to understand what it means to have good structure.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

I'm just saying that even if the structure has stayed the same, the overall look of the dogs have changed. There's no denying that, even if you're only looking at pictures. The whole shape of the face has changed from those dogs in the pictures.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Competition always leads to evolution; someone always trying to create something just a little "better" to be competitive. That is why when you watch the Olympics of 50 years ago it is almost laughable what skills they had then compared to now. Whether or not the evolution actually leads to improvements is subjective and very much a matter of opinion.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Enzos_Mom said:


> I'm just saying that even if the structure has stayed the same, the overall look of the dogs have changed. There's no denying that, even if you're only looking at pictures. The whole shape of the face has changed from those dogs in the pictures.


Perhaps....but the most important thing is the bone structure. How well is the dog put together--not how much or how little coat or bone the dog has. And heads...well, that really is a matter of preference!


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Another thing to keep in mind is that the standard is open for interpretation. If you have read it, you will realize that many parts are subjective.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> Perhaps....but the most important thing is the bone structure. How well is the dog put together--not how much or how little coat or bone the dog has. And heads...well, that really is a matter of preference!


There are 276 words under "head" in the breed standard. I agree that some of it is a matter of preference, but there's a pretty precise description of the head there. I agree that structure might be more important, but expression and head shape are strongly defined.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> ....and I wasn't being snipey. But, if you are curious it would serve you well to actually go to a real dog show instead of watch them on tv. Put your hands on some dogs, learn how to evaluate structure. Buy the GR blue book and then you might learn to understand what it means to have good structure.


I think tone is really hard to read here, because if you said something like this to me, I'd probably take it the wrong way too. It seems like a comment that comes from trying to help, but it also seems to say "the reason you don't know anything is..." which could seem insulting, y'know?


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

Enzos_Mom said:


> I'm just saying that even if the structure has stayed the same, the overall look of the dogs have changed. There's no denying that, even if you're only looking at pictures. The whole shape of the face has changed from those dogs in the pictures.


I very much agree with this. There is a big difference in the amount of coat, bone, and head structure between our early champions and what wins today. And for the record, yes, I've been to plenty of shows and have participated in the CCA program. Isn't coat, bone, and head structure the biggest difference between field dogs and conformation dogs today? So I, too, think that the old champions look much more like today's field dogs than today's conformation dogs. 

Field dogs usually have good structure too (of course there are exceptions), it's not just something that conformation dogs have the corner on. In my opinion, to get a CCA, a field bred dog has to have even better structure to pass because the body structure scores have to "make up" for the poorer scores that the field bred dog is likely to acheive in head structure, maybe bone/substance, and possibly coat (although the standard allows for much more variation in coat than is acceptable in the show ring today).


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

IowaGold said:


> Field dogs usually have good structure too (of course there are exceptions), it's not just something that conformation dogs have the corner on. In my opinion, to get a CCA, a field bred dog has to have even better structure to pass because the body structure scores have to "make up" for the poorer scores that the field bred dog is likely to acheive in head structure, maybe bone/substance, and possibly coat (although the standard allows for much more variation in coat than is acceptable in the show ring today).


I think it depends on where you get your dog. There are field breeders paying attention to structure...but I have seen so so many that have roach backs, straight stifles, gay tails, etc etc. But you know there are also show breeders that are not producing huge fluffies too.

At the end of the day though, a dog that is bred carefully whether field or show is still better off than a carelessly bred BYB dog.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> I think tone is really hard to read here, because if you said something like this to me, I'd probably take it the wrong way too. It seems like a comment that comes from trying to help, but it also seems to say "the reason you don't know anything is..." which could seem insulting, y'know?


If someone is truly interested in this subject it would serve them well to educate themselves. Watching a handful of dog shows on tv and looking at a handful of old pictures, IMO, is not enough to be able to make an informed decision.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> If someone is truly interested in this subject it would serve them well to educate themselves. Watching a handful of dog shows on tv and looking at a handful of old pictures, IMO, is not enough to be able to make an informed decision.


 
I wasn't making any kind of decision here...informed or not. I was just making a comment that the dogs look, to the eye, very different. It was a simple question and your response was, whether intended or not, pretty rude.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> If someone is truly interested in this subject it would serve them well to educate themselves. Watching a handful of dog shows on tv and looking at a handful of old pictures, IMO, is not enough to be able to make an informed decision.


I agree about the need to educate yourself. It was more about the implication (intended or not) that the other poster was totally uneducated. That may not have intended, but that's certainly how it came across tome.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Wasn't many of the early goldens, more of the field type?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I think the written word doesn't always come across as intended, but even if it was interpreted or typed in a way that came across as snippy, GoldenSail's point was certainly valid. Getting your hands on dogs and watching them move are the only ways to learn about structure. I go to shows regularly and attend every litter evaluation I can, and I still feel like I know very little about structure. Especially when evaluating a front, I can see and feel what a very good or very bad front looks like but the middle of the road I have issues with seeing and feeling. 

One thing I notice (and this is not at all a dig at anyone since I did it for a long time) is that when people know very little about structure the things they focus on are color, coat length/texture (i.e. straight or wavy) and head/expression. The easiest things to see. But there are structural aspects of a dog much (IMO) more important than that. The head/expression, color and coat are certainly important when evaluating breed type. You want to be able to see a dog and identify it as a golden. But if a dog can't work all day in a field because of a structural issue, then the head, expression and coat don't matter in the slightest, IMO. 

I don't think the dogs in the older photos look structurally that different from the dogs of today, although one difference (which is a pet peeve of mine) is that a slightly sloping croup is actually correct and appears to have been present in the older dogs, but many people see it today as a low tailset. But the AKC breed standard is not illustrated, so there is certainly a level of subjectivity to evaluating a dog and that allows for different styles to be "correct." Even just comparing my two, they are different styles of goldens but both are very nice, structurally, and have breed type. It's kind of hard to explain without actually seeing the dogs in person. But I do agree that it does appear that the style of dog has evolved to resemble the European style more than it used to (as hotel4dogs pointed out) so that would explain the slight changes in the style of dog we see today.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

To get back to something closer to the original point of this thread, I would hope most people would choose to do at least a little research before getting a puppy. Heck, I spent a couple of days researching dehydrators and then a few months waiting until I found one for the right price (which turned out to be $100, but you can say I rescued it).

To do that I did a web search for reviews and forums that discussed dehydrators. If you did a simple web search for Goldens you will soon find this forum and lord knows after that it is easy to go to the "Choosing a Golden Retriever Breeder & Puppy" area. Or I would look for the parent club website and getting to the GRCA site is also quite easy. If I were enough into the breed to want one, I would love looking at that website even if I didn't know they had a section about choosing a breeder.

Getting info about how to properly choose a breeder isn't that hard and would logically be a first step for anyone who thinking of getting a Golden.

I can't imagine not doing that research these days for such an important purchase



kdmarsh said:


> That's why this forum is here!
> 
> But no, in all seriousness, I know what you mean. Not everyone knows of this forum or even has the means to access it, so how do they go about finding a reputable breeder? Word of mouth, I suppose, and that's not always a reliable way of going about it.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Selli-Belle said:


> To get back to something closer to the original point of this thread, I would hope most people would choose to do at least a little research before getting a puppy. Heck, I spent a couple of days researching dehydrators and then a few months waiting until I found one for the right price (which turned out to be $100, but you can say I rescued it).
> 
> To do that I did a web search for reviews and forums that discussed dehydrators. If you did a simple web search for Goldens you will soon find this forum and lord knows after that it is easy to go to the "Choosing a Golden Retriever Breeder & Puppy" area. Or I would look for the parent club website and getting to the GRCA site is also quite easy. If I were enough into the breed to want one, I would love looking at that website even if I didn't know they had a section about choosing a breeder.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with you, I mostly made that statement so as not to insult anyone since this seems to be a sensitive topic for some. I personally don't see how difficult it could be to do some internet research on proper golden retriever breeders UNLESS you have no internet access, which means you probably live in the Gobi desert or something. :wavey:


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> One thing I notice (and this is not at all a dig at anyone since I did it for a long time) is that when people know very little about structure the things they focus on are color, coat length/texture (i.e. straight or wavy) and head/expression. The easiest things to see. But there are structural aspects of a dog much (IMO) more important than that. The head/expression, color and coat are certainly important when evaluating breed type. You want to be able to see a dog and identify it as a golden. But if a dog can't work all day in a field because of a structural issue, then the head, expression and coat don't matter in the slightest, IMO.


I think that with some of the "back then" dogs, the head sometimes looked more setter-ish though. I mean you have that longer nose and narrower/pointier head. 

And body structure - I don't know very much about shoulder laybacks... or what I do know generally is restricted to recognizing when a dog looks balanced or gangly._I don't think any of those dogs whose pictures I looked at yesterday qualified as gangly._ Maybe leggier...?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> I think that with some of the "back then" dogs, the head sometimes looked more setter-ish though. I mean you have that longer nose and narrower/pointier head.


My point wasn't that they don't look a bit different, but that it's merely a slight difference in the style of dog, not a difference in the structure of the dg. That difference exists today in the show ring. As I said, Jack and Chloe are both beautiful representations of the breed (in my obviously biased opinion  ) but they are slightly different style dogs. 



Megora said:


> And body structure - I don't know very much about shoulder laybacks... or what I do know generally is restricted to recognizing when a dog looks balanced or gangly._I don't think any of those dogs whose pictures I looked at yesterday qualified as gangly._ Maybe leggier...?


I do think there are some dogs in the show ring that don't have enough leg under them. But I don't think that's "correct," and most people who have that fault in a dog are hopefully trying to improve on it. Jack has enough leg under him but I wouldn't little mind a bit more. If he is bred down the road it should be to a bitch that has enough leg but is looking to improve on other things (i.e. to shorten up since he is short backed) No dog is perfect!


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

I never said anything about dogs from one time period being more or less structurally sound than others, though. All I noted was that they _looked_ different, which anybody can plainly see. Obviously, they're all within standard or they wouldn't be Champions. I just wondered how the _look_ evolved so much. People are taking what I said and turning it into something else completely. I never said anything about the structur of the dog.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I understand what you were saying, my point (and I think what GoldenSail was trying to say) was that they don't actually look that different. It's a style difference which still exists in show dogs today. Here is an example of a beautiful boy that I love who is more of the style of the dogs in the older photos: http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=277451


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

The style _looks_ different, though. I was just asking how the style evolved the way it did.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

^^^ FWIW - this is somewhat what I was looking at as far as dogs appearing leggier. 

But now I'm wondering if it's the length and shape of this dog's nose and lack of coat which is really throwing me off. He is beautiful though.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Istill say , they looked like todays field type goldens, more than todays show breed.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> ^^^ FWIW - this is somewhat what I was looking at as far as dogs appearing leggier.
> 
> But now I'm wondering if it's the length and shape of this dog's nose and lack of coat which is really throwing me off. He is beautiful though.


With those two I would say it's a difference in length of coat. Although the dog I posted does not carry excessive coat. Long flowing coats are another thing that, although it's seen in some conformation dogs, isn't actually "correct" IMO.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

for anyone who is interested, the "blue book" by marcia shlehr is THE definitive authority on golden structure. well written, well illustrated, and you will gain an incredible understanding not just of correct structure but also why it is necessary for each part of the dog to be in accordance with the structure, as well as what correct movement/gait are.
Just for example, the length of the front leg should exactly equal the body. If you look at both dogs that Kate shows, remove the fur mentally, both are correct.
The body should be slightly longer than tall, in a ratio of 12:11 (length to height). The second dog would appear to be too long, but photos can deceive.
And so on. I highly recommmend the book, it can be ordered from GRCA.
As a side note, several expert breeders have commented that the front leg is getting too short on some of the dogs winning, and are addressing the situation in their breeding programs. Some have also noted that the dog bodies are getting too long, and are addressing that as well.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I understand what you were saying, my point (and I think what GoldenSail was trying to say) was that they don't actually look that different. It's a style difference which still exists in show dogs today. Here is an example of a beautiful boy that I love who is more of the style of the dogs in the older photos: Pedigree: CH Smithaven's AutumnGlen Rowan CD


Yes, they don't all really look that different to me--especially structurally. It would be nice to post several examples rather than 1 or 2 photos of older dogs. You just aren't getting an accurate representation by comparing just one or two dogs of the past to now. This thread made me pull out my book, "The World of the Golden Retriever" and there was a variety back then too. Some of the early goldens were more substantial. And hey, you see the same thing in the ring--a variety.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> And hey, you see the same thing in the ring--a variety.


Exactly.


----------

