# The rise in puppy prices



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Depressing.


----------



## Anon-2130948gsoni (Apr 12, 2014)

Unfortunately, what this also means is that most homes won't be able to get a sound, healthy Golden with clearances. The backyard-bred Goldens will be the option people will go for--in my area that's $500 for a puppy. 

What we're seeing in this area with the BYB pups are big shyness problems--I walked into the shelter where I volunteer one day and there was one of those Goldens on a dog bed ten feet from me. She curled up and was so still I didn't even notice she was there. Sound like a Golden to you?


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

and don't forget the costs of:

- HIP both OFA & PennHip clearances
- Elbow clearances
- Heart Clearances
- Thyroid clearances
- Yearly eye clearances
- DNA testing for known tests

Then the training, showing expenses 

And the list goes on ... 

heating for the puppies both primary and electrical cost for the heating pads under them

Vet expenses have skyrocketed

I consider myself very fortunate that I can afford my goldens and I have good relationships with several great breeders in my area.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Having watched the threads dealing with the cost of puppies for some time, I get most of what's in the OP. But what about the "_A top tier pup that sold for $1,300 - $1,500 in 1999 now sells for $2,500 to $3,000 or more." _What is a "top tier pup" and why are they so much more expensive? Is this the "first pick show prospect" from a litter from nationally recognized top winning show dogs or would all pups in such a litter command this price? Would top performance pick pups command this price? Is the higher price of top tier pups a matter of what the market will bear or is there really a higher cost to producing them? A lot of questions I guess but the "top tier pup" thing is still a bit of a mystery to me.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Top tier litters are special and rare. (They are specifically bred to be competition prospects.) The buyer usually needs a pretty extensive resume to qualify for such a pup.


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

"What we're seeing in this area with the BYB pups are big shyness problems--"
I'm curious as to what exactly is the cause of that? 
I'm assuming that it's not genetics but rather some aspect of how they are raised after whelping?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Sunrise said:


> and don't forget the costs of:
> 
> - HIP both OFA & PennHip clearances
> - Elbow clearances
> ...


Health clearances already existed back then, but the cost for them has nearly doubled along with everything else.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

kellyguy said:


> "What we're seeing in this area with the BYB pups are big shyness problems--"
> I'm curious as to what exactly is the cause of that?
> I'm assuming that it's not genetics but rather some aspect of how they are raised after whelping?


Genetics can be a contributing factor, but it's mostly a lack of socialization at the correct time.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Noreaster said:


> The backyard-bred Goldens will be the option people will go for--in my area that's $500 for a puppy.


Don't count on it. These are the folks who are in the regulatory crosshairs now. They will be forced to go away or change how they do things (and raise their price as well).


----------



## Anon-2130948gsoni (Apr 12, 2014)

My guess with the shyness here is both lack of socialization and poor genetics. I know most of these BYB pups never go anywhere (except maybe one vet visit) until they're going home at 6 or 7 weeks and they're raised out back in a pen much of the time by a mama dog who has never left, either.

As for the shyness genetics...I see a lot of very dark red, leggy Goldens with this shyness problem so I suspect it's one "breeder" who's churning them out. My neighbor has one of these dogs and fortunately, he's too timid to be aggressive, but it's hard to watch him hiding away from people and trying so hard to be invisible. He goes everywhere with his owner and he's had him since he was 7 weeks old, so he had the socialization after that point, so...shyer Golden bred to shyer Golden over several generations?


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

The price for everything rises over time, why should the price for puppies remain static?


----------



## Lucky Penny (Nov 13, 2011)

I agree. I consider myself lucky to be able to own a beautiful tempered sound golden, things are so expensive these days.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

CharlieBear80 said:


> The price for everything rises over time, why should the price for puppies remain static?


The cruxt of the issue is that the price of a puppy is rising at a faster rate than disposable household income. Thus people who had been able to own a nice well bred dog for much of their lives, are no longer able to do so.


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

"Thus people who had been able to own a nice well bred dog for much of their lives, are no longer able to do so. "

My wife and I have a standing joke about always buying the very best dog food so we can have time to get used to it before we're forced to retire.


----------



## Cookie's Mom (Oct 14, 2013)

Swampcollie said:


> Don't count on it. These are the folks who are in the regulatory crosshairs now. They will be forced to go away or change how they do things (and raise their price as well).



Can you elaborate on the regulatory crosshairs? Thanks. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

Swampcollie said:


> The cruxt of the issue is that the price of a puppy is rising at a faster rate than disposable household income. Thus people who had been able to own a nice well bred dog for much of their lives, are no longer able to do so.


I guess, I just feel like people always have to evaluate what they are spending money on and whether they feel it's worth it. To me, a well bred puppy will always be worth the cost, so if 14 years down the road I'm in the market for a Golden and the price is $3500 and that forces me to have to rethink other expenses, so be it.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Swampcollie,
There are so many things in people's lives right now that are growing in price but wages have stayed the same or going down. For example, when I was a kid in the 1970's working at the grocery store was a career. It paid well and it had benefits. Now you work in a grocery store until you find something better. So many jobs are like that today. The cost of college has grown so huge that many people will not pay off their student loans until they are well into their 30's. So as it stands people have less disposable income than they had 25 years ago. Which means items like well bred dogs, become luxury items that most people cannot afford. 

I purchased my first golden in 1999. She was $425. She was middling breeding, meaning some clearances in past generations, no titles in the last 3 generations, definitely pet breeding. Last dog I bought in 2012 had wonderful breeding but was only $1200. I think I got a great deal on Lucy. 

What do you think the effect of limited registration has on the availability of goldens, well bred or not so much?


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

I think almost all aspects to trying to own a Golden have gone up.

It is not getting any cheaper to adopt a rescue either. The prices below have doubled since I first looked at them 10 years ago.


Puppies up to 6 months $900 
Dogs 6 months to 7 years $780 (one dog) 
Dogs 6 months to 7 years $1500 (two dogs) 
Dogs 8 years to 12 years $540 
Senior for Senior Program $450 (includes annual wellness visit) 
Dogs 13 years and older or Special Needs $250


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Alaska7133 said:


> What do you think the effect of limited registration has on the availability of goldens, well bred or not so much?


Limited Registration has had no effect at all in the availability of a Golden Retriever. Limited Registration only prevents litters from being registered with the AKC, it doesn't prevent them from being produced. There are numerous fly by night registries available. Those that want to breed their dogs will do so and limited registration won't stop it.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

kellyguy said:


> My wife and I have a standing joke about always buying the very best dog food so we can have time to get used to it before we're forced to retire.


Eat the good stuff now! You won't be able to chew it later. :doh:


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

After going to a very well respected breeder and GRF member (not active much anymore here sadly) and taking time to socialize our puppy from the start, I will hold out and save for however much our breeder wants to charge me for our next (and probably last) puppy. Having only adopted rescues previously, I see now what a tempermentally sound dog is and can possibly achieve in life. It's worth every penny to me. Everything has risen price wise in terms of getting a dog bred and fed, so I'm willing to wait and save my money.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Swampcollie said:


> Limited Registration has had no effect at all in the availability of a Golden Retriever. Limited Registration only prevents litters from being registered with the AKC, it doesn't prevent them from being produced. There are numerous fly by night registries available. Those that want to breed their dogs will do so and limited registration won't stop it.


I don't know if I would quite agree with that. I have had numerous puppy people not breed their golden simply because they could not get a full registration. Plus it is a lot harder to sell puppies that aren't AKC (at least not for as much money).


----------



## Anon-2130948gsoni (Apr 12, 2014)

Wow on those rescue prices--as I recall when we got Boomer from rescue 10 years ago, he was a scarred up, skinny, no-house-manners-at-all one-year old, and they asked $150. We gave them twice that amount. He turned into a beautiful boy (albeit still a mischief)--we should have given them more. Sigh.


----------



## Goldylover2 (May 1, 2014)

Ten years ago my golden pup cost 250 bucks. No papers. Six weeks ago I purchased another golden pup. Paid 250 bucks again. AKC registered this time. I really don't know if the more expensive pups have less problems down the road. With all the threads on this site about this ailment or that ailment. I would say not.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Goldylover2 said:


> Ten years ago my golden pup cost 250 bucks. No papers. Six weeks ago I purchased another golden pup. Paid 250 bucks again. AKC registered this time. I really don't know if the more expensive pups have less problems down the road. With all the threads on this site about this ailment or that ailment. I would say not.


Puppy's from health tested parents have better odds at not getting the most common quality of life or life threatening diseases. It is of course not a guarantee. Pups with no parental health clearances have higher odds of getting those things. 

Can dogs get beaten by the odds - yes
Can dogs beat the odds - yes

It just depends on if mitigating your risk for heart break is worth the extra time and money up front. To some it does not, to some it resoundingly does.


----------



## 1stGold13 (Dec 1, 2013)

Also who's to say which dogs with which ailment were the result of which breedings, and who paid what, unknowable.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

I may hold the record for paying the least amount of money to purchase a puppy from an animal shelter. We got our Beau at 4 months in 1991 for the grand sum of $3. He was one of the sweetest dogs ever. The shelter didn't even require us to alter him at that time, though we did anyway. He had severe hip dysplasia so we ended up spending a lot of money to treat him with acupuncture and orthopedic consults in his later years. He lived to 13 1/2 years. I framed our receipt from the shelter for his purchase.  Our Barkley and our Toby cost us $250 a piece from the rescue group. Rescue prices have increased, but their veterinary expenses have increased over the years. In addition, down here in mosquito country, the costs to treat all the strays that come into the groups with heartworms is ever increasing.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Swampcollie said:


> Limited Registration has had no effect at all in the availability of a Golden Retriever. Limited Registration only prevents litters from being registered with the AKC, it doesn't prevent them from being produced. There are numerous fly by night registries available. Those that want to breed their dogs will do so and limited registration won't stop it.


 
I would agree. The advent of the pet registries have duped numerous people. These registries will take any dog and produce a nice looking pedigree and registration papers. They just aren't worth anything.

I also think that the boom in designer breeds is, in part, due to limited registration. The breeder who is determined to breed but cannot get full registration can easily buy two limited registration dogs of different breeds and breed them to get a new fancy "thingambob". No registration needed. No parent club with recommended health clearances. No competition to determine the worth of the dog. Big price tag on the pup. It is a win all the way around for the breeder.

I have seen too many goldendoodles sell for way more than either my golden puppies or swampcollies - where titles abound, health clearances are in pace, and the pups are placed with limited registration.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Leslie and Swampcollie, 
I just mentioned limited registration for discussion only. It is a major factor that has changed in, what the last 20 years. I think the biggest factor is the Internet and Craigslist. Without those two things, breeding dogs would be very different. On the other hand access to K9data and OFA has made the most inexperienced of buyers more knowledgeable if they want. Marketing in general for any business has changed so much in the last 20 years.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I would never buy a pup with Limited Registration. If the breeder does not trust me than we have no reason to enter in a business relationship, especially one that will last more than a decade. 
More so I will never buy a pup with Full registration for a higher price - does that mean that if my purse is bigger you will have more trust in me?

All dogs that we have purchased were on full registration - only one was bred back in the 80s. None of the puppies we gave to close family friends and family members were bred.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Alaska7133 said:


> Leslie and Swampcollie,
> I just mentioned limited registration for discussion only. It is a major factor that has changed in, what the last 20 years. I think the biggest factor is the Internet and Craigslist. Without those two things, breeding dogs would be very different. On the other hand access to K9data and OFA has made the most inexperienced of buyers more knowledgeable if they want. Marketing in general for any business has changed so much in the last 20 years.


 
I agree - today's buyers are usually way more educated than those of 20 + years ago. Not just for puppies but for everything from cars to sheets. Most of the time it is a good thing but sometimes it produces a need/desire to have the "best". At my job I joke with my clients (auto dealers) that people pay $60,000 to buy a work truck and then primiarily drive it to target to buy toilet paper. My best friend must have 800 thread count sheets for her bed. Seriously? Instead of a coffee maker I used to have a latte machine that would froth the milk! Good Grief! 

The same is true for puppy buyers. Often they want puppies from the FC x MH breeding because it is more expensive and is perceived as "better" than a breeding with fewer or lower titles. Of course if you plan on doing serious hunting or field competitions then pick the FC X MH breeding. For pet buyers it can backfire and they end up with a dog that is climbing the walls looking for something to do. At best they have an extremely overqualified camping pal. When I picked up my last puppy (that I purchased) the family that came after me was buying their first dog ever. This breeding has field titles up the ying yang and my boy is very busy. sometimes I wonder if that family is enjoying their dog or being driven crazy by him.

Education is great - it is what you do with all that information that makes some people smart.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

Leslie B said:


> I agree - today's buyers are usually way more educated than those of 20 + years ago. Not just for puppies but for everything from cars to sheets. Most of the time it is a good thing but sometimes it produces a need/desire to have the "best". At my job I joke with my clients (auto dealers) that people pay $60,000 to buy a work truck and then primiarily drive it to target to buy toilet paper. My best friend must have 800 thread count sheets for her bed. Seriously? Instead of a coffee maker I used to have a latte machine that would froth the milk! Good Grief!
> 
> The same is true for puppy buyers. Often they want puppies from the FC x MH breeding because it is more expensive and is perceived as "better" than a breeding with fewer or lower titles. Of course if you plan on doing serious hunting or field competitions then pick the FC X MH breeding. For pet buyers it can backfire and they end up with a dog that is climbing the walls looking for something to do. At best they have an extremely overqualified camping pal. When I picked up my last puppy (that I purchased) the family that came after me was buying their first dog ever. This breeding has field titles up the ying yang and my boy is very busy. sometimes I wonder if that family is enjoying their dog or being driven crazy by him.
> 
> Education is great - it is what you do with all that information that makes some people smart.


Truer words have never been spoken. This is part of the problem perpetuated by the greediness in our society, sadly.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Leslie B said:


> I also think that the boom in designer breeds is, in part, due to limited registration. The breeder who is determined to breed but cannot get full registration can easily buy two limited registration dogs of different breeds and breed them to get a new fancy "thingambob". No registration needed. No parent club with recommended health clearances. No competition to determine the worth of the dog. Big price tag on the pup. It is a win all the way around for the breeder.


Leslie - but if they had full registration, don't you think they would have been just breeding "purebred" dogs instead? 

Our first golden was originally priced at $400? or something like that? My dad saw the puppies were living outside under the people's porch and the people owned both parents (the mom was the sire's daughter)... and basically nice dogs, but not worth $400. Add to that, my dad saw these people were desperate to sell these puppies who were 12 weeks old and outgrowing the fluffy cuteness stage (meaning - it would just get more difficult to sell them). And he haggled the price down to $200. Our pup had full registration. If we wanted to, we could have bred him and continued the cycle as far as backyard breeding and producing less than desirable results (dogs with major league kidney problems, cataracts, etc). 

At the time, the big thing about having AKC registration and having a purebred was this was all before the AKC opened the door with PAL registration for unpapered dogs. You couldn't do anything - agility, obedience, etc.... if your dog was not a purebred and registered. 

If I could zero in on anything that has had some negative consequences as far as people deliberately producing mutts, and or breeding limited registration dogs - it was the AKC opening the backdoor for mixed breeds and unpapered dogs to compete in performance events. 

Because when I was teenager and training my Danny for obedience. I had friends who had rescue dogs who were absolute genius at obedience and should have been working on their OTCH's.... but they could not compete in AKC obedience. If you wanted to do stuff with your dog, you had to buy a purebred puppy with papers.

Considering my friends - I have to appreciate the PAL registration and that "advent" which made a huge difference for a lot of people who would have had to go to the limited UKC shows available in our area vs showing in the AKC. 

That said - if there's ever been something that devalued actual registration, etc... that'd be it. Not limited registration. 

Honestly, if I had a choice between dealing with a breeder who holds the registration until a dog is neutered vs dealing with a breeder who lets you have the registration papers from the start whether you neuter or not..... limited registration is the way to go.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Purchase price is such a tiny fraction of the cost of dog ownership that I don't think the difference between $800 and $1600 is all that substantial a barrier to the cost of ownership, especially when you adjust for inflation. Increasing vet costs, largely due to the fact that so many people are simply willing to spend more money on more extensive medical care for their animals, are the real cost drivers for dog owners.

I just ran an expense report on the last 12 months, and the dogs cost us approximately $160/month each. That includes class fees, grooming, medical, and food, but we have not had an emergency visit or a major illness in the last 12 months, so that's a very low number. One injury or emergency illness would easily set us back $500 or more at the vet, which, even if it only happened once a year, would make that number $200/month for each dog.

So even if an $800 dog has doubled in price, that's only 5 months' worth of dog expenses in the lifetime of an animal that will hopefully be with me for 15 years. Put another way, that $800 extra dollars may represent a 100% increase in purchase price, but it only represents less than a 7% increase in the total cost of ownership of a dog, again, without counting major medical expenses. If I ran a report on our dog Gus whom we put down because he had lymphoma, and I took into account the end-of-life vet bills, that $800 would be more like 3% of total cost of ownership.

Purchase price is a drop in the bucket in the lifetime cost of a dog, and things like clearances add a relatively small amount to the upfront cost while saving a huge amount in the long run. If puppy buyers don't understand that, it's certainly a problem, but it's not a problem with the basic math of dog ownership. Rather, it's a facet of human psychology that a substantial amount at once feels bigger than a far larger amount spread out over time.

Even if you got your dog for free, that would be like saving 5% of what it costs to own a dog for his whole life. The barriers to pet ownership have a lot more to do with the ongoing costs of veterinary care, and to a certain extent, food than they do with purchase price.


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

This is a really sad trend.

Adding to it is that the poor are getting poorer, more people are falling out of the middle class than ever, and we're (I'm going say under 40s) probably the first generation in a long time in the United States and similar economies who on average don't have as good of a lifestyle as our parents and who's children (the few who have them) may not have the lifestyle we have. I'm not getting political here and blaming one party or the other. I'm just looking at general trends that have been in place through at least one Republican and one Democratic Presidency and probably will continue no matter who we elect in the next few election cycles (Give or take this or that economic bump or dip).

So, people kind of look at their lives, knowing that they'll never their own home and so on and so forth, stuff that used to be taken for granted, and say "Well, at least I have my family and friends, I'll focus on that", but people are less likely than ever to be able to start and retain families (Fewer people marrying, more people divorcing), and friends are more likely to scatter around geographically than they used to (Or you have to scatter yourself geographically from where you grew to find a job). So, they say "I'll just get a dog"- and then the dog breeder wants, and I'm not attributing bad intentions to this necessarily, several months worth of salary and a detailed contract, following which you'd want to take the dog to the vet and those costs are higher than ever.

I read in another thread someone who implied that my wanting to see high breed standards and goldens bred for good health conflicted with the fact that I bought my dog years ago from what might be considered a "backyard breeder". To me, though, it really doesn't, and the reason is simple: I absolutely could not afford a golden retriever puppy who had clearances and such and no one who was selling those kind of puppies would cut me a break, and I never will be able to (In fact, my inflation adjusted income is lower today than it was then, and likely is only going to go down in the future). Even the people I found in the end I had to haggle with and got turned down by initially only for them to change their minds and call me back (Thank God). It took me like six months or working phones and e-mail and classified ads and such to find that. And I borrowed even the price I paid from relatives and paid it back over time.

At some point along the line, maybe when my dog passes away, or the next iteration after that, it's going to come down to the point where I simply can't find anyone willing to part with an eight week old golden retriever at a price that remotely in the range of what I can maneuver to pay. And that's really what I like to do, pick a golden retriever and bond with him and be there for him his whole life, which is what I did as a child with my first golden. If that becomes impossible, I'll face the unenviable choice of choosing between something like a three year old craiglist pitbull with aggression issues or going without a dog at all. Maybe the craiglist pitbull is an exaggeration, but I remember after going through like 20-30 or more leads on goldens when I saw looking for my dog four years ago, sitting there and talking with a few people about things like older mixed breed dogs, a Labrador, etc.. I went a to a dog shelter/human society/pound type place, too, and visited the dogs at the behest of a relative who saw the way this whole search was going. And I couldn't do it (Adopt a random dog). I just wanted a golden. To me, all other dogs are in a different category (The difference to me between a golden and a lot of other dogs is like the difference to others between dogs and cats, or between cats and pet rocks. I like other dogs, but it's a big difference in terms of how well I can bond with and appreciate them relative to goldens, who sometimes I like better than people.  Other dogs are really just dogs to me.). Maybe I'd have had to reassess that if things had gone on a bit longer, and maybe I will in the future, but that's not the way things should be, really.

A basic dog as a pet shouldn't be a luxury item, even a pure bred dog. I'm not talking about the dogs who's parents appeared on the USA Network's pet show or something- just basic pet dogs that meet the breed standards for whatever breed someone loves. It's not like the number of them are intrinsically limited. Enough could be bred for everyone. They just... aren't. And I do see cost to breeders jumping as well. And contracts getting more detailed and difficult to swallow where contracts didn't even exist previously.

I am not really that old, and I remember driving around with my parents as a kid and passing yard signs that said things like "Free puppies!" or "Puppies for sale! $100 or best offer", and they'd sometimes even specify breeds like golden retriever and such. I was sort of shocked at the state of the market a few years ago, where all that stuff was gone and many people wanted to add a zero to the cost and beyond, and it's looking like it's just going to be worse a few years from now. As someone else said far more succinctly- It's depressing.


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

I hope this doesn't sound like a stupid question, but what is "limited registration" and does having that prevent a dog from entering competitions and winning awards?


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> Purchase price is such a tiny fraction of the cost of dog ownership that I don't think the difference between $800 and $1600 is all that substantial a barrier to the cost of ownership, especially when you adjust for inflation. Increasing vet costs, largely due to the fact that so many people are simply willing to spend more money on more extensive medical care for their animals, are the real cost drivers for dog owners.
> 
> I just ran an expense report on the last 12 months, and the dogs cost us approximately $160/month each. That includes class fees, grooming, medical, and food, but we have not had an emergency visit or a major illness in the last 12 months, so that's a very low number. One injury or emergency illness would easily set us back $500 or more at the vet, which, even if it only happened once a year, would make that number $200/month for each dog.
> 
> ...


You raise an interesting point here. However, it is much harder to come up with a lump sum than make regular payments on something. Our entire economy is based on that, actually. How many people pay cash for homes or cars these days? Some do, but the vast majority take out mortgages or auto loans if they can afford those things at all. If people who rented rooms or apartments out offered the option (at no discount) for people to pay the entire year in advance, though I'm sure occasionally someone would take it, how popular would that be over all? Probably not very.

You may spend more in food over a dog's lifespan than it costs to buy the puppy initially who grows into the dog, but at the low end a 20lb bag of dog food costs $12 or $15, and you might need to buy one or two of those a month. So you can get your pay check or workman's comp or disability check or what have you, and just go to the store and stock up on food. The price of medicines like flea/tick and heartworm prevention are higher and you usually need to get a 3-6 months supply, but even there it's still spread out enough that you can buy groceries, especially if you bargain hunt and don't just buy at whatever price the nearest vet wants to sell at. 

Even veterinary bills can be reduced if you "vet shop" for someone with the lowest rates within driving distance who's willing to work with people who aren't going to go for the most expensive treatment or get ticked off if you started treating something minor on your own with help from people you know who might have reason to be somewhat knowledgeable on this stuff. 

And you can sometimes do a big procedure on credit- if you can credit qualify- which is one reason I've worked hard to try to rebuild my own credit somewhat, partially in the hopes of being able to maybe do that if necessary someday. But on a low income, people often wind up not credit qualifying either because of their income or because their income has sometimes meant in emergencies they've run up debts in the past that they haven't promptly re-payed, which can haunt them for a decade or more (And even past that, where it scrolls off the docket, they'd then show a lack of credit history, which can negatively effect the chances of being extended credit, which is something that's needed to re-establish credit [i.e. get some kind of card or credit line you can regularly make payments on to build a good credit history, that isn't offered at nearly abusive financial terms.]). Plus, lenders may limit how much they'll extend someone, even with perfect credit, who they perceive as having a limited capacity to pay back large loans due to a low base income.

But, for the most part, you can't even buy a dog on credit even if you have it. I mean, a big puppy mill or a pet store will take a credit card, and maybe even offer a payment plan, but I think we'd probably get general agreement that those kinds of places make backyard breeders look ideal by comparison (Some might say only by comparison).

Do you guys think there might be some movement for "reputable" breeders to start taking credit cards? Or to be willing to work out financing deals of some sort? Have you guys seen much if any of that? Maybe it's the type of things this forum could start a movement in favor of. I know a lot of breeders read and post here.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

kellyguy said:


> I hope this doesn't sound like a stupid question, but what is "limited registration" and does having that prevent a dog from entering competitions and winning awards?



Limited registration simply means that you can't enter your dog in conformation or breed your dog. If you bred your dog, you would not be able to register the litter. 

You can still enter your dog in performance events in AKC.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Limited registration means that the dog can be AKC registered but none of it's offspring can be. The other limitation is the dog cannot compete in conformation (pretty dog competition). So it's not very limiting if you don't plan to breed. Many people do go ahead and breed their limited registration dogs. You will see ads posted that the parents have papers but the puppies don't, that's usually why. The breeder when they sell the pup and give you the paperwork makes that decision, not the buyer. 

Megora,
I disagree on PAL registration hurting AKC registration. I have 2 PAL dogs. First is Reilly. His breeder, Judy Slayton, could not be bothered to send me his paperwork. She took the time to register the litter, but not send the paperwork. So in order to compete with him I had to register him PAL, which in a way let Judy off the hook. The other is my guy Hunter. He is a rescue that might have been AKC registered at some time in his life, but we'll never know.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Golden999 said:


> Do you guys think there might be some movement for "reputable" breeders to start taking credit cards? Or to be willing to work out financing deals of some sort? Have you guys seen much if any of that? Maybe it's the type of things this forum could start a movement in favor of. I know a lot of breeders read and post here.


This is just my opinion but the breeders you see post on this forum are for the vast majority small time/hobby breeders. It is something they do firstly for the love of it and they do not have the time nor desire to get involved with taking credit cards or working out financing. The breeders that might eventually turn to these methods are those that it is more a business than a hobby. And that is why you see a lot of non-reputable breeders do those things - it is a business to them and more about the money than the dog. As I said, this is my opinion.


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

Can you think of anything that hasn't gone up in price?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Limited Registration in my opinion has been kind of a farce and a source of disappointment. 


I have been using limited registration on all of our litters since it became an available AKC option. It was hoped that it would serve as a tool to help push some suspect breeders into following more closely the desires of the parent breed club and the AKC. 


What really happened is the people who had no intention of breeding anyway still didn't breed. Those breeders that were going to follow the rules anyway still followed the rules. Those that didn't follow the rules decided to forgo AKC involvement and instead registered with one or more of the other multitude of registries available. They continue ignoring the rules of the parent breed club and the AKC because they're not members of, nor do they intend to become members of those organizations. 


The bottom line is this, dogs are property. When a breeder sells a dog or puppy, they no longer control that animal. The new owner of the animal is in control and they make the decisions. If the new owner wants to be involved with the AKC or parent club, Limited Registration may have some influence. If the new owner could care less about the AKC and/or parent club, Limited Registration is meaningless. 


This was a major point of debate a few years ago when there was a push within the AKC to get after the larger commercial breeders. If you allow them to stay, you have a chance to manipulate their practices. If you boot them out, you have zero chance to modify their behavior at all. 


Over the years I have had my battles with less than stellar breeders who wanted to buy a puppy. You say no several times but they will eventually find a way to get what they want. Usually they set up a series of straw purchasers and although you sold the pup on Limited Registration they'll obtain a full registration through ConKC, APRI, etc. and breed the dog anyway. (and there is not thing one that you or I can do about it.)


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Swampcollie,
You're right. My first 2 golden girls came with full registration. I had no intention of breeding, so they were spayed ASAP. Now I'm more open to the idea of breeding and it's a lot harder to find a puppy with full registration. Full registration has made it a bit more political too between the buyer and seller.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

As far as taking credit cards goes, probably not going to happen. It just isn't worth the hassle if you're only doing one or two litters a year.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I will probably get slammed but I got to say it; if you need a credit card to purchase a puppy then you cannot afford the puppy for the rest of it's life. 

As far as Full Registration - it can all be in the contract. 

For example I have 6 items to complete before I could consider breeding Darcy:

*Get titles on her (CH, WC, JH.....)

*Get the OFA certifications 

*Be active in training (whichever venue - field, agility, obedience...)

*Only consider another flat coat retriever with OFA bla bla certificatons

*No crossbreed, hybrid 

*Obtain consent from the breeder - once all of the above have been achieved. 

Otherwise, by contract the breeder has the right to retake possession of my dog. 

I personally have no problem in signing a contract that (in more detailed legal talmosh balmosh) requires the above.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Anyone can easily take a credit card through services like Square. I can't see it would make any difference if the buyer pays with something like this versus a check. Using a credit card doesn't mean you're a bum who can't afford to take proper care of a dog. It just means you wanted to use a credit card. I think the obvious bad sign is if you can "order" a puppy through a website with no human interface.


----------



## OnMyWay2MyDreams (Feb 13, 2011)

To me its one thing to order a pup online, never seeing where it came from, having it shipped to you and paying via credit card. Its another thing to use paypal (i had one puppy buyer ask me if they could do it for the deposit, I already had an account and was fine with that. It gets transfered to my acct anyways) but they came to see the pups and came back to pick up their pups. I had no problem with it. I wont ship pups. The owner has to come get the pup and take it back home (whether they choose to fly or drive is their choice). I had a pup that went to. Michigan and they drove..twice..to again see the pups and come back for the pups (two weeks after the others got picked up). 

I sold my pups on the low end of this area. I have a hard time with charging the upper end. I want people to be able to afford a well bred pup. I dont live in an area that spending that amount of money is "normal" and only 1 of my buyers lived in this state. I live in a city full of byb, amish puppy mill, accidental breedings, pet stores/puppy mills.. Its not good. I have tried to change a few of our byb to at least start doing hip xrays (a lab breeder and a german wirehaired pointer)..but the "norm" around here are poorly bred dogs. I am hoping things change but its not likely anytime soon..and I am only one person. 

So in the end..what a breeder charges is what a breeder charges..and there are people willing to pay for a well bred pup because they have either 1) dealt with a poorly bred dog before and got educated 2) or are simply educated due to other circumstances (friends, forums like this) and they understand the value that lies in the price. It is a big lump sum in one shot, but if you do things like save up, use your tax refund, sell things to get money, work extra shifts..anything.. It will be worth it in the end.


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> I will probably get slammed but I got to say it; if you need a credit card to purchase a puppy then you cannot afford the puppy for the rest of it's life.


I tend to get in trouble for responding to these posts, because it is apparently okay for people to imply that all poor and lower middle class people are bad pet owners and should be forbidden from owning dogs, but calling people on their elitism and pointing out how many dogs have done just fine in poor and lower middle class homes is somehow beyond the pale.

I have health problems and don't bring in a lot of money, so, sure, my dog doesn't always get the fancy things better off people can afford, but I sacrifice to get him what he needs and because I am around more than most people can be, I spend a lot more time with him and understand him better. I make a point of taking him with me in the car places whenever it's safe and feasible. In 4+ years, he's never spent the night under a different roof than me- I bring him with me if I stay overnight somewhere, or I don't go. He's always had food and treats and heartworm and flea and tick medicine, and gone to the vet once a year and gotten his shots, plus I get him over the counter stuff for allergies. Sure, the type of food I buy or whatever might not be up to other people's hooty-toity standards, but whatever, he eats it and I've known many dogs who have lived long lives consuming similar dog foods. Sure, I had to shop around for a vet, but she's licensed, and I feel she's a healer instead of a salesperson, unlike the original vet I had- the office doesn't look as nice and I have to make a longer trip, but those things are pretty inconsequential in the scheme of things. I do the best I can, and I would submit to you that my dog has a better home than many of those dogs who live in homes where no humans are present from early in the morning until late in the evening and are largely an afterthought for their owners, no matter how much money is spent on them. This dog is very important to me and he knows it. There's more to life than money, and I think that's especially true for dogs, who really have little conception of whether they are rich or poor.

Furthermore, I know kids who grew up in poor homes and wouldn't trade their parents for the world. They might not like having had an upbringing with many material things, and poverty is a real problem in this world, but not one of them says they wish they'd been given up for adoption or wish they'd never been born.

People do the best they can. I've seen people dismissively say everything from that poor people shouldn't be allowed kids to pets to television sets to beer to whatever. People just love to find reasons to make poor people's lives even worse than they naturally already are due to financial circumstances. They love to look down their noses at people. It's not right and it's a real problem with our culture that's only getting worse. Maybe with so many more people falling into poverty, eventually it'll stop being acceptable to think that way, and they'll be more of a backlash. It's basically a soft form of bigotry, as far as I'm concerned. And like many forms of bigotry, it's easy for people to justify when they don't fall into the target group, have gotten out of the target group, believe they'll get out of the target group, or don't have any close friends or relatives in the target group. Sometimes you even have self-hating poor folks, the same way there are self-hating members of other groups, who buy into the propoganda that people use against them and start to agree with it. It only starts to hit home when people face the prospect of lifelong poverty or see their parents or children or best friends go through it, and sometimes not even then.

I'm not trying to take it out on the poster I'm replying to, because it was just an off-hand comment and may not reflect that person's true beliefs or values. It's just something I see way too much of in the world in a general sense, and I really hope it goes the way of racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination and becomes something that is less socially acceptable to verbalize, even in passing.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Megora said:


> Leslie - but if they had full registration, don't you think they would have been just breeding "purebred" dogs instead?


Yes, I do think that they would have. For the folks that think breeding is an easy way to make money they will breed whatever they can get their hands on. Full registration, limited registration, without clearances, whatever breed they happen to have, and whatever contract they signed to get the pup. Since they aren't going to follow it anyway what difference does it make what it says.

For me limited registration is about the lesser of two evils. If the buyer decides to breed their pup at least the pups wont be AKC and most likely wont be a golden retriever. It is about trying to distance myself from the buyer who breeds their dog in a manner that is not considered correct. In this day and age, the breeder who places a dog that ends up in a doodle producing warehouse can take a beating in the reputation department. 

As for contracts that are signed at the time of purchase that prohibit breeding of the dog - they are extremely difficult to monitor and even harder to enforce. Most states have specific consumer protection laws regarding the correct remedy that needs to be followed to regain possession of property. Yes, dogs are considered property under the eyes of the law and once the buyer has paid for them they are his or hers to do with what they chose. Just because a buyer violates a contract does not allow the breeder to march on to the buyers property and take the dog. Notice must be made, a chance to remedy the problem, a court date and then the judge must sign the order that the dog must be returned to the seller. 

So, I don't kid myself that my puppies will never be bred. I just try to screen my buyers well, try to get them to keep in contact with me, and hope that if they do breed that none of the negative will splash back on me.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Golden999 said:


> I tend to get in trouble for responding to these posts, because it is apparently okay for people to imply that all poor and lower middle class people are bad pet owners and should be forbidden from owning dogs, but calling people on their elitism and pointing out how many dogs have done just fine in poor and lower middle class homes is somehow beyond the pale.
> ........................................................................................................
> I'm not trying to take it out on the poster I'm replying to, because it was just an off-hand comment and may not reflect that person's true beliefs or values. It's just something I see way too much of in the world in a general sense, and I really hope it goes the way of racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination and becomes something that is less socially acceptable to verbalize, even in passing.


Well, I do believe that if you have to pay credit card interest in order to obtain a pup then you have not much left to cover for surgeries, medication, vet bills, special training if needed etc.

I have a neighbor who is not well off, actually he is very poor, older, living in a trailer and he loves animals. He volunteered his spare time with rescue groups, walking, feeding and caring for dogs. Up until two months ago he had two dogs that he got thru the rescue. One day I saw him with only one. Some idiot poisoned his other dog (mind you his dogs never roamed the neighborhood like the well to do people's dogs). He did not have the money to take him to the vet. That dog suffered for two weeks due to the poison and he ended up gassing his own dog to put him out of it's misery. Or at least that is what he told me when I asked him where his other dog was. I was mortified. I cried all the way to work, wishing I would have known this two weeks earlier and that poor dog did not have to suffer like that. 

I am not rich but I do try to allocate $1000 each year to help other dogs in need. I believe in pay it forward and the person who doesn't have the money today will have it tomorrow and will return the gesture to someone else in need when they can. 

It is the same thing as owning a house. Everyone would like to own one but not everyone can afford one. It is not elitist, it is a fact of life. 
You like animals, volunteer, work with rescue groups and make a difference that way. Even better apply to foster!


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

I'm not sure exactly how to ask this but does anyone know if any of the rescue organizations or groups have programs that help out when a dog might need veterinary care that the owner simply cannot afford?


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> Well, I do believe that if you have to pay credit card interest in order to obtain a pup then you have not much left to cover for surgeries, medication, vet bills, special training if needed!


Who ever said that using a credit card meant the buyer was paying interest? People use credit cards for a variety of reasons and many people don't carry a balance that earns interest for the bank. 

Some of the wealthiest people I know use credit cards for most of their purchases.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Mm mm mm!:no:


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Alaska7133 said:


> Swampcollie,
> There are so many things in people's lives right now that are growing in price but wages have stayed the same or going down. For example, when I was a kid in the 1970's working at the grocery store was a career. It paid well and it had benefits. Now you work in a grocery store until you find something better. So many jobs are like that today. The cost of college has grown so huge that many people will not pay off their student loans until they are well into their 30's. So as it stands people have less disposable income than they had 25 years ago. Which means items like well bred dogs, become luxury items that most people cannot afford.
> 
> I purchased my first golden in 1999. She was $425. She was middling breeding, meaning some clearances in past generations, no titles in the last 3 generations, definitely pet breeding. Last dog I bought in 2012 had wonderful breeding but was only $1200. I think I got a great deal on Lucy.
> ...


I think limited registration is for the purpose of discouraging inexperienced breeding and to help keep the number of poorly bred dogs down. It is good policy for less experienced owners to only have a puppy sold to them with limited registration since their pups cannot be registered with the AKC and most people are not going to want puppies who cannot be registered with the AKC.


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> I have a neighbor who is not well off, actually he is very poor, older, living in a trailer and he loves animals. He volunteered his spare time with rescue groups, walking, feeding and caring for dogs. Up until two months ago he had two dogs that he got thru the rescue. One day I saw him with only one. Some idiot poisoned his other dog (mind you his dogs never roamed the neighborhood like the well to do people's dogs). He did not have the money to take him to the vet. That dog suffered for two weeks due to the poison and he ended up gassing his own dog to put him out of it's misery. Or at least that is what he told me when I asked him where his other dog was. I was mortified. I cried all the way to work, wishing I would have known this two weeks earlier and that poor dog did not have to suffer like that.
> 
> I am not rich but I do try to allocate $1000 each year to help other dogs in need. I believe in pay it forward and the person who doesn't have the money today will have it tomorrow and will return the gesture to someone else in need when they can.


I agree that what happened with that dog was really sad. However, I look at that and see a different way to fix the problem than just simply saying that poor people shouldn't own dogs. Instead, what if a veterinarian were to take a look at his income and give him a payment plan he could afford? If the visit cost was $100 that he didn't have, why not offer to have him pay in 4 $25 installments or something? Maybe a small amount of interest could even be added to each payment, or there might be a way of verifying the person's lack of sufficient income the way they would if a person were applying for food stamps or whatever, and donations like the ones you make could help him cover the cost, with him paying up to what he could reasonably afford as he could afford to do it.

Of course, if someone establishes that they won't make good on the payments, then the vet might ban the person from his or her practice, but if he makes good, then he could continue to get credit with the vet in the future. The same would go for any help that was extended, if it was predicated on the dog owner chipping in some as he was able.

Sometimes this stuff with poor folks might even just be a matter of waiting until their next pay check or unemployment check or whatever comes in. Maybe they can't afford to pay as the emergency happens, but if they were given time, that could be the first check they write after their rent check or whatever when their pay check comes in, and they could pay the full amount then and cut back in other areas that week or that month. I think a little flexibility on the part of the people providing the treatment would go a long way with cases like that.

I mean, I see that there are more dogs that there are dog owners out there. Shelters sometimes euthanize dogs they can't find homes for. Humane societies and rescues sometimes hold on to dogs at great expense and the dogs live a lot their lives in a shelter-like environment waiting for a real home. Others find foster families, but have to go from house to house and face the emotional disruption of losing their masters repeatedly. And meanwhile there are sad lonely people out there who'd love to walk a dog and spend time with it and can take care of all the basic expenses, providing a real permanent home, but might need a loan or something if the dog had an emergency. It seems like there should be ways of matching these people and dogs up and making it work.

The other thing is that, as sad as cases are where sufficient medical care can't be obtained, some of the alternatives are also not great. A wolf, the ancestor of a dog, lives three years on average in the wild, and these species as so close genetically that they can produce fertile off-spring with each other. If a dog lives until he's 9 and then dies of something, he's still lived a life that his ancestor would envy. Triple the life span. A bad end, yes, but in the grand scheme of things, he's done much better than he would have in the wild. Nine years in a loving home living a pretty good life is probably better than three years in the wild, being euthanized in a shelter after six, or even living twelve years bouncing from home to home and never really getting a permanent human. It's also better than having never been born.

One of the great things about dogs historically has been that when people maybe aren't doing so well socially with human beings and are down and out financially and don't have much to live for, a dog gives them a reason to keep going and get out of bed. The dog loves them. The dog needs a walk. The dog wants to play fetch. I think dogs do a lot for people, in all walks of life and economic classes, but maybe especially for people who have little else. In the same way that caring for a child might be a driving force to keep going for a depressed single mother with few prospects, caring for a dog might be the same for an old man in a trailer or whatever. Dogs don't judge people by human standards, they have their own standards- and that old guy might be the best thing that's ever happened to the dog in his mind ("Finally, somebody to love me and hang out outside with me and pet me all day. My first owners ignored me and then gave me away and then I was in a cage and then foster families kept giving me up and now I've really got a family."). Even a puppy who might have had a richer family may not really care- the poorer person might need the puppy more and have more time- it might be a draw when everything is evened out (time vs. monetary things, etc.).

Money drives so much, it'd be nice if we could figure out a way to structure things so that it wasn't the driving force in preventing people from owning pets. It doesn't have to be a handout, it can be a payment plan, or it can be a payment share between a person and a charity, or it can any number of things. I just think there's a way to do these things that could work for everyone involved.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

First and foremost the vet has to pay his employees, his daily expenses, his rent/commercial building expenses, the insurance, license fees, medicine, upfront money for vet food etc. 
The vet just doesn't charge money because he/she is just mean and wants to charge people money. 
And if one doesn't make the payments then he has to pay court fees to try to get it back. On top of that to have payment plans it take more money to administer, bill, collect and deposit. 

I am still working at 10pm doing just that, instead of enjoying my dogs at home!

Having a pet is not a right is a privilege! Foster, volunteer with animal rescue until you can afford it.


----------



## Wendi (Jul 2, 2012)

Well, dang, I paid for my sons broken arm with a credit card. We live in Washington and he broke it in Oregon. I paid the bill with a credit card, could I have written a check and mailed it to pay for the surgery, sure, but I used my credit card. ALL of his school clothes, Dentist bills, his Orthodontist, food, anything he needs. I guess I can't afford my son...shoot someone should have told me a looooong time ago.

All Roxxi's supplies go on a credit card too! Her vet bills, food, toys and her insurance premium.

I pay for everything on a credit card. Why? Air miles! We have taken three round trips from WA to FL for 3 people and are ready to do it again. That's 6 round trips that I paid exactly $30 for. Oh and ZERO interest.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Purchase price is such a tiny fraction of the cost of dog ownership that I don't think the difference between $800 and $1600 is all that substantial a barrier to the cost of ownership, especially when you adjust for inflation. Increasing vet costs, largely due to the fact that so many people are simply willing to spend more money on more extensive medical care for their animals, are the real cost drivers for dog owners.
> 
> I just ran an expense report on the last 12 months, and the dogs cost us approximately $160/month each. That includes class fees, grooming, medical, and food, but we have not had an emergency visit or a major illness in the last 12 months, so that's a very low number. One injury or emergency illness would easily set us back $500 or more at the vet, which, even if it only happened once a year, would make that number $200/month for each dog.
> 
> ...


Veterinarian's offices are getting fancier too. Just look at the place I went to today for Mercy's complimentary eye exam through the ACDO National Service Dog Eye Exam since Mercy is a therapy dog. This office is like a medical clinic office or hospital for humans with all sorts of specialists! I had to go up the elevator to the second floor. Their prices must be through the roof!:roflmao:

The waiting room









The exam room


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

I must say I am unhappy about the cost of living going up and the cost of the care for dogs going up. A lot of the people are willing to pay more for more expensive advanced veterinary care because they feel as if they can afford it. High quality care is worth it to me though even though I am less willing to pay higher prices for things than more affluent dog owners. I pay the higher prices for supplies and vet care even though I disagree with the prices. I have no problem with the cost of a well bred puppy. Like a lot of other people have said, the price of CARING for a dog over it's lifetime is way more money than the purchase price. I wish something could be done to keep the costs of dog ownership down and make owning a dog more affordable. I am at risk for being priced out of any future dog ownership dreams. My wages have been stagnant over the last several years and it has been a struggle to keep up with expenses and dreams like dog ownership. I am trying lots of ways to make extra money so I don't get priced out of dog ownership and other things I love. Hasn't been working so far though. :uhoh: I trust God to faithfully provide, and pray, plan and make the best decisions and choices that I can.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

kellyguy said:


> I'm not sure exactly how to ask this but does anyone know if any of the rescue organizations or groups have programs that help out when a dog might need veterinary care that the owner simply cannot afford?


Honestly I do not think they do such services unless you render ownership to the rescue. I have never been involved with a rescue except from a distance.

My daughter just started volunteering her time with the local animal shelter, I know my heart will be broken thru the entire time. I tried my best to prepare her to the dogs that have been miss-handled since puppies, the dogs whose owners had to give up in hopes of better medical care and all the pit bull, rottie and other mixes out there because of the irresponsible owners who let their intact dogs roam around. The poor thing she has requested B-day presents to be donations to the local animal shelter for the past 4 years. She is 17 now, and she could not wait to have a license, a car and the time to do this.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Leslie B said:


> Who ever said that using a credit card meant the buyer was paying interest? People use credit cards for a variety of reasons and many people don't carry a balance that earns interest for the bank.
> 
> Some of the wealthiest people I know use credit cards for most of their purchases.


hhahaah Leslie - just because someone has assets does not mean they have disposable cash! Sad but true. And without getting into politics just take a look at the current economy. People stuck with assets, no disposable cash and maxed out credit cards because they can no longer re-finance their assets.


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

That veterinary office is ten times fancier than any doctors office I've ever been in.


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

"People stuck with assets, no disposable cash and maxed out credit cards because they can no longer re-finance their assets."
In reality, you don't have an asset if you finance it. People get maxed out credit cards primarily because they fall for the instant gratification, gotta have it now trap.


----------



## ArchersMom (May 22, 2013)

Some of the ideas I've seen suggested here apply to human medicine. That's why taxes pay billions of dollars to hospitals in this nation. For some reason people thinks it's ok not to pay for their healthcare expenses. As in using aliases to avoid paying for treatment, etcetera. It's not exactly surprising to me that veterinarians don't want to get into the business of allowing people to pay in installments. A few sour grapes ruin it for the bunch. And what happens if the vet bills are truly more than you could afford and you end up bankrupt? Someone has to pay those expenses. I agree that owning a dog is a privilege, not a right, and not just because of money. Sure you don't have to be super wealthy to provide a good home for a dog, but if you can't feed yourself why would you add the financial responsibility of caring for a dog? There's a minimum that you need to own a dog.

And I'd also like to add that just because someone has a nice house and car doesn't mean they're wealthy. Many people lease their cars or waste money trying to look like they're wealthy. I'm only 23 but IMO, the only thing you should need a loan for is to buy a house. If you have to go $50,000 into debt for a nice new vehicle you actually can't afford it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Golden999 said:


> You raise an interesting point here. However, it is much harder to come up with a lump sum than make regular payments on something. Our entire economy is based on that, actually.


Our economy is based on that for purchases that are orders of magnitude larger than the cost of a dog, purchases of things you _need_ (a car to get to work or a place to live) and do not have the full cash for upfront. It's a completely different thing than simply delaying your purchase of a dog for six months in order to save exactly what the dog would cost you each month. Even in your cheaper monthly cost scenario, getting an extra $800 to go with a lower-risk breeding takes less than a year.

It's harder to come up with a lump sum to buy a car or a house because those things represent 5 years or 30 years, respectively, of the monthly costs, and you typically can't afford to wait that long. Dogs are a different amount and a different "need" scenario.

Side note on cars: we've been convinced by good advertising to buy a lot more car than we really need, and people pay quite a lot of interest on car loans for the privilege of having a car with bells and whistles when it would make lot more financial sense to lay out just cash on something cheap with four wheels that goes forwards reliably and has a horn.



Golden999 said:


> Do you guys think there might be some movement for "reputable" breeders to start taking credit cards? Or to be willing to work out financing deals of some sort? Have you guys seen much if any of that? Maybe it's the type of things this forum could start a movement in favor of. I know a lot of breeders read and post here.


Here's the thing...buying something on credit costs a lot more than buying it with money you have. You pay 10-20% APR for the privilege of a sort of reverse savings. We talk ourselves into 'need' scenarios and buy things on credit, and we end up spending a lot more money than if we had better self control. It's a lot more expensive to buy a dog or pay for vet care the way you're talking about here. When it comes to vet care, sometimes you have no choice, because your dog really does _need_ something right when he needs it. But when it comes to purchasing a dog, if you can't afford the purchase price, you certainly can't afford to pay the purchase price plus interest. Spreading it out is an illusion that helps you rationalize that fact that you are paying _more_. Paying 17% APR on the purchase of anything that isn't an absolute emergency is a terrible financial decision.

If you can afford to spread out the payments at a huge APR, you can afford to save up for it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Leslie B said:


> Who ever said that using a credit card meant the buyer was paying interest? People use credit cards for a variety of reasons and many people don't carry a balance that earns interest for the bank.
> 
> Some of the wealthiest people I know use credit cards for most of their purchases.


I use a credit card for the cash back perks and pay the balance in full every month, so I know what you mean (though I am certainly not wealthy). But one of the posters was talking about putting a dog on a credit card because he or she couldn't afford it and was going to pay it off over time, which means paying interest. I think that's how the credit card/interest conflation happened.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MercyMom said:


> Veterinarian's offices are getting fancier too.


Somebody really likes wingback chairs...


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

I have been fortunate to have managed to muddle through some very lean financial situations in my lifetime and in the process I've developed a discipline against buying anything that I can't pay for at the end of the month. It might be a phobia, I don't care, because it's like having the weight of the world lifted from your shoulders.
It gripes me to no end that if I put my hard earned money into savings that a bank can only pay me a fractional percent of interest, yet they are loaning out "my" money to credit card users and charging 10 to 20 percent. I'd like that deal myself!


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

kellyguy said:


> "People stuck with assets, no disposable cash and maxed out credit cards because they can no longer re-finance their assets."
> In reality, you don't have an asset if you finance it. People get maxed out credit cards primarily because they fall for the instant gratification, gotta have it now trap.


Very true, unfortunately people think of them as wealthy because their name is attached to said asset. 

Unfortunately buying a puppy on a credit card because you cannot afford it otherwise falls in the same category of entitlement and instant gratification.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> hhahaah Leslie - just because someone has assets does not mean they have disposable cash! Sad but true. And without getting into politics just take a look at the current economy. People stuck with assets, no disposable cash and maxed out credit cards because they can no longer re-finance their assets.


Once again you have misunderstood and twisted what I have said into something completely different. Unless you have a crystal ball you have no idea why someone would use a credit card OR their cash flow OR their financial liquidity. I work for a bank and the majority of people with available cash will use credit on a regular basis. I see it every day.

By the way no one is ever stuck with an asset. If it is over leveraged the it is moved to the liability column.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> My daughter just started volunteering her time with the local animal shelter, I know my heart will be broken thru the entire time. I tried my best to prepare her to the dogs that have been miss-handled since puppies, the dogs whose owners had to give up in hopes of better medical care and all the pit bull, rottie and other mixes out there because of the irresponsible owners who let their intact dogs roam around. The poor thing she has requested B-day presents to be donations to the local animal shelter for the past 4 years. She is 17 now, and she could not wait to have a license, a car and the time to do this.



Your daughter is an angel and you should be (I am sure you know this) VERY PROUD of her. Definitely has a wonderful foundation for the rest of her life to be built on.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Ahhh, accounting in it's artistic form! 

Of course people would use credit cards on certain purchases because otherwise they cannot establish a credit score and everything else they buy would cost them more. 

Are there people who use credit cards and pay them off every month - of course. Unfortunately that is not the majority of the population.

Since you work in a bank then you should have more knowledge of how the over use of credit cards, false cash flow and liquidity has led to the economic disaster of the last couple years. 
I did not need a crystal ball to know that the people who were duped into buying homes in 06/07 on the premises that the values will go up by tens of thousands in 2/3 years will be stuck with them or forced to sell short and absorb the losses. 

So back to what I said before you changed this discussion into something else, if one needs a credit card in order to buy a pup then they cannot afford the pup. 

Maybe I should have been more detailed in what I said: If one needs to purchase a puppy on a credit cards that he cannot afford to pay it off at the end of the month and therefore pay interest on the puppy purchase price then they cannot afford the pup's training, food, medical bills etc.....


----------



## emwing (May 16, 2014)

Isn't over 1,000 a little ridiculous for a pup? We paid 600 for our girl and honestly, that was pushing it. We view our dogs as pets and though they are investments we never plan to breed or show. They're just companions, no need for perfection. I'm just asking..


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

AmbikaGR said:


> Your daughter is an angel and you should be (I am sure you know this) VERY PROUD of her. Definitely has a wonderful foundation for the rest of her life to be built on.


Thank you Hank. I indeed am very proud of her. 

I am even more proud of her for being aware that she cannot have a puppy while in college and not until she saves enough and makes enough money to support it. 

Interesting what difference it makes getting their own checkbook at 14 and making them work and pay for their wants while you provide the needs. She started by walking the neighborhood dogs and then training them. She lost one job because the dog got more attached to her then the owner. 

After the first year when I looked at her checkbook I realized that the most expenses were for gifts to others, donations to animal shelters and very little on her previous perceived "wants".


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

emwing said:


> Isn't over 1,000 a little ridiculous for a pup? We paid 600 for our girl and honestly, that was pushing it. We view our dogs as pets and though they are investments we never plan to breed or show. They're just companions, no need for perfection. I'm just asking..


It depends. If you're spending $1000 on intangibles like "rare" colors or other hooey, then yeah, it's a little ridiculous. If you're spending it to get a dog from proven parents with health clearances, it pays for itself. A $600 is a lot more expensive than a $1200 dog if the $600 dog doesn't come from a strong clearance history. The risk of expensive and debilitating health conditions is much, much higher.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

emwing said:


> Isn't over 1,000 a little ridiculous for a pup? We paid 600 for our girl and honestly, that was pushing it. We view our dogs as pets and though they are investments we never plan to breed or show. They're just companions, no need for perfection. I'm just asking..


There of course dogs of all breeds and or mixes available at all price points. It truly comes down to where a buyers priority is when buying and the level of risk they are willing to accept. In general on this forum you will see recommendations for rescue or reputable breeders. That is because we feel these are the two groups that should be supported. 

Rescues, though they vary tend to be a low cost initial option though care may be higher. Rescues are good about educating the adopters about the individual dogs and breed health issues in general. The dogs are surrendered but they do normally have medical cost to make the dogs adoptable. Also, volunteer and donations usually keep rescue prices down. On top of that the adopter gets the value of the feeling associated with offering a dog a second chance, for which there is no monetary value. 

Reputable breeders just cost more. Which is why this thread was started. Most breeders wish they did not have to charge as much as they do. They truly do love sharing their wonderful, competition proven, health tested, strong in desirable breed trait dogs with everyone and the knowledge that good pet homes are sometimes now priced out of what they want, a well breed pet puppy with the best chance at a healthy life, that weighs on their shoulders. There is not much money to be made when you do breed reputably and many I know have litters they are losing money on or just break even when you consider all the cost associated with breeding well.

So, that leaves a lot of people, like yourself in the middle. Some don't want to or can't adopt from a rescue. Many are not educated in the many ways a reputable breeder give their pet puppies a better shot at a happy, healthy, well adjusted life. Some do not research the breed to realize the quality of life affecting and life threatening diseases in the breed and what reputable breeders can and are doing to limit those risk. Still others just know they want a golden and start and stop their search in one place whether that is kijiji, craigslist, the paper, or a pet store. Some are aware of all of these thing but decide the risk is worth the savings on the initial price. 

This is where this forum generally steps in, to educate. It is hard for puppy/dog buyer to *know* what they don't *know*. Some times this happens before the new dog comes home, sadly a lot of times it happens well after. Well, I say sadly from the aspect that the people did not have the full information, but it has always rang true that those who learn after the fact, may make a different decision in the future, but never regret the decision that brought their own lovely, loving dog in to their life. 

It is just the state of things that a reputably bred pet puppy is more that $1000 and very likely between that $1500-2500 range Swampcollie mentioned in his first post.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> Honestly I do not think they do such services unless you render ownership to the rescue. I have never been involved with a rescue except from a distance.
> 
> My daughter just started volunteering her time with the local animal shelter, I know my heart will be broken thru the entire time. I tried my best to prepare her to the dogs that have been miss-handled since puppies, the dogs whose owners had to give up in hopes of better medical care and all the pit bull, rottie and other mixes out there because of the irresponsible owners who let their intact dogs roam around. The poor thing she has requested B-day presents to be donations to the local animal shelter for the past 4 years. She is 17 now, and she could not wait to have a license, a car and the time to do this.


Yes, It's best to teach children financial responsibility while they're young lest they learn the hard way later.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> Thank you Hank. I indeed am very proud of her.
> 
> I am even more proud of her for being aware that she cannot have a puppy while in college and not until she saves enough and makes enough money to support it.
> 
> ...


Amazing young lady! Very mature! Perhaps even more than I am!


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Golden999 said:


> A basic dog as a pet shouldn't be a luxury item, even a pure bred dog. I'm not talking about the dogs who's parents appeared on the USA Network's pet show or something- just basic pet dogs that meet the breed standards for whatever breed someone loves. It's not like the number of them are intrinsically limited. Enough could be bred for everyone. They just... aren't. And I do see cost to breeders jumping as well. And contracts getting more detailed and difficult to swallow where contracts didn't even exist previously.


I still am seeing $300 dollar golden retriever puppies in the newspaper and in online ads frequently. It is still possible to own a dog for $30 bucks a month (granted it's not ideal, and believe me I spend WAY more than that on my dogs but it is possible). A 50lb bag of Ol'Roy dog food is still $24 and you may only go to the vet once a year to do it (except for a real emergency). It's not ideal, but it isn't neglect and it isn't abusive. Oh and heart worm meds, I honestly don't know what those run though (I don't buy it in my household). But you do realize most people live on less than a dollar a day right??? We are the richest people on earth, if we can't afford dogs, than something is seriously messed up.


----------



## Goldylover2 (May 1, 2014)

When I purchased my first golden pup 10+ years ago. I had no idea how much a dog would cost over the years. I only paid 250 dollars for her. Most books stated that females only grow to 60 pounds. Well not mine. She grew into a 95 pound eating machine. We stayed on a Pet Smart brand of food for the first 3 or 4 years. No issues. It was 32 bucks for a 50 pound bag. The bag got smaller and cost went up over the years also. Then our dog had allergy issues. Yeast infections in the ears. Hot spots. We changed foods several different times trying to find a solution. Vet visit after vet visit costs started to add up. Then to add to allergy problems, one day she tore her crucial ligament. That alone was $1300 for surgery. The vet hospital down the street wanted $2800. I ended up going about 20 miles south to a small farm town where the prices were so much cheaper. Then she had a hematoma from all the scratching of her ears. That was right after I had her teeth cleaned. At the age seven or eight I started giving her glucosamine. That was from the vet office at first. Then I purchased it from an all natural site online. Her hips were fine. She used to be a little sore when she would get up after a long walk. The glucosamine meds fixed that. I also gave her many other herbs that fought off abnormal cells. The main purpose I gave her herbs was to fight off cancer cells. My two biggest worries was cancer and hip dysplasia. I haven't even mentioned heart worm and flea meds. Over the ten and a half years I probably spent 15k. I had no idea that a six pound pup would cost me 15k over the next ten years.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

And that is exactly why you see lots of old dogs at the pound or on Craigslist. Get rid of them before they cost you more money. It's just a dog, you can get another one. Besides puppies are cuter and more fun aren't they? 

Sorry you lost your girl. Goldens get sweeter with age.


----------



## 1stGold13 (Dec 1, 2013)

Goldylover2 said:


> When I purchased my first golden pup 10+ years ago. I had no idea how much a dog would cost over the years. I only paid 250 dollars for her. Most books stated that females only grow to 60 pounds. Well not mine. She grew into a 95 pound eating machine. We stayed on a Pet Smart brand of food for the first 3 or 4 years. No issues. It was 32 bucks for a 50 pound bag. The bag got smaller and cost went up over the years also. Then our dog had allergy issues. Yeast infections in the ears. Hot spots. We changed foods several different times trying to find a solution. Vet visit after vet visit costs started to add up. Then to add to allergy problems, one day she tore her crucial ligament. That alone was $1300 for surgery. The vet hospital down the street wanted $2800. I ended up going about 20 miles south to a small farm town where the prices were so much cheaper. Then she had a hematoma from all the scratching of her ears. That was right after I had her teeth cleaned. At the age seven or eight I started giving her glucosamine. That was from the vet office at first. Then I purchased it from an all natural site online. Her hips were fine. She used to be a little sore when she would get up after a long walk. The glucosamine meds fixed that. I also gave her many other herbs that fought off abnormal cells. The main purpose I gave her herbs was to fight off cancer cells. My two biggest worries was cancer and hip dysplasia. I haven't even mentioned heart worm and flea meds. Over the ten and a half years I probably spent 15k. I had no idea that a six pound pup would cost me 15k over the next ten years.


I think this makes the point exactly. If you could go back in time and get the same sweet dog you've loved through the years but this time for 5 times the cost you initially paid but it would give you a better chance at avoiding some of those costly expenses later, would you?


----------



## Goldylover2 (May 1, 2014)

1stGold13 said:


> I think this makes the point exactly. If you could go back in time and get the same sweet dog you've loved through the years but this time for 5 times the cost you initially paid but it would give you a better chance at avoiding some of those costly expenses later, would you?


In retrospect. I think we would all do that. In a perfect world. We all would pay 2k for our golden pups if we were guaranteed at least 15 years and very little medical costs throughout it's life. But a higher priced pup doesn't guarantee anything. You say a better chance of avoiding expenses later. 119 dollars a month really isn't that much when you total everything up. Food alone is almost a third of that cost. I got another pup seven weeks ago. I paid the same amount (250 bucks). Most in the paper go from 350 to 600 bucks. I talked the guy down. LOL!!!


----------



## 1stGold13 (Dec 1, 2013)

Goldylover2 said:


> In retrospect. I think we would all do that. In a perfect world. We all would pay 2k for our golden pups if we were guaranteed at least 15 years and very little medical costs throughout it's life. But a higher priced pup doesn't guarantee anything.


I agree 100% there are no guarantees. It's up to each to take the information available and make a choice. For me, I chose to pay now for the "chance". Same choice to pay for pet insurance, type of food, the vet I've chosen, where my dogs treats and toys are made, every decision really. I'm free to choose and accept responsibility for my choices, I hope to always make the best choice and do the right thing for my dog as I'm sure you do. I'm glad that topics like this come up here because it's just another piece of information someone contemplating a dog might come across someday that will help them make their choice.


----------



## ArchersMom (May 22, 2013)

Goldylover2 said:


> In retrospect. I think we would all do that. In a perfect world. We all would pay 2k for our golden pups if we were guaranteed at least 15 years and very little medical costs throughout it's life. But a higher priced pup doesn't guarantee anything. You say a better chance of avoiding expenses later. 119 dollars a month really isn't that much when you total everything up. Food alone is almost a third of that cost. I got another pup seven weeks ago. I paid the same amount (250 bucks). Most in the paper go from 350 to 600 bucks. I talked the guy down. LOL!!!


I think my concern in this situation is why is this person breeding goldens? I'd say a majority of the reason people breed is to make money and that's not why it should be done. What about the mother of those puppies? How is she being cared for? Does she live her entire life cranking out as many litters as possible to earn income for her owner? That's wrong. And the even worse case scenario is with puppy mills vs a BYB. Even some BYB dogs probably aren't much better off than puppy mill dogs. When you have a reputable breeder, they're breeding to better the breed and they may want to keep a puppy of their own to show or train. How do you really know what you're getting into when you purchase a puppy from a paper?


----------



## Goldylover2 (May 1, 2014)

ArchersMom said:


> I think my concern in this situation is why is this person breeding goldens? I'd say a majority of the reason people breed is to make money and that's not why it should be done. What about the mother of those puppies? How is she being cared for? Does she live her entire life cranking out as many litters as possible to earn income for her owner? That's wrong. And the even worse case scenario is with puppy mills vs a BYB. Even some BYB dogs probably aren't much better off than puppy mill dogs. When you have a reputable breeder, they're breeding to better the breed and they may want to keep a puppy of their own to show or train. How do you really know what you're getting into when you purchase a puppy from a paper?


Tens of thousands of dogs are sold threw the newspaper every year. I'm sure there are dogs that live long healthy lives whether sold from a newspaper ad or from a reputable breeder. You seem to categorize back yard breeders as irresponsible. That's where a vast majority of people get their dogs. Do you think the average American is going to pay several hundred dollars or even 1 or 2 thousand for a new pup? That's just not reality.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Goldylover2 said:


> Tens of thousands of dogs are sold threw the newspaper every year. I'm sure there are dogs that live long healthy lives whether sold from a newspaper ad or from a reputable breeder. You seem to categorize back yard breeders as irresponsible. That's where a vast majority of people get their dogs. Do you think the average American is going to pay several hundred dollars or even 1 or 2 thousand for a new pup? That's just not reality.


Backyard breeders ARE irresponsible. They do no health testing on the parents. Just because the vast majority go to newspaper or Craigslist ads does not make it right?! For most of them buying out of the newspaper, they do not know how to go about purchasing from a reputable breeder. Most have no clue how to search or find a good breeder.

I had someone ask me yesterday how to find a breeder. I am an average American and I saved money to purchase my dog. Again, most have no clue what even the difference is between byb and reputable breeder is. They think all breeders are same.


----------



## ArchersMom (May 22, 2013)

I do think backyard breeders are irresponsible but that wasn't really my point. The point was that I don't want to support a puppy mill. A lot of people get their dogs that way too, but does that make it ok? I'm not even saying that all BYB abuse the ownership of their dogs to make money even, I'm just saying that it's pretty common. BYB do a lot of irresponsible things even if they do take good care of their breeding stock. They produce dogs that are intentionally out of standard (too tall, too heavy, etc), they crossbreed, they breed dogs with improper temperament, and they don't do health clearances. If you want golden retrievers to continue to have their wonderful disposition and looks you need responsible breeders and not BYB. They capitalize on a puppies cuteness, not its correctness to the breed.


----------



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

Golden999 said:


> This is a really sad trend.
> 
> Adding to it is that the poor are getting poorer, more people are falling out of the middle class than ever, and we're (I'm going say under 40s) probably the first generation in a long time in the United States and similar economies who on average don't have as good of a lifestyle as our parents and who's children (the few who have them) may not have the lifestyle we have. I'm not getting political here and blaming one party or the other. I'm just looking at general trends that have been in place through at least one Republican and one Democratic Presidency and probably will continue no matter who we elect in the next few election cycles (Give or take this or that economic bump or dip).
> 
> ...


Wow, way to take what I said in another thread completely out of context and use it to make you look like a victim. Let's be clear here -- in another thread you stated that goldens who fall outside of what you consider to be the ideal color range for a "Golden Retriever" are really not part of any breed and are essentially mixed breed dogs, including your golden retriever's own littermate who was born with a very pale colored coat. You were adamant that any golden who falls outside of what you perceive the standard to be (whether due to height, weight or color) is not a "real golden retriever," regardless of the fact that both of their parents were pure bred goldens. I felt it was a ridiculous argument from someone who chose a dog based on which breeder would haggle with them (by your very own admission yet again in this post) rather than based on the quality of the breeding. I still believe that. Next time it would be nice if you'd respond to me in the actual thread in question and not drag my comments around the forum to twist to your own ends. 

As for your current argument, it's the same one you've made in every thread I've ever seen you participate on in this forum. Nothing is going to change in that discussion -- quality breeders and vets are never going to haggle prices -- so there's really no point in going there again. We've heard from many members of this forum who are not well off financially who find ways to save money for a well bred dog because it is important to them to do so. It's not impossible. Not everyone chooses to go that route. That's fine but that won't stop communities like this from advocating for people to go to rescues or reputable breeders as the responsible ways for obtaining pet dogs. I'm thankful for that.

As to the actual topic of the tread -- Swampcollie, it is comforting to see that a breeder like you is concerned about where prices are headed for purebred dogs. I think it's the very fact that reputable breeders are generally of your mindset, rather than of one that is focused on profit, that will curb the expense for a well bred puppy from ever truly skyrocketing away from what most people are willing to save and scrape together for a responsibly bred dog. As someone else mentioned earlier, I'm curious about your statement about the "regulatory crosshairs" falling on BYBs next -- is that a general feeling you have or specific pending bills/regulations that you've heard about? It raises an interesting question of what the pet industry scene would look like in the absence of BYBs or in a world where they really aren't SO much cheaper than dogs from reputable breeders.... I don't know if that would wind up being better or worse in the long run but it's interesting to think about.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

Jersey's Mom said:


> You were adamant that any golden who falls outside of what you perceive the standard to be (whether due to height, weight or color) is not a "real golden retriever," regardless of the fact that both of their parents were pure bred goldens. I felt it was a ridiculous argument from someone who chose a dog based on which breeder would haggle with them (by your very own admission yet again in this post) rather than based on the quality of the breeding.


Let's say you love old historical colonial style houses, but you can't afford one. Then, you run across a similar home that's not quite in that style, but kind of similar looking, and may not be quite the 18th century relic you prefer, but a new sort of pre-fab mimicry, but the buyer wants to sell quickly and move on and will accept a bid that you can afford. You may buy that second house and love it, in fact it may be more heating and cooling efficient, with better insulation and central air installed and so on and so forth, and after a few years in you may love it more than you'd love living in the house you envisioned. It's still a 20th century non-colonial rather than an 18th century colonial, though, in terms of category- that doesn't mean it isn't just as good or better for you personally, or something that might not be as good for you personally but which you were happy to get under the circumstances.

I don't think saying I like the idea of tight breed standards, but that I couldn't afford a breeder who hues closely to those kind of standards is a contradiction. It's just making the best of the situation. Similarly, I am all for health clearances, I just couldn't afford the price of breeders who did them, so I looked at the dog's parents and inquired about past litters and relatives and such and any family history of hip problems or the like and had to take a leap of faith and trust people and take my chances to some degree. It's not really a contradiction.

I mean, if I were rich, I might eat choice cuts of steak made from free range cattle who's ranch had a stamp of approval from animal right's organizations, with a side of shrimp, for dinner tonight. Because I'm not rich, I'm going to probably have ground beef from wherever the grocery store gets such things (I am guessing factory farms) and rice tonight. I don't feel I'm betraying my ideals, I'm just recognizing that I can't stamp my feet and make my economic reality conform to what I'd optimally like to be eating, and instead make the best of the situation.



> Next time it would be nice if you'd respond to me in the actual thread in question


As I have a minority viewpoint on this topic, and discussing extensively it with everyone who I disagreed with would start to derail threads and monopolize my time (I seriously think I could spend ten hours a day arguing about this stuff if I engaged with everyone and replied to every single thing on topics I'm passionate about), sometimes I'll just let a discussion kind of stand as it is. I'm actually trying, in part, to be considerate when I do that sort of thing, and let sleeping dogs rest to some degree. Plus, I don't ever seem to be able to just type a quick sentence and hit send- I always wind up typing a monologue and that takes up a ton of time and probably eventually bores people reading it to death if I pile up too many posts (So I try not to post super-often).

If you or anyone else ever feels like I'm not answering a question they really want answered or whatever, though, please send me a private message with a link and point it out to me, and I'll be happy to go back and answer whatever the post is.



> and not drag my comments around the forum to twist to your own ends.


I didn't quote you by name because it was on a different thread and, I agree, it wouldn't be far to use someone's name in conjunction with something on a thread he or she might not be reading and have a chance to respond to if he or she wants to. Plus, I'm not sure I remember who said it.  I just mentioned it without using a name because I thought it tied into what I was talking about and helped make a point that related to the thread I was in at the time.



> As for your current argument, it's the same one you've made in every thread I've ever seen you participate on in this forum.


Well, I was over talking about lyme disease, spaying, and antibiotics a few minutes ago in another thread. I think a couple days ago I was trying to give someone advice on house training a puppy and how to ease a puppy who was scared of walking on a leash into it slowly, and the way a dog's personality will sometimes develop and change as they grow, and the way sometimes that things that seem like negatives at first eventually become charming as we spent more time with a given dog and form a bond.

I do understand how someone might only see my posts about why puppies should be made more affordable, though. It does seem like I wind up in that discussion a lot, and I assume people don't read every thread that posted (I don't either), so they might only see those posts. But, since, it came up, I just wanted to mention that it isn't literally all I talk about here. On most forums like this, you can click on a user profile and then view all posts or view recent posts and see what someone has been posting lately if you want to get a more complete view (Not sure if this forum has that feature turned on or not, but I've seen it on many forums that run this software).



> Nothing is going to change in that discussion -- quality breeders and vets are never going to haggle prices


That's their choice. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to sell anything for. I'm just saying that if prices are pushed out of the range of what people can afford to or are willing to spend, and no financing options are offered or accommodations made for people with low incomes, people are going to look elsewhere. 

Through a certain lens, I can see why people would think that people who buy from backyard breeders are "the problem" here, but in actuality there are probably a lot of people like me who would absolutely _love_ to buy from breeders who do all the appropriate health screenings and breed to tighter breed standards and whatnot (In general, not at this second- one dog at a time is all I can handle and I've already got one at the moment  ) if they were offered at prices we could afford and with a similar lack of requirements and terms that backyard breeders tend to offer. When my dog passes away many years from now, if I decide to look for another puppy, I'd be happy to go with what folks here would consider a higher caliber breeder- if there was a way to work out a price or financial arrangement I could manage, and if I wasn't going to be held to contractual terms that restricted what I could do with the dog in ways that made me uncomfortable.

So, looking at it another way, it could also be said that breeders who do the clearances and such not finding a way to be flexible enough on terms and price to meet what many in the market for dogs are looking for or can afford that creates the market for dogs from people breeding pets. I am not saying that means that breeders should be forced to sell at a loss or to anyone they don't want to sell to, I am just saying that there's always going to be this two tier system if a way isn't created to give people of lesser financial means access to high quality dogs (in the sense of having the appropriate clearances, being bred to tighter breed standards, etc..).

And regulating away backyard breeders won't fix the issue either. It'll just create a black market for puppies and turn a lot of dog lovers into criminals for no good reason. Poor folks have always been able to have dogs. I think it's a good thing. And if the issue is that we want to get those dogs access to more consistent medical care, and have them be better bred in the first place- the framework for solving that isn't to try to prevent poor people from getting dogs, but, rather, to try to find a way to help poor people finance or get well-bred dogs and good medical care at a price they can afford or divided up into smaller payments that they can find a way to pay over time. That's my two cents, anyway (Actually, I'm adjusting that to 5 cents because of the increased cost of feeding myself people food  ).


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

Golden999 said:


> Let's say you love old historical colonial style houses, but you can't afford one. Then, you run across a similar home that's not quite in that style, but kind of similar looking, and may not be quite the 18th century relic you prefer, but a new sort of pre-fab mimicry, but the buyer wants to sell quickly and move on and will accept a bid that you can afford. You may buy that second house and love it, in fact it may be more heating and cooling efficient, with better insulation and central air installed and so on and so forth, and after a few years in you may love it more than you'd love living in the house you envisioned. It's still a 20th century non-colonial rather than an 18th century colonial, though, in terms of category- that doesn't mean it isn't just as good or better for you personally, or something that might not be as good for you personally but which you were happy to get under the circumstances.
> 
> I don't think saying I like the idea of tight breed standards, but that I couldn't afford a breeder who hues closely to those kind of standards is a contradiction. It's just making the best of the situation.


People often compare buying a puppy to purchasing any other "good" (for lack of a better word) that a person might desire and while I acknowledge that there can be similarities as far as purchasing experiences go, buying a puppy from a pedigree that is lacking in health clearances/from a BYB can in no way be compared to buying a house that is of a slightly different style than the one you might covet. Poor analogy.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

Golden999 said:


> That's their choice. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to sell anything for. I'm just saying that if prices are pushed out of the range of what people can afford to or are willing to spend, and no financing options are offered or accommodations made for people with low incomes, people are going to look elsewhere.
> 
> So, looking at it another way, it could also be said that breeders who do the clearances and such not finding a way to be flexible enough on terms and price to meet what many in the market for dogs are looking for or can afford that creates the market for dogs from people breeding pets. I am not saying that means that breeders should be forced to sell at a loss or to anyone they don't want to sell to, I am just saying that there's always going to be this two tier system if a way isn't created to give people of lesser financial means access to high quality dogs (in the sense of having the appropriate clearances, being bred to tighter breed standards, etc..).


As has been pointed out several times, people can *choose* to save their pennies if they want a dog from a reputable breeder. It's not that hard. If you *choose* not to, that's another story.


----------



## sdhgolden (Aug 13, 2012)

CharlieBear80 said:


> As has been pointed out several times, people can *choose* to save their pennies if they want a dog from a reputable breeder. It's not that hard. If you *choose* not to, that's another story.



I agree it's not that hard it just takes time. However, I have noticed this can be hard for people in a society that has become accustomed to instant gratification. Saving money requires time and patience which is not the norm sadly. Growing up I had to save up for things I wanted. I had to save up for a bike, a car, etc. My parents wouldn't "loan" me the money and certainly would not cosign on a car loan with me. No payment plans were made so I could have what I wanted now and pay later. I had to save. And wait. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



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

Golden999 said:


> I don't think saying I like the idea of tight breed standards, but that I couldn't afford a breeder who hues closely to those kind of standards is a contradiction. It's just making the best of the situation. Similarly, I am all for health clearances, I just couldn't afford the price of breeders who did them, so I looked at the dog's parents and inquired about past litters and relatives and such and any family history of hip problems or the like and had to take a leap of faith and trust people and take my chances to some degree. It's not really a contradiction.


 But that's not what you said -- at all. I won't continue to derail this thread with an old conversation so I will leave it at that.

And for the record, my problem isn't that you didn't respond to my post in that thread. It's the dishonesty with which you took my words out of context and used them to paint those who support reputable breeders as elitists who want to deprive the poor of their dogs. No, you didn't quote me directly or use my name because that would have allowed me the opportunity to more readily see it and call you out on it. If you had a problem with the point I was making in that conversation, you should have addressed it there. Hiding it in a snide remark elsewhere, even anonymously, is certainly not the preferable choice and your point of view could have been made in a perfectly clear fashion without the reference since my point in that thread actually had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this one. 

With that, I'm done. Sorry for the sidetrack Swampcollie. Nothing more to see here.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

sdhgolden said:


> I agree it's not that hard it just takes time. However, I have noticed this can be hard for people in a society that has become accustomed to instant gratification. Saving money requires time and patience which is not the norm sadly.


I would not argue for the impossibility of saving. However, I do think you make a good point in the sense of addressing what the culture is now. You've got people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and so on who are psychologically ill-equipped or very not good at saving money because of how they grew up and outside influences and whatnot. Maybe they even agree that they'd like to save for stuff, but they find they can't do it in practice despite their best efforts. It sort of falls under the old "you can't teach a dog new tricks" category, but it can be more true with humans than with dogs a lot of the time!  

It's also a little easier to put aside $100 a month if you bring in $10,000 a month than if you bring in $1,000 a month- not just because it's a different percentage, but because the wealthier person doesn't feel quite the same pinch the lower income person might feel at the end of a pay cycle, even if one were to smooth the amounts out to the same percentage of income. It's also sometimes harder for a poorer person to save than to pay a bill. I know it sounds odd, because one might say "Well, if someone can pay something off at $100 a month, they can save $100 in advance instead", and of course in the realm of pure numbers that's true, but it's a lot easier to, as soon as the income hits the bank account, send payments out on your bills and have the money just be gone and irretrievable than to try to save it and then have it sitting them taunting you when you're out of gas and eating ramen at the end of a tough month and just want to take a little drive and buy something decent to eat.

I've met people who've had trouble paying the rent and providing basic things even though they could afford it. They just don't budget well. So my advice to them has always been, okay, when you get your money, just take care of all of, or a significant portion of, your important bills and expenses (rent, utilities, groceries, household supplies, medicine, dog food, etc.) upfront as soon as you can. Then, you've got it done and out of the way and whatever you do the rest of the way is at least not going to leave you without a home or electricity or whatever. Of course, not everything can be scheduled to be payable upfront like that, and some things like groceries, you generally probably have to go back in shifts and do once every week or two, but the general principle I think is sound, and is better than the method the people who just start spending randomly and then find they don't get done what _needs_ to be done are using, financially speaking. This is especially true if they can get credit cards or lines of credit to meet emergency needs that they can handle responsibly, although that's not always the case.

The ideal of people who can keep an eagle eye on finances and exercise iron-fisted discipline over saving even when that money would come in very handy, is probably a good ideal. But I just don't think that's as realistic for a lot of people as it used to be the way their personalities have formed over the years, and we can't turn back time and change that about them. Also, there are people might just barely be able to do that, but for whom it would create such a combination of stress and pressure that it may not be the right way to go for them.

I understand that a lot of people have ideas about how people or society should be, and they aren't all bad ideas. However, in life, we often have to recognize that people aren't quite what we'd like them to be, and try to create systems and approaches to things that help meet them where they are and allow them to have a positive experience in the world, and allows the person who's ideals they don't meet to feel more accepting and relaxed about the situation. It does take all kinds in this world- that's one axium I wouldn't be inclined to argue with, I don't think. Acceptance is important.



Jersey's Mom said:


> It's the dishonesty with which you took my words out of context and used them to paint those who support reputable breeders as elitists who want to deprive the poor of their dogs.


I have seen several people outright state, without any ambiguity, that they don't think people below a certain income level should have pets. Several others repeat phrases like "having a pet is a privilege and not a right" and "If you can't [have or do] [blank], or need to [blank], you shouldn't have a dog". Those attitudes are out there fairly openly. I'm not imagining them or trying to conjure them up by inference. I see them repeatedly.

I apologize if people who don't have said attitudes feel like I am lumping them in the same category as people who do, however.

If it's helpful for people to know, I should probably point out that I don't always have a great memory for things like screen names and such. There are times when I don't remember who I was talking to and what was said and so on and so forth in any specific detail. Often, I imagine, at least, I'll wind up seeming to be in a heated argument with someone in one thread and having a very nice polite agreeable conversation with the same person in another thread. I don't really always tie these things together in my mind, and though it's more for reasons of having a poor memory than anything I try to do intentionally, there are advantages to it. It makes it harder for me to hold a grudge and prejudge someone's posts if I have no idea what that person has posted in the past, or if I can't remember if they were the person I was thinking of or not. 

I just mention that to avoid misunderstandings. I feel like some people might think I'm singling them out with something, and really it's just something I remember someone saying somewhere and nothing personal I would be able to attribute to someone by name, or that I hold against them, or that I am using in some sort of attempt to discredit them. Really, there are some ideas that people have that upset me a lot, but I don't feel like I have a great personal dislike for anyone in particular. I try to get along as best I can. We all at least have an affinity for dogs in general and golden retrievers in particular in common, as different as some of us can be from one another in other respects. There is that common ground. It's a fairly specific interest.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

Goldylover2 said:


> In retrospect. I think we would all do that. In a perfect world. We all would pay 2k for our golden pups if we were guaranteed at least 15 years and very little medical costs throughout it's life. But a higher priced pup doesn't guarantee anything. You say a better chance of avoiding expenses later. 119 dollars a month really isn't that much when you total everything up. Food alone is almost a third of that cost. I got another pup seven weeks ago. I paid the same amount (250 bucks). Most in the paper go from 350 to 600 bucks. I talked the guy down. LOL!!!


Not ALL would...and dont be sold on a sales pitch! Like you Goldylover2, I bought Bo from a family in Wisconsin. No references, no pedigree check, no serious deep sales pitch, *NO RESTRICTION IN SOME CONTRACT* (Limited AKC Registration) on breeding or showing, just a friendly hour long conversation with his family about his ancestors. My girlfriend at the time knew how badly I wanted a Female Golden, and when a customer came through her bank drive-thru window with this big chubby golden from a litter in the country side, she called me immediately to tell me about the two remaining male puppies. Hours later that night in March of 2000, I made the $400 trade of my life for Bo. With the best food, love, any toy he wanted, lots and lots of chicken breast, not near enough exercise and occasionally the best spot on my bed, bo finally passed on early this month. The night prior to his passing away, Bo and I had visited two different PetSmart stores, as this was Bo's favorite activity. The next morning, Bo laid at my feet in the living room, and with a big Golden Smile, took his last breath. Now if the elite breeders web sites are any indication, bo lived 4yrs and several months longer than he should have (they say their Golden's of pet quality average about 10 yrs of life). He should have died of cancer, had hip dysplasia, needed constant vet care, and been on meds to extend his life past 10yrs. Bo just needed lots of Chicken. According to one fine "breeder" who sells only on "limited registration AKC" contract, I would need $1500 dollars to qualify for her remaining puppies, and would have to submit (with further compensation) to her expertise before SHE would allow any breeding. So tell me, which puppy breeder sounds most like a puppy mill?


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

So in your opinion, a person who charges more and has some restrictions to breeding their dogs makes them a Puppy mill???

I am appauled!! You paid $400 14 years ago, prices have went up even with BYB Goldens.

So, because I charge $1500 and have restrictions because I am protecting the puppies and the breed... I am a puppy mill??

You have absolutely NO clue how much time I invest in my puppies.

No sales pitch needed here!


----------



## Simply (May 14, 2014)

thomas&betts said:


> Not ALL would...and dont be sold on a sales pitch! Like you Goldylover2, I bought Bo from a family in Wisconsin. No references, no pedigree check, no serious deep sales pitch, *NO RESTRICTION IN SOME CONTRACT* (Limited AKC Registration) on breeding or showing, just a friendly hour long conversation with his family about his ancestors. My girlfriend at the time knew how badly I wanted a Female Golden, and when a customer came through her bank drive-thru window with this big chubby golden from a litter in the country side, she called me immediately to tell me about the two remaining male puppies. Hours later that night in March of 2000, I made the $400 trade of my life for Bo. With the best food, love, any toy he wanted, lots and lots of chicken breast, not near enough exercise and occasionally the best spot on my bed, bo finally passed on early this month. The night prior to his passing away, Bo and I had visited two different PetSmart stores, as this was Bo's favorite activity. The next morning, Bo laid at my feet in the living room, and with a big Golden Smile, took his last breath. Now if the elite breeders web sites are any indication, bo lived 4yrs and several months longer than he should have (they say their Golden's of pet quality average about 10 yrs of life). He should have died of cancer, had hip dysplasia, needed constant vet care, and been on meds to extend his life past 10yrs. Bo just needed lots of Chicken. According to one fine "breeder" who sells only on "limited registration AKC" contract, I would need $1500 dollars to qualify for her remaining puppies, and would have to submit (with further compensation) to her expertise before SHE would allow any breeding. So tell me, which puppy breeder sounds most like a puppy mill?


I am so sorry for your loss


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

thomas&betts said:


> Not ALL would...and dont be sold on a sales pitch! Like you Goldylover2, I bought Bo from a family in Wisconsin. No references, no pedigree check, no serious deep sales pitch, *NO RESTRICTION IN SOME CONTRACT* (Limited AKC Registration) on breeding or showing, just a friendly hour long conversation with his family about his ancestors. My girlfriend at the time knew how badly I wanted a Female Golden, and when a customer came through her bank drive-thru window with this big chubby golden from a litter in the country side, she called me immediately to tell me about the two remaining male puppies. Hours later that night in March of 2000, I made the $400 trade of my life for Bo. With the best food, love, any toy he wanted, lots and lots of chicken breast, not near enough exercise and occasionally the best spot on my bed, bo finally passed on early this month. The night prior to his passing away, Bo and I had visited two different PetSmart stores, as this was Bo's favorite activity. The next morning, Bo laid at my feet in the living room, and with a big Golden Smile, took his last breath. Now if the elite breeders web sites are any indication, bo lived 4yrs and several months longer than he should have (they say their Golden's of pet quality average about 10 yrs of life). He should have died of cancer, had hip dysplasia, needed constant vet care, and been on meds to extend his life past 10yrs. Bo just needed lots of Chicken. According to one fine "breeder" who sells only on "limited registration AKC" contract, I would need $1500 dollars to qualify for her remaining puppies, and would have to submit (with further compensation) to her expertise before SHE would allow any breeding. So tell me, which puppy breeder sounds most like a puppy mill?


Sorry for your loss!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

thomas&betts said:


> Now if the elite breeders web sites are any indication, bo lived 4yrs and several months longer than he should have (they say their Golden's of pet quality average about 10 yrs of life). He should have died of cancer, had hip dysplasia, needed constant vet care, and been on meds to extend his life past 10yrs. Bo just needed lots of Chicken.


I don't know about "elite breeders web sites," but the basic concept that people discuss around here is that careful breeding practices are about reducing risks. They're not guarantees. Lots of BYB dogs live long, healthy lives like Bo. 

The issue is that a dog who's not carefully bred with strong clearance history is at higher risk of dysplasia, not that he'll automatically get it. It's something like a 10-20% risk in the breed, and clearances cut that risk by at least half. So a dog from no clearance history has maybe an 80% chance of not having dysplasia, and a dog from a strong clearance history has maybe a 90%+ chance of not having it. That's why clearances are a good idea and why they pay for themselves in the long run. Any _individual_ dog might luck out, but clearances are a cost-effective way to shave the odds in your favor.

There are similar issues with heart, elbow, and eye disease, so those clearances are also no-brainers too from a financial angle, and in terms of protecting a dog from needless suffering.

However, anybody who claims they clear for cancer or can reduce its risk, is either uninformed or lying. There is no clearance for that and no evidence that BYB dogs are at higher or lower risk than hobby bred dogs. Personally, I think there's a good chance at better longevity if you go with a hobby breeder who knows the ins and outs of the pedigrees for a dozen generations and is carefully selecting matches, rather than somebody who just puts the two dogs they happen to own together to make a few bucks, but there's really no evidence that even the most careful pedigree study can reduce the risk of cancer. It _might_, but it's not _proven_ the way clearances are.

And the 10-12 year number is simply a rough estimate of how long Goldens live in general. It's based on surveys of Goldens that did not take into account breeding practices, so it's not a backyard vs. hobby bred number.

Lastly, I'm sorry for your loss. Bo sounds like a great dog.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Kfayard - I think thomas&betts may have been more put off by the attitude of what he/she calls "elite breeders". About the limited registration thing that to me pretty much says right off the bet I do not trust you. As opposed to his/her previous experience of a friendly conversation. 
From this forum alone I can only count on one hand the breeders I would ever consider to purchase a puppy from. 
The prices have gone up, on everything, vet bills, food, supplies etc. Of course the price of a puppy would go up based on inflation. 

Thomas&betts - I hope you find a breeder that you can sit down and talk to and create a relationship with that can result in a new puppy that you can spend the next decade and a half with.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

thomas&betts I am so sorry for your loss. They are never with us long enough. Your boy sounds like he was a WONDERFUL dog.
Now for my take on the rest of your post.
In my opinion you were lucky. Having bred a whopping 2 litters in the past thirteen and a half years I guess I am one of those "elite breeders" you speak of. And the "10 year mark" is the minimum a responsible breeder expects their pups to live, not the average age of death. Yep I charge more than $1000 dollars for one of my pups. Unless I have known you for some time you get the pup from me on limited registration. There are conditions you must agree to in a contract before I will consider you to have one of my pups. Yes I research the pedigrees of both dogs involved in the breeding (and as many dogs related to them as is possible) to help improve the odds that the pups will live long healthy lives. Do many health screenings on my girls before they are bred (and require the same of the boy). My girls must also prove to be within the Standard as presented by the Golden Retriever Club of America as must the boy I breed to. 
And I do all this because there is a responsibility that should come with breeding dogs and I take that VERY seriously. I love this breed too much to not do so. Will the breed go to pot because your breeder bred a litter 14 years ago? No, not from that one breeding. But let that be the norm for way breeding of Golden Retrievers are bred and it will be.


----------



## nolefan (Nov 6, 2009)

I'm so sorry for your loss of Bo. Just about every single one of us here have first hand experience of the grief you're suffering and know how hard it is. When I found this forum under similar circumstances as you - after the loss of my first Golden, an absolutely fabulous dog - the one who convinced me I can never be without a Golden in my home, it was the photos of beloved dogs here and all their stories and adventures that helped comfort me and heal my heart. The people here are all 'real life' people. For the most part when you look up in the top right hand corner of their avatar and see that they've been a member here for many years and have thousands of posts and thousands of 'thank you' they are pretty well known here. Please understand that while our group is primarily pet owners, we also have many knowledgeable folks who train and compete in various performance "dog sports" and several serious hobby breeders who are a great source of support, information and friendship. These people and their experience are the backbone of this forum. 

Please believe me that the people who breed puppies for themselves and then sell the rest of the litter to loving pet, show or performance homes for $1200-$2500 currently carefully scrutinized here and they post links to their dogs pedigrees, discuss their accomplishments and are upfront about all health clearances or they wouldn't last long around here. Let me assure you that contrary to what you may have heard in the media and other less informed sources, serious hobby breeders are not puppy mills and we owe them more than we can ever thank them for or repay them for. 

The time, care and money they invest to do everything they can to maintain and improve our breed is incalculable. They support rescue, fund health research and provide education and guidance for people who are new to dog sports. They are passionate about what they do and any dog they ever breed has a forever home with them at any time, they care for that dog for life or find it a permanent, loving home if the puppy-buyer cannot or will not. They interview new homes, ask for references from vets and family and will even get the phone numbers of neighbors to the new home asking them to contact the breeder if they ever see that the dog is being neglected. They won't give a puppy to anyone with a checkbook. They truly care.

Please, please spend some time reading through the stickies at the tops of the boards that explain information about how to choose a reputable breeder, what goes in to raising a healthy puppy etc. I really want you to see that you are mistaken about lumping in our serious and dedicated hobby breeders with puppy mills or even with backyard breeders. 

Our breed has several health issues - the incidence can be greatly reduced by breeding parents without these issues, there are some which we still don't understand how or why they happening (such as pigmentary uveitis) that will require many more years of screening, testing and research before we figure out the answers and if prevention or treatment is possible. Serious hobby breeders with their screening, pedigree research and monetary support for medical research are the key to solving this eye disease that is horribly painful for the dog and can result in the loss of the eye if left untreated. We know that ensuring that you are breeding two parents who are shown clear of elbow dysplasia can reduce the cases of ED in their puppies by almost 40%. http://www.offa.org/ed_faqs.html Knowing how painful and debilitating it is to the affected dogs, how could you morally justify not screening for this prior to breeding? Backyard breeders do it all the time, don't bother to screen, roll the dice with the health of the puppies they produce and then leave the new puppy owners to deal with the potential heartbreak and expense. It's not the backyard breeders who are at the forefront of the fight against these diseases, it's the serious hobby breeders who, whether you meant to or not, you have hurt and insulted with your comment about puppy prices and puppy mills.

During the past few years I have had the pleasure of getting to know many of these hobby breeders and as I said, we dog lovers owe them more than we can ever repay. They research pedigrees, spend countless hours and training dogs for obedience, field work, agility and tracking and large sums of money traveling and competing with others, which they do for enjoyment and the love of the relationship it builds with their dogs, but the result is that these people are almost single-handedly responsible for maintaining the mental characteristics, instinct and temperament that make Golden Retriever so special and are the real reasons we fell in love with the breed in the first place. 

It may take hundreds of generations, but eventually if you have backyard breeders and puppy mill operators breeding Golden Retrievers with no regard for temperament or instinct or ability you will lose the dog that has been developed over the past 100+ years. Goldens were bred for a specific job, the standard specifically says "primarily a hunting dog" and those characteristics must be carefully maintained. Otherwise all the things that make dogs like Bo so special will be lost. 

Serious hobby breeders are truly the only people looking at the big picture, 1) Correct temperament 2) Correct structure for soundness as a working dog 3) retrieving instinct 4) work ethic and trainability. They invest their hearts and souls and a lot of money into their dogs, figuring out which ones should be bred to carry on the breed and then they risk it all every time a beloved dog goes into labor to produce a litter of puppies. They raise those puppies in their homes and spend hours researching the newest techniques and science on socialization and nutritional needs for each stage. They spend a small fortune outfitting their homes with the best equipment and toys etc to raise those puppies right. If they have newborn puppies get sick they are on the internet 24 hours a day looking for and receiving advice and input from other experienced breeders on how to save the life of that new baby. THey all share triumph together when the puppy makes it and tears together when it is out of their hands. 

If I'm lucky enough to bring one of those babies home as my next Golden, I am quite happy to spend a couple years saving up $1500 to make sure I'm giving a puppy a home who was produced by a breeder who cares and puts their money where their mouths are. My money will not go to someone who put no thought into my puppies background or couldn't be bothered to even educate herself about preventable health issues in the breed, someone who doesn't care about trainability and temperament. 

I hope you will learn as much as possible and then think about this subject a little more before you decide what is a fair price for a member of your family for the next 10-15 years. I count the cost of $150 a year the best investment I ever made and I am forever grateful to our serious, competitive hobby breeders. I believe if you think about all the valid points I've made you probably feel the same way too.




thomas&betts said:


> Not ALL would...and dont be sold on a sales pitch! Like you Goldylover2, I bought Bo from a family in Wisconsin. No references, no pedigree check, no serious deep sales pitch, *NO RESTRICTION IN SOME CONTRACT* (Limited AKC Registration) on breeding or showing, just a friendly hour long conversation with his family about his ancestors. My girlfriend at the time knew how badly I wanted a Female Golden, and when a customer came through her bank drive-thru window with this big chubby golden from a litter in the country side, she called me immediately to tell me about the two remaining male puppies. Hours later that night in March of 2000, I made the $400 trade of my life for Bo. With the best food, love, any toy he wanted, lots and lots of chicken breast, not near enough exercise and occasionally the best spot on my bed, bo finally passed on early this month. The night prior to his passing away, Bo and I had visited two different PetSmart stores, as this was Bo's favorite activity. The next morning, Bo laid at my feet in the living room, and with a big Golden Smile, took his last breath. Now if the elite breeders web sites are any indication, bo lived 4yrs and several months longer than he should have (they say their Golden's of pet quality average about 10 yrs of life). He should have died of cancer, had hip dysplasia, needed constant vet care, and been on meds to extend his life past 10yrs. Bo just needed lots of Chicken. According to one fine "breeder" who sells only on "limited registration AKC" contract, I would need $1500 dollars to qualify for her remaining puppies, and would have to submit (with further compensation) to her expertise before SHE would allow any breeding. So tell me, which puppy breeder sounds most like a puppy mill?


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

kfayard said:


> So in your opinion, a person who charges more and has some restrictions to breeding their dogs makes them a Puppy mill???


In my opinion, a person mass producing puppies in a mill like setting for PROFIT, then DICTATING to a private individual who purchases an 8 week old puppy, that they must not breed or show (conformation) that same well cared for adorable puppy years later, might just have a puppy mill operation. It is my opinion that puppies taken from their mother by "breeders?" and then sold for profit as Limited Registration Quality (sorry, thats "pet quality" in puppy mills speak) warning of short 10 yr life spans, as well as those who would protest vigorously any suggestion they are running a puppy mill (likely indicating some level of guilt) might just be a puppy mill operation!*"You paid $400 14 years ago, prices have went up even with BYB Goldens.*" In the case of Bo, his mother and father were not "BYB", but rather indoor AKC registered family members of a young Wisconsin mother and father with kids.

*"So, because I charge $1500 and have restrictions because I am protecting the puppies and the breed... I am a puppy mill??*"
Up until your post, I had never heard of you, unless you were the "breeder" who requested I fill out a puppy application for her $1500 dollar puppy sold on LIMITED CONDITIONS, so I cant possibly say you are a puppy mill. But I must say, your opinion that you "are protecting the puppies and the breed" is interesting to say the least. If you claim that mass producing puppies and then dumping some years later the "retired mothers" in Golden Rescues is protecting the breed and the puppies (all for your profit) then you very likely are in my opinion a puppy mill.*

"You have absolutely NO clue how much time I invest in my puppies.*"
Again, up until your post, I had never heard of you. But you must feel that I was talking directly to you. If you sell them for profit at 8 weeks, I think I have a good idea how much time you invested....8 weeks.

To those other members that clicked on this thread for answers about the "rising cost of Golden Retriever puppies", the only advise I can give came from 14+years with my Golden best friend. My bo came from a very loving young family who provided an environment for him to start developing the best personality and life of any Golden. His family truly wanted only one thing of me (no contract, no restrictions, no long sales pitch) and that was to give their Golden Family's offspring the best quality and longest life I could provide. I did just that and was rewarded many times over. My advise: If the breeder truly cares about the puppy and the breed, the health and happiness of the puppy and its parents will show, not only in appearance but in its papered history. No FULL REGISTRATION papers and history tells me the lifespan will be short and troubled. FULL REGISTRATION and history of a happy Golden Family will yield a very pleasing best friend (in my case for over 14years right up to the last 45min of life!!)

To the for profit breeders: If your breeding practices only yield short life span dogs as well as shorten the life span of your "breeding stock", how can you possible claim to be improving the breed? That you sell a pup for $1500-$2500 doesn't bother me one bit. That you breed for profit a loved family member I totally understand! (And to those that fall in this class of breeders, I would never call you a BYB or PUPPYMILL. I get it. But to those that breed for the combination of PROFIT and Control of the offspring thru breeding contracts and Limited Registration, high five or "like" each other all you like, but admit at least to yourself that breeding an animal with more intelligence and compassion than your average 4 year 
old human is not improving the breed, just enriching yourself.


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

Geez, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. And no, I am not a breeder.
I have had goldens from reputable and not as reputable breeders, I loved them all the same. But, I learned so much from this forum and its members, breeders and non-breeders, that I really did my homework before I got my last puppy. And he is from a highly reputable breeder, with health, longevity, parents have all clearances, sire is a Grand champion and yes, it is on limited registration. And you know what? I could not care less if it is limited or full registration, because I don't plan on showing or breeding. 

Nobody is telling you that your dog was worth any less because he was not from a reputable breeder, we all love goldens here, regardless where they came from. But, please don't trash the reputable breeders here (kfayard is one of them) when you really don't know anything about them or anything about a reputable breeding program in the first place.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

AmbikaGR said:


> thomas&betts I am so sorry for your loss. They are never with us long enough. Your boy sounds like he was a WONDERFUL dog.
> Now for my take on the rest of your post.
> In my opinion you were lucky. Having bred a whopping 2 litters in the past thirteen and a half years I guess I am one of those "elite breeders" you speak of. And the "10 year mark" is the minimum a responsible breeder expects their pups to live, not the average age of death. Yep I charge more than $1000 dollars for one of my pups. Unless I have known you for some time you get the pup from me on limited registration. There are conditions you must agree to in a contract before I will consider you to have one of my pups. Yes I research the pedigrees of both dogs involved in the breeding (and as many dogs related to them as is possible) to help improve the odds that the pups will live long healthy lives. Do many health screenings on my girls before they are bred (and require the same of the boy). My girls must also prove to be within the Standard as presented by the Golden Retriever Club of America as must the boy I breed to.
> And I do all this because there is a responsibility that should come with breeding dogs and I take that VERY seriously. I love this breed too much to not do so. Will the breed go to pot because your breeder bred a litter 14 years ago? No, not from that one breeding. But let that be the norm for way breeding of Golden Retrievers are bred and it will be.


Thank You AmbikaGR. So much to agree with here and a few things to disagree with, but I do understand where YOU are coming from (not many puppies bread for sale in the past) so I totally get your concern. Without knowing what those other conditions in the contract are I cant form a negative opinion either. The previous post was delayed but after reading several post above, the Limited Registration Contracts from "breeders" are my rub....AND ONE BREEDER IN PARTICULAR ! The past few days have been quite a learning experience.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

Claudia M said:


> Kfayard - I think thomas&betts may have been more put off by the attitude of what he/she calls "elite breeders". About the limited registration thing that to me pretty much says right off the bet I do not trust you. As opposed to his/her previous experience of a friendly conversation.
> From this forum alone I can only count on one hand the breeders I would ever consider to purchase a puppy from.
> The prices have gone up, on everything, vet bills, food, supplies etc. Of course the price of a puppy would go up based on inflation.
> 
> Thomas&betts - I hope you find a breeder that you can sit down and talk to and create a relationship with that can result in a new puppy that you can spend the next decade and a half with.


Thank You Claudia, you hit the nail on the head. Its not the cost or the breeding, its who receives the compensation that matters.. Thanks Again.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

thomas&betts said:


> Thank You AmbikaGR. So much to agree with here and a few things to disagree with, but I do understand where YOU are coming from (not many puppies bread for sale in the past) so I totally get your concern. Without knowing what those other conditions in the contract are I cant form a negative opinion either. The previous post was delayed but after reading several post above, the Limited Registration Contracts from "breeders" are my rub....AND ONE BREEDER IN PARTICULAR ! The past few days have been quite a learning experience.


You posts make absolutely no sense. Limited registration protects the breed. It keeps people who don't know what they are doing from breeding dogs carelessly. Just because the breeder thinks they would be a good pet owner, doesn't mean they have any business trying to breed.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

thomas&betts said:


> Thank You Claudia, you hit the nail on the head. Its not the cost or the breeding, its who receives the compensation that matters.. Thanks Again.


Reputable breeders spend thousands of dollars *more* than they make off of puppy sales. Only byb's and puppy mills make money off the backs of their dogs.


----------



## nolefan (Nov 6, 2009)

thomas&betts said:


> ... the Limited Registration Contracts from "breeders" are my rub....AND ONE BREEDER IN PARTICULAR ! The past few days have been quite a learning experience.


I'm hoping that you will stick around here and keep learning. Has anyone given you an explanation of how and why "AKC Limited Registration" came into existence? Here is an explanation from a Labrador Retriever website:

Limited registration came about when AKC found out that breeders were withholding registration papers from pups that went to non-breeding homes. When the new owners would apply to AKC for new papers (some doing so because they went ahead and bred their dog anyway), they found that they could not since their dog was actually still registered in the breeders name….see DO I HAVE TO SEND IN THE REGISTRATION PAPERS? …..

AKC investigated and found that the breeders were not trying to be fraudulent or mean, they were just trying to protect the breed and their breeding lines against puppy mills and back yard breeders.

AKC came up with the Limited papers to help breeders selling non-breeding dogs to the public without having to keep those people from entering activity events with their dogs.

Full Registration ~ Full reg. is for breeding stock dogs and those that are being actively shown in the bench (dog show) conformation ring. Period.

If you ARE NOT a breeder, you DO NOT need full registration on your dog. The only difference between Limited and Full reg. is that with Full registration, the papers that you get are bordered in purple instead of orange, and IF your dog has pups, they can be registered with either Full or Limited registration.

Limited registration can be changed to Full registration by the breeder once the dog has meet whatever criteria the breeder has set forth to do so.

The definition of a backyard breeder is someone who has no bad intentions but is breeding dogs with no effort off thought being put into pedigrees or making sure the strengths and weaknesses of the mother and father compliment each other both physically and mentally. The AKC registration sounds great, but it means not a thing really if the parents have an inappropriate temperament and are difficult to train etc. That is why when the breed became so popular many years ago you started seeing Golden Retrievers who were so excitable and unfocused and couldn't focus to learn a command, Golden retrievers who are 100 pounds, Golden Retrievers who won't get in the water or have no interest in retrieving a tennis ball or are aloof with strangers, overly shy or borderline aggressive with strangers or other dogs. These are all completely hereditary components and when you lose them because you don't take them into account when choosing the parents of the puppy, you lose the beauty of the original Golden Retrievers.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

There's no reason to sell puppies on full registration to pet homes. Pet homes don't show in conformation, and don't have the knowledge or the years it would take to gather it to breed Goldens. No matter what sort of registration you get, all you are limited by w/limited is conformation showing and breeding. Pedigree is the same as is the health history- so when someone comes to me and insists they must have a full registration, I find that troublesome- a pet home is buying a pet, not a show dog and not a breeding dog. Those are the only two reasons for a full registration- there are no others. And if a pet person is insisting he must have full when he has no intention of doing one of those two things, I am left to assume he is not telling the truth. But then, I am one of those people who pretty much operates in black and white. The terms under which I am willing to sell a pet puppy to a pet home are clear, and I have the right to determine those terms. Limited registration is one of those. If you don't think that is in the interest of protecting the breed, you need more education and understanding.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

cgriffin said:


> Geez, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. And no, I am not a breeder.
> I have had goldens from reputable and not as reputable breeders, I loved them all the same. But, I learned so much from this forum and its members, breeders and non-breeders, that I really did my homework before I got my last puppy. And he is from a highly reputable breeder, with health, longevity, parents have all clearances, sire is a Grand champion and yes, it is on limited registration. And you know what? I could not care less if it is limited or full registration, because I don't plan on showing or breeding.
> 
> Nobody is telling you that your dog was worth any less because he was not from a reputable breeder, we all love goldens here, regardless where they came from. But, please don't trash the reputable breeders here (kfayard is one of them) when you really don't know anything about them or anything about a reputable breeding program in the first place.


Its as if you didn't read the post at all. Let me distill this down for puppy buyers questioning higher cost of Golden Retriever puppies. Cost of everything, including producing 2mo old puppies had increased. Good quality Golden pups are worth every penny and then some. BEWARE the trap. *Caring families* must protect their babies offspring and know of a Limited Registration method to prevent opportunistic careless buyers from exploiting thru breeding for profit. GOOD USE. Opportunistic careless breeders use Limited Registration to sell puppy mill (pet quality) bred puppies. Better than a disclaimer in their book! See the trap! ****** it you do, ****** if you dont. The scoundrels are hiding amongst the saints. Please lord let me find one more saint!
Tom


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

To put things simply (and un-sugarcoated) as possible, Limited Registration has absolutely *Nothing* to do with the quality of a puppy or litter. Limited Registration is all about the quality of the *OWNER*.

Full Registration isn't purchased or given away. It is *EARNED*.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

thomas&betts said:


> Its as if you didn't read the post at all. Let me distill this down for puppy buyers questioning higher cost of Golden Retriever puppies. Cost of everything, including producing 2mo old puppies had increased. Good quality Golden pups are worth every penny and then some. BEWARE the trap. *Caring families* must protect their babies offspring and know of a Limited Registration method to prevent opportunistic careless buyers from exploiting thru breeding for profit. GOOD USE. Opportunistic careless breeders use Limited Registration to sell puppy mill (pet quality) bred puppies. Better than a disclaimer in their book! See the trap! ****** it you do, ****** if you dont. The scoundrels are hiding amongst the saints. Please lord let me find one more saint!
> Tom


What? This makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## nolefan (Nov 6, 2009)

ANd for the record, your next door neighbors who charge $500 for their puppies and end up with a litter of 10 puppies will sell them for $5000. Take out $500 for vet care for the mother and shots and worming for the puppies and then take out $500 for food and some other necessities and it seems like you neighbor has netted $4000 on selling their puppies on Craig's list. Why is it ok with you if your neighbor makes $4000 on his litter? I can pretty much guarantee you that if one of our serious hobby breeders makes that sum on a litter it will already have been spent on reproductive costs, stud fees, health clearances, money spent training and traveling to get titles on the mother, Toys, vitamins and probiotics etc. for the puppies and a savings account so that if there is another litter in another year or two there is money for the emergency account in the event of a c-section, life saving care for a critically ill puppy etc. If you next door neighbor ends up with a newborn pup with a serious illness, chances are the puppy will die before your neighbor realizes there is anything seriously wrong with it. The hobby breeder is sleeping with her puppies and up around the clock weighing them and making sure each is nursing etc. The minute she realizes something isn't right with a pup it goes to the vet, and no expense is spared in saving it's life. Same with the mother if there is a ruptured placenta requiring an emergency c-section etc. Trust me, the people doing this the right way are not getting rich doing it.

Try looking at a couple threads here on this forum where our hobby breeders have shared photos of their new litter. There are toys and handmade interactive puppy playsets to stimulate their minds, new textures for them to explore. It is not a cardboard box in a laundry room or garage or out in a remote kennel.

http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/...18812078_713395922664201593_o_zps79b41b51.jpg

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com...ight-litter-tonka-x-lushie-5.html#post4562097

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com...650-detour-x-remi-4-weeks-video-advi-box.html

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=366122&stc=1&d=1395150912

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com...104668-visit-dichi-chance-x-molly-litter.html

Please take a look at these links and scroll through the thread to see the photos, then you tell me how much of a puppy mill these people are. They are Facebook friends and exchange CHristmas cards and their puppy families are friends now. How many times did you talk on the phone with Bo's family? I speak to the breeders of my two dogs ever month. We didn't know each other 5 years ago but we are friends now because of the puppies I brought home.  How does that fit in with a puppy mill?


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

Actually, I have seen BYB sell puppies on full registration, because they don't care. Why would they? All they did was throw two AKC registered dogs together to breed, without having all the necessary clearances on those dogs. So, they really don't care if you breed the offspring or not. They are only in it for the money they make off of the puppies sold. 

Thomas&betts: So, you might actually want to read through this forum to learn something instead of bashing everybody especially since you really don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

Eowyn said:


> Reputable breeders spend thousands of dollars *more* than they make off of puppy sales. Only byb's and puppy mills make money off the backs of their dogs.


Only reputable businesses lose money. Only non reputable businesses make money. Are you really going to push that on the internet? 
Sorry friend, I don't buy it! As a business owner of 15 yrs and going strong, profit is the only way a non Gov subsidized business can survive. Your claiming long term breeders 15+ years can absorb 15 yrs of net loss? So they breed 10 to 50 puppies or more per year and lose "thousands of dollars more" than the proceeds of the sales? Really??:doh:


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

I smell troll or something else............


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

thomas&betts said:


> Only reputable businesses lose money. Only non reputable businesses make money. Are you really going to push that on the internet?
> Sorry friend, I don't buy it! As a business owner of 15 yrs and going strong, profit is the only way a non Gov subsidized business can survive. Your claiming long term breeders 15+ years can absorb 15 yrs of net loss? So they breed 10 to 50 puppies or more per year and lose "thousands of dollars more" than the proceeds of the sales? Really??:doh:


I think that's where you're confused - reputable breeders don't consider themselves to be a business at all and they aren't in it for the money. They most often lose money on litters because they invest so much into the well being of their dogs. It's another reason why they are sometimes referred to as "hobby breeders," because hobbies cost money.


----------



## hubbub (Jun 28, 2011)

CharlieBear80 said:


> I think that's where you're confused - reputable breeders don't consider themselves to be a business at all and they aren't in it for the money. They most often lose money on litters because they invest so much into the well being of their dogs. It's another reason why they are sometimes referred to as "hobby breeders," because hobbies cost money.


I couldn't have said this better myself.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Backing up on Limited Registration. Limited Registration only keeps you from registering with AKC any puppies that dog produces and it keeps you from showing in conformation shows in AKC. All other venues such as UKC are still open to you. So really it is only a barrier in AKC. I don't understand why Limited Registration is being made such an issue? I've had both registration types on the goldens I've owned. I've yet to breed a litter, and I may never. 

Going back to the OP, I am surprised this has become such a huge issue. Your simple inquiry over the price of puppies these days has been undermined by TROLLS!


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

Sorry folks, was given friendly reminder by mod of forum rules(re: post#113 asterisk's) which I must obey. Thanks for the comments. Tom


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Alaska7133 said:


> Going back to the OP, I am surprised this has become such a huge issue. Your simple inquiry over the price of puppies these days has been undermined by TROLLS!


Any thread ultimately draws trolls.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

A few notes regarding what is referred to as reputable breeders (interchangeable with the term hobby breeder):

Mass production of puppies: the majority of reputable breeders usually breeder somewhere between two litters a year to one litter every few years. There are exceptions, but these are usually breeders who have been breeding for decades and have the experience and support group to allow them to do so successfully.

Profit: these breeders are not breeding to make money. This is their hobby and their passion. The goal is to make dogs who will make all around good golden retrievers, in looks, temperament, structure, and health. It cost a small fortune to have a dog independently tested to show they should be bred (rather than someone say "fido is so sweet and healthy, I must pass on his genes), get health clearances showing their dog does not have any health concerns, and provide the best care for the mom and the puppies. These are the same breeders that will take the puppies they bred back at any time for any reason.

Lifespan: when I'm puppy looking, I'm looking at pedigrees that show dogs who averaged 14-16 years or more


----------



## AlanK (Jun 28, 2008)

thomas&betts said:


> Sorry folks, was given friendly reminder by mod of forum rules(re: post#113 asterisk's) which I must obey. Thanks for the comments. Tom


Thank you for understanding the guidelines of our forum  We do want everyone's opinion and thoughts on topics that is how we learn.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Eowyn said:


> You posts make absolutely no sense. Limited registration protects the breed. It keeps people who don't know what they are doing from breeding dogs carelessly. Just because the breeder thinks they would be a good pet owner, doesn't mean they have any business trying to breed.


Limited registration does not protect the breed. IMHO It only tells the buyers that the breeder does not trust them and it shows that the breeder can care less about knowing who they sell the puppy to. 

As I said couple pages earlier, when I adopted Darcy she came on full registration, however in the contract it specified exactly the requirements before I can breed her. I personally have no problems with the stipulations. I am doing clearances not because I believe the puppies will be better off but because I want to know where my girls are as far as health (if they could only talk I could save a couple thousand dollars). The titles and the rest make sense to me. 

What does that mean for both myself and the breeder - to keep a close relationship for at least the life of the pup (in Darcy's case a 4 year old dog). 

I can only say that I absolutely adore Darcy's breeder. And honestly the more I come in contact with flat coated retriever breeders the more I like them. Completely different atmosphere/"airs" at the shows between the goldens and the flat coats.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Eowyn said:


> Reputable breeders spend thousands of dollars *more* than they make off of puppy sales. Only byb's and puppy mills make money off the backs of their dogs.


While the first breeding takes more money all the subsequent breedings do not - especially at $2000 a pup.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

CharlieBear80 said:


> I think that's where you're confused - reputable breeders don't consider themselves to be a business at all and they aren't in it for the money. They most often lose money on litters because they invest so much into the well being of their dogs. It's another reason why they are sometimes referred to as "hobby breeders," because hobbies cost money.


LOL - puppy buyers lose ten thousand times more moneys just by buying the pup. 

No one is asking the breeder to pay pro handlers to show and handle their dogs in conformation, agility, tracking, docking, track or field for a trophy dog out of which they can charge more because of the titles. 

I look up to a breeder (including stud dogs) who actually spend the time to train themselves and take the journey together. Only a hand-full of those! 

Some BYBs that are put down here actually take their dogs hunting - real hunting and not make-belief hunt tests. While they have trained the dogs and have no titles to show for they actually spent the time with the dogs. Only a hand-full of those!

Bottom line, get to know the breeder either "elite" or "BYB" and let them know you, walk away from the others and make the best possible decision for your next 15 years or so. 

I am not begrudging profits. I am however begrudging the "holier than thou" attitude which unfortunately once again this thread like many others has turned into.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> While the first breeding takes more money all the subsequent breedings do not - especially at $2000 a pup.


Well only if that were true.... I have spent more money the 2nd breeding than my 1st. I barely broke even.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> LOL - puppy buyers lose ten thousand times more moneys just by buying the pup.
> 
> No one is asking the breeder to pay pro handlers to show and handle their dogs in conformation, agility, tracking, docking, track or field for a trophy dog out of which they can charge more because of the titles.
> 
> ...


I have not seem the "holier than thou" statements. Just obviously people on both sides that are very passionate in what they believe.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Claudia, if I may ask you because you keep mentioning the limited registration on threads. What is the big deal if one is placed on limited if one does not intend to breed or show? Why in the world would it even matter?? That is what I do not get.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> While the first breeding takes more money all the subsequent breedings do not - especially at $2000 a pup.



You do realize that not all breedings are successful on the first try. 
Over the years I have actually done 6 breedings and only 2 resulted in pups. 
Folks need to look at things from a breeder's perspective and actually breed before making all this statements. 
Limited registration IS a good thing. It does help to protect the breed to some extent. While you can all talk about how it is a lack of trust it is much more than that. And if a person proves out to be someone that is a candidate to breed their pup after the dog has proven it is worthy of being bred, the limited registration can be reversed. I did it with my Keeper as she was purchased on a limited registration, got all her clearances, titled her and she was a nice example of the breed according to the standard her breeder happily reversed it to full registration. Had her litter on her second breeding.


----------



## Goldylover2 (May 1, 2014)

nolefan said:


> The definition of a backyard breeder is someone who has no bad intentions but is breeding dogs with no effort off thought being put into pedigrees or making sure the strengths and weaknesses of the mother and father compliment each other both physically and mentally. The AKC registration sounds great, but it means not a thing really if the parents have an inappropriate temperament and are difficult to train etc. That is why when the breed became so popular many years ago you started seeing Golden Retrievers who were so excitable and unfocused and couldn't focus to learn a command, Golden retrievers who are 100 pounds, Golden Retrievers who won't get in the water or have no interest in retrieving a tennis ball or are aloof with strangers, overly shy or borderline aggressive with strangers or other dogs. These are all completely hereditary components and when you lose them because you don't take them into account when choosing the parents of the puppy, you lose the beauty of the original Golden Retrievers.


I bought my last golden for 250 bucks from a family within 10 miles of my home over ten years ago. They did not have papers. That didn't matter to me. I had no intention of breeding pups. My golden was a 95 pound female with huge paws. She had all the temperament a golden has. She loved people. Dogs not nearly as much. She was never really introduced to the water. She retrieved balls and learned all the basic commands easily. There was no loss in this golden even if the owners didn't do the so called background check of the parents. With so many threads started with this ailment or that ailment that their golden has. It is sad. But whether you pay 250 all the way up to $1800. Cancer and other abnormal conditions can and will occur. For people to say in this thread that a breeder who asks $1500 for a pup multiplied 6 or 8 times and done over a two or three times doesn't make money. C'mon!!! Many of us were born at night, just not last night.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

thomas&betts said:


> In my opinion, a person mass producing puppies in a mill like setting for PROFIT, then DICTATING to a private individual who purchases an 8 week old puppy, that they must not breed or show (conformation) that same well cared for adorable puppy years later, might just have a puppy mill operation. It is my opinion that puppies taken from their mother by "breeders?" and then sold for profit as Limited Registration Quality (sorry, thats "pet quality" in puppy mills speak) warning of short 10 yr life spans, as well as those who would protest vigorously any suggestion they are running a puppy mill (likely indicating some level of guilt) might just be a puppy mill operation!*"You paid $400 14 years ago, prices have went up even with BYB Goldens.*" In the case of Bo, his mother and father were not "BYB", but rather indoor AKC registered family members of a young Wisconsin mother and father with kids.
> 
> 
> *"So, because I charge $1500 and have restrictions because I am protecting the puppies and the breed... I am a puppy mill??*"
> ...


So BYB don't make a profit?? Puppy mills do not sell on limited because they could care less about the puppy. 

I really feel sad that you feel because a breeder charges more and ask you to fill out a questionnaire about yourself is a puppy mill. Seriously?? So you just want someone to open the door and throw a puppy to you and wave bye at you? 
2nd I am FAR FAR from a puppy mill, but if you consider one litter a year and researching endlessly, checking clearances, pedigrees, and talking to potential puppy buyers is puppy millish than yes I guess I fall into that category! Did you know reputable breeders take the dogs that they have bred back at any point in the dog's life? I received messages daily from my puppy owners. I help them in any way that I can. MY dogs are my Pets not property to dump when they are no longer good! Do you honestly know what reputable breeders do? I feel like you have. Wrong misconception.

Nope you do not know me or have never heard of me, but you made a blank statement about reputable breeders, so I spoke up. I did not know that I wasn't supposed to back up my practices! My bad :uhoh:

No, see where you are wrong is that you absolutely no idea how much I do with my puppies. I do not just feed them and send them on their way to new homes. I think it is pretty ridiculous that you think BYB don't make a profit? So why would it be okay for a BYB to make a profit who does nothing to improve the breed over a reputable breeder who does all clearances and TRIES to do everything to help diminish the problems of the breed?


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Goldylover2 said:


> She had all the temperament a golden has. She loved people. Dogs not nearly as much.



And any breeder of Goldens worth anything would never accept this temperament as that of a GOLDEN. NEVER!!!


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Goldylover2 said:


> I bought my last golden for 250 bucks from a family within 10 miles of my home over ten years ago. They did not have papers. That didn't matter to me. I had no intention of breeding pups. My golden was a 95 pound female with huge paws. She had all the temperament a golden has. She loved people. Dogs not nearly as much. She was never really introduced to the water. She retrieved balls and learned all the basic commands easily. There was no loss in this golden even if the owners didn't do the so called background check of the parents. With so many threads started with this ailment or that ailment that their golden has. It is sad. But whether you pay 250 all the way up to $1800. Cancer and other abnormal conditions can and will occur. For people to say in this thread that a breeder who asks $1500 for a pup multiplied 6 or 8 times and done over a two or three times doesn't make money. C'mon!!! Many of us were born at night, just not last night.


Someone can absolutely make a profit, I do not think anyone has stated that they do not. I know BYB that charge $500-$600. So you do not think that they make a profit? That is all I am asking. 

I, personally, do not see what is wrong if someone makes a little profit. The problem I have is if they are making a profit and not investing it back in the dogs.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

I'm not a breeder, yet, but I will be. When I am, I will sell the vast majority of puppies on a limited registration. Not because I "don't trust" the buyer, or because I'm a "puppy mill," but because I don't want those dogs to be bred. And because I'm the breeder, I get the privilege of choosing. My goal will be to breed only the very best (according to _my_ standards and goals) dogs from a litter. And I will not have my dogs bred unless they are bred to my standards, which includes not only the quality of dog but the breeding practices used.

So, unless you buy the pick puppy from me, you're going to get a limited registration whether you're someone I just met or my best friend in the world and the person I trust the most in life.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Look guys, we all love our Goldens no matter where they came from. I have rescue dogs that have lived a great life and love them dearly. I just would rather support someone that is trying to diminish the problems in the breed. We have enough problems especially cancer.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> What does that mean for both myself and the breeder - to keep a close relationship for at least the life of the pup (in Darcy's case a 4 year old dog).
> 
> I can only say that I absolutely adore Darcy's breeder. And honestly the more I come in contact with flat coated retriever breeders the more I like them. Completely different atmosphere/"airs" at the shows between the goldens and the flat coats.


Now I am confused. Pardon me if I am mixing forum stories, but I thought Darcy was a rescue? Wasn't she the one who spent most of her life in a crate with a bark collar and on anti depressants? All done by a vet?

I found the quote I was thinking off in the blue buffalo lawsuit thread.


Claudia M said:


> Not many people here know Darcy's history. She was on some stupid vet diet. GThe same vet that kept her crated 12+ hours a day with a bark collar on her and on anti-depression meds for 4 years.


----------



## Goldylover2 (May 1, 2014)

AmbikaGR said:


> And any breeder of Goldens worth anything would never accept this temperament as that of a GOLDEN. NEVER!!!


She liked dogs and played with every dog that came to the house. But she liked people more. All dogs have different personalities. Every golden isn't the same. You need to get off your high horse and stop categorizing a family that breeds pups across town or a so called elite breeder who charges 5 to 8 times more.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Goldylover2 said:


> She liked dogs and played with every dog that came to the house. But she liked people more. All dogs have different personalities. Every golden isn't the same. You need to get off your high horse and stop categorizing a family that breeds pups across town or a so called elite breeder who charges 5 to 8 times more.



Oh geez... I don't think anyone is on a high horse. There are many on here that are very passionate about doing the right thing for The golden breed. 

You may not care or choose to care, but some of us do. You may not think it makes a difference, but some of us do.

We know all Goldens are different, what he was trying to imply is that the temperament of your dog does not meet the standard of a golden. I am sorry if you are taking this as a stab at you. I don't think it was meant to be.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Goldylover2 said:


> She liked dogs and played with every dog that came to the house. But she liked people more. All dogs have different personalities. Every golden isn't the same. You need to get off your high horse and stop categorizing a family that breeds pups across town or a so called elite breeder who charges 5 to 8 times more.


WWWWHHHHHOOOAAAA!!! EEAAASSYYY DDDOOOES IITTTT!!
Take a deep breath. Now.
The HALLMARK of a GOLDEN is it's GOLDEN temperament. NUMBER ONE!!
I may have misunderstood what you meant BUT I never catagorized anyone. Go throughout this entire thread and forum and find one post where I EVER did that. 
I stand behind every word I typed. If that means I am on a high horse, then dammit so be it. This breed is too special to me to just let folks think any thing goes when it comes to breeding Goldens. It is NOT!!! Not if this breed is to continue on as he breed we all love. And if you do not like the price another breeder charges than you do not have to buy a pup from them, go elsewhere. If you want full registration on your pup then go to a breeder who will give you that. But I am tired of folks complaining about it and that a breeder is greedy. No one can ever force anyone to buy a pup they do not want.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

There is a BYB here in my area that breeds goldens. He breeds all his bitches back to back. I think he has 6 bitches. He definitely is making a living at it. My niece bought a puppy from him. Funniest looking golden I ever saw. AKC full registration. But definitely someone was lying on the paperwork, had to be 1/2 sled dog. That's the other thing about BYB that make a living off of it. How do you know they are truthful on their paperwork? So you had a cup of coffee with them, but you really don't know that they are making sure that X dog was bred to Y dog. I'd rather pay more attention to someone who has a reputation for producing great puppies. Personally it works for my remodeling business, referrals are the best way to go. My niece is still happy with her dog. He is a nice boy, but he's got a curly sled dog tail and likes to run like a sled dog. She paid $1,000 for him. Now that is called FRAUD.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Some of you folks have some pretty odd and, frankly, unusually hostile opinions about breeders that don't square with reality. And those of you who have those opinions seem completely closed minded about learning any differently. "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind," kind of attitudes. I think if you took a time-out from your agenda and listened to people with an open heart, you might learn a lot of interesting things that you'd appreciate knowing, whether or not you change your mind about prices, or limited registrations, or whatever.

There is a tremendous amount of information to learn. And knowing is better than not knowing. So, it might be worthwhile to listen to people's hearts and minds, just for the education.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Could everyone please be civil and keep their filthy language out of this discussion! I am tired of flagging posts! Although I enjoy opportunities to see things from other peoples point of view I will bowing out of this conversation since it seems people will not stop swearing.


----------



## ang.suds (Apr 1, 2014)

I have enjoyed this thread in many ways in that I have learned a lot about breeding that I didn't know before. So, I thank you all for that. 
We were given our Jack years ago by a very reputable breeder and enjoyed him to pieces. He was a stud but the breeder knew he needed that special love home where there were not many dogs. Love of our lives. Here is his link by the breeder if anybody is interested, not in puppies but just Jack:
CastleRock Jack
I don't know anything about breeding nor about proper grooming at home, showing etc but we gave him an amazing life full of love and our breeder/co-owner knew it. The only reason we were brought to Jack is because our pet store bought golden retriever (I know, this is horrible, we were uneducated, didn't know better, but learned after loving the breed) had a very unfortunate accident followed by a rare disease, Blastomycosis. We loved him so much and fought so hard that our vet referred us to this extremely reputable breeder...that's how Jack came to be for us. 
I guess I'm trying to say that we can all learn from each other and grow. Everybody has a unique history and situation. We all have different levels of knowledge and history. But what binds us together is our dear dogs Wherever they come from, however it came to be, we continue to learn and love. Just as they do
Thanks all for your informative posts and I hope that no hard feelings are held. This forum is money only if in the end, we agree to disagree and love on.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

kfayard said:


> I just would rather support someone that is trying to diminish the problems in the breed.


This x1000.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Eowyn said:


> Now I am confused. Pardon me if I am mixing forum stories, but I thought Darcy was a rescue? Wasn't she the one who spent most of her life in a crate with a bark collar and on anti depressants? All done by a vet?
> 
> I found the quote I was thinking off in the blue buffalo lawsuit thread.


Yup, because of the contract, the breeder was able to take her back from the original owner. Initially she wanted to keep her but Darcy and her mother did not get along. I offered to keep her during Darcy's heat and see if Rose and her will get along no hard feelings on either part if either the breeder did not like her with us or Rose and her would not be a good match. In less than a month we signed the contract and we adopted her. Here is a little bit of our "first steps":

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-hunt-field/203289-flat-coated-retriever.html

That is what a good breeder does. They keep in touch with the owners and make sure their puppies are OK. 
Not sell a puppy on Limited Registration because they have absolutely no clue who they are shipping the pups to.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

kfayard said:


> Claudia, if I may ask you because you keep mentioning the limited registration on threads. What is the big deal if one is placed on limited if one does not intend to breed or show? Why in the world would it even matter?? That is what I do not get.


Bottom line, it starts the relationship with the breeder stating I do not trust you with the pup I am selling to you. Any relationship that starts with a lack of trust should not start AT ALL. 

Rose has full registration. When I saw that she was getting taller than her mom, sisters and some brothers I decided she was not going to be bred no matter how much I love her personality and train-ability. I still did the clearances for her and am still continuing them even though she had the Ovary Sparing Spay. It would have taken way too much research in a stud considering her height and the fact that she is Itch Carrier and too much risk for the breed. 

LOL - amazing how much I got yelled at and insulted at the mention of even considering breeding her when she was not even 4 months old on this forum.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Claudia M said:


> Bottom line, it starts the relationship with the breeder stating I do not trust you with the pup I am selling to you. Any relationship that starts with a lack of trust should not start AT ALL.


It would be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't. If it did, there would be no need for written contracts of any kind. Have you ever signed a contract for a car loan or a mortgage? If so, then you've violated your own principle about relationships even starting.

Written contracts setting forth exactly what the parties want -- including not breeding and limited registration -- is simply good, smart practice.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

DanaRuns said:


> It would be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't. If it did, there would be no need for written contracts of any kind. Have you ever signed a contract for a car loan or a mortgage? If so, then you've violated your own principle about relationships even starting.
> 
> Written contracts setting forth exactly what the parties want -- including not breeding and limited registration -- is simply good, smart practice.


LOL - if you have a contract then why the need of Limited Registration? Unless you are too busy to enforce it or keep in touch with the buyer.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> Bottom line, it starts the relationship with the breeder stating I do not trust you with the pup I am selling to you. Any relationship that starts with a lack of trust should not start AT ALL.
> 
> Rose has full registration. When I saw that she was getting taller than her mom, sisters and some brothers I decided she was not going to be bred no matter how much I love her personality and train-ability. I still did the clearances for her and am still continuing them even though she had the Ovary Sparing Spay. It would have taken way too much research in a stud considering her height and the fact that she is Itch Carrier and too much risk for the breed.
> 
> LOL - amazing how much I got yelled at and insulted at the mention of even considering breeding her when she was not even 4 months old on this forum.



I guess you and I just see the "limited registration" differently. I absolutely love and trust all of my puppy homes. Some are now my very good friends. We all know that life happens, accidents happen, and anything could happen. 

If I did not trust a puppy buyer, I would not even consider them as a match for one of my puppies. Most puppy buyers that I have been around do not mind limited registration. 

I think if you are a very small kennel a breed every 5 years or so, it is easier to keep track of puppies and puppy buyers. Even if you breed just once a year and say have 8 puppies over 10 years that is 80 homes. 80 different families to "Trust." If that makes sense.

I think a lot of us (including myself) prejudge people before knowing the facts.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

This just goes back to easier said than done. My good friend has been breeding for 30+ years. I can NOT imagine her trying to keep track of all of those puppies once they are bred. She does not even bred often, but does that mean she doesn't care? Of course not. She can't possibly email or message daily or weekly. But, if the buyer ever has an issue or problem, she is there for them.


----------



## Cookie's Mom (Oct 14, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> LOL - if you have a contract then why the need of Limited Registration? Unless you are too busy to enforce it or keep in touch with the buyer.



There are cases where the breeder tries their best to keep in contact but it is the buyer who is MIA. In my opinion, limited registration is a preventative measure for these buyers who may have misrepresented themselves to the breeder to get their hands on a pup. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> That is what a good breeder does. They keep in touch with the owners and make sure their puppies are OK.
> Not sell a puppy on Limited Registration because they have absolutely no clue who they are shipping the pups to.


Really? That's kind of absurd.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

DanaRuns said:


> Some of you folks have some pretty odd and, frankly, unusually hostile opinions about breeders that don't square with reality. And those of you who have those opinions seem completely closed minded about learning any differently. "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind," kind of attitudes. I think if you took a time-out from your agenda and listened to people with an open heart, you might learn a lot of interesting things that you'd appreciate knowing, whether or not you change your mind about prices, or limited registrations, or whatever.
> 
> There is a tremendous amount of information to learn. And knowing is better than not knowing. So, it might be worthwhile to listen to people's hearts and minds, just for the education.


Funny that open mindedness thing....does that include trying to silence dissenting opinions as was done with regard to post #113, while ignoring the words of others above? One of the posters asked why it meant so much to a puppy buyer if he/she had no intention of breeding, that the puppy be sold on Limited Registration. If I may answer that question without being called a troll or any other name in an attempt to protect the sacred argument that Limited Breeding Contracts are only used by honest ethical breeders to better the breed, I would explain the regret of not breeding (and never even considered breeding) a recent lost friend that can never be replaced. To not have that option after seeing what a quality bred Golden had become (at 2 to 3 years of age) because the "Breeder" wants to retain that control while enriching themselves seems foolish. I have seen many GR breeder websites list the number of pups in a litter, offer to sell Limited Registration (to better the breed) and yet never keep even one of the "quality" pups they breed. If they did, they didn't disclose that to any of the pick buyers (which is a Fraud), and they say after breeding to better the breed, I want $X for every pup I sell. Fine, but how did you better the breed. Any limits on Full Registration should be disclosed up front on a breeders website, and if truly used for the betterment of the GR Breed, should simply require SAME OR BETTER test results than the parents that were bred WITHOUT ANY OTHER STIPULATION before further breeding of this better lineage, or expect buyers to question your "bettering the breed" argument. Seems the Chinese government used to breed babies. If they were born Female to a controlled subject, they were aborted if I recall. A true breeder that had a contract with its subjects that bettered the breed? Now the disclaimer. *ALL OF WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOVE IS NOT INTENDED TO OFFEND ANYBODY AND IS JUST MY OPINION. NONE OF YOU HAVE ANYTHING BUT ADORABLE GOLDEN RETRIEVERS!! I KNOW, I SPENT MANY ENJOYABLE HOURS LOOKING THROUGH THE PICS ON THE THREAD RUSS STARTED. NOTHING IS DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR. PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES IF GUILT DRIVES YOU TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.*


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Darn it... I guess I am not a good breeder... Shucks! I require pet puppies to be placed on limited registration because I do not want the owners to breed them. 

If a puppy buyer/owner competes with that dog and proves that dog in some venue, gets a CCA, and clearances... Then will I lift the limited to full. But, I will NOT allow some just to breed their dog without my knowledge. Sorry. If I am on some kinda high horse, I hope it kicks me to the ground softly!

If you don't agree then that is fine. We just have to agree to disagree. You have your way, I have mine.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Hi all,

Let's try keep the tone of our posts polite. I know this can be a hot button issue. Let's just remember to read what we wrote before we hit "post" and think about how our post may be taken by others. Thanks!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Thought I'd spam this thread with a couple pictures.  



















One of these dogs is a limited registration purchased doglet..... and the other was purchased with full registration (I did not ask for it). 

The one is a show dog - got another blue ribbon for our stack here at home. And we actually had the judge LOOKING at us in the Winners Ring today and she clearly liked him when we were out there for our class. The dogs who got the nod for Winners Dog and Reserve - Bertie's not that filled in (muscle/bone) just yet, but I can see him being there when he finally is all grown up. He has the right attitude out there and shows his little puppy heart out for all that matters.  

The other boy could have been a show dog. A good friend and mentor of mine was obsessed with him when he was younger and kept urging me to go back to his breeder to get full registration to show him. I never did it because there was no point in showing a dog with hip dysplasia and anxiety issues. Though I was flattered that she and others in the know were so positive about him.  All that really matters to me is this boy has a few obedience titles (and will get more). 

There's a lot of bad stuff out there. I think you have people on this thread who feel crushed or upset if they find their choices criticized or downplayed in any way. My feeling is wherever you got your dog - I'm sure you love your dog, and of course you are going to feel defensive and get drawn into strange arguments over your dog. Despite your better thinking weeks or months from now when you go back and cringe about the things you said in the heat of the moment. 

The facts are that people like me and others on this thread are going to be promoting only the best for the breed. This means promoting GOOD breeders who are doing everything they can to make sure they are producing a generation of dogs better than the last generation. Or it at least means guiding new people towards good breeders who will at least sell them puppies who will be everything the golden retriever breed should be, because the breeders _selectively_ bred that litter. 

The term backyard breeder doesn't necessarily just mean "the dogs lived and were bred randomly in the backyard". It generally refers to those breeders who are Mom and Pop types who wanted to have at least one litter out of their females before spaying them. And I'm not the only one who has had her boys propositioned by the types of people desperate to get a stud for their dogs. What winds up happening is these people breed to whatever they can get their hands on. Meaning there is no selective choice or thinking in the matter. 

It gets chalked up as snobbery or prejudice, or I've even seen some people bring up class warfare (LOL). And it's not that. If it were, you would not see such a huge push by various people sticking their necks out and trying to educate and help. 

And I think you have to be really grateful that people are being nice and helpful. And not critiquing your own dogs. Most do not - thank goodness! 

While waiting to go back out into the show ring, I got a whole earful from two ladies who were openly critiquing dogs in the show ring while waiting to go out there with their own dogs. This is just bad manners, particularly if there are owners nearby. >.< 

The funny thing was these ladies would probably have been confounded standing on the side and listening to what my youngest dog's breeder (who is an AKC judge) has said on structure, movement, and so on.  

But anyway - it's a holiday weekend! Have fun - don't fight!


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

thomas&betts said:


> Funny that open mindedness thing....does that include trying to silence dissenting opinions as was done with regard to post #113, while ignoring the words of others above? One of the posters asked why it meant so much to a puppy buyer if he/she had no intention of breeding, that the puppy be sold on Limited Registration. If I may answer that question without being called a troll or any other name in an attempt to protect the sacred argument that Limited Breeding Contracts are only used by honest ethical breeders to better the breed, I would explain the regret of not breeding (and never even considered breeding) a recent lost friend that can never be replaced. To not have that option after seeing what a quality bred Golden had become (at 2 to 3 years of age) because the "Breeder" wants to retain that control while enriching themselves seems foolish.


It may be me but I really do not understand what you are saying here. Why is that "option" not realized? Is it because the dog has not passed all it's clearances? Is it because the dog does not fall in line with the Breed standard? Is it because the pups can not be registered with the AKC? 




thomas&betts said:


> I have seen many GR breeder websites list the number of pups in a litter, offer to sell Limited Registration (to better the breed) and yet never keep even one of the "quality" pups they breed. If they did, they didn't disclose that to any of the pick buyers (which is a Fraud), and they say after breeding to better the breed, I want $X for every pup I sell. Fine, but how did you better the breed.


You realize if they "never keep even one of the quality pups" they soon have no dogs to breed. So that does not happen as often as you may think. Sometimes breeders will repeat a breeding they did that went well because there are others that would like a pup from that same breeding. And a breeder does not have to tell anyone if they plan to keep a pup from a litter. If they do decide to do so that is their right. But I think what you are describing is very rare. More often than not it is puppy people who decide to change their mind and not take a pup leaving the breeder to find a home for a pup they already thought had one. 
They better the breed by breeding dogs that first have the GOLDEN temperament, have ALL their health clearances, fall in the breed standard thus vastly improving the odds that the pups that go to their forever homes are healthy Goldens.



thomas&betts said:


> Any limits on Full Registration should be disclosed up front on a breeders website, and if truly used for the betterment of the GR Breed, should simply require SAME OR BETTER test results than the parents that were bred WITHOUT ANY OTHER STIPULATION before further breeding of this better lineage, or expect buyers to question your "bettering the breed" argument. Seems the Chinese government used to breed babies. If they were born Female to a controlled subject, they were aborted if I recall. A true breeder that had a contract with its subjects that bettered the breed? Now the disclaimer.


And if the breeder does not have a website, many do not? And most contracts will not be honored by the courts in many states. Never mind the expense and time delay it would be to take folks to court to not honor the contract. With limited registration, as I stated earlier, you can breed you dog. You just can not register any of their pups with the AKC. I see no connection with whatever your recollection of what the Chinese government did.



thomas&betts said:


> *ALL OF WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOVE IS NOT INTENDED TO OFFEND ANYBODY AND IS JUST MY OPINION. NONE OF YOU HAVE ANYTHING BUT ADORABLE GOLDEN RETRIEVERS!! I KNOW, I SPENT MANY ENJOYABLE HOURS LOOKING THROUGH THE PICS ON THE THREAD RUSS STARTED. NOTHING IS DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR. *QUOTE]
> 
> Ditto
> 
> ...


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

"If a puppy buyer/owner competes with that dog"
I really am asking this because I am not at all experienced on the scope of competitions, other than field. 
My question is, if an owner cares enough to select a responsible breeder etc., and they care enough to want to compete with that dog, why prevent them from competing?
The decision to allow them to subsequently breed the dog is a separate issue, but I see it as a cart / horse issue.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

kellyguy said:


> "If a puppy buyer/owner competes with that dog"
> I really am asking this because I am not at all experienced on the scope of competitions, other than field.
> My question is, if an owner cares enough to select a responsible breeder etc., and they care enough to want to compete with that dog, why prevent them from competing?
> The decision to allow them to subsequently breed the dog is a separate issue, but I see it as a cart / horse issue.


Who said they couldn't compete?


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Ok, just so I'm clear:



Breeders are to use contracts as it means they have the best interest of the puppy at heart

Breeders are to have all testing done on sires/dams

Breeders are to be in contact with all puppy buyers for the life of the dog

Breeders are to be available 24/7 for any questions

Breeders are to compete with their dogs and have titles on some/most of them

and


Breeders shouldn't use limited registration as it means they don't care who they sell the puppy to

Any costs to get a sires/dams title should not be reflected in puppy prices

Any breeder who shows any type of profit, isn't in it for the dogs but rather to make money

After the first litter, anything more is pure profit

Puppy prices in the $1500-2000 mark are too high


So, to be a breeder:

A breeder should show in a venue.

A breeder should spend 8-10 weeks raising a litter, exposing them to various stimuli. Temperament testing. Health checks. etc.

A breeder should always continue their education so they can be their for their puppy families, and so they can try to make the most informed decisions when breeding.

A breeder should be the support system for the life of every puppy produced

A breeder should always be largely in the negative, even though this will prove said breeder doesn't know how to run a business, but if a breeder does run it as a business they aren't doing it for the right reasons.

Do I have that right?

Cheers
Rob


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

"Who said they couldn't compete?"

It was my understanding that you couldn't compete for conformation titles with a "limited" registration?


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

kellyguy said:


> "If a puppy buyer/owner competes with that dog"
> I really am asking this because I am not at all experienced on the scope of competitions, other than field.
> My question is, if an owner cares enough to select a responsible breeder etc., and they care enough to want to compete with that dog, why prevent them from competing?
> The decision to allow them to subsequently breed the dog is a separate issue, but I see it as a cart / horse issue.


Limited registration only prevents you from doing two things with your dog with the AKC.
1. Prevents you from registering any pups produced by that dog with the AKC
2. Prevents you from competing in AKC Conformation shows. AKC Conformation shows are meant to establish the BEST dogs according to the breed standard to be used for breeding. If you are not permitted to register pups from a dog then there is no need to compete in conformation.
Otherwise you can compete with your Golden in AKC obedience, agility, hunt tests, field trials, herding, lure coursing, rally etc. 
Hope that explains it.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

kellyguy said:


> "Who said they couldn't compete?"
> 
> It was my understanding that you couldn't compete for conformation titles with a "limited" registration?


If someone confronts a breeder wanting to start showing then that might be a different story.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

thomas&betts said:


> Any limits on Full Registration should be disclosed up front on a breeders website, and if truly used for the betterment of the GR Breed, should simply require *SAME OR BETTER test results than the parents that were bred WITHOUT ANY OTHER STIPULATION* before further breeding of this better lineage, or expect buyers to question your "bettering the breed" argument.


Really? I guess you don't understand what goes into breeding a dog to "better the breed." It's not just the four clearances.

Let's say this female pup you want to breed has the following traits:


Heterozygous for ichthyosis (carrier but not affected)
Front angles less than optimum
23 1/2 in. tall
Grandsire and one of his littermates developed pigmentary uveitis, one at 6.5 years old, one at 11 years ood
4 ancestors in three generation pedigree died of hemangiosarcoma
What are the qualities you would look for in a potential sire? Do you think simply getting hip, elbow, heart and eye clearances at two years old that are as good or better than the pup's dam qualifies you to breed that bitch to any dog out there and consider it a betterment of the breed?

Would it be okay to breed your girl to a dog who is also heterozygous for ichthyosis, or one that is affected, or do you need to breed to a clear dog, or do you not have the faintest idea? How do you get your litter's height into standard? Pigmentary Uveitis is a growing problem in the breed. What will your breeding this girl do for that? Are you even considering that when you get that sire's stud service? What do you want to do with that hemangiosarcoma situation in the pedigree? Is it something to be concerned about, or is four ancestors too little to worry about? How do you improve those front angles? What is causing them to be too straight? Which sire will help you improve them?

And how is the breeder who sold you the puppy supposed to know that you've got all this covered, and won't go breeding your bitch to a dog that will make pretty puppies who all go blind and die of cancer?

Please, we await your wisdom.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

kfayard said:


> If someone confronts a breeder at wanting to start showing then that might be a different story.


Exactly why I said the conditions required to show and or breed should be well defined in writing. Simple example: Puppy must meet or exceed 1) health testing by a State Licensed Vet, and 2)meet or exceed the expectations of a state licensed Vet would have for the temperament of a Golden Retriever to be a breeding candidate. I would think the opinion of a Licensed Vet would exceed the experience of a hobby breeder, No?? In other words, the bad breeder would not be able to extort a fee after the sale for an undefined condition to breed or show the product of a breeders "bettering the breed" puppy. The *puppy buyer should require wording in a Limited Registration contact to allow for collection of damages and legal fee's should the breeder fraudulently misrepresent conveyance of Full Registration in a timely manner.* If seller feels this infringes on his puppy breeding rights, *the potential buyer has a responsibility to protect the breed* by making public the misleading and/or vague contract used by the breeder. Now, how does this infringe on a reputable *"for the betterment of the breed"* breeders rights? Thanks for any and all replies as I do respect your opinion. Tom


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

Everyone's preferences/concerns are different I guess. 
Clearances, pedigree, titles, temperament, price. 

What would the perfect puppy be for you?


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

thomas&betts said:


> Exactly why I said the conditions required to show and or breed should be well defined in writing. Simple example: Puppy must meet or exceed 1) health testing by a State Licensed Vet, and 2)meet or exceed the expectations of a state licensed Vet would have for the temperament of a Golden Retriever to be a breeding candidate. I would think the opinion of a Licensed Vet would exceed the experience of a hobby breeder, No?? In other words, the bad breeder would not be able to extort a fee after the sale for an undefined condition to breed or show the product of a breeders "bettering the breed" puppy. The *puppy buyer should require wording in a Limited Registration contact to allow for collection of damages and legal fee's should the breeder fraudulently misrepresent conveyance of Full Registration in a timely manner.* If seller feels this infringes on his puppy breeding rights, *the potential buyer has a responsibility to protect the breed* by making public the misleading and/or vague contract used by the breeder. Now, how does this infringe on a reputable *"for the betterment of the breed"* breeders rights? Thanks for any and all replies as I do respect your opinion. Tom


I am sorry I just can not get past how rude your post is coming across. I have alot to say to this, but I am going to excuse myself from this thread bc it is really doing no good. There is obviously no such thing as a civil conversation. 

DO what you want with your golden and buy from whomever you want, but obviously a lot of us on here do not meet your expectations and standards. I know that BYB will definitely improve the breed, so have at it.

Good Luck!


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

DanaRuns said:


> Really? I guess you don't understand what goes into breeding a dog to "better the breed." It's not just the four clearances.
> 
> Let's say this female pup you want to breed has the following traits:
> 
> ...


Marlo was born *10/13/2010* and bred to "Rocky" who was born in 2006? *They produced your "Ziva" on 10/11/13*? So do you think the wisdom of you or your breeder was superior to that of a State Licensed Vet? Did that wisdom lead to testing of everything listed above at 3 yrs to breed the two to get Ziva. Was this a good example of bettering the breed responsibly? If I use your example of Ziva and 3 years of age for testing by a Vet in my previous simple contract suggestion, would you object to breeding. Are there any defined conditions prior to sell of a pup (even if you had done the same with Ziva) that would be acceptable. This example of breeding a 3 yr old and allowing you Full Registration to show and breed is quite compelling to the uninformed lacking your wisdom, but leads to a bit of confusion.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

thomas&betts said:


> 2)meet or exceed the expectations of a state licensed Vet would have for the temperament of a Golden Retriever to be a breeding candidate. I would think the opinion of a Licensed Vet would exceed the experience of a hobby breeder, No??


Um, no. I would never depend on a vet's opinion on if a dog has correct temperament to be bred. That is not their area of expertise.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

kfayard said:


> I am sorry I just can not get past how rude your post is coming across. I have alot to say to this, but I am going to excuse myself from this thread bc it is really doing no good. There is obviously no such thing as a civil conversation.
> 
> *DO what you want with your golden* and buy from whomever you want, but obviously a lot of us on here do not meet your expectations and standards. I know that BYB will definitely improve the breed, so have at it.
> 
> Good Luck!


Tell me something before you go since you read my post. Tell me what you know about my golden. Hint: I have said it many different ways and you dont seem to know or have read anything about what I *"want to do with my golden*". Thanks, Tom


----------



## OnMyWay2MyDreams (Feb 13, 2011)

My vets I work for (3 of them) have never bred a litter..ever. So how would they know about breeding? They didnt even know about all the tests out there for clearances. I know more about breeding than them (I am a vet tech too).


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

thomas&betts said:


> Exactly why I said the conditions required to show and or breed should be well defined in writing. Simple example: Puppy must meet or exceed 1) health testing by a State Licensed Vet, and 2)meet or exceed the expectations of a state licensed Vet would have for the temperament of a Golden Retriever to be a breeding candidate. I would think the opinion of a Licensed Vet would exceed the experience of a hobby breeder, No?? In other words, the bad breeder would not be able to extort a fee after the sale for an undefined condition to breed or show the product of a breeders "bettering the breed" puppy. The *puppy buyer should require wording in a Limited Registration contact to allow for collection of damages and legal fee's should the breeder fraudulently misrepresent conveyance of Full Registration in a timely manner.* If seller feels this infringes on his puppy breeding rights, the potential buyer has a responsibility to protect the breed by making public the misleading and/or vague contract used by the breeder. Now, how does this infringe on a reputable"for the betterment of the breed" breeders rights? Thanks for any and all replies as I do respect your opinion. Tom


Here's my response:

These are nurses, and grandmothers, and hardware store clerks, and stay-at-home-moms who are selling puppies, and they are not going to hire a law firm to draft that iron clad perfect contract. And if they did, puppy buyers would think the contract was ridiculous for what is, after all, "just" a _puppy_. Ain't gonna happen. And breeders don't have time for that, nor the inclination. With a buyer like you, they'd just say "no thanks" and move on to a buyer who is easier to get along with and not so antagonistic as you are. Good luck getting that puppy! Or they'd say, "This is my contract, take it or leave it. I am into dogs, not contracts."

Here's my other response:

Your attitude is precisely why breeders sell on limited registration and say "no breeding this puppy." No breeder wants the nightmare that it sounds like you are. You just IGNORE the several people who have TOLD YOU that hobby breeders are not in "business." Selling puppies is not a "business." And YES, most breeders breed at a loss, every year, for as long as they are breeding. Guess what? The IRS doesn't allow them to even write off their expenses!

Here's another response:

Breeder: "I have a puppy for sale on a limited registration, and my contract insists that the puppy be spayed/neutered. Which means you will never be breeding this puppy. I'm selling my full registrations to my good friends, who are also breeders and show/agility/field/whatever people. Do you want this puppy under those conditions, or not?"

You: "I want a clause in the contract that says if I change my mind and want to compete with the puppy, that you will change it to a full registration and allow me to breed the puppy upon passing four clearances at 24 months old, and if you fail to allow that then there will be a damages provision so that I can hold you liable."

Breeder: "You know what, Tom? I'm afraid I don't have a puppy for you. I have more than a dozen people on a waiting list who have been waiting more than a year for a puppy from me. They are happy as can be with my terms, and frankly I'm much more comfortable selling to them, where I won't have to worry about having a contentious relationship for the next decade or longer."

You: "You're a scummy elite breeder who is no more than a puppy mill! I'm a customer, and you're in business! You are trying to rip off puppy buyers, and all you care about is profit. You're not trying to 'better the breed,' and if you were you'd meet my terms!"

Breeder: "Harold! Come in here, and bring the shotgun!"

Final response:

*Hey Tom, how about answering the questions I asked in my previous post, where I gave you a hypothetical puppy and asked you about your "bettering the breed" breeding decisions?* You're very certain about things. Would love to hear your take on this very simplistic version of a breeding scenario I set out for you. I didn't even have you grapple with issues of hidden disease and genetic drift in the lines you're thinking of breeding, which is what real world breeders have to deal with. So let's hear your breeding decisions with your dog that will better the breed, or at least not result in a poor litter.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

OnMyWay2MyDreams said:


> My vets I work for (3 of them) have never bred a litter..ever. So how would they know about breeding? They didnt even know about all the tests out there for clearances. I know more about breeding than them (I am a vet tech too).


I think this is true of a lot of vets and a lot of breeders. Breeders tend to know MUCH more about breeding, the breed, and the intricacies of temperament and the breed standard (and breed health) than the vast majority of vets do. Beyond the medical aspects of pregnancy and delivery, vets have only a few hours in all of vet school on these subjects, and no schooling at all on temperaments and breed standards.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

thomas&betts said:


> Tell me something before you go since you read my post. Tell me what you know about my golden. Hint: I have said it many different ways and you dont seem to know or have read anything about what I *"want to do with my golden*". Thanks, Tom



Well what I meant was "when" you get your Golden... Do what you want...

I have read your posts... And there are plenty of questions I have asked you and have went unanswered.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

kfayard said:


> Well what I meant was "when" you get your Golden... Do what you want...
> 
> I have read your posts... And there are plenty of questions I have asked you and have went unanswered.


Thank You for your response. To be quite honest, the post have come so quick and so defensively, that my typing skill aren't up to par to answer quick enough. I have almost always hesitated to push the reply after carefully trying to craft a response to the point I was trying to address, in a way that wont get the thread locked or myself banned. Even reading my response it comes off harsh, but with hesitation, it is sincere and must be said. I do appreciate even the most aggressive replies. They are very educational, even if I don't say so. I do know I probably wont be as fortunate with my next Golden, but I have learned in this thread and Vet learning school research the past three days, more than I had to know when I got Bo. Thank You.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

thomas&betts said:


> Exactly why I said the conditions required to show and or breed should be well defined in writing. Simple example: Puppy must meet or exceed 1) health testing by a State Licensed Vet, and 2)meet or exceed the expectations of a state licensed Vet would have for the temperament of a Golden Retriever to be a breeding candidate. I would think the opinion of a Licensed Vet would exceed the experience of a hobby breeder, No??


I have sold three puppies to Vets, all licensed. Two in small animal practise (i.e. vet you or I would visit), and one to a Vet who works for the government.

None of the three knew which clearances are suggested for Goldens (and it is not realistic for them to know that for all breeds). All three of these vets were more than willing to admit they didn't know Golden pedigrees, didn't know what lines could possibly carry which issue(s), nor depth and breadth of clearances. One was very interested to learn about the advances in the PRA DNA tests, as they had an affected dog years ago and were unaware that DNA markers had been found for 3 different types within the breed. All three asked to observe the puppy aptitude tests, as they hadn't seen one before. All three asked to observe puppy structure evaluations, as they hadn't seen one before. All three were eager to learn, from me, a mere breeder.

So no, not in every case does a Vets opinion on breeding animals outweigh that of a breeder.

It takes a team to get a litter off on the right path, a Breeder, various Veterinarians (ie don't go to a GP Vet for a heart clearance, rather a Cardiologist etc.), and the new families. Each piece of that equation has it's strengths and weaknesses (I don't pretend to be a vet, I trust my vets for all of my dogs medical needs. Likewise the Veterinarians that have dogs from me don't pretend to be breeders, they trusted me for their needs.).

Just my two cents.

Rob


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Hi again. 

In case my last post didn't get the message across, let's remember to keep things polite. Thank you!


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

so, if it takes too much time and money to go to court and if the contract is not legally binding why even pretend to go over the contract and have it done? 
Is it just a piece of paper that makes everyone involved pretend they are serious?
Conquerergold:

IMHO there is a difference between a hobby and a business. 

I spend money on my hobby and do not expect reimbursement. DH shot skeet as a hobby. Talk about being always in the negative for a bunch of trophies and plaques in boxes in the basement.

I am sorry I did not quote the entire paragraph but it comes down to the breeders deciding where they want to be. I do not recall anyone begrudging them making money. IMHO if you are breeding every year, ship puppies all over, yes you are a business. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But in that business you sell a product to a client that you create a relationship with thru your product. Does it take a 24/7 relationship with your client to raise that pup. I do not think so. Especially if you talked to that person and know where they stand and what experience they have in raising puppies? Will you have some clients who are first time dog owners? Will they take more time/ Probably. But it goes with the "business". It is like that in any business.

Noone has forced a breeder to breed, they do it because they want to. So why griping about the 8 -10 weeks spent with them? Forgive my ignorance but I would assume as part of the hobby you would be thrilled to see the fruits of your labor. 

Is 1500-2000 too much for a pup - I think so. Would I spend that much? Not sure. Will I ever buy on Limited Registration? Nope. 

And this is where it gets tricky - it is sending people right back to the BYBs and the mom and pop breeders or become a breeder themselves.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> IMHO there is a difference between a hobby and a business.


I don't disagree. 



Claudia M said:


> I spend money on my hobby and do not expect reimbursement. DH shot skeet as a hobby. Talk about being always in the negative for a bunch of trophies and plaques in boxes in the basement.


I spend money on my hobby too. 

When one sells a puppy, one expects reimbursement, otherwise it would be giving them away. I am sure if your husband sold one of his shotguns, he would expect reimbursement. Any 'modifications' made to the shotgun could increase it's value. 



Claudia M said:


> I am sorry I did not quote the entire paragraph but it comes down to the breeders deciding where they want to be. I do not recall anyone begrudging them making money. IMHO if you are breeding every year, ship puppies all over, yes you are a business.


The second money changes hands for a product or service, you are a business. Profits or losses do not enter the equation, you are a business plain and simple. 



Claudia M said:


> And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But in that business you sell a product to a client that you create a relationship with thru your product. Does it take a 24/7 relationship with your client to raise that pup. I do not think so.


No, I am not on the phone 24/7 with a client. However, I am available 24/7, even when on vacation. All home, cottage, and cell numbers are included in the extensive puppy book sent home. Contact for any issue, big or small, night or day, is encouraged. That is the way I choose to do things.



Claudia M said:


> Noone has forced a breeder to breed, they do it because they want to. So why griping about the 8 -10 weeks spent with them? Forgive my ignorance but I would assume as part of the hobby you would be thrilled to see the fruits of your labor.


Where was the gripe? There was no gripe. There was a fact pointed out.



Claudia M said:


> Is 1500-2000 too much for a pup - I think so. Would I spend that much? Not sure. Will I ever buy on Limited Registration? Nope.


Thats great for you. But a blanket statement of 'this is what it means if a breeder sells on limited', is flat out false.

As for price, I have never had an issue with prices (when I first got started the average price for a show prospect was $600), as I have seen, and for the past several years experienced, what goes into planning and raising a litter that I would personally want a puppy from. Doesn't have to be that way for everyone, which is a-ok.


Rob


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

thomas&betts said:


> One of the posters asked why it meant so much to a puppy buyer if he/she had no intention of breeding, that the puppy be sold on Limited Registration. If I may answer that question without being called a troll or any other name in an attempt to protect the sacred argument that Limited Breeding Contracts are only used by honest ethical breeders to better the breed, I would explain the regret of not breeding (and never even considered breeding) a recent lost friend that can never be replaced. To not have that option after seeing what a quality bred Golden had become (at 2 to 3 years of age) because the "Breeder" wants to retain that control while enriching themselves seems foolish.


I think this is a case of not knowing what you don't know. LOTS of people have fantastic Golden Retrievers, myself included, but that does NOT mean that the dog is worthy of breeding. This in no way diminishes the amazingness of my dog, your dog, or anyone else's dog. It just means that most of us lack the expertise to evaluate a dog and determine whether it's worth breeding (conformation, health history, pedigree, temperament, trainability across the board, etc.) AND put the required amount of time and money into that dog to get him where he needs to be to breed. _And that's okay_.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

thomas&betts said:


> Marlo was born *10/13/2010* and bred to "Rocky" who was born in 2006? *They produced your "Ziva" on 10/11/13*? So do you think the wisdom of you or your breeder was superior to that of a State Licensed Vet? Did that wisdom lead to testing of everything listed above at 3 yrs to breed the two to get Ziva. Was this a good example of bettering the breed responsibly? If I use your example of Ziva and 3 years of age for testing by a Vet in my previous simple contract suggestion, would you object to breeding. Are there any defined conditions prior to sell of a pup (even if you had done the same with Ziva) that would be acceptable. This example of breeding a 3 yr old and allowing you Full Registration to show and breed is quite compelling to the uninformed lacking your wisdom, but leads to a bit of confusion.


 Are you suggesting that the litter resulting in Ziva (a lovely bitch) was one that didn't have thought behind it? Or asking if you owned a bitch from that same litter, could you be allowed to breed her? 

I keep getting the feeling from your posts that there's a particular breeder/breeding you have a beef with, or that you would have liked to breed a bitch you owned and were not allowed to... but your posts are not specific and it's hard to guess what you are angry about. I'd posit that even if you owned a sibling to a top 10 dog, if you didn't title and clearance the sibling, no breeder would let you breed your animal. And that if you did get clearances and title your dog in some venue, your breeder would revisit your desire to breed the animal. But breeding the produce of a breeder is not a right you should be able to buy from a good breeder- it is a puppy you are buying, not his or her reproductive future as far as AKC registration goes. Prove your intent and desire by doing clearances and titling in a performance or field venue, and then ask. 
There's a level of understanding and knowledge that is needed to breed well. Simply buying a lovely animal doesn't mean that you have that needed knowledge or understanding. I understand the desire to 'get involved' and start a breeding program, but historically, good breeders don't start out being breeders-- they start out in a performance venue, move to conformation, eventually breed a litter, keep something from that litter, and title that offspring and so on. All the years with first competitive dog they are learning. They are involved in the sport, not just breeding. And the mentoring that is required for a new exhibitor is enormous- you don't just enter your dog and win- an untrained eye doesn't even know when their animal is competitive enough to spend the entry on. To ask a breeder to invest that time in you implies your willingness to learn, and to care about you and your future in the breed implies you will have similar goals and desires. 

If you object to limited registration, don't buy a puppy from the breeder who sells puppies on limited. Just because something is for sale doesn't mean that it is for sale to anyone, who can then demand rights they did not earn through typical and time honored paths. I'd hazard a guess that most byb's would happily sell you full registration, and that some stud dog owner would happily let their boy be used on that girl. The byb who'd sell you full reg puppy doesn't think about full or limited- they don't think about the future- they are thinking only about selling their litter that got an equal amount of non-thought,testing and titling. 
If you want a super pedigree, you have to follow the rules the breeder of that pedigree sets out. You aren't entitled to question the breeder's thought process on who gets what, or why, and you either buy the puppy or don't. As someone else said, there are dozens of other puppy buyers who won't be as difficult to work with as you seem like you would be, and who won't question limited or full or feel entitled as you seem to feel. I may be reading you wrong- but all your posts seem to say that you feel if you buy a puppy what you choose to do w/him or her is solely up to you and withholding AKC registration from you for that animal's offspring is somehow wrong. It's not. The puppy you buy is a pet puppy. It is sold as a pet. Not as a breeding animal. 
The breeder has likely worked for decades to develop that particular pedigree, and has spent countless hours considering outcomes that the breeder can guess at because the breeder has spent decades observing, noting, and planning possibly several generations beyond the breeding that produced your puppy (for their keeper not your puppy) and breeding is an art as much as a science- it takes crafting ability and intuition as well as fact and history to do it well. Everything that puppy does in his/her lifetime reflects on the breeder's program. Of course the breeder doesn't want someone to breed it! What if the puppy person breeds the dog poorly and produces a litter of puppies all affected with severe Ichthyosis, or worse, all of whom develop PU? But not until, of course, that new breeder's (you) litter has all reproduced as well? And their kids? So by the time that careless breeding reaches 5-6 years old, there are 4 generations below them because care wasn't taken originally in allowing breeding nor in any generation after.... and those puppies are listed on some site for sale, with pedigree- it is still reflecting negatively on breeder...that's not a scenario anyone would willing step into. You can surely see that.
Another point- What makes any puppy person think that they are 'owed' the right to step in and breed an animal purchased as a pet and 'use' all the years before him or her to build their own program on, without any of the work? There is a wonderful oop book written by Mary Roslin Williams that describes, as she calls it, the three levels of breeders. Interlibrary loan it and figure out where you would fall in her scheme. Her methods (in Labs) and ideas are well accepted, and perhaps if you read something written pre-political correct lingo it would be easier to understand-
ultimately, though, it boils down to this- puppies for sale are not the same thing as breeding stock for sale. Reproductive rights and registration rights w/AKC are up to the breeder to want to sell you. Most breeders don't want to sell them. It is way more work to control than their own keeper, and there's no reason to sell full registration to anyone who isn't already competing and proving themselves.

I too am done w/this thread, it's too hard to guess at what your motivation is and what real scenario ensued w/you to cause you to feel so strongly this entitlement you seem to feel. It will be hard for you to get a nice puppy you can prove yourself with if you don't try to see the other side -without the entitlement. No one will want to spend the time on you when they can spend their time on someone who is appreciative of their hard work in raising a lovely litter, someone who will be happy to have a pet from it, not angry they can't go and breed their pet from it.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

thomas&betts said:


> Funny that open mindedness thing....does that include trying to silence dissenting opinions as was done with regard to post #113


I flagged your post because you couldn't keep your filthy language out of the discussion. Although I don't agree with you, I do appreciate people who can bring other views and ideas to the forum _as long as they do it respectfully_. I have flagged several others on the other side replying to your posts for foul language as well, it wasn't just you if it makes you feel any better. I have nothing against anyone who has enough maturity and character to write a post without swearing. 

Golden retriever forum rules.
2. GoldenRetrieverForum.com Members shall refrain from the use of vulgar language and obscenities.


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

The issues under discussion in this thread are important to the breed and to many members. Please discuss the issues and avoid attacking one another. It is possible to disagree without rudeness.

The discussion must proceed with courtesy if the thread is to remain open.

Thank you.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> so, if it takes too much time and money to go to court and if the contract is not legally binding why even pretend to go over the contract and have it done?



I have always looked upon puppy contracts much the same I do locks on the doors on my car. They keep honest people honest. If a person really wants to steal my radio, phone, or car itself the locked doors will not stop the dishonest person. But things such as anti-theft mechanisms installed with my radio and ignition will be a much bigger deterrent as is limited registration. Hoping that makes sense to others.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Conquerergold said:


> I don't disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We paid $800 back in the early 90s for a top bred field golden with health and performance titles behind. Yup, we paid for the name "brand" with lots of planning and raising that just did not quite turn out both as far as health and performance. So would I pay now $2000 for another top bred dog? I definitely not pay that for a show bred dog, and not sure about a field bred dog. I probably rather take that extra $1000 and help other dogs in need.


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't get why some people are riding around on the limited registration issue. I had three goldens on full registration, my pup now is on limited registration and it makes absolutely no difference to me. I don't show, I don't breed. I don't see it as 'my breeder does not trust me' issue. I have a great relationship with my breeder and she has mentioned that she would sell me a puppy again any time. 

It is so odd to hear so many people want full registration as if it really means anything to the average companion pet owner. Geez, I ran into so many people that don't ever even register their golden with the AKC - something I don't agree with. I proudly registered all my goldens and two are on k9data as well. 

There are a bunch of people here that just don't want to learn and will only accept their own personal opinion. That is pretty sad. I don't know if they are doing it because they can, they love to argue? Those are the people that put the money into the pockets of the bad breeders and puppy mills. So sad.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

thomas&betts said:


> Exactly why I said the conditions required to show and or breed should be well defined in writing. Simple example: Puppy must meet or exceed 1) health testing by a State Licensed Vet, and 2)meet or exceed the expectations of a state licensed Vet would have for the temperament of a Golden Retriever to be a breeding candidate. I would think the opinion of a Licensed Vet would exceed the experience of a hobby breeder, No??


Yes I think the serious hobby breeder knows MUCH MUCH more about their breed and breeding than your common non specialized state licensed vet.
Here is a small example. In my last litter, now 8 1/2 years old, the sire was late in life diagnosed with Pigmentary Uvietis (PU). So I have been in at least yearly contact with all the puppy people to get their eyes checked. In January one of the five were diagnosed with PU. So I again contacted the other 4 and made sure they were continuing on with the yearly checks with a board certified ophthalmologist. Two had recentlly been cleared one had an upcoming appointment and the other responded they had just seen "their vet" and although the vet saw something, he said it was nothing to be concerned about and gave him some drops to put in his eyes. I insisted he take the dog to an ophthalmologist, I found one close to him, gave him all the info and he took the dog. He too has PU. The "state licensed vet" had no knowledge of this affliction in Goldens (it only occurs in Goldens) and to top it off there is a board certified ophthalmologist that works 2 days a week out of the same large practice. 
If you are not familiar with PU it can lead to extreme pain, glaucoma and need to remove to eye globe. If caught early it appears to be very treatable for many dogs and does not adversely effect a dog's quality of life.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

AmbikaGR said:


> I have always looked upon puppy contracts much the same I do locks on the doors on my car. They keep honest people honest. If a person really wants to steal my radio, phone, or car itself the locked doors will not stop the dishonest person. But things such as anti-theft mechanisms installed with my radio and ignition will be a much bigger deterrent as is limited registration. Hoping that makes sense to others.


Since there are many other venues to register a litter one that only purchases a puppy from you with intent to breed and make money will do it, either that you have the "added security" or not. 

Also it is presumption that the honest people are just not that honest. 

Or I think I am reading more like the contracts are for honest people, the limited registration is for the ones you are deeming dishonest? 

I was raised and raised my daughter that if I give my word on something to follow it.


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

I started typing this post earlier and deleted it because the thread has sort of gone off in a different direction, but it's relevant to the OP, so here goes. 

Regarding cost of the puppies: I know a breeder who enters the total cost of producing the litter into a spreadsheet (including stud fees, clearances for the dam, puppy supplies, vet expenses, etc.) and divides by the total number of puppies to arrive at a ballpark cost per puppy. I thought that was an interesting and transparent way to do it, but I understand it wouldn't work for everyone. 

My new puppy is on full registration but his contract stipulates a laundry list of things we must prove before he ever sires a litter (including a selection of performance titles or a certain number of AKC points, clearances and approval of his breeders of any dam with whom he is bred). Am I ok with that? You bet. I wasn't willing to co-own and felt that this was more than a fair compromise. I am too new to all of this and don't know enough about his lines to make an informed decision if and when that time comes. There are myriad nice pedigrees that are ruined within a few generations of poor decisions.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

thomas&betts said:


> Seems the Chinese government used to breed babies. If they were born Female to a controlled subject, they were aborted if I recall.


I think you are probably just as confused about reputable breeders as you are about the one child policy and its effects in China. You are proceeding on assumptions and hearsay and building up a stance that really doesn't hold water.

While lots of people have tried to help you out in a (relatively) friendly way, you continue to demonstrate an ability to insult large groups of people in a very discourteous way. And you're not clear on your facts, so maybe do some more homework before continuing to state opinions based on assumption rather than fact.

The *fact* is that vast majority of reputable Golden breeders use contracts and limited registration to try to exercise some control over what's done with the puppies they produce. While some people might *wish* that it were different and think that reputable breeders are elitists, snobs, and profiteers, the simple fact is that it's what most of the ethical people do in this breed, and it's what the breed club encourages them to do. And we call the _hobby_ breeders because, while they do take money in from puppy sales to offset their expenses, they don't reliably make money off of puppies. They lose money with their hobbies, like the rest of us do with hobbies that may bring in some cash, and may even be in the positive some years, but ultimately run at a substantial loss in the long run. We do it because we love it and because we can bring something meaningful into our own lives or the lives of other people.

Some reputable breeders will only give full registration to people they are in a direct mentoring relationship with, and others who are more willing to give it to people they're not in constant contact with, but all good breeders are pretty careful with it in their own way. Beyond the fact that good breeders care about their dogs, it reflects badly on a breeder when a dog from their lineage ends up in the pedigrees of a disreputable program.

The people who are breeding without clearances, for profit, will often use limited registration as a way of charging more. They'll sell full registration to anybody who's willing to pay a premium and simply tell you the pup they're giving you is "show quality." But since they typically don't prove the parents in the ring, it's basically their word that the puppy is "show quality." That's the real profiteering that's done with full registration.

It's hard to watch uninformed people badmouth knowledgable, ethical people without jumping in. I tried, I really did.

Disclaimer: I don't breed and probably never will. I just so appreciate the people who have put their sweat and money into producing dogs that have the best possible shot at having breed type and living long, healthy lives.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> Since there are many other venues to register a litter one that only purchases a puppy from you with intent to breed and make money will do it, either that you have the "added security" or not.


Exactly what I have been saying. HOWEVER AKC is THE brand name that even the most uneducated puppy buyer has heard of and wants. It definitely adds to the marketability of the pup and thus the ability to add to the price. 



Claudia M said:


> Also it is presumption that the honest people are just not that honest.
> 
> Or I think I am reading more like the contracts are for honest people, the limited registration is for the ones you are deeming dishonest?


Do you think that the smaller puppy mills would not LOVE to get pups with title parents behind them to add to their breeding colonies to again add to the marketability of their puppies? It is quite common to see these ads on the internet "From AKC CHAMPION lines" and when yo look at the pedigree these dogs are 4 or 5 generations behind one of the parents and there is nothing behind the other parent. 




Claudia M said:


> I was raised and raised my daughter that if I give my word on something to follow it.



As have I with all my children. But I have also taught them that never let another's lack of the same surprise you, disappoint you yes, but never surprised.  
Unfortunately that is what the real world is like.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

AmbikaGR said:


> Exactly what I have been saying. HOWEVER AKC is THE brand name that even the most uneducated puppy buyer has heard of and wants. It definitely adds to the marketability of the pup and thus the ability to add to the price.
> 
> You are correct!
> 
> ...


True about the real word, however I will not lose trust in the 90% good people because of the 10% bad ones. And I will not presume the 90% dishonest just because of the 10% that have disappointed me. Deal with the 10% and appreciate the 90%.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

cgriffin said:


> .....
> There are a bunch of people here that just don't want to learn and will only accept their own personal opinion. That is pretty sad. I don't know if they are doing it because they can, they love to argue? Those are the people that put the money into the pockets of the bad breeders and puppy mills. So sad.


LOL so because I do not accept your opinion it means I do not want to learn. hahahaha Would you like to learn and accept my opinion? 

I don't think so. You are just as entitled to your opinion as am I. 

As a buyer I have my own stipulations just like the breeder has it's own stipulations. If a contract cannot be made so be it. If that means I will find my stipulations from a so called bad breeder so be it.

All my dogs came with full registration and they have all been registered, including the adopted flat coat. 

Did I think of showing Darcy? No but I toyed with the idea. Did I find that there is fun in showing? Yes, even at my very novice level. Did I think of breeding Darcy? No. Has she started to prove herself? Very much. Do we have a long way before she deems breed-able? Very much. Would I ask for the breeder's advice, help, direction and even stud advice if it will *ever* come to that? You bet! I know that I do not know to go at it alone.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

Claudia M said:


> LOL so because I do not accept your opinion it means I do not want to learn. *hahahaha Would you like to learn and accept my opinion? *
> 
> *My comment:* Funny how that seems to work!
> 
> ...


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Claudia M said:


> Since there are many other venues to register a litter one that only purchases a puppy from you with intent to breed and make money will do it, either that you have the "added security" or not.
> 
> Also it is presumption that the honest people are just not that honest.
> 
> ...


I think for most breeders the thought process isn't anything like that. I think breeders just believe the default condition is to sell their puppies on limited registrations as a part of being a responsible breeder, and selling on a full registration is an exception granted only to a few people. I don't think the issue of trust even enters into their thinking on most occasions, and if trust does become an issue they simply don't sell to that buyer. At least, that's what most of my breeder friends are like.


----------



## OnMyWay2MyDreams (Feb 13, 2011)

Really now we are saying a puppy buyer isnt protected? Coming from a good reputable breeder yes you are. And again, agree to "terms" if you like them, if not just simply walk away. Your customers have that option too. Do you just completely give up your terms? 

Most hobby breeders, including myself, have a contract that does protect the puppy buyer. By offering "warranties" in case of problems (hip, hearts, eyes, elbows, or any other bad problem that may be deemed to be covered). I dont require return of pup, their are other ways for compensation. So i would say that it protects the buyer pretty good. When I got my byb many years ago..barely a contract and certainly nothing beyond the first few days. Other than that I was on my own.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

thomas&betts said:


> * I HAVE NEVER NOT LOST A PENNY FROM A CONTRACT DEAL, and have done thousands of deals.*


Wow, so you're losing money on "contract deals" all the time then, eh?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> True about the real word, however I will not lose trust in the 90% good people because of the 10% bad ones. And I will not presume the 90% dishonest just because of the 10% that have disappointed me. Deal with the 10% and appreciate the 90%.


 
You see you're being too kind to that 10%.

In today's politically correct world, I am as a Breeder *EXPECTED* to assume that 100% of puppy buyers are disreputable unethical people unless *proven* otherwise. If I don't live up to those expectations, then I am branded Unethical and Disreputable. (Don't believe it? Look at the numerous breeder bashing threads found on this site.)

What it comes down to is there is an ongoing war going on against owning and producing purebred dogs including Golden Retrievers. The general public is largely oblivious to it until they want to go out and buy one. Then they face sticker shock and a whole bunch of strings attatched. The parent breed clubs, individual breeders and serious dog owners have been in the trenches fighting this war for a couple of decades now. Sometimes battles are won, sometimes they are lost. When they are lost, new policies are implemented and/or changed to help protect the sport of purebred dogs and prices press upward. 


Then there is a naive ignorance that has been displayed in this thread that looks at a single litter of puppies. $1000 times ten puppies, equals $10,000. Simple expenses for that litter are $2000, so the breeder made $8,000 profit on the litter. Right?? They assume this is a very profitable business to be in. Unfortunately they neglected to include the overwhelming majority of the expenses the breeder incurred along the way. 

Operating a meaningful breeding program is a decades long commitment, involving multiple dogs over several generations. Even the small breeder is adding a new dog every three or four years to ensure they can produce on average a single litter from their program every other year or so. This means that at any given time, the small breeder has three or four dogs to care for and the expenses that come with them. They have a puppy, a juvenile that is not yet proven or old enough to breed, a breeding dog, and at least one retired dog. Along the way there will be puppies started that for one reason or another don't make the grade and are washed out. They're a real expense too. 

The net proceeds from the aforementioned litter do not even begin to come close to covering the expenses incurred for operating a small breeding program.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

thomas&betts said:


> Marlo was born *10/13/2010* and bred to "Rocky" who was born in 2006? *They produced your "Ziva" on 10/11/13*? So do you think the wisdom of you or your breeder was superior to that of a State Licensed Vet? Did that wisdom lead to testing of everything listed above at 3 yrs to breed the two to get Ziva. Was this a good example of bettering the breed responsibly? If I use your example of Ziva and 3 years of age for testing by a Vet in my previous simple contract suggestion, would you object to breeding. Are there any defined conditions prior to sell of a pup (even if you had done the same with Ziva) that would be acceptable. This example of breeding a 3 yr old and allowing you Full Registration to show and breed is quite compelling to the uninformed lacking your wisdom, but leads to a bit of confusion.


Tom, I'm having a hard time understanding your post. But let me try as best I can.



> So do you think the wisdom of you or your breeder was superior to that of a State Licensed Vet?


Yes. Ziva's breeder and I have far more "wisdom" (meaning knowledge and understanding) about breeding Golden Retrievers than Ziva's vet has. Like, a LOT more.



> Did that wisdom lead to testing of everything listed above at 3 yrs to breed the two to get Ziva. Was this a good example of bettering the breed responsibly?


I'm not sure what you are asking, here. Um, yes, that breeding "wisdom" did lead to the breeding that made Ziva, and the testing listed on their K9data pages is the minimum testing required by the GRCA Code of Ethics. But that testing is just the very beginning of the hundreds of decisions that went into making this particular litter.

I'm also not sure what the 3 years has to do with it. Bitches are responsibly bred when they are 3 years old, so not sure where you are going. As for "bettering the breed," I think Ziva's breeder was trying to improve on Marlo in several specific ways, and also had in mind the various genetic diseases in Goldens and the overall longevity of the lines, and was trying to breed to improve health and longevity. So, I guess that's a "yes" as to bettering the breed and breeding responsibly.



> If I use your example of Ziva and 3 years of age for testing by a Vet in my previous simple contract suggestion, would you object to breeding.


Yes. There is much, _much_ more that goes into responsible breeding than just having a dog that is good breeding stock and has the minimum clearances. And, again, most vets know very little about sound breeding practices compared to hobby breeders, so I give a garden variety vet's opinions _zero_ weight in that regard.

You sound as if you believe that having a bitch that is good breeding stock means that you can breed her to any male that is also good breeding stock and that's a responsible breeding. But nothing could be further from the truth. I tried to give you the tiniest of inklings about the complexity of responsible breeding in my hypothetical, but you have avoided addressing it. I suspect that is because even the very simplistic scenario I set out for you is _way_ beyond your understanding. And that lack of understanding is the very reason you would not be allowed to breed a puppy I sold you (if I were a breeder, which I am not...yet).

Let me give you a couple examples. I have created some "test breedings" for you using Ziva, since you used her as an example. Tell me if any of these would be good breedings, and why or why not. Here are the links:

Here's the first one, called Leo x Ziva: Pedigree: Leo x Ziva

Here's the second one, called Hobo x Ziva:Pedigree: Hobo x Ziva

Here's the third one, called Gibbs x Ziva: Pedigree: Gibbs x Tequila

And here's the fourth one, called Yogi x Ziva: Pedigree: Yogi x Ziva

So, looking at those, are there any of those that you would think are good breedings? Would you do any of them? I'll tell you that I would not do any of those breedings. Though the potential sires are all beautiful and high quality dogs and heavily titled (with the exception of Gibbs, another of my dogs, who is still a puppy), I don't think any of these constitute a breeding that is acceptable to me (I purposefully left out test breedings that I would do). And I think the Hobo x Ziva breeding is the most interesting and yet the most dangerous of the four. Can you identify why I wouldn't do any of these breedings? And why I think the Hobo x Ziva breeding is both the most interesting and most dangerous?


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

Swampcollie said:


> You see you're being too kind to that 10%.
> 
> In today's politically correct world, I am as a Breeder *EXPECTED* to assume that 100% of puppy buyers are disreputable unethical people unless *proven* otherwise. If I don't live up to those expectations, then I am branded Unethical and Disreputable. (Don't believe it? Look at the numerous breeder bashing threads found on this site.)
> 
> ...


Swampcollie, Can you imagine how pure and perfect the breed would be if every "Limited Contract" had a puppy buyer protection clause like I listed above that instructed the Law Judge to fairly compensate for damages (Veterinarian, legal fee's, pain and suffering, etc.) Golden Retrievers owners for undisclosed breeding defects of the expert breeders. One lawsuit would end the breeding and make homeless the unscrupulous, unethical breeder, and the world would be blessed with healthy Golden Retrievers in no time, owners who could enjoy the life of their dog as I did to the age of 14 years old, no expensive medical bills, etc. Wouldn't that be just great! For the betterment of the breed! When will you and others give this protection (tomorrow??? never??) or am I being rude to ask for such a betterment? And so you don't feel I am just being mean by asking this serious question, I must say, your early May puppies are adorable and you should be proud! A heart felt congratulations to you on your success!


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

DanaRuns said:


> Tom, I'm having a hard time understanding your post. But let me try as best I can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for your response. They are all helpful. Being a research type, give me a day to go over your matches (for my own learning experience) and see what would concern the untrained Golden Lover class like myself. I did see a particular glaring red flag in prior checking that I may not understand or you may not want me to discuss in this open thread. But if you are open to honest teaching/learning and using Ziva's breeding as a tool to teach those like me, I have to commend you for you openness. tks, T


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

thomas&betts said:


> Swampcollie, Can you imagine how pure and perfect the breed would be if every "Limited Contract" had a puppy buyer protection clause like I listed above that instructed the Law Judge to fairly compensate for damages (Veterinarian, legal fee's, pain and suffering, etc.) Golden Retrievers owners for undisclosed breeding defects of the expert breeders. One lawsuit would end the breeding and make homeless the unscrupulous, unethical breeder, and the world would be blessed with healthy Golden Retrievers in no time, owners who could enjoy the life of their dog as I did to the age of 14 years old, no expensive medical bills, etc. Wouldn't that be just great! For the betterment of the breed! When will you and others give this protection (tomorrow??? never??) or am I being rude to ask for such a betterment? And so you don't feel I am just being mean by asking this serious question, I must say, your early May puppies are adorable and you should be proud! A heart felt congratulations to you on your success!


#1 Dogs are property so you cannot collect for pain and suffering.
#2 We cannot 100% predict, reduce or eliminate 100% of genetic health problems in ANY domestic species, even with the BEST of breeding practices. Asking a breeder to guarantee any buyer that their dog will never suffer from any genetic health problem is completely unrealistic. The ONLY things a breeder can do to guard against genetic health issues is do the clearances and study pedigrees. Once they have done this to the best of their abilities, it is up to God how the puppy turns out. You cannot blame or financially penalize a breeder if they have done the appropriate research and genetic health tests, if the dog still ends up with something. It's called life. **** happens. We hope to reduce it by genetic testing but that is no guarantee. Breeders understand this...it's time for buyers to understand this. 

It's very simple. If you do not agree to the terms of a breeder's contract, go elsewhere. I think you are going to have a very hard time finding a breeder who's contract is up to your requirements (low purchase price, full registration, AND full reimbursement for any future health problem), unless they are completely blowing smoke up your, well, you know. It's just not how it works. I would love to buy a new Mercedes for $5 and have the seller replace it every time I need an oil change, but nobody will sell one to me for that. Good golden breeders typically have waiting lists a mile long so their incentive to change what they're doing just to satisfy the rare buyer like yourself, is extremely low. 

Who doesn't like a good argue thread on a Sunday? Maybe Tom wants to ecollar condition his new free healthy puppy, too?


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

thomas&betts said:


> Swampcollie, Can you imagine how pure and perfect the breed would be if every "Limited Contract" had a puppy buyer protection clause like I listed above that instructed the Law Judge to fairly compensate for damages (Veterinarian, legal fee's, pain and suffering, etc.) Golden Retrievers owners for undisclosed breeding defects of the expert breeders. One lawsuit would end the breeding and make homeless the unscrupulous, unethical breeder, and the world would be blessed with healthy Golden Retrievers in no time, owners who could enjoy the life of their dog as I did to the age of 14 years old, no expensive medical bills, etc. Wouldn't that be just great! For the betterment of the breed! When will you and others give this protection (tomorrow??? never??) or am I being rude to ask for such a betterment?


Never, and no. But again I think your scenario is the product of a lack of understanding. Let me ask you: 

What do you consider to be "undisclosed breeding defects" that would give rise to this lawsuit? And are you assuming the breeder knows that the puppy has these "undisclosed breeding defects" and purposefully hides them from you? 

If so, yeah, sue the pants off that breeder, whether the contract allows for it or not. The LAW allows for it, because what you've just described is fraud. Fraud is where the breeder makes a misrepresentation (affirmatively or by concealment) of a material fact, that she intends that you detrimentally rely on the misrepresentation, that you do reasonably rely on it, and that you are damaged by that reliance. You don't need provisions in a contract in order to give you the right to sue that breeder.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

thomas&betts said:


> Thanks for your response. They are all helpful. Being a research type, give me a day to go over your matches (for my own learning experience) and see what would concern the untrained Golden Lover class like myself. I did see a particular glaring red flag in prior checking that I may not understand or you may not want me to discuss in this open thread. But if you are open to honest teaching/learning and using Ziva's breeding as a tool to teach those like me, I have to commend you for you openness. tks, T


Go for it. And if I can learn from it, too, all the better. But since none of those sires except Gibbs are my dogs, I'd ask that you refrain from picking them apart.

Meanwhile, just for a break, here is a photo of my morning. I am dog sitting, and it's getting a bit chaotic. And this isn't even all the dogs here.  FYI the one in the middle is my puppy, Ziva, and my rescue is in there, and the other three I am sitting.


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

I sincerely appreciate the wealth of information that the breeders on these forums have shared. I don't believe for a moment that any of you are evil, profit mongering snobs (insert wink and nod). I thank you for your efforts and patience in explaining to those of us that love goldens but really don't have the first clue about clearances, structure and everything else that you consider in making breeding decisions.
In the end I depend on and trust my breeder to make those choices and pair me with the right puppy, and I'll happily pay the asking price.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> Incorrect, any custom made shotgun that you are selling, you end up selling at a loss.


Actually no. If you make modifications (of course depending on the modification) the value of the original shotgun raises. However, that value may not always equal the cost of modifications (for example, I was just looking at a secondhand Benelli M1 Super 90 12 Gauge, cost $1699.99. For a secondhand Benelli M1 Super 90 12 Gauge customized with a 24 round X-Rail magazine extension, and Fiber-optic sight, the cost increased to $3299.99. Does that equal the total investment? I don't know, but the value on the original unit has increased).



Claudia M said:


> Does that mean that a yard sale is a business? Not every money transaction makes one a business.


Yes it does. Definition of business: the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.

Even with a yard sale, one is usually making a profit.



Claudia M said:


> Well, it was not just the limited registration. The attitude, the price and the limited registration. Would there be a need our there for BYBs and mom and pop breeders otherwise?


This is where things get confusing. During this, and other threads, it has been suggested there are a 'responsible' number of litters a breeder should have in any given year, otherwise their motives should be questioned. During this, and other threads, it has been suggested that a 'responsible' breeder has a contract. But now it's 'attitude, price and the limited registration' that drives people to 'BYB'? 

I'm not sure what a breeder is to do. There aren't enough well bred litters to 'supply the demand' so some people chose to go to a 'BYB' (I hate these terms by the way, they are utterly useless). Yet in the next breath, breeders shouldn't be breeding X number of times per year. Now come to find out, it is yet another thing breeders do that sends people to 'BYB'. 

Are you seeing the circles that are being spun? 

A breeder who:
Competes
Health Checks
Sells on Contract
Is available for the life of the dog
Is investing time and finances into their breeding program
Continues their education on their own dime
Charges a certain amount for their puppies which reflects the time, expense, research, and experience

That is the type of breeder one should seek out, but they are also the problem.

I have posted this before, its a look at real expenses How much is that puppy…say what?!? | Ramblings of a Dog Person


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

DanaRuns said:


> Go for it. And if I can learn from it, too, all the better. But since none of those sires except Gibbs are my dogs, I'd ask that you refrain from picking them apart.
> 
> *Meanwhile, just for a break, here is a photo of my morning. I am dog sitting, and it's getting a bit chaotic. And this isn't even all the dogs here.*


Thanks for the pic and the break! I wish my Sunday was just like yours. Similar, but not exactly. But that may be the my point. Choices!!!! The example was in the Ziva Line so I will refrain understandably! Thanks again for the pic, time for a working break. By the way look at the one closest to the plate in the pic! Pure Golden, and so obedient!T


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> *
> 
> True but that is where the contract comes in. Any dog bred before age of 2, without full clearances and no titles will therefore nullify the AKC registration for both the dog and the offspring and will render ownership of dog and/or offspring to original breeder of said dog.
> 
> "The AKC will not become involved in disputes concerning 'full' or 'limited' registration of a dog. These disputes must be resolved by the parties involved in the sale of the dog. The only exception to this is in cases where there is a contract, signed by all parties involved and made at the time of the dog sale, that stipulates the registration status. In those cases, AKC will initiate an inquiry on the matter." from AKC website. *



Lots of luck trying to get any judge/court to enforce that "* the offspring and will render ownership of dog and/or offspring to original breeder of said dog."*And the AKC can not enforce it either, all they can do is refuse to register the pups. They will not nullify the dog's AKC registration.
And the only way the AKC would know if the dog had not fulfilled those requirements would be if the dog's breeder was aware of the breeding and filed a complaint. A dog on full registration needs no approval of that dog's breeder to be bred. So the only way that could be guaranteed is if the dog was sold on co-ownership with the breeder being the co-owner.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

thomas&betts said:


> Swampcollie, Can you imagine how pure and perfect the breed would be if every "Limited Contract" had a puppy buyer protection clause like I listed above that instructed the Law Judge to fairly compensate for damages (Veterinarian, legal fee's, pain and suffering, etc.) Golden Retrievers owners for undisclosed breeding defects of the expert breeders.


What color is the sky in your world where genetic engineering exists as a common everyday occurance? 

Breeders are not genetic engineers. There are relatively few screening tests available for them to work with at this time. They can not possibly know the condition and functional capability of every single gene in a dogs DNA. While there are people working on it, from a practical standpoint that kind of technology is still science fiction. 

Breeders can't guarantee things they have no control over. So a lifetime bumper to bumper warranty as you've suggested simply isn't practical. There have been some breeders who have offered such a warranty, but the price of a puppy was so prohibitively expensive nobody would take them up on the offer.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

thomas&betts said:


> Thanks for the pic and the break! I wish my Sunday was just like yours. Similar, but not exactly. But that may be the my point. Choices!!!! The example was in the Ziva Line so I will refrain understandably!


Also understand that I only own Ziva, not any of her ancestors, so like the sires, please don't trash any of those dogs. You raised Ziva as a breeding example, so I'm open to discussing that, but do not want to have a situation where dogs that are not mine are trashed in this thread.



> Thanks again for the pic, time for a working break. By the way look at the one closest to the plate in the pic! Pure Golden, and so obedient!T


That one is Ziva.  The others I am dog sitting. My other dogs are not in the photo.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

K9-Design;4577794
Who doesn't like a good argue thread on a Sunday? Maybe Tom wants to ecollar condition his new free healthy puppy said:


> I had to laugh out loud. You are right on the money with this one!


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

K9-Design said:


> It's very simple. If you do not agree to the terms of a breeder's contract, go elsewhere.


Exactly.

QUOTE=K9-Design;4577794]
Who doesn't like a good argue thread on a Sunday? Maybe Tom wants to ecollar condition his new free healthy puppy, too?[/QUOTE]



Leslie B said:


> I had to laugh out loud. You are right on the money with this one!


Yep, laughed out loud.


----------



## Simply (May 14, 2014)

Conquerergold said:


> Actually no. If you make modifications (of course depending on the modification) the value of the original shotgun raises. However, that value may not always equal the cost of modifications (for example, I was just looking at a secondhand Benelli M1 Super 90 12 Gauge, cost $1699.99. For a secondhand Benelli M1 Super 90 12 Gauge customized with a 24 round X-Rail magazine extension, and Fiber-optic sight, the cost increased to $3299.99. Does that equal the total investment? I don't know, but the value on the original unit has increased).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your costs dont exactly add up right. Do you only get one litter per female ever? Is the fancy whelping box a one time use thing? What are the odds of both females needing c-sections? Why do you do the progesterone/ai thing vs natural?


----------



## 1stGold13 (Dec 1, 2013)

kellyguy said:


> I sincerely appreciate the wealth of information that the breeders on these forums have shared. I don't believe for a moment that any of you are evil, profit mongering snobs (insert wink and nod). I thank you for your efforts and patience in explaining to those of us that love goldens but really don't have the first clue about clearances, structure and everything else that you consider in making breeding decisions.
> In the end I depend on and trust my breeder to make those choices and pair me with the right puppy, and I'll happily pay the asking price.


Well said, I've been keeping up with this because it interests me. My wife and I upon meeting our breeder and learning about limited registration a bit agreed that the purchase price in no way purely reflects the price we paid or the time money and effort that goes into a top breeding program. We happily agree that we have no clue how to properly breed a dog and would never attempt it. To the breeders and up-and-coming breeders who have replied here at length when it may have seemed you were banging your heads against the wall in even trying, please know your comments and expertise are not falling on deaf ears, your efforts get passed on in the conversation on the street or at the park when someone asks where can they get one and how much. Your wisdom gets passed on when they bring up the $300 dollar puppies for sale in parking lots and the $3000 dollar puppies for sale in a pet store.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

1stGold13 said:


> Well said, I've been keeping up with this because it interests me. My wife and I upon meeting our breeder and learning about limited registration a bit agreed that the purchase price in no way purely reflects the price we paid or the time money and effort that goes into a top breeding program. We happily agree that we have no clue how to properly breed a dog and would never attempt it. To the breeders and up-and-coming breeders who have replied here at length when it may have seemed you were banging your heads against the wall in even trying, please know your comments and expertise are not falling on deaf ears, your efforts get passed on in the conversation on the street or at the park when someone asks where can they get one and how much. Your wisdom gets passed on when they bring up the $300 dollar puppies for sale in parking lots and the $3000 dollar puppies for sale in a pet store.


Thank you for taking the time to post this. It is WHY many on here do this. :wave:


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Simply said:


> Your costs dont exactly add up right. Do you only get one litter per female ever? Is the fancy whelping box a one time use thing? What are the odds of both females needing c-sections? Why do you do the progesterone/ai thing vs natural?


I know I am not answering your questions yet, but NO ONE had answered why would it matter if they made a little profit?

Is it okay for any breeders to make a profit? Why is this just attacking reputable breeders?

Do people not realize that BYB make a profit and do absolutely nothing to improve the breed in any way?

Just asking.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Simply said:


> Your costs dont exactly add up right. Do you only get one litter per female ever? Is the fancy whelping box a one time use thing? What are the odds of both females needing c-sections? Why do you do the progesterone/ai thing vs natural?


Those are the bills I incurred for those two litters. So the math, for those two litters is correct.

If they have another litter, the whelping box/fleece costs will not be included (I could most likely get a few litters use out of the fleece, and many out of the box), nor will hip/elbow or heart checks for the dam. However, the deficit will carry over on top of the expenses litter #2 will incur.

I chose to do progesterone so I am not wasting frozen semen or wasting peoples time collecting and shipping semen when the girls have not ovulated. I chose to not limit my breeding program to only dogs available to be bred to my girls naturally, and I will not ship them to a stud dog either. I will go where I feel my girls need to go (health, structure, temperament etc. wise), no matter where in the world that may take us.

As I said in the post, there are other ways to do it, this is my way, which is neither right nor wrong.

Rob


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

kfayard said:


> I know I am not answering your questions yet, but NO ONE had answered why would it matter if they made a little profit?
> 
> Is it okay for any breeders to make a profit? Why is this just attacking reputable breeders?
> 
> ...




I think that you have hit the nail right on the head. The word profit has become a dirty word in the world of purebred dogs. There is NOTHING wrong with making a profit and in fact I believe that breeders should make a profit. Why? Two reasons First - While it is a great hobby it is also expensive and time consuming. If I were to paint pictures I would sell them at the art fair and hope to recover the cost of my materials, and to compensate me for my time and talent. Is breeding dogs any less worthy of compensation than a painting? Like the painter, many breeders likely wont make as much as a minimum wage job but at least it is something.

Second - and this is important for everyone who wants a healthy and talented dog at some time in their future. There will be an extremely limited supply of quality puppies to pick from if breeders are expected to breed from the goodness of their hearts and bleed money while they do so. We already see an increase in the wait time to get a puppy from a quality breeder. It can be months or even years. I look around at my retriever club and most of the people are retired. How long will they be breeding their dogs? My guess is that they are winding down and not ramping up. New members of our club are in decline. Those that join want to participate in events but few are breeding their dogs. In the mean time, the breeder who does not do clearances, does not compete with her dogs, and does not care what happens to the puppies she produces - much less the breed - continues to produce litter after litter. 

In many ways, the direction that our breed goes is totally in the hands of the consumer who purchases a puppy. Are they going to pick quality - and pay for it? Or are they going to buy economy and roll the dice that they will not get a lemon? I hope that they pick quality and not just because I am a breeder but because I have enjoyed owning, competing with, training behind, and working with some great dogs. Some I bred and some I purchased. Regardless, my life would be so much less without them and I hope that there will be more even when I am done breeding.


----------



## deknaack (Mar 5, 2014)

Swampcollie said:


> I had an old puppy customer contacting me about our recent litter and he was shocked to see what the price of a Golden puppy was today. When he last bought a puppy 14 years ago the going rate was in the $750 - $800 range. Now he sees prices in the $1,500 to $2,500 range. What the hell happened?
> 
> I began to give him a little economic history lesson of the last 14 years in the dog world. Back in 1999 a gallon of gas was under a dollar a gallon and a good commercial kibble was about 75 cents a pound. It was a long held and widely accepted practice that puppies were old enough to begin dispersing to their new homes at 7 weeks of age.
> 
> ...


 that's why puppy mills can keep in buissness Donna Arthur of Lakeland fl sells goldens for 600.00
She runs a grear add online. she pulls people in and then they get sick pups that have poor breeding inbred and cancer line in there pup pups also have lung worm. sad that money rules


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

Leslie B said:


> In many ways, the direction that our breed goes is totally in the hands of the consumer who purchases a puppy. Are they going to pick quality - and pay for it? Or are they going to buy economy and roll the dice that they will not get a lemon?


The trend in the overall economy is the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is disappearing. Poor people, many of them who grew up middle class with a dog, are still going to go for whichever of life's simple pleasures that they can find a way to wrangle, and that includes raising a puppy. If the "quality" breeders price puppies out of a range that folks with lower incomes can afford, most of us will buy the puppies we can afford and do the best we can with them. That's just common sense.

People can look down from their ivory towers and say "Volunteer at a shelter", "Foster a dog until someone with more money is willing to adopt it", and all that jazz. When I was looking for a puppy, I wasn't looking for a volunteer position or do community service, I was looking for a companion dog that I would own, and that's what I got. When he passes away, that's probably what I'll do the next time as well. I don't feel like anyone has the right to tell me I can't do that. I'm a human being. I'm a good dog owner. And I don't really care what anyone has to say about except in so far as it clearly gets under my skin, but it isn't going to effect my my aims and ideals are- which were to find a good puppy I could afford and still find a way to pay medical bills for him and such, and will be again when my dog passes away from old age one day. I think most people in my position are going to act and react the same way as I do. Many of them don't seem to post here, but I've received a lot of private messages and rep comments over the years from people who lurk and agree with me but don't want to get into an argument over it with people, which is perfectly understandable.

Even in third world countries, a lot of people keep pets and feed them table scraps. Dogs have been with us since the days when the average income and stuff was a lot lower- heck, from when we all were nomads living in tents and hunting and gathering- and remain with us even in poverty in the first world and even in poverty in the third world.

The only way you're going to stop that is to try to legislate it, and if you do, you'll face a ton of civil disobedience and protests. People won't take crap like that lying down.

So, look, breeders who care about the future of the breed can do whatever the heck they want. But if they choose not to provide dogs at prices people can afford on terms people can swallow, it will continue to broaden the market for other breeders to step in and breed uncertified dogs for us and we'll go with them. And that'll be the direction of this breed and others.

But it's not that people who can't afford the prices breeders shell out don't want "quality" dogs with good health certifications. We'd absolutely take them at the right price and without the preconditions attached to buying them that people want to assign. So, it's really up to the breeders whether they feel getting more money and keeping control over the puppies after they've sold them through contracts is more important than the future of the breed. Because if they insist on the money and the conditions, people will go elsewhere. People will have no other choice. And that's going to mean ultimately that the breed standards start to slip and dogs in general get more generic- return of the mutts. 

Personally, I have very stringent ideas of what qualifies as a golden retriever and would love to have bought from someone who worked hard to maintain that standard and got all the health qualifications and whatever. But when every single breeder who had those kind of ideas and did that kind of stuff whom I contacted over the course of 6 months wouldn't deal with me or negotiate on price, I looked elsewhere rather than not having a dog. And that's what I'll do again if necessary. My dog likes living with me, I like having a dog, it's good for my physical and psychological well-being. And if it means buying from someone who breeds kind of informally, well, that is what it is. I got a great puppy that way this last time, and maybe I'll get a great puppy that way next time.

But it's in other people's hands whether I have to resort to that next time. It's not like I am unwilling to work with someone who maintains high breed standards and does health qualifications. That's actually my first choice. But I only have so much money, and I have the funny idea that when I sacrifice to spend money for a puppy and provide health care and tons of time and love and frustration and physical effort into raising the little guy, that he's my dog and I get to make decisions for him like what to feed him, when or whether to neuter him, what his name is, who would inherit him if I died, and so on and so forth instead of the breeder (I wouldn't adopt a human child if the prior parents retained rights to him either, and most people who adopt in reality shy away from that as well. Some people even seek foreign adoptions because they are afraid of a biological uncle or something popping up and demanding visitation rights in court. I'm not looking to adopt, I'll either marry and have my own children or I won't [Isn't looking likely, but I'm open to it], but hypothetically, if I adopted, I'd want my hypothetical wife and I to be the kid's parents in every way and make the normal decisions parents make.). The breeder has his or her own dogs to make decisions for.

Like I said, free country. Breeders can do whatever they want. But I wish people wouldn't raise prices so high and screen out buyers and attach strict conditions to things and then wonder why people seek out other breeders they can afford who are easier to deal with and then chastise them for it. It's not a big mystery. People want dogs and are ready to provide loving homes for them. They just need a purchase price they can afford and may not want to buy a pet that someone else holds legal rights to make the decisions for. It's not people's fault for buying the only puppies they can afford and make part of their family. If there's fault there, it's the people who won't sell those people puppies that meet breed standards and such. It's really in the hands of the breeders how the future of the breed goes.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

I'm starting to think this whole thread is just a big gripe on class issues between the "haves" (breeders) and the "have nots" (puppy buyers).


----------



## Simply (May 14, 2014)

Conquerergold said:


> Those are the bills I incurred for those two litters. So the math, for those two litters is correct.
> 
> If they have another litter, the whelping box/fleece costs will not be included (I could most likely get a few litters use out of the fleece, and many out of the box), nor will hip/elbow or heart checks for the dam. However, the deficit will carry over on top of the expenses litter #2 will incur.
> 
> ...


Thank you  this whole conversation is fascinating, your breakdown of costs equally so.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

No


Golden999 said:


> The trend in the overall economy is the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is disappearing. Poor people, many of them who grew up middle class with a dog, are still going to go for whichever of life's simple pleasures that they can find a way to wrangle, and that includes raising a puppy. If the "quality" breeders price puppies out of a range that folks with lower incomes can afford, most of us will buy the puppies we can afford and do the best we can with them. That's just common sense.
> 
> People can look down from their ivory towers and say "Volunteer at a shelter", "Foster a dog until someone with more money is willing to adopt it", and all that jazz. When I was looking for a puppy, I wasn't looking for a volunteer position or do community service, I was looking for a companion dog that I would own, and that's what I got. When he passes away, that's probably what I'll do the next time as well. I don't feel like anyone has the right to tell me I can't do that. I'm a human being. I'm a good dog owner. And I don't really care what anyone has to say about except in so far as it clearly gets under my skin, but it isn't going to effect my my aims and ideals are- which were to find a good puppy I could afford and still find a way to pay medical bills for him and such, and will be again when my dog passes away from old age one day. I think most people in my position are going to act and react the same way as I do. Many of them don't seem to post here, but I've received a lot of private messages and rep comments over the years from people who lurk and agree with me but don't want to get into an argument over it with people, which is perfectly understandable.
> 
> ...


Yep as usual it is SOMEONE else's fault!!! No big surprise there. 
And for the record I think if you research it the people in third world countries you refer to, they are not "buying" pups from anyone. They are adopting strays for the most part (rescue). 
Now to retire back to my "ivory tower". :doh:


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Golden999 said:


> So, look, breeders who care about the future of the breed can do whatever the heck they want. But if they choose not to provide dogs at prices people can afford on terms people can swallow, it will continue to broaden the market for other breeders to step in and breed uncertified dogs for us and we'll go with them. And that'll be the direction of this breed and others.
> 
> But it's not that people who can't afford the prices breeders shell out don't want "quality" dogs with good health certifications. We'd absolutely take them at the right price and without the preconditions attached to buying them that people want to assign. So, it's really up to the breeders whether they feel getting more money and keeping control over the puppies after they've sold them through contracts is more important than the future of the breed. Because if they insist on the money and the conditions, people will go elsewhere. People will have no other choice. And that's going to mean ultimately that the breed standards start to slip and dogs in general get more generic- return of the mutts.
> 
> Like I said, free country. Breeders can do whatever they want. But I wish people wouldn't raise prices so high and screen out buyers and attach strict conditions to things and then wonder why people seek out other breeders they can afford who are easier to deal with and then chastise them for it. It's not a big mystery. People want dogs and are ready to provide loving homes for them. They just need a purchase price they can afford and may not want to buy a pet that someone else holds legal rights to make the decisions for. It's not people's fault for buying the only puppies they can afford and make part of their family. If there's fault there, it's the people who won't sell those people puppies that meet breed standards and such. It's really in the hands of the breeders how the future of the breed goes.


So basically, breeders should be paying for families to get one of their dogs. That is what this comes down to. Breeders should not cut corners, but should sacrifice in other areas to offset their loss so Joe Public can get a puppy in the $600-800 range. I know I can not afford to supplement the purchase price of puppies much more than I already do.

Only those that can afford the rising costs of vet care, food, entry fees, travel, and NOT try to offset some of those costs via puppy purchase price should breed, so puppy prices can remain lower than they currently are. There will be very very few breeders if that is the case. 

When I purchased my very first show dog that was all mine (not co-owned, and not given to me), I set aside $50 a paycheque, it took me 14 months. I sacrificed for the luxury of getting what I wanted (same as I did for a new laptop, and for a two week vacation). The thought that someone should do without so that I can get what I want has never entered my mind.

Maybe I'm the odd man out though.

Rob


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

We're all adults, and we have to accept responsibility for the choices we make. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if it comes to a point for me financially where I have to choose to spend less on some things to be able to afford other things that mean a lot to me (like a puppy that comes from what I consider to be a reputable breeder), then I'll cut back elsewhere to buy that puppy. And if I think I can't do that, I won't have a pup at all. Nobody is forcing anyone else to resort to a BYB, you make that choice.


----------



## Cookie's Mom (Oct 14, 2013)

Golden999 said:


> Like I said, free country. Breeders can do whatever they want. But I wish people wouldn't raise prices so high and screen out buyers and attach strict conditions to things and then wonder why people seek out other breeders they can afford who are easier to deal with and then chastise them for it. It's not a big mystery. People want dogs and are ready to provide loving homes for them. They just need a purchase price they can afford and may not want to buy a pet that someone else holds legal rights to make the decisions for. It's not people's fault for buying the only puppies they can afford and make part of their family. If there's fault there, it's the people who won't sell those people puppies that meet breed standards and such. It's really in the hands of the breeders how the future of the breed goes.


Growing up, my parents always taught me that if I want quality, be prepared to work hard and save up for it. No one is going to make life easy for me. I don't understand why it's the breeders who have to lower their cost. Why is it not your responsibility to save up enough money? No one is entitled to anything in this world. If you go into a pet store or even breeders who have flashy slogans or breed "english cremes", you are often paying the same or even more for a lesser quality dog (parents don't compete/don't have clearances).


----------



## Goldylover2 (May 1, 2014)

You breeders who do charge 1500 all the way up to 3000 dollars are using the breed to make money. It's as simple as that. You say your doing this to better the breed. BS!!! Average litter is around eight pups. That's 16k (2k average). If you have two females and you alternate each year. Your pulling in 16k a year for four years, maybe longer. Not bad for a small business. But lets get real and call a spade a spade. Some of you do it for additional income. This board was alright until I saw some of the personalities in this thread. Arrogance at it's core to say the least.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Wow... I am sad that you feel I breed for extra income and are banking money!

My last litter I just barely broke even!

Please answer this... Someone?!? Anyone!! Why is it ok for people that do not do anything with their dogs and no clearances to charge $500 a puppy but not a reputable breeder that charges $1500???


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

You know, there is a line where breeders' requirements are just "too much." We can argue where that line is, but we all agree there's a line. Personally, I don't think it's at price. I think breeders should charge what they feel right charging. If it's too much, breeders won't be able to place their puppies. But even at $1500-$2000, breeders have long waiting lists, so obviously they are not charging too much.

I agree that breeders can overdo it. For me it's usually the intangibles. Like when they insist on naming the dog that I'm going to have its whole life and which I will hold in my arms when it takes its last breath while I sob and grieve, that draws the line for me. So, sure, breeders can have conditions that rub people the wrong way. So, if you don't like it, don't buy from them. Go to a BYB. I frankly think BYBs serve a purpose (oh, the heresy!) to preserve the breed's genetic diversity against bottlenecks.


----------



## sdhgolden (Aug 13, 2012)

Goldylover2 said:


> You breeders who do charge 1500 all the way up to 3000 dollars are using the breed to make money. It's as simple as that. You say your doing this to better the breed. BS!!! Average litter is around eight pups. That's 16k (2k average). If you have two females and you alternate each year. Your pulling in 16k a year for four years, maybe longer. Not bad for a small business. But lets get real and call a spade a spade. Some of you do it for additional income. This board was alright until I saw some of the personalities in this thread. Arrogance at it's core to say the least.



Did you not see the cost breakdown earlier in the thread?


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## kellyguy (Mar 5, 2014)

"Why is it ok for people that do not do anything with their dogs and no clearances to charge $500 a puppy but not a reputable breeder that charges $1500??? "

I've found we're devolving into arguing with people that view everything from the standpoint of socialism. It's sad


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Golden999 said:


> Like I said, free country. Breeders can do whatever they want. * But I wish people wouldn't raise prices so high and screen out buyers and attach strict conditions to things and then wonder why people seek out other breeders* they can afford who are easier to deal with and then chastise them for it. It's not a big mystery.


*THEY DON'T.* This is something you have in YOUR HEAD. I know NO responsible golden breeder in my area who is hurting for puppy buyers. There are NO litters listed in my club's puppy referral, because the litters are sold before they hit the ground. Websites are not updated because breeders don't need to advertise. In fact I see MANY MANY posts on FB "does anyone have puppies available, I didn't have enough for my buyers." All of these people are charging the going rate for a well-bred golden of $1200-$2000. *If someone decides they do not want to pay that amount it is NOT the breeder's fault nor the breeder's responsibility to lower their price so the buyer can get one! *

I DO wish there were more breeders who didn't charge so much (say, in the $600-$1000 range), basically they have nice pets, yet did the clearances. We have these breeders out there -- but they have hopped on the bandwagon and are charging the same as a breeder who competes and proves their dogs. Blame them if you want to. They are charging the same price for an inferior product. The BYB is priced right, the great breeder is priced right, it's this in-betweener that is charging too much.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Goldylover2 said:


> You breeders who do charge 1500 all the way up to 3000 dollars are using the breed to make money. It's as simple as that. You say your doing this to better the breed. BS!!! Average litter is around eight pups. That's 16k (2k average). If you have two females and you alternate each year. Your pulling in 16k a year for four years, maybe longer. Not bad for a small business. But lets get real and call a spade a spade. Some of you do it for additional income. This board was alright until I saw some of the personalities in this thread. Arrogance at it's core to say the least.


Wow. Your post reads pretty arrogantly, too.

FYI, I'm not a breeder. I have well bred dogs which I co-own with the breeders. I have a rescue dog. And I have a dog from a puppy mill.

My two well-bred dogs are show dogs, both still puppies (the oldest is in my signature pic). They are not even old enough to breed yet, and already I've spent probably $20,000 on them, not counting purchase price (I paid $2,000 for each of them). By the time they both have championships, I will likely have spent a good $50,000 on them. If I want to breed them, I will start doing it knowing that before the costs of a single breeding I have already spent far more on proving these dogs than I will ever see from multiple breedings.

I also want to say that you are not in a position to comment on what drives breeders. For you to say it's "BS" that they want to better the breed is super insulting. You cannot possibly know that, and it's patently offensive for you to make such an unsubstantiated and global accusation. I'm not a breeder and even I found it offensive. If I were a breeder I'd take note of who is saying what and then I'd leave this thread never to give it another look. It's unfair to hurl such nasty accusations at people you don't even know. I frankly think some folks here owe others apologies. And everyone should stick to what the moderators have said multiple times: keep it civil. Your post is not civil. It's an unprovoked punch in the nose.

For some reason this has become a "bash the breeders" thread. It need not be. There is some interesting stuff here, and if we can avoid attacking people and read posts to learn from each other, this can still be a great thread.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

The breeder I got Lucy from are just regular people. The husband is a truck driver and the wife cleans offices at night. Nice mellow people. Compete in every venue under the sun with their dogs. The other evening out, the bartender at the event I was at is a woman that shows boxers, we've also had obedience classes together. There are plenty of medium income people in the dog world, I just don't think you've found them. It's probably easier today for people to own pure bred dogs than it was 100 years ago when only the uber rich bred and showed dogs. I do think today far fewer people are breeding dogs than even 10 years ago. That is going to be a bigger problem. Then the human Society of the United States wants to make it impossible for humans to own dogs.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

Goldylover2 said:


> You breeders who do charge 1500 all the way up to 3000 dollars are using the breed to make money. It's as simple as that. You say your doing this to better the breed. BS!!! Average litter is around eight pups. That's 16k (2k average). If you have two females and you alternate each year. Your pulling in 16k a year for four years, maybe longer. Not bad for a small business. But lets get real and call a spade a spade. Some of you do it for additional income. This board was alright until I saw some of the personalities in this thread. Arrogance at it's core to say the least.


Courage is a rare quality now days! Don' t think just because some can't muster enough courage to agree with you in writing, when faced by numerous vested interest, you're not correct. When money is involved, and the stream of the money could be reduced if your point of view is accepted, expect to be vigorously attacked (while being called rude, troll, and so on). Be courageous anyway. Know that those who read your message appreciate your point of view (some so much you must be silenced!). *Thank You for your courage.*


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

thomas&betts said:


> Courage is a rare quality now days! Don' t think just because some can't muster enough courage to agree with you in writing, when faced by numerous vested interest, you're not correct. When money is involved, and the stream of the money could be reduced if your point of view is accepted, expect to be vigorously attacked (while being called rude, troll, and so on). Be courageous anyway. Know that those who read your message appreciate your point of view (some so much you must be silenced!). *Thank You for your courage.*



Yep. Courage is an awesome thing! But, just because you have courage does not mean that you know everything. There is a difference between having courage and being rude.

What point was that? That reputable breeders are out just for money, we could care less to better the breed, and it is just another way to earn money?

That point?! If that is not arrogance, I do not know what is.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Conquerergold said:


> Actually no. If you make modifications (of course depending on the modification) the value of the original shotgun raises. However, that value may not always equal the cost of modifications (for example, I was just looking at a secondhand Benelli M1 Super 90 12 Gauge, cost $1699.99. For a secondhand Benelli M1 Super 90 12 Gauge customized with a 24 round X-Rail magazine extension, and Fiber-optic sight, the cost increased to $3299.99. Does that equal the total investment? I don't know, but the value on the original unit has increased).
> 
> HAHAHAHAAHA OMG - when you have 25000 to spare let me know. I do have a shotgun for sale. And that is to break even on it.
> 
> ...



I think I have said it elsewhere - to be honest there are darn few of the breeders here that I would ever consider buying a puppy from and that mainly stems from the attitude. I also wanted to apologize to you (I thought about it during training earlier today) I did not mean anything by stating I will definitely not spend $2000 on a show bred dog. It is just that my main purpose for a dog is field and hunt, show comes last on my personal list. 
You competing with your dog is your own prerogative not mine. I am doing the same with my dogs, should you sell the pup to me for less since I am spending money on the pup I bought from you? Clearances... to some degree fine, but I will be doing clearances on the pup as well either bred or not bred. Should you sell the pup for less since I will have those extra expenses? 
Continues education on its own dime. Many professionals have to do that. Lawyers, doctors, insurance, reals estate people.....etc. After all it is a life you chose for yourself based on your hobby.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

I find it funny that the main people that are bashing reputable breeders have never bred a litter, so actually has no first hand experience?! Weird...

But, I guess that's what the Internet is there for.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

kfayard said:


> I find it funny that the main people that are bashing reputable breeders have never bred a litter, so actually has no first hand experience?! Weird...
> 
> But, I guess that's what the Internet is there for.


Oopps, our Belle had a very nice litter!  But I guess since we only gave the puppies to family members and close friends that would not count.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> I think I have said it elsewhere - to be honest there are darn few of the breeders here that I would ever consider buying a puppy from and that mainly stems from the attitude. I also wanted to apologize to you (I thought about it during training earlier today) I did not mean anything by stating I will definitely not spend $2000 on a show bred dog. It is just that my main purpose for a dog is field and hunt, show comes last on my personal list.
> You competing with your dog is your own prerogative not mine. I am doing the same with my dogs, should you sell the pup to me for less since I am spending money on the pup I bought from you? Clearances... to some degree fine, but I will be doing clearances on the pup as well either bred or not bred. Should you sell the pup for less since I will have those extra expenses?
> Continues education on its own dime. Many professionals have to do that. Lawyers, doctors, insurance, reals estate people.....etc. After all it is a life you chose for yourself based on your hobby.


Claudia, I think this brings up a point. I think it all depends on your relationship with your breeder. My last litter, I sold a boy on full registration bc I knew she would be competing with him. She had another female that had titles. I am not a co-owner on him.

One of my dogs, the breeder actually gave me. She had a larger litter and she knew I was looking for another. She knew I would do something with him. And I have 

I think it all just depends on your experience and relationship with the breeder.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> Oopps, our Belle had a very nice litter!  But I guess since we only gave the puppies to family members and close friends that would not count.



Actually, Claudia I was not even talking about you! But, IMO a breeder is anyone that has bred a litter. You do not have to sell to be a breeder.


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

This thread has been closed because of persistent piling on and rudeness, despite repeated cautions to be respectful to other members.


----------

