|
Location: Old Leake, UK
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,080
|
|
Originally Posted by
AnneUK
So it comes back to money
Nobody should make money out of selling animals, if you can't afford to breed a litter then you shouldn't be breeding.
If money is the only reason to stop them adopting their pups on a contract to me that says a lot about the breeder.
It does come back to money, but not in the way you are suggesting, to breed a litter doesn't just cost about £100 and you get to keep the rest, not if it's done properly anyway.
I agree that you shouldn't breed a litter if you can't afford to do it. I strongly believe that you shouldn't breed a litter if you're not prepared to keep them all or have them back if things go wrong.
I also agree, no-one should make money out of breeding, but are you saying that they shouldn't recoup anything that they've paid out?
What if you have a litter of 8 pups, they go to their new homes at 8 weeks having been reared on the best food money can buy, the mother has been given extra food and supplements. What if the mother has also been under the vets care for three days and ends up having a c-section?
The last litter I had consisted of 8 pups, Bramble was 3 days overdue so was taken to the vets both morning afternoon and night for scans and a check up for those 3 days. As she started to dehydrate on the 3rd day she was given a C-section. On day 4 one of the pups started to go downhill. He was taken to the vets everyday for treatment, he was hand fed and given every chance I could give him. Sadly I had to have him pts at 10 days, the pm revealed a hole in the bladder, something he was born with and couldn't have been treated. Can you imagine the vets bill I was landed with for that lot? It was horrendous but nothing I wasn't prepared for and had made prior arrangements with the vet to cover financially if and when they happened.
As I was keeping one of the pups anyway, (and I could have easily sold him as I still didn't have enough pups for my waiting list), by the time the vets bills had been paid, food etc for the pups,(not mum as she gets fed anyway), KC registration etc., was accounted for, once the six pups had been sold I came out of it with a minus balance.
I don't breed for the money, I only breed when I want to keep something which is why I've only had the two litters in over 20 years of owning the breeds.
I know this has taken your original thread off topic so won't continue. My answer to your original questions would be yes, breeders should carry out as stringent checks as rescues albeit there will be some differences. I personally do not think puppies should be put up for adoption rather than sold.