Would it make dogs more throw away than they are now?

Does it really make a difference whether or not someone has paid vast amounts or not to the 'throw away' mentality? I'm not so sure it does, to be honest.

Perhaps not to the "throwing away" itself (I know many people do try selling an unwanted dog on to recoup their costs but I'm sure they'd still get rid for free if they really didn't want the dog any more) but it would make it that much easier to get hold of a dog in the first place - no need to have to save x weeks or to even be carrying any cash on you - so how many spur of the moment "sales" will happen? I've heard numerous cases of people trying to buy dogs belonging to other people because they've seen them in the park and like the look of them, if someone's just wandering around giving dogs away for free, how many people will fall in love with a cute face and walk away with one with no planning on how they'll actually care for it/afford it longterm? Then reality hits, and its time to get rid of the dog..oh well, they can just give it away to the next unsuspecting person, it's not like they've lost any money.

I'm thinking back to when 'free to good home' was the norm. It seems to me that back then there were less dogs in rescues and, to be honest, less rescue centres.

As said, it's an interesting concept and one which, of course, we can never know the answer to

Rose-tinted glasses? Less aware of the issue? Just a different lifestyle as a whole? Latchkey dogs used to be the norm but I wouldn't want to revert to that nowadays - and I'm sure there were dogs that got hit by cars, stolen, poisoned, etc. because they were allowed to roam but it just wasn't as noticed (people just replaced the dog without fretting too much? Dogs died out on their own and it was just assumed they'd been adopted by someone else? Etc) or documented (not dozens of dog forums where people can share news in an instant, lost dog registers, national appeals for missing dogs, etc)

As said, it's an interesting subject to muse upon, but one we could never know what the result would be because it will, of course, never happen

Well certainly if some of the 'reputable' breeders didn't charge such extortionate amounts for their puppies there would be less of a market for byb puppies.

I was looking up breeding costs for a thread on another forum and happened to see costs outlined by several breeders. Interestingly, many ran at a loss, even with 2 or 3 litters.
I don't think reputable breeders should be taking the blame for BYBs, and I certainly know of some people who've paid more for a BYB than they would've going to a reputable breeder - the BYBs just been picked because it was more convenient, no waiting list, no thorough questions, they just had to stump up the cash and get the puppy like its a product on a supermarket shelf.

Think about kittens - what's kitten worth? Not very much for a common or garden moggy - and often they are free. Does it stop people producing kittens? Nope! People can't give them away. I know matings are often not planned, just a result or not neutering but it still doesn't make people NOT want to breed them. Staffies are not worth that much it would seem, especially unregistered, but people still breed them, then struggle to sell them for £50.

I've got a litter due in two weeks. So far it's cost me over £2500 to get her pregnant (including health testing etc.). The money from the litter will go towards contributing to my new puppy. People seem to think I'm doing it for the cash, but although I'll appreciate the money to pay for vaccinations, pet passport, maybe a new kennel, I really couldn't give a stuff about the money.

If breeders charged what it actually cost to raise the litter and did not try to recoup costs for stud dog fees and health tests there would be little point in byb breeding for a fast buck as there would not be any profit in it.

Accidental matings will happen irregardless and those that feel their bitch should have just one litter may be less tempted if it were to make a hole in their pocket.

Health tests and stud fees are part of the cost of producing the litter. Why should they not count?

Byb will carry on because it's tax free cash. If they paid tax on pups bred they might think twice.
ETA: and also if it affected benefits etc.