not really seeing your point becks, are you saying that breeders who take back dogs they have bred (at any time during the dogs life) should also not make an effort to find it the best possible home? Breeders should be responsible for any dog they have bred throughout its life - regardless of age/status etc. I dont see any difference.

i agree.. my last post was maybe a little off but it seems like some breeders think that they have more valid reasons to rehome a dog than anyone else, whereas i think its just the same..

So if I get a dog for a specific purpose ie being a good agility dog, a pet for my kids whatever then its fine for me to then palm it off when it no longer serves that purpose? Or is it just the big breeders that are afforded this luxery and if they are - why do people have a go at puppy farmers who do the same thing with their breeding bitches?

Well said - agree totally.

Why does taking responsibilty of offspring come before your breeding bitches?

It is double standards IMO.

I think you've put it extremely well here, IMO its just using dogs as a commodity to achieve personal satisfaction then once they have served this purpose get rid.

As to taking pups back and rehoming - IMO its a different scenario, I take it then there's not problem with people returning a pup because its got to old or to big or just doesnt fit in any more. IE not fit for purpose any more?

It happens in other areas though, doesn't it? Look at Greyhounds for instance, they are very quickly disregarded by many once they aren't winning the races anymore.

Certainly doesnt make it right though!

I agree completely. Unfortunately people in life have different morals to others and nothing will every change that.

No - I wouldn't, thought to be fair the 'breeders' I know who do this I wouldn't touch with a bargepole anyway - they have other problems in their lines (health/temperament etc). The other part does not apply to me as I am not a breeder

Yes I agree with this, but WHY should a dog have to endure years of sub-standard living, merely churning out pups for someone before they get a chance at a decent life. This is my issue with it.

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with people rehoming dogs - it all depends on the situation. If two dogs do not get on (badly) and they are both miserable then I would certainly not condemn someone for rehoming one of them (obviously the same checks would need to be done as for a pup). The issue I do have a problem with is the rehoming of ex breeding dogs who have outlived their 'usefullness' and are passed on so they can have a better life. They should be able to have the same quality of life with the 'breeder'.

JMO

I dont understand why you are assuming they dont have a decent life?
Rehoming breeding stock once it has fulfilled it breeding potential (for want of a better phrase), isnt something I would aspire to, but I do understand why some people do so.

its easy to take the moral high ground, but i think under close scrutiny, all of us could be found wanting by people who dont share our views.

I own a breed where our numbers are not great.We have a few dedicated breeders who produce 1/2 litters a year with the intentions of producing better/good dogs.
All of these breeders have limited space and hence can only keep a limited supply of dogs.I know of 1 breeder who keeps her bitches once they are retired...the others rehome dogs/bitches that are retired or not good enough to show/breed.At the end of the day you need to look at the bigger picture...
1/ these dogs are rehomed into loving pet homes to live in comfort instead of spending their remaining years in a kennel.
2/ if these dogs didn't make way for other dogs it would prevent these breeders producing more excellent dogs and hence prevent people like me buying my 'dream' puppy
3/if good breeders don't supply puppies...where do buyers go! BYB and puppy farms.
These retired dogs are homed carefully and often with great upset to the owner who has lived with the dog for sometimes many years...but they know the best place for a retired dog is in a nice loving warm house.
How is it different from selling on a puppy...because the purchaser agrees to return the dog to the breeder since a good breeder takes responsibilty for their 'produce' for life and IMO a breeder taking care to rehome a dog is a lot different to sticking an ad in a local paper to sell to the first person with the required cash.

Nobody mentioned a substandard life. Many of the big breeders have staff that look after the dogs very well. They are not stuck in kennels 24/7. They are exercised, groomed, loved, played with - they just don't have the bond that we have with ours because ours live in the house. Neither was merely churning out puppies mentioned. It could be that a person has a dog they've titled and wants to bring on a youngster - which means they won't be showing the Ch anymore. This is the scenario we'd see more and more of if the whingers and whiners and the "it's not fair - I can't make my dog up" people get their way with a Champions class.

Another scenario is people who run on two or more puppies on and then sell one? What's the magical age where it goes from selling a puppy to rehoming a dog?

I used to think like you do. For years I berated these people and thought of them as uncaring. Then I looked at the bigger picture and realised that a) breeds would not exist if it weren't for these people and b) that unless the puppies were my own and I was selling them, I had no right to say what was good and what was not for other peoples' dogs. I'm not talking about mistreated dogs - I'm refering to well looked after, healthy, happy dogs who simply go to live elsewhere, just as most people who have an occasional litter would do if one of their puppies came back to them - or is it wrong to rehome these too?

Debs