not stupid!

a good point.


seems that breeders are getting a bit of a rough slating. its not their fault the dogs end up in rescue.

look at the owners and the OTT excuses. most breeders will take the dog back but the owners are too scared to admit they cant/wont be bothered to cope.

so to sum up..........owners NOT breeders need educating.

I'm glad you asked that, as I'm wondering the same thing too.

The more I read, the more I am seeing the usual elitist attitudes, backed by opinion without fact, and now, we seem to have moved into character assassinations. Never let it be said that it doesn't all happen at Dogsey.

Thanks

I know of a case last year whereby a puppy had gone to a suitable home but the person's cirmcumstances had changed and he was unable to keep the puppy.This person was very embarrassed about asking for help from the breeder,both the stud owner and breeder were contacted eventually and the breeder drove 500 miles to take the dog back.

can I also add, as there seems to be a hint of breeders are the ones responsible for rescues filling up with unwanted dogs, I can only speak for my area, the % of dogs in kennels round here is prob, 70% mongrels vs 30 breeds, often sadly its gsd's, JRT's and rottys that you see the as the main stay for pedigrees, labs running a close second,

Hello "new member", may I ask who "informed" you of this?? What information is not truth nor fact?
As he worked there for a good few years (only left cos I dragged him away), he knows all their procedures, indeed helped set up some of them in the years gone past. If you are going slate him and make up lies, please go do it somewhere where I can't read it you silly woman, or I'll be mightily pissed off.

I think people mean back yard breeders more so than reputable ones.

Absolutely true.
And who should be educating the owners of the pup they are intending to buy before they are allowed to buy him or her.....

I think people are getting a bit hung up on the Breeder `title`.

Those who are in the Responsible Breeder `group` are not the ones in question.

As to what constitues `a breeder`, its anyone and everyone who is the route cause of a litter being born whether it was deliberate and carefully planned, or because dear old Mrs Miggins round the corner let her little pooch take herself for a daily constitutional through the gate which is always open for the dog to come and go as she pleases.
Every dog in a rescue originated because of a breeder of `some` sort, which is why the term `breeder` is used collectively but the collective is made up of many different groups within it.

The reputable in terms of this thread, seem to be feeling they are being tarred however they are not among the `target` group/s of those who fall short of any decent standard of duty toward the pups they produce.

I`m not sure why anyone already doing things right would be upset :smt102
They could be, [ some here already are ], great educators to those starting out on the breeder route - whether deliberately breeding or because their dog went a-wanderin`.

So I hope anyone here who breeds and does so with the right attitude and duty of care does`nt feel `got at`, they have no need to.
We [ us pesky rescue orientated types ] need you to keep [ loudly ], leading other breeders by example guys.
It would be a war against the numbers of dogs in rescues which stands a better chance of being won with a two pronged united attack

[QUOTE=Helping.Hounds;1037876]
It is a fact that the number of unwanted dogs ending up in rescue originally bought from reputable breeders far out weighs the number of dogs originally adopted from reputable rescues, QUOTE]

Do you have facts to back this up,what you see as reputable others may not.Do you ever contact the Breeders as they may be unaware that one of there pups/dogs has gone into rescue?
Do you take the same approach as anne and give them a ticking off,would you let the breeder take the pup/dog back?

I agree and most good reputable breeders do this,but there is a difference between Breeders.
Bad Breeders,BYB,are hardly going to admit this are they,there is also a difference between a good breeder and good responsible ethical recommended breeders.

The way I see it is:

Reputable breeders will only sell puppies to people they are completely happy with - people they trust to take care of their puppies. They WILL follow up on the pups' progress and will go out of their way to make sure all is well. In the event of something unforseen happening they will do all they can to ensure the situation is resolved in the best interest of the dog. They may not personally to a pre home-check but by the time the puppy leaves with the new owner they could have been speaking to this person for around, and in some cases longer than, two years! depending on the waiting list they have for their litters.

Reputable rescues will also do all they can to ensure dogs in their care go to suitable homes.

Therefore one must come to the conclusion that, barring the ODD FEW dogs that slip through the net on BOTH sides of the breeder/rescue coin, it is the IRRESPONSIBLE breeders AND rescues that should be targeted for further education.

To lump all breeders together as the evil producers of masses of dogs which they don't care about is just wrong - just as wrong as lumping all rescues together for rehoming dogs that they have no breed specific knowledge of.

No, breeders should not have to do all the home checks that rescue centres do and the reason is simple - rescues have a month or so (or even less) to draw up a judgement on whether someone is suitable - reputable breeders have a couple of years to glean all the information they need.

Debs