I charged £650 for my last litter, for that you got a pup from parents that are hip/elbow scored BVA eye tested, {not only are the parents tested but almost all the dogs on the five gen ped has been hip scored } both parents winning at champ shows, dad won to a high level in obed.

pups come with both injections, tails were docked by vets, you get the whole lot with the pup, bags of feeding, vet bed, yada yada,
the last litter cost a lot to rear as they were hand reared,

I dont know if there is an answer to the question. I guess if your happy with the pup, the parents, the health testing has been done, you like the breeder and the price, well its money well spent I would think

Unfortunately a well bred pup that has come from line bred parents hasn't got a reduced risk of developing hereditary illnesses but an increased risk. Yes the parents will have been health tested but there are very few hereditary diseases that can be tested for. Line breeding reduces the gene pool which increases the risk of the hereditary diseases that haven't been tested for showing themselves.

My advise, if a person has chosen to buy, is to find an reputable and ethical breeder who doesn't show or work their dogs but is breeding quality pets from health tested parents. Show dogs tend to be line bred, working dogs tend to be too hyper/'worky'. The majority of dogs in this country are kept as pets, therefore people should search for a breeder who treats this as a priority over anything else.



ETA or even better consider adopting a dog or puppy instead.

I'm assuming you no longer allow your pups to have their tails docked?

If the breeder doesn't show or work their dogs, but is simply breeding to supply the pet market, (a) how do they assess the quality of the dogs they are breeding?; and (b) if they are simply breeding to supply the pet market for money, how can they be ethical?

Any good show/working breeder would in any case assume that the dogs they breed are going to be pets first and foremost and show/work dogs second.

Mick

Show dogs tend to be line bred, working dogs tend to be too hyper/'worky'. The majority of dogs in this country are kept as pets, therefore people should search for a breeder who treats this as a priority over anything else.

The current assessments - showing / working don't assess suitability as a pet.

Ethical? I believe it is unethical to produce more dogs when homeless dogs are being destroyed. However that aside the majority of dogs in this country are kept as pets. Surely better ('if' you are going to buy)to buy from a ethical breeder who is producing dogs with pet quality being their main priority rather than looks/working ability, pups that will be less likely to end up with health problems/less likely to be given up by their owners because the dogs are too 'worky/hyper'.

All I know is that 99% of the Siberian Huskies that have come into our welfare Scheme (230 since we started in February 2007) have been bred by people breeding to produce "pets" for money not by "show" breeders or "working" breeders.

Line breeding or "Working" breeding is a red herring - what is crucial is good breeding based on research and a full understanding of the breed in question, its health and history.

Mick

Strange how your stats are very different to that of other rescues. It seems bybs and pfs outweigh dogs from reputable breeders but certainly no where near asmuch as you suggest.

Many of the ones bred as pets will have come from bybs pfs not ethical breeders breeding pet quality. Although they of course will end up in rescue too.

So you think that buying a pup from parents that have not been health tested as oppose to buying a pup from lines that have been health tested for generations is better? Oh please.

If a line has been tested clear of a condition for generations then there is less of a chance of a pup inheriting that condition. Yes I am aware that the vast majority of conditions can not be tested for, however not all breeds carry all conditions. Also, with reputable breeders, if a condition surfaces in their line they will stop using the affected dog and close relatives.

I am not so sure why you are adamant that line breeding is so detrimental for a breed, it can not bring new problems into a line that do not already exist (however I will acknowledge that it has a higher chance of bringing to light a problem if one does exist in the lines, but that is why we perform health testing!). I think it is worse for breeders to continually out cross when they know they have a problem rather than face the problem since this makes the disease more widespread in the gene pool.

However if they do not show or work how do they know their dogs are good examples of the breed? What is the point in breeding from dogs when they are so far removed from the breed standard that they do not look like the breed they are supposed to or cannot perform the function that the breed was originally created to do?

I am rather astounded that someone would recommend that someone goes to a purely pet breeder rather than someone who works and shows their dogs.

No Greyhawk my comparison was with regards to line bred dogs. Like I mentioned to reduced the risks of a pup ending up with health problems is to purchase from a breeder who doesn't line breed but does health test

Why do you assume that good breeders are only interested in showing/working. All the reputable breeders I know want good homes for their pups above all else. If they go to a working or showing home then that is merely a bonus.