Deleted.......

eh ??

Hopefully I'm just tired and not going off my head

Just cant be bothered, nothing personal.

Thankyou, thats it exactly

and as for people saying its not personal attacks - what exactly is it people saying I am a hypocrite for rescuing, seriously the mind boggles

As this is just going to drag on and on (I hadnt even posted in a day and I am still getting slated)

I said I wouldnt be able to find a breeder that would tick all my boxes
I have never said all breeders are bad, I have never said any other types of dogs are not worthy or whatever

I am sorry to everyone else for taking this off topic but seing as some people are hell bent on missunderstanding me and twisting my words I will spell it out here once and for all - if certain people still have issues with me after this then I suggest you block me cos I am really fed up

As I have already said if I was going to get a puppy from a breeder my breed would be a border collie

For me a good border collie breeder would not only be testing for all the health problems they can they would also be people who WORK their dogs and would be breeding for working ability
They would only have a litter when THEY needed another dog, they would be breeding very infrequently

As caring breeders they would also wish to have the best homes lined up for their pups

SO someone producing so very few good quality working dogs would be looking for great working homes for their dogs

Therefore I would not be considered (even if I ever was moving in the kind of cirlcles to meet these kind of people)


Therefore IMO it is not possible for ME to find a breeder who ticks all my boxes

I dont have the first clue on earth how anyone can take that as me slagging anyone off

or why people think im a hypocryt for rescuing

But if thats what you think then Im really past caring, I know Im not

Sometimes i just cant believe what i read on here... it just gets pathetic.

It has been said on here before that those who rescue are supporting unethical breeding... There is a massive difference between buying a dog direct from an unethical breeder, and rescuing a dog from a centre, who may otherwise die (and if not them, then another dog in their place), who may have at some point come from an unethical breeder. I just cannot believe the two can even be compared!

I wouldnt get a dog from a breeder, now i am not saying that all breeders are bad, but i cannot justify getting a dog from a breeder when others are dying in kennels. That is MY opinion and i am entitled to that. I hate this attitude certain people have that rescuing is supporting unethical breeders!

As for answering the question, i think they are all important but looks should come last.

To add my opinion - for a rescue dog I would quite happily take a dog with minor problems in any of the sections. So small health problems, behaviour problem or a 'looks' problem (don't really know what to call it) as I wouldn't expect a perfect dog to be in a rescue centre and any adult would have some problems of some sort (would expect behaviour wise). I would rather have temperament and health though, in that order.
If I was to go to a breeder I would have to build a good relationship with them, see at least the dam and have evidence on health of both parents with full tests carried out. I would expect a practically perfect pup. I do understand that even the best breeder may have a litter with a pup or two that are not the breed standard in one of the three areas you are asking about. I would expect that the breeder would make sure this pup went to a suitable home where it would not be bred from and would look into what happened. In this case I would not feel that it was the breeders fault and would quite happy take a less than perfect looking puppy that I could have access to from day one.

Bit long winded but it's hard to choose just one without explaining why.

There is no point taking a dog in the show ring with a bad temperament, so it goes without saying that breeders must consider this if they want to both a: keep a puppy back for showing and b: sell them.

I agree that all breeding stock should be health tested, but there is no specific legislation in place to force this issue. Perhaps the KC should not allow registration unless both parents have had appropriate health tests for the breed. But that wouldnt stop the BYB and puppy farmer, after all if you only want a pet and dont want to show it, there is no point in KC registration.

It all good saying that the KC shouldnt allow registrations without the full health testing being done & I would agree, but the breed clubs need to put the health tests forward before the KC can even reccommened them, let alone enforce them.

& what an odd view point, why would KC registrations mean nothing just because you dont want to breed/show....

Dont know what you mean about the breed clubs putting the health tests forward? There are different health tests recommended for all breeds by the KC.

What is the point in KC registration to a pet person, what does it mean to them, that the dogs a pedigree?

All the health tests that the KC put forward wouldnt be there with out the breed clubs.. The KC can not just decide what tests are done with out the back up of breed clubs, I dont know why you cant understand that? The KC isnt the law its an organisation that registers litters ect ??

Being KC registerd is important (well for me atleast!).. You can go back through generations, check health tests where needed - By having the litter registered it means the bitch hasnt had a back to back mating, isnt to young or to old to be bred from, hasnt had to many litters, hasnt had endorsments put on to stop breeding for X and Y reasons (The list is endless!).....People like to know what kind of breeder their supporting when buying a pup and through having the litter registered it tells you alot more than if it wasnt, you can find out a whole load of stuff......


I am a little bit concerned about some of your views, lack of understanding and questions, when you have bred yourself!