Very true, but I don't know of any Labrador breeder, for example, that produce about five pups per litter, it's always a higher number and usually surviving numbers. So for smaller breeds where they may also lose a pup or two per litter, then they need to charge a slightly higher price to help recoup costs. The cost of breeding a toy breed aren't that much smaller, I imagine stud dog fees are similar, perhaps higher?? The only thing you'll save on is food for the bitch and pups, every other cost will be the same. As long as they're not charging extortionate amounts for the sake of it.

My neighbour bred his rotties (poorly and irresponsibly, thank god Jade was rehomed) and out of 13 pups, Jade only ended up with one pup left - Kiera, who I used to walk. I dont know what he charged I only know he got his neighbour, who I used to babysit for - to buy her and one other from a different litter.

I get what your saying though about highering the price. But surely the KC should have some guidelines on how much certain breeds can be sold for? I'm guessing they dont but they should. IMO of course

are you actually serious?? since when did it become about recouping cost..with some litters you will spend more out on, and some you will recoup some costs back on.. But the prices of pups should not determin that.

Could it be a misprint???

Good point, I'd never even thought about that (I not being a breeder) Surely a breeder breeds to continue on a line of healthy genes? And that only?

Disgusting isn't it,Blue's are a recognised colour in my breed,some advertised as rare or x amount of CH's in pedigree and they are still asking inflated prices.

There are more blues been advertised than any other colour yet hardly any shown because they have faults and it's extremely hard to get a blue to conform to breed standard.

I would prefer a pied any day... Frenchie or Staff ...

I'm not saying that people should be in it for the money, geez! BUT, not every breeder can afford to approach it as a philanthropist, and will need to reinvest the money made from breeding, back into their dogs, their welfare, and whatever activities they enjoy. Whether any breeder likes it or not, money changes hands, and sometimes, the average litter size of a breed WILL determine just how much a pup is worth, as well as the rarity of the breed.

What this thread highlights, is someone abusing the rarity of a colour within a breed, which is simply wrong.

Any breeder who is ethical is out of pocket, no doubt about it, unless you own a very well used stud dog, in which case, you may well break even, or possibly make a bit. And then the tax man steps in

Any breeder that needs the money made from their breeding for their dogs and their welfare, and activities. would need to have a number of litters. when money is made it should go back into the dogs imo anyway, but you do not select a price to charge for the pups so that you have money left over to care for your dogs
Of course money changes hands, still the price of a pup should not be set to make money back.. its just totally not ethical.

I'm sure any GOOD breeder would happily give their pups away to a good home if they could, but the sad fact is, most couldn't afford to. They need the money from breeding to help recoup costs incurred, but they don't necessarily rely on it.

If you're breeding something that only has a very small litter size, generally, and yet the costs of whelping are pretty much the same, I have no qualms that those breeders may well charge a higher price to help recoup costs. It's not frowned upon in any other species except dogs, money seems to be a taboo subject in dog breeding, and yet it has to be a factor, just that it shouldn't be be THE main factor. It costs money to breed in an ethical and responsible way, and not everyone can afford to just be out of pocket without recouping some costs along the way.