10 important lessons for a dog breeder - Page 1

https://www.dogchannel.com/dogsinreview/what-i-have-learned-in-45-years-as-a-breeder.aspx

very good article, that seperates breeders from people producing and selling pups

Good piece, though #2 can be dangerous--there's a thin line between 'survival of the fittest' and 'too cheap and greedy to spend money on veterinary care and support', and as a vet tech I've seen far too much of the latter from breeders [not MOST breeders, mind you] which often results in the buyers of the 'fittest' still being faced with expensive health problems THEY end up paying for after they've bought their pups and gotten attached to them. I do believe there is a limit to what extent you should assist a pup, and to what expense you'll go, but by the same token, I've seen pups that were born with insufficient development of the exterior abdominal wall--often due to the pup being conceived on the latest date of servicing from a multiple-cover breeding--which, after being examined by the vet and found to have the defect restricted ONLY to the outer wall, were nicely sutured up to close the belly, put on some antibiotics to ensure no peritonitis set in, and went on to grow up and live normal, active and happy pet lives with their owners who were made fully aware of the situation before they were even shown the puppy. Likewise, I've seen puppies that were 'swimmer' pups, often much larger and heavier at birth than their littermates due to being conceived on the first date of servicing in multiple-cover breedings, go through a few weeks of bracing the legs, some 'patterning' physical therapy a couple of times a day and the addition of a whelping-box surface with better traction, and after one or two weeks of this couldn't be told apart from their siblings, and again have normal, active and happy pet lives. Would these pups live without human intervention? Probably not....but I wouldn't consider either situation to be excessive assistance, I wouldn't be able to justifty letting them die or euthanizing them, either.

#6 leaves me with mixed feelings, too--it can become all too easy to decide there's no reason to pay a stud fee when you can just use your own male, when in truth, financially it makes much less sense to feed and provide vet care for a dog whose sole purpose is to breed a bitch or two every year or less. Stud fees are much less than the cost of buying [or breeding] your own male and keeping him fit and healthy year after year, and allows you to use studs that would be beyond your reach monetarily if you were to try and buy that quality of dog.  Let's face it--you rarely see someone who is breeding simply for the cash flow going to outside studs to produce their next bundle of bank account deposits.

In general, though, it's a well-written article with quite good advice.

I don't agree with #6 either although that may depend on the breed.

'Stud fees are much less than the cost of buying [or breeding] your own male and keeping him fit and healthy year after year, and allows you to use studs that would be beyond your reach monetarily if you were to try and buy that quality of dog.'

Fine. Then you contradict that with this;

'Let's face it--you rarely see someone who is breeding simply for the cash flow going to outside studs to produce their next bundle of bank account deposits.'

One usually sees people being ridiculed for breeding to the flavor of the month in order to help sell pups. But now you say if they have bred and kept back a male for breeding they are only in it for the money...I'm confused.

Anyone wishing to comment on this article can do so by accessing the link and paging down to the comments section.

Very good article with very valid points. Thanks, Blitzen.

correct joan, the money is in the famous names, also hexe, point 2 Ive seen tons of people going out of their way to save weak pups because they represent $$$$$$$$$$$$$