This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Jantie on 29 May 2010 - 14:05
Weblog update: www.bloggen.be/hd
by Dog1 on 29 May 2010 - 19:05
It looks like you have put a lot of thought and effort into your assessment of the breed. The article is very well written. I would agree with some statements and disagree with others. What exactly are you saying needs to be done?
I ran a few numbers based on your numbers and came up with different numbers. You numbers and how you arrived at them are explained in detail in your article but many liberties were taken in the calculations. If we take your number of puppies and divide them by the amount your article says their total value is over the past 24 years; I'm coming up with about 3,000 per puppy using your Revenue Investigation chart.
Perhaps using the information without an interpolation would provide a more accurate set of numbers. Let's assume all puppies registered lived and were worth their value as a puppy throughout their life. If any puppies earned titles, the money went to the person that titled the dog as many breeders do not have the resources to title all their puppies. Let's just say training fees are not a part of the problem as they probably went to people other than the 'Top 10' breeders on your list..
The value of money 24 years ago was not the same as it is now so assigning todays cost of a puppy is not accurate. I do think we can do a comparison in todays value based on your numbers. Let's take an average of the breeders on the list and mulitply the number of puppies by their value today and divide by 24 even though the number of years is greater than 24 in your article. I'm coming up with 37,500 per year in todays value. As you pointed out it takes other people to raise the litters and there are expenses involved. Let's say 20% of the value of the litter goes to vet costs, whelping the litter, raising and caring for the litter until sold. 37,500 becomes 31,250 a year.
So all the top corrupt people are getting rich and ruining the breed for an average of 31,250 a year? I dont think that's the message you are trying to send. I think your message is more selective where only a few are involved but your article has so much information it's difficult to determine just what your point is and what should be done to correct the situation. Can you clairify this information?
I ran a few numbers based on your numbers and came up with different numbers. You numbers and how you arrived at them are explained in detail in your article but many liberties were taken in the calculations. If we take your number of puppies and divide them by the amount your article says their total value is over the past 24 years; I'm coming up with about 3,000 per puppy using your Revenue Investigation chart.
Perhaps using the information without an interpolation would provide a more accurate set of numbers. Let's assume all puppies registered lived and were worth their value as a puppy throughout their life. If any puppies earned titles, the money went to the person that titled the dog as many breeders do not have the resources to title all their puppies. Let's just say training fees are not a part of the problem as they probably went to people other than the 'Top 10' breeders on your list..
The value of money 24 years ago was not the same as it is now so assigning todays cost of a puppy is not accurate. I do think we can do a comparison in todays value based on your numbers. Let's take an average of the breeders on the list and mulitply the number of puppies by their value today and divide by 24 even though the number of years is greater than 24 in your article. I'm coming up with 37,500 per year in todays value. As you pointed out it takes other people to raise the litters and there are expenses involved. Let's say 20% of the value of the litter goes to vet costs, whelping the litter, raising and caring for the litter until sold. 37,500 becomes 31,250 a year.
So all the top corrupt people are getting rich and ruining the breed for an average of 31,250 a year? I dont think that's the message you are trying to send. I think your message is more selective where only a few are involved but your article has so much information it's difficult to determine just what your point is and what should be done to correct the situation. Can you clairify this information?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top