View Single Post
  #41  
Old July 9th, 2010, 08:24 PM
Goldfields's Avatar
Goldfields Goldfields is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,282
Aslan, I'm more conservative than 14+ and you can't hear me out? I will try to answer her questions, if I am allowed to.

Now if a breeder did that with one dog; had families lined up for them before breeding, which I understand good breeders do; and had a litter of 8 to 10 then why would they go crazy?

Sounds good, families lined up, it'd be an ideal world if that always happened. Thinking generally, breeders should be prepared for the cost, and some would say the inconvenience, of holding onto pups that are slow to sell, even keeping any that don't. I hate it when people consider pups at weaning age to be a nuisance, wanting to get rid of them ASAP. They bought them into the world, they are responsible, and if they HAD to do that it'd stop people breeding too often. I haven't had that happen, but with large litters I have had to put some expense and effort into finding just the right homes. Why would people go crazy? Try rearing 11 ACD babies. If you didn't have a bad back before you start you are going to have one by the time you've stooped down a million times. (Feels like that anyway. ) And this breed I've got are tigers, the fighting that goes on between the fiesty male puppies by 8 weeks of age , and they'll pick on the smallest, or on the females. Yes, it drives you to the brink.

You didn't own those 12 dogs all at once? You didn't breed past the age of eight?

I have owned 12 dogs at once, the show team, the oldies, the few I raised for showing but found weren't up to par for some reason. The age of 8? That's an old dog. I haven't and wouldn't breed past the age of 4. Our Code of Ethics states you mustn't mate them so they whelp before 12 months of age, and then you mustn't cause one to whelp more than twice in 18 months, so yes, lots of breeders would be breeding them later than 4, just not yours truly. In fact of the 12 girls I've owned, 6 did not have litters at all, one had 2 litters, the others only 1.

Surely 17 litters in 34 years for an ethical breeder is not that large of a number?

With up to 10 or 12 pups a litter, multiplied by how many breeders are out there? Still means a lot of pups. And I'd be surprised if any breeder, breeding for showing or to improve the breed could do it with one female at a time. More pups. I was disgusted to hear that one breeder here had been so upset when her cattle dog had died before she had her 100th pup. It had 99! That is outright cruelty and is puppy farming IMO.

See, I was under the notion, as being told many times by breeders, that breeders breed for the love of the line, not money. I suppose from your comment about going broke I am mistaken. Again.

No, you aren't mistaken.
Back at the time of that big litter, I wanted to know what it was costing, When it reached the amount that could have been reached by selling the litter, I stopped counting and haven't counted since. Oh, I reached that amount well before the pups were weaning age, they get pretty spoilt here. So, you shouldn't breed unless you are ready to lose money every time, and yeah, not being a millionaire, I could go broke . I'd rather put money in the Bank to earn interest for the times when I want to try and breed our next show dog, or buy it. I think the breeders who breed for showing, and are very concerned about trying to improve a breed, are totally different to those who try to make money out of breeding, but it appears that on this forum people are never given the chance to show what category they fit into.