Rescues And Breeders

[Kaos]

I've been reading the comments on the topic regarding rescues breeding, and they've prompted me to ask something I've been considering for a long time.

 

Should rescues, their volunteers, and breeders make more of an effort to work together?

 

I'm well aware of the general, negative views some breeders and rescues have of each other, but do you think that, for the good of the canine, feline, equine, rodent, any other, species, they should attempt to put their differences to one side?

 

Would you, as a volunteer, be prepared to homecheck, follow up, transport, an animal for a breeder, if it meant that it would stand a better chance of going to the 'right' home initially, and staying there for life?

If so, should there be conditions attached, and if so, what?

 

As a rescue, if you were approached by a breeder, how would you react to being asked to share volunteers for homechecking etc?

 

Realistically, is there a way both could work together, or do you think the 'battles' and negativity should be allowed to continue?

Edited April 15, 2007 by Kaos

[Rudi]

All breeders are not created equal, just as all rescues aren't. There is a huge difference between someone who breeds from ignorance or for profit and somebody who puts effort in. The latter category couldn't give a sh*t about dogs ending up in rescue, so I doubt very much they would meet anyone half way The type of breeder who would become involved in rescue, more than likely already does - I know there are lots of people in rottweilers who breed, show or work their dogs and are involved in rescue and good on them. It would be of more benefit to put pressure on breed councils, the Kennel Club and government to bring greater controls over who can breed and with what dogs.

[Ian]

I've nothing against people breeding dogs in a responsible manner. As a volunteer however whilst I'd happily give my time to a rescue that whilst it may have some paid staff exists primarily to help dogs not to make a profit I'd be very dubious about giving my time to a breeder who was breeding for profit.

 

It's surely their responsibility to assess the home, do follow up afterwards, if necessary take back any dogs etc. To me it should be up to the Kennel Club to police that this is happening and register only dogs where there is evidence to support that.

[Rudi]

It's surely their responsibility to assess the home, do follow up afterwards, if necessary take back any dogs etc. To me it should be up to the Kennel Club to police that this is happening and register only dogs where there is evidence to support that.

 

I think a "good" breeder does do that. The KC do nothing to make breeding dogs difficult

[raiye]

I dont see how they can work together, other than the way they are now, with rescues picking up the pieces of breeders cast offs.

We had this recently with a rescue taking a couple of disabled pups from a breeder. The pups were a calculated risk in aiming for something better. (its hard to explain with out naming rescue and pups involved) But after taking lots of advice and looking into many ways, it became apparent that all we could really do was watch and wait for the next cast offs The other options being worse than the rescue being burdened.

Rescues are almost like a fail safe for breeders - taking unsellables and unwanteds. While dogs are a disposable commodity, I dont see a change.

[Trallwm farm]

Breeders and rescues working together is already happening.

To a lot of rescues these pedigree castoffs financially support kennels. Spaying is often free to rescues.

 

The rescues are the cleaners of the breeders sorry mess. If rescues didnt take the stock then all pedigree unwanteds would be dished out in the neighbourhood as "just one litter bitches" Pro breeders would grind to a halt because your average punter would happily pay a lot less for a dog for 6 months use so avoiding the high prices of the Pro breeders.

By making it difficult to obtain a dog from rescue ( which is the right thing to do ) and spaying then the market is not flooded so those that are not acceptable to rescues can happily go and buy a pup from a breeder with no questions other than "how would you like it wrapped ".

I cannot see breeders wanting to share home checkers as they dont have them in the first place.

Unless of course someone knows a breeder who asks question that a rescue would.

[Sherlock Bones]

I know a breeder who asks those questions and who homechecks, has a contract and who insists the dogs are returned to her care in any event the dog cannot be kept at any point in the future.

 

i would homecheck for a reputable breeder, either cat or dog, and as long as I was happy that they had the exact same standards that i do then i'd do it. If they didn't, i wouldn't. simple as that.

[Rudi]

Such sweeping statements. I do know of breeders who place their dogs carefully and maintain contact with them for their lifetime and do indeed step in if things go wrong, there's quite a lot of them if you take the time to look

[Ian]

I think a "good" breeder does do that. The KC do nothing to make breeding dogs difficult

 

 

Yes, I realise this - thats why I say SHOULD. When my sister bought her puppy there were questions, waiting lists, visits to the breeder beforehand etc - but none of those approached including the one bought from who she does still have contact with wanted to come & do home checks - and his dog has just qualified for Crufts

Edited April 15, 2007 by Ian

[Kaos]

Quote: 'Breeders and rescues working together is already happening.

To a lot of rescues these pedigree castoffs financially support kennels. Spaying is often free to rescues.'

 

Can you clarify this please Lesley.....are you saying that some breeders are offering financial 'reward' for taking unsaleable dogs, and offering free neutering for them, or that the rehoming donation provides the financial support (because 'Jo Public' wants a 'pure bred' dog?

 

 

Quote: 'By making it difficult to obtain a dog from rescue ( which is the right thing to do ) and spaying then the market is not flooded so those that are not acceptable to rescues can happily go and buy a pup from a breeder with no questions other than "how would you like it wrapped ".'

 

One of the reasons for my question....if breeders homechecked, and demanded the same homing criteria as a 'good' rescue' (i.e. follow up checks, neutering, insistance on the dog being returned if they were unable to keep it), would that not improve the situation?

 

 

Quote: 'I cannot see breeders wanting to share home checkers as they dont have them in the first place.'

 

My point was that rescues / volunteers would offer their services to the breeders.

 

 

Quote: 'Unless of course someone knows a breeder who asks question that a rescue would.'

 

I do .....not that I know many breeders now, but it's partly because of this one that I asked the questions.

[GSDFan]

I know a breeder who asks those questions and who homechecks, has a contract and who insists the dogs are returned to her care in any event the dog cannot be kept at any point in the future.

 

i would homecheck for a reputable breeder, either cat or dog, and as long as I was happy that they had the exact same standards that i do then i'd do it. If they didn't, i wouldn't. simple as that.

 

 

Ditto SB. Except I know of more than one breeder that does that

 

I'd homecheck and I'd do follow up checks. As to transporting, probably not unless the circumstances were exceptional. On the whole I think if people want a dog/puppy then they should collect it themselves.

 

One of the reasons for my question....if breeders homechecked, and demanded the same homing criteria as a 'good' rescue' (i.e. follow up checks, neutering, insistance on the dog being returned if they were unable to keep it), would that not improve the situation?

 

 

It would improve the situation enormously. A lot of responsible breeders already have equal or better criteria than many rescues. It's why I keep harping on about encouraging responsible breeders.

[Kaos]

his dog has just qualified for Crufts

 

Sadly Ian, the quality of the dog does not necessarily mean the breeder is reputable and conscientious.

 

 

 

Ditto SB. Except I know of more than one breeder that does that

 

Show off!

[Trallwm farm]

Ditto SB. Except I know of more than one breeder that does that

 

A lot of responsible breeders already have equal or better criteria than many rescues. It's why I keep harping on about encouraging responsible breeders.

 

 

That surprises me .

I do know a breeder whos dogs have more spend on them than her kids and the bitches have no more than two litters before being spayed and rehomed.She has exacting homing policies.

Im not ready to accept its a majority breeders policy though

[Fiona711]

A very interesting topic

 

There are reputable breeders out there just the same as there are reputable rescues . We all know there are an awful lot of not so reputable breeders and rescues sadly.

 

I think reputable rescues and breeders should/could work together more ,realistically there are a lot of people involved in rescue that are very judgemental of ALL breeders and see them as causing the problems regarding lots of dogs in rescue centres all over the country so will not even take the time to talk to breeders and get their opinions on things , breed rescues know their chosen breed very well and could give very valuble advice if given the chance sadly a lot of people tar all breeders with the same brush and do not take the time to research and look into individual breeders policies or breed rescues either .

 

In an ideal world there would be no need for rescue centres but we all know the world we live in is far from ideal in any aspect , i can understand people who are on the front line of rescue day in day out picking up the pieces from puppy farmes and ignorant people who breed with £ signs in their eyes , becoming disillusioned with breeders on the whole but i think its fair to say that reputable breeders cannot be held responsible for all the idiots out there who breed and breed and breed just for money with no intrest in the dogs welfare at all .

 

Personally if i was asked by a breeder to do a home check or transport a dog/pup to their new home i would do it as long as the breeder was responsible and would take the dog/pup back if ever the need arised and i was happy with all their policies just the same as i would help any reputable rescues to homecheck transport fundraise etc .

 

There are genuine reasons why sometimes people cannot keep a dog and need to rehome them so thats when the breeders should step in , sadly thats not the case a lot of breeders dont want to know once they have the money for the pups . Sadly that applies to some so called rescues too they take the money then dont want to know if there are any problems , education is the key but if people wont listen then its time the government brought in more stringent controls and did something to stop all the irresponsilbe people churning out litter after litter with no thought for either the welfare of the brood bitches , stud dogs or the pups .

 

Fiona xx

[GSDFan]

Yes, I realise this - thats why I say SHOULD. When my sister bought her puppy there were questions, waiting lists, visits to the breeder beforehand etc - but none of those approached including the one bought from who she does still have contact with wanted to come & do home checks - and his dog has just qualified for Crufts

 

Qualifying for Crufts is unfortunately no guarantee that the dogs are well bred, well cared for or well homed, it's only a well known show.

 

 

That surprises me .

I do know a breeder whos dogs have more spend on them than her kids and the bitches have no more than two litters before being spayed and rehomed.She has exacting homing policies.

Im not ready to accept its a majority breeders policy though

 

I don't believe it's something the majority of breeders do but it is certainly something that a lot do. If peole worked together to get rid of bad breeders and help good ones it could be though.