Thread: I must be getting old and cynical

Funny thing is if I was in the market for a springer from that line I would pay it.

Likewise if I was in the market for a pointer I would pay what ever the going rate is.....in the uk they are a few hundred pounds.

The rather awkward and sad thing about the prices being charged by some is that for those of us who feel that a puppy going to a hunter who will have the dog hunting as the dog should and needs to be, could be detrimental to those of us who do not charge a fortune for the puppies...could there eventually be a perception that if my puppies are sold at a price much less than the next breeder means my puppies are inferior??...we all know how the human psychy works. It is the owner and his/her care and aspirations with and for the puppy which means a helleva lot more to me than coin...

Originally Posted by Pointer

Where do you see it ending? Driving people away from pedigree dogs?

I've read this thread with interest and was previously going to reply in this vein but thought the better of it
However,
Yes it will, Neither I nor most I know could either afford or justify 2k for a pup
it's unfortunate but it may well be that my next dog will be one from out the back, you know mates got a litter
looks like a lab, probably is somewhat,got that bit of white on her, but heck, she'll fetch.
Sad but..................

its damn difficult. Take my dog as an example. The breed has moved on a lot since I got her, and no doubt it is all positive improvement. The breeder has made a big investment and moved to a very elite breeding program. But my dog does pretty much all I ask of her, and when she goes I'm not sure I'm up for paying the price the pups are now.

I could breed from her and keep a pup. But she's on restricted papers and there would be nothing in it for her breeder to allow me to mate her as being registered. It would just be a back dilution of the breeds genetic gains over the last 8 years. So I would end up with an un-papered pup by a sire of similar genetic merit as her.

So, we pay up, or go back yard. The back yard option is not good for the breed, but may be a natural consequence of the escalating price of pups. I should add that I have nothing but admiration of the efforts my dog's breeder has put into improving the breed.

Sometimes I think people get to wrapped up in the paper. I've got a pure whippet here that is a stunner, just over 12 months old and shaping into better than her mother. Now I know another rabbiter that ran her mother Karla, till she died and he said best whippet he's seen. Not a paper in sight. That bitch that died had naturally good pups, even the crosses that were bred from her excelled.
Or there is Jess's daughter Heidi, Jess is a stunning rabbit and so is Heidi as she has already proven at a young age, so I put Jack over Heidi. Brilliant dog + brilliant dog leads to one thing. Still not a paper in sight.

I think more of it comes down to training, but more importantly PATIENCE. That one word is the key.

That Karla I spoke of, most people would have shoot her six months after getting her (at most) as it turned out she was gun shy. I didn't and the rewards were beautiful.
So to get carried away with the paper work or not, good question. Or buy two cheap pups then six/twelve months later shoot the useless one...

Want to like Wirehunt comment except for the last sentence.... I know of a lot of great dogs with no papers in sight

Or buy two cheap pups then six/twelve months later shoot the useless one...

Originally Posted by 223nut

Want to like Wirehunt comment except for the last sentence.... I know of a lot of great dogs with no papers in sight

it used to be you.d pass the useless one onto your townee mate for a pot licker but with the proliferation of mutts running around town and these days with people less likely to be good owners then a bullet became easier if not kinder in the longrun.

I know of a lot of great dogs with no papers in sight

ruffs point applys tho they had the hill in thier blood or at least did well on it themselves to get bred from in the 1st place[

could there eventually be a perception that if my puppies are sold at a price much less than the next breeder means my puppies are inferior?

only if someone is dumb enough not to look past price EeeBees
i used to console myself that if someone payed thru the nose for a dog it would guarentee they,d look after it.
nieve tho i was but to my knowledge it mostly worked but if i had real doubts i would tell them to keep looking.

Originally Posted by Wirehunt

Sometimes I think people get to wrapped up in the paper. I've got a pure whippet here that is a stunner, just over 12 months old and shaping into better than her mother. Now I know another rabbiter that ran her mother Karla, till she died and he said best whippet he's seen. Not a paper in sight. That bitch that died had naturally good pups, even the crosses that were bred from her excelled.
Or there is Jess's daughter Heidi, Jess is a stunning rabbit and so is Heidi as she has already proven at a young age, so I put Jack over Heidi. Brilliant dog + brilliant dog leads to one thing. Still not a paper in sight.

I think more of it comes down to training, but more importantly PATIENCE. That one word is the key.

That Karla I spoke of, most people would have shoot her six months after getting her (at most) as it turned out she was gun shy. I didn't and the rewards were beautiful.
So to get carried away with the paper work or not, good question. Or buy two cheap pups then six/twelve months later shoot the useless one...

Its about risk.
Toyota makes good reliable cars as a brand, they are worth more than Great Wall cars. Does it mean if you buy a Toyota you are guaranteed it wont break down? No but its a damn sight less likely. Pedigrees and hunting lines are similar, you are paying for a higher degree of certainty with a proven hunting blood line.Testing for particular diseases or problems as a breeder may further reduce that risk. A crossbred hunting or working dog is a lottery.
I like the idea for hunting dogs of paying more for proven hunting or trialed hunting dogs. Obviously when buying a pup you cant have worked them so all you have to go off is the breeding. Its really that simple isnt it?

it's not rocket science.
like many on here i spend hours reading through all the firearms,scopes and ammo threads, the money spent on quality optics, hunting gear or the latest sako seems to be far more accepted than paying for a decent pup...........and even the top end pups are far cheaper.
with hunting equipment the consumer is protected if things go wrong, taking a faulty rifle or scope back to the retailer and getting it fixed or replaced is part of that.
it also is the same with buying a pedigree dog, good breeders don't want dogs falling to bits or not doing what they are suppose too, it can be a very expensive exercise for a breeder replacing a pup or paying for vet bills incured by getting it wrong, as both the wholesaler and the retailer the 'breeders' carry that cost and risk.... if it's got papers you have something to fall back on.
that 'out the back' pup may be cheaper today maybe not so much if it turns to shit, although wirehunt has an answer for that, just may not work for everyone.

Originally Posted by Pointer

Anyway I'm way off track. I'll ask an open question to all, would anyone buy a dog on pedigree alone?

Pedigrees are more likely to tell me what I don't want, than what I want. I evaluate dogs... then I look for flaws. If I see hereditary weaknesses in the pedigree. I probably wont go there.

But if i see exceptional pedigree, one that combines all the things I want to see... I will have a VERY close look at the flesh!

As far as acceptable prices go though, I don’t think it is unreasonable for the breeder to try to recoup some of the costs involved in health testing and importing. However, the choice to import is theirs alone and if they intend to try and recover all of those costs on the first litter, then they are just taking the piss. By hoping to recover the costs over two litters and then being unfortunate with only small litters shouldn’t mean the cost goes up. To me, that is simply bad luck and the risks one takes in being a breeder. Similarly, to demand a high price for a pup on the basis that the breeder believes it to be superior to any other pup available (not because there have been additional costs involved in importing, testing etc) is, to me, akin to fraud, serving nothing more than to massage the ego of the breeder and boost the ego of the purchaser.

I don’t subscribe to the practise of leaving it all up to “testing on the hill”. To rely on that sole method of ‘testing’ is suggestive of ignorance of genuine health issues which do exist in certain breeds. My reasoning is there would be very few gun dogs in this Country that would get sufficient work-load every week of the shooting season to be able to reliably use that as the only test for physical soundness (assuming bird-dogs, not rabbiting dogs  ). However, a shepherd on a large station could possibly and justifiably use it as grounds for breeding selection, given the work-load involved in their profession.

I would never buy a pup on pedigree alone, just like I would never buy a pup on Trial results (Live Game or other), or hip-scores alone. Its all part of the evaluation process, to satisfy myself of the positives and negatives of any mating, but ultimately being able to trust the breeder that they have made the right selections in the pairing.

I wish I could like the above post twice. Bravo Hoon, you said it better than I could

Beautifully said gq.

There is such an irony in your statement, a lot of dogs that really don't make the grade for real 'hunters' come rabbiting for six to twelve months can be turned into proper stars.
Patience and lots of work often make the dog that never really was.

I can't argue with any of what GQ has said. What I would agree with is not decrying the only litter tested on the hill, but ot taking the risk on the others by choosing the only one on the hill.