Jump to content
BC Boards

Commercial Breeders


chene
 Share

Recommended Posts

Very interesting topic to me.

 

I have a long-term and ongoing ... er ... disagreement with the members of the family who manage the farm as to BC puppies.

 

Many have the same attitude as Lichen and believe that there is no way to split off our own breeding program, form a commercial component and manage to [a] make it worth anyone's while and be in the business of farming and dog breeding without one polluting the other. Fact is, we always have more puppies than we can use. But the resistance to being in the breeding business is sort of bizarrely high around here.

 

But it's this sort of thing that really seals the deal into a state of permanent stalemate:

 

The really good breeders I have met (and I have met a lot, through my own dogs and through working in the vet field) do not make a profit.

The public perception, if you will, has become the conventional wisdom and given this general idea, most people with the power to vote yay or nay are voting nay simply on the basis of "why seek that sort of trouble".

 

I happen to believe that quality puppies can be sold for profit without anyone going to hell. I happen to believe it is important to put as many working bred dogs into the pool (the public one) as is possible - even more so now as the breed surges in pet popularity. I happen to believe it is something of a responsibilty to do what good deeds one is *able* to do to ensure the betterment of something one has profited from/been enhanced by, etc. We have definitely been enhanced by Border Collies over the many generations that have run this farm.

 

I am in the process of producing a full-scale business model (as that is what it seems it will take) to present to the boys and girls who make the decisions (and really wish I had never given up my voice on the board) and have done a lot of research into the matter. What it boils down to, if preliminary bottom lines are any indication, is that if it is done well it will not be hugely profitable but will contribute some small bit to the overheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

They should be health testing parents. In border collies, the minimum is testing for eyes and hips. Great breeders add ears too. This all costs money. (It is not enough to have a breeder "guarantee" health. The dogs need to be medically tested before breeding, to reduce disease that is detrimental to the puppies' working abilities, quality of life, and length of life. My 12 year old is chasing frisbees and balls like a 2 year old, and my vet doesn't believe he is 12.

 

 

 

Sounds like my 14 year old, and my 12 yo, my 11 yo and my nearly 9 yo. As they are all rescues and only the youngest a wsd I think I'm safe in saying that health testing of their parents didn't figure very prominently.

 

The wsd has mild HD but it doesn't affect him at all. The rest have always been extremely sound.

 

I'm not against health testing of breeding stock but as Liz P (a vet) says, luck plays a big part too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen to those of you who have responded to the latest post on this thread by Lichen. It's easy to be idealistic and make either/or statements, but real life is a lot messier than one's ideals.

 

And I, too, have had a number of long-lived dogs (in fact, I haven't lost a dog before the age of 15 and have had a couple live nearly to or past 17), and their longevity hasn't seemed to have anything to do with their breeding, since the longest lived were also rescues with unknown backgrounds....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you on this one, Julie. I do believe in responsible breeding but I've also been blessed with a lifetime of shelter dogs, strays, backyard-bred dogs, etc., that all lived long and healthy lives. Life is usually not as clear-cut as we'd like it to be.

 

And I, too, have had a number of long-lived dogs (in fact, I haven't lost a dog before the age of 15 and have had a couple live nearly to or past 17), and their longevity hasn't seemed to have anything to do with their breeding, since the longest lived were also rescues with unknown backgrounds....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you on this one, Julie. I do believe in responsible breeding but I've also been blessed with a lifetime of shelter dogs, strays, backyard-bred dogs, etc., that all lived long and healthy lives. Life is usually not as clear-cut as we'd like it to be.

If you are talking Border Collies as opposed to dogs in general, is it possible that the reason this is so, is that the Border Collie is still genetically closer to working stock than say, the Wire Fox Terrier? If one has had a dog that passed at 17, the breed-wide pool of breeding stock was probably still dominated by working lines when that dog was born. Historically, unfit working pups and dogs were disposed of. (read: killed)

 

The AKC bastardization of the Border Collie is a fairly recent development. And with it we will undoubtedly see a fall in the overall health of the breed. Not only is working ability being lost, but health and soundness will be too.

 

I believe that a split in the breed would help this, and by all means, if I am sound of mind and body when Sugarfoot dies, I will get a pup only from a working breeder. The more working bred litters produced, the larger the working gene pool. And if working-bred dogs are to be bred, then homes must be found for their puppies. Or else they must be culled in the old way. I don't think anyone wants to see that.

 

If Terrierman is right, and the AKC is on it's way out, (and even if it isn't) the more litters bred for working ability - regardless of whether they go to working, pet or sport homes - the better for the breed. And perhaps there is hope for the breed as a whole to regain its overall working ability and soundness. If the AKC goes "tits up" then there will be no more AKC puppies. The working Border Collie already has a registry in place. And I suspect that people who want a well-bred Border Collie will likely turn to it.

 

I understand that the ABCA does not permit the registration of AKC Champions. But what about all the "orphan" AKC Border Collies that aren't champions, should the AKC collapse? Would they be registrable with the ABCA. I surely hope not, unless they can meet the ROM criteria.

 

(This post is a kettle with a lot of fish in it. I hope some can make sense of it. And please pardon my ignorance for things I have got wrong.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AKC might go belly up?

That would be something to celebrate, in my world. Where do you hear this, Geonni? Mind providing me with a link so I can read about it and have something to hope for?

:-)

That's what Terrierman says...

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2013/02/akc-speeds-to-collapse.html

 

His blog has more recent data, but this will start you off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a professional dog trainer. I do it because I love dogs and because I want all dogs to have a happy, healthy, home with people that understand them. But I do charge for my services. Does that mean that my training is somehow less worthwhile because I'm making a profit? If I didn't make a profit I wouldn't be able to put as much time and dedication into my training. Probably, I wouldn't be able to do it at all, because I would have to spend my time doing something to make money so that I can live.

 

I feel the same way about breeders. Breeders who do it correctly need the time to raise their dogs, train and maybe trial them, breed them, and raise the puppies. If they spending all their time doing something else to make a living, can they really put as much time into their dogs? I know many breeders who do work full time jobs and manage to still take fantastic care of their dogs, which is amazing, but not everyone can do it.

 

Theoretically, if we want there to be enough working bred border collies out in the world to fill the demand for purebred border collies don't we want the people who have the knowledge to breed doing exactly that? Maybe if they had more time to focus on their dogs and their sheep (or other livestock) there would be more puppies.

 

I'm still trying to figure how to make a ton of money doing nothing so I can do the things I love that don't make money. I'll let you all in on the secret if I figure it out. ;)

 

If you're doing everything correctly, your dogs are health tested, happy, and proven on stock, what's so wrong if you make a bit of money on selling the pups?

 

I do think the idea that "you don't breed for profit" is damaging to responsible breeders, just like "they have too many litters in a year" is as well.

 

When you're just breeding dogs who are unproven and don't have their best interests at heart, only the money, that's when you run into trouble.

 

Of course this is all my theoretical musings, I don't have any experience when it comes to breeding or proving dogs on stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 12 year old is chasing frisbees and balls like a 2 year old, and my vet doesn't believe he is 12!)

 

My 10 year old dog accompanied me on a mountain hike today across some rough terrain, up steep slopes, and afterwards asked for another walk. She had to jump over every suitably-sized rock she could find: going around them is just too boring, she goes out of her path to jump them. Someone stopped me and asked me where I'd got my lovely bouncy puppy. She was from a terrible breeder, a puppy mill and a bad one at that. She's not from as long-lived a breed as the border collie either.

 

She has recently developed a disease, basically her first non-obesity health problem, but there is no health test for it. Since it's only recently developed, even if it was highly heritable it wouldn't have necessarily shown up in breeding stock.

 

A lot of it is luck. You can improve or reduce your odds, but that's all you're doing. It's like trying not to roll a 1, and using a 6 sided dice or an 8 sided dice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the idea that "you don't breed for profit" is damaging to responsible breeders, just like "they have too many litters in a year" is as well.

 

When you're just breeding dogs who are unproven and don't have their best interests at heart, only the money, that's when you run into trouble..

 

 

See, you've unknowingly hit right on the conundrum of "breeding for profit." Sure, everyone likes to make a little money on their pups. But if someone is in the business of cranking out "too many litters in a year," the problem is this: if they have 4 or 5 bitches cranking out 4 or 5 litters a year ... those bitches aren't being trained, trialed and proven. They're just being brood mares.

 

So maybe they have a stud dog who's out working and showing his quality, but those several litters a year have to come from somewhere, right? If they're not breeding their bitches every year, but they're still putting out multiple litters of pups a year, then they'd have to have 10 or 15 bitches that they breed every two or three years. But if they have 10 or 15 bitches ... they sure as hell aren't training, trialing and working all those dogs on a regular basis. Nobody has that much work for that many dogs unless they have 10,000 sheep and a dozen shepherds.

 

Does that make sense? Too many litters is a red flag to us, because it means those mama dogs aren't being worked and are not being proven. Odds are, the breeder is just breeding for the pedigrees and that's where quality starts to slip. Unless a bitch is worked and trained, there's no way to know what her qualities, strengths and weaknesses are or to be sure a prospective sire will compliment or improve on those qualities.

 

So maybe the breeder is "responsible" in the sense that they're caring for their dogs and finding nice homes for the pups. But they're not working a whole kennel full of dogs on any regular basis or really getting to know what they can do. They're not breeding for the best working qualities in the breed.

 

~ Gloria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think like you Gloria but I know now that the whole breeding / working scene here is not as simple as I thought.

 

I had no idea how often dogs change hands at different stages of their life and training and there are ways for the knowledgeable to assess the value of a dog other than keeping and training it intensively themselves for life. The working world is very close knit and close together geographically.

 

Sell a pup, buy it back a bit later if it looks promising, start it or finish it, sell it on or keep it to have a litter (maybe a repeat if the first turns out well) sell it on. It can be a revolving door.

 

Take in other people's dogs for training. Note the ones that interest you.

 

This will no doubt raise eyebrows in the pet "a dog is for life" community but it's a whole different world and mindset.

 

As previously discussed, trialling a dog isn't the be all and end all, and over concentration on trialling can be detrimental to the breed too. The draw of getting a pup from a successful trialling line is just as strong in the trialling world as it is in the sport world, especially for those who live and breathe their hobby, whether amateurs or professionals.

 

Obviously breeders are going to trial their dogs that look best on the trial field as an advertisement. It doesn't mean that those dogs will necessarily be their best workers for different jobs.

 

If you are a breeder whose sales to non working homes are incidental to the main business of breeding working dogs you are only going to keep your place in your primary market if your dogs are of sufficient quality to attract buyers in the face of strong competition. It makes no sense at all to take your eye off the ball if your sales and the price you can command drop.

 

The number of litters tells you nothing in itself except that you need to ask more questions. But then there will be plenty of single litter breeders that you should run a mile from too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While someone may or may not agree, since most posts here are aimed at beginners and those who have little, if any, background in understanding any of the issues concerning breeding these dogs, "red flags" are a way to help them generally avoid most irresponsible or unscrupulous breeders.

 

One size does not fit all and there are exceptions to most rules - but when it comes to those who are not "in the know", keeping it simple and straightforward is beneficial.

 

With time and experience, people become more knowledgeable and discerning, if they want to be. I wish I'd had some of this basic information when I was first starting out, and I know a lot of people who would agree with me due to their own experiences.

 

I used to think like you Gloria but I know now that the whole breeding / working scene here is not as simple as I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While someone may or may not agree, since most posts here are aimed at beginners and those who have little, if any, background in understanding any of the issues concerning breeding these dogs, "red flags" are a way to help them generally avoid most irresponsible or unscrupulous breeders.

 

One size does not fit all and there are exceptions to most rules - but when it comes to those who are not "in the know", keeping it simple and straightforward is beneficial.

 

With time and experience, people become more knowledgeable and discerning, if they want to be. I wish I'd had some of this basic information when I was first starting out, and I know a lot of people who would agree with me due to their own experiences.

 

While someone may or may not agree, since most posts here are aimed at beginners and those who have little, if any, background in understanding any of the issues concerning breeding these dogs, "red flags" are a way to help them generally avoid most irresponsible or unscrupulous breeders.

 

One size does not fit all and there are exceptions to most rules - but when it comes to those who are not "in the know", keeping it simple and straightforward is beneficial.

 

With time and experience, people become more knowledgeable and discerning, if they want to be. I wish I'd had some of this basic information when I was first starting out, and I know a lot of people who would agree with me due to their own experiences.

 

 

But when waving red flags it is important not to generalise unfairly.

 

Take Gloria's assertion that it impossible to work 10-15 dogs regularly so as to be able to assess their breeding potential.

 

What constitutes " regularly"?

 

How many people are actively involved in a particular breeding / working operation

 

Where are the sheep kept? Out on the range or fell or near to home?

 

What other calls are there on the time of the humans?

 

What may be impossible for a single person with sheep miles away and a day job may not be impossible for a couple of people who breed and train full time and whose sheep are close by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you want to make it highly technical and tell everyone there are really no valid ways of trying to discern good breeders from bad breeders, go right ahead. Or say, "This, but...", "That, maybe...".

 

The "red flags" that are part of this board's philosophy are such as to help people avoid making mistakes. And since this is a North American (and largely US) based membership, and these red flags are generally valid on this side of the pond, your mileage may certainly vary. As you said, "I used to think like you Gloria but I know now that the whole breeding / working scene here is not as simple as I thought." (my emphasis)

 

It's been said more than once that there are exceptions to the rule. I don't know what else can be said except that I feel like I hear a dead horse being beaten once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

I have a couple hundred sheep out the back door and my wife and I work at home. We don't make hay, winter feed or lamb out the sheep (which took up probably 80% of our commercial sheep farming time). I can train no more than two of our three collies most days, get away to a couple trials a month and help some friends with their dogs in the summer and fall.

 

It takes time to train dogs - far more than most people think - that's why very, very, very few top handlers will "take dogs in for training" though they may offer hourly lessons, clinics and "camps".

 

The handful of Americans who make a living from Border Collies import, buy-train up- and-resell dogs, get stud fees, give clinics, sell a litter or maybe two yearly, trial at those few trials where they can hope to profit after travel expenses and keep a commercial flock. None I know or have heard of makes an important part of their living producing pups.

 

Do the math:

 

Top sire and dam: $12,000.

Genetic testing for both: $1000

 

Yearly litter of five pups: Gross: $5000 (you won't be able to breed more often and trial the bitch)

 

Yearly marketing expenses: (all those trials so you can sell $1000 pups):$3000

 

Litter vet bills from birth to 8 weeks: $500

 

Training the adults and socializing the puppies at $10 an hour: per litter $500.

 

Food for a year, adults and pups: $800.

 

If you think that's a sound business model, Mr. Madoff has an offer that might interest you.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you want to make it highly technical and tell everyone there are really no valid ways of trying to discern good breeders from bad breeders, go right ahead. Or say, "This, but...", "That, maybe...".

 

The "red flags" that are part of this board's philosophy are such as to help people avoid making mistakes. And since this is a North American (and largely US) based membership, and these red flags are generally valid on this side of the pond, your mileage may certainly vary. As you said, "I used to think like you Gloria but I know now that the whole breeding / working scene here is not as simple as I thought." (my emphasis)

 

It's been said more than once that there are exceptions to the rule. I don't know what else can be said except that I feel like I hear a dead horse being beaten once again.

 

Even where you are it is one thing to say that a newcomer should look twice at breeders who have a lot of dogs but quite another to say that they must all be avoided because they cannot possibly be doing it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have sheep right out the back door, several different flocks, plus a flock of goats. I work full time. I don't have much time for training, but what time I do have I am spending on ONE youngster, FWIW.

 

J.

Exactly - you aren't in the business full time and have limited time to train. Makes sense to concentrate on one dog at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

I have a couple hundred sheep out the back door and my wife and I work at home. We don't make hay, winter feed or lamb out the sheep (which took up probably 80% of our commercial sheep farming time). I can train no more than two of our three collies most days, get away to a couple trials a month and help some friends with their dogs in the summer and fall.

 

It takes time to train dogs - far more than most people think - that's why very, very, very few top handlers will "take dogs in for training" though they may offer hourly lessons, clinics and "camps".

 

The handful of Americans who make a living from Border Collies import, buy-train up- and-resell dogs, get stud fees, give clinics, sell a litter or maybe two yearly, trial at those few trials where they can hope to profit after travel expenses and keep a commercial flock. None I know or have heard of makes an important part of their living producing pups.

 

Do the math:

 

Top sire and dam: $12,000.

Genetic testing for both: $1000

 

Yearly litter of five pups: Gross: $5000 (you won't be able to breed more often and trial the bitch)

 

Yearly marketing expenses: (all those trials so you can sell $1000 pups):$3000

 

Litter vet bills from birth to 8 weeks: $500

 

Training the adults and socializing the puppies at $10 an hour: per litter $500.

 

Food for a year, adults and pups: $800.

 

If you think that's a sound business model, Mr. Madoff has an offer that might interest you.

 

Donald McCaig

 

That's one type of business model for a one man band and assumes that trialling all breeding stock is the be all and end all.

 

I'd be interested in CMP's take on this.

 

I accept that the breeding side of a commercial enterprise in this context is going to be part and parcel of the bigger picture and not a stand alone, putting food on the table business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even where you are it is one thing to say that a newcomer should look twice at breeders who have a lot of dogs but quite another to say that they must all be avoided because they cannot possibly be doing it right.

 

When did I say, "...can't possibly..."? I said there are exceptions to rules but that red flags are useful guidelines.

 

No matter what, those considering buying a pup or dog should do their homework, look closely at any potential source, and be prepared to wait for the right breeder/litter.

 

No more wasting my time on this aspect of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think one can keep a bunch of breeding dogs and work them all to a standard that proves anything and breed multiple (i.e., more than a few) litters a year. I don't like high-volume breeders in general, and if I'm looking for a working dog specifically TO WORK, then I am probably going to go to the person who breeds fewer litters, has fewer dogs, and has time to actually work/prove (not necessarily through trialling) the dogs they do breed. I get the concept of proven producers and I can see how a family can socialize lots of pups adequately if they are all involved. And, yes, even I go back to bloodlines I like when I want a new dog, BUT even if some of the key dogs in that line are not being worked or are no longer being worked, enough offspring/relatives, etc., are to lead me to believe that the working genetics are being propogated. People who breed off bloodlines over time without continuing to prove the work of the dogs are not doing right by the buyer who wants a good working dog. To me, this means that if you have, say, five dogs you work regularly on the hill or trial or whatever then you are proving *those* dogs, but that doesn't mean the other 15 in the kennel who are not being worked to that standard but who are simply related to the five who are being worked are proven. And yes, you would still have a better chance of getting a dog that works from such a breeder compared to a BYB or miller who just doesn't care, but a gazillion litters a year still doesn't strike me as a good breeding practice.

 

Your mileage may vary....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is difficult to profit from a good litter. IF the breeder owns sire and dam then the odds increase. But with the health problems in the breed today and an increase in demand for health testing from the buyers, the costs of raising a litter every so often makes profitability low.

 

Hence commercial breeders. Most cut costs by owning sire and dam-so what if the two aren't the best match? And then why do health testing? it only cuts into the profit. Vet care for pups? Let the new owner pay for the shots. Deworm pups? why? and then only buy the cheapest stuff at the farm store (or walmart). Vaccinate the adults? they only need one in a lifetime don't they? (oh yeah, those rabies shots sure cost a lot and that darn vet charges way too much I can do them myself). Well why not sell the pups at 5 weeks? they are eating solid food and that stuff aint cheap, (I can get Ben's Best at about $11.00/50 lbs). Offer all sorts of guarantees, the people won't come back on it, and if they do, blame it on their management and be done with it. After all, it is just a dog. Hmm, left with a couple female pups so guess I'll have to breed them to make up for the loss..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Profit is not a fixed amount; it will all depend upon how much one chooses to include as expense.

 

For example, how much value do you put on your time ($5/hr, $10/hr, $50/hr, etc); if you could be making $50/hr with lessons and you 're now spending that time with the litter that is the value for your time. If I take a vacation day to deal with a litter issue; that time is now valued as what I earn during the work week.

 

How much time did you spend with the litter before they left home?

 

How much was spent (money and time) proving the sire or dam and how much of this do you count towards this litter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...