Would you do it?

Just curious how many people would do health clearances on a dog they bought from a breeder, even if it wasn't going to be used for breeding. And if the breeder made it mandatory would that be a deterrance to buy from that breeder?

I would like to make it mandatory that every puppy that comes from me have it's hips and elbows done and it's eyes done twice, but I am concerned that a really good home may pass by because they don't want to dish out the money on health certifications for a dog that will never be bred. But on the other hand I feel if it is a really good home they should be concerned about the breed in general and should be happy to do the health tests...At the same time I have talked to several people I know personally who I would adopt out a pup to in a second who still say they wouldn't do it, and I know these people personally and know they would be awesome homes.

What do you think? If your breeder asked you to do the health tests but made it optional, would you do them, or if your breeder made it mandatory, would you look elsewhere?

If the dog is going to a pet home and won't be bred I guess I'd wonder what the purpose of it being mandatory is? Is it just for your own info sort of thing so you know how the pups are turning out? In that case I think it'd be a bit much to make it mandatory and make it be on their dime. If you just wanted it for no other reason than for your own records, I don't believe they should have to get it done on a mandatory basis. Just my thoughts!

Maybe if the pup was going to a performance home I wouldn't see it as that big of a deal, especially the hips and elbows, but if I was just getting the dog for a pet I would likely look elsewhere because I wouldn't really see the need in forking out money for something like that. But that's just my two cents!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K9soul

If the dog is going to a pet home and won't be bred I guess I'd wonder what the purpose of it being mandatory is?

---

If you don't know what you are producing, or what afflicted the siblings of your own breeding dogs, you can't really say whether or not your dog may develop something or carry something -- and it's impossible to make a good breeding choice if you can't look back in a pedigree and say "Okay this dog was good but two of it's siblings had PRA -- he could be a carrier." Hip and elbow dysplasia aren't as big a deal to me as they are not problematic in my line or in the breed in general, but I really want eyes done.

We have recently discovered that Loki may have PRA, something that has not been found in his background because most of the dogs in his background were only tested before they were bred and not later in life when PRA would be more likely to show up on a CERF exam. As it is right now, he would likely be CERF clear -- it will probably not show up on a CERF exam until he is 6-8 years of age. This means we could breed him as a CERF clear dog and have puppies with PRA. We talked to someone who says that a couple of his relatives have some of the same symptoms, which means that they likely have it too. Since the problem is recessive, it means that both of his parents must carry it -- his mother has been bred a couple of times and his sire has been bred several times by different breeders, which means that now several people could have PRA carriers in their bloodlines now. It is extremely hard to eradicate because any dog can carry it and you will have no idea. Which is why it's important to me that people even if they don't get hips and elbows done atleast get eyes done twice...Once as a younger dog and once as an older dog. I don't see why it is so much to ask when the livelihood of an entire breed is at stake.

for me it depends, it would likley be a deterent for me, unless, as Happys case, a parnets came down with something later. when Happys sire came up blind in one eye, the breeder asked that we all have our dogs CERF'd , as it was unknown if the blindness was hereditary. that is a case in which I would make an exeption, but while I can afford my dogs and their care, the cost of all that testing is high, and there is not a chance I could afford it on a dog I never intend to breed.

It wouldn't be a deterrent for me. Health testing would definitely help the breeder immensely whether I bought a pet quality dog, or a show/breeding quality dog. They need to know what's in their lines. That being said, I would probably expect some sort of rebate just because it is extremely expensive. That's just me though. Most people I know have a problem paying what is asked for from most breeders for a dog, let alone having to pay extra for health testing, so it would definitely be a deterrent for them.

That being said, if you had an awesome family/person wanting a dog and they said no to the health clearances, I wouldn't let that turn you away from letting them have a puppy.

I wouldn't say it would be a deterrent exactly but I think to most people purchasing just a pet it would be. The other option is to ask to stay in touch with your puppy buyers and have them send updates on the pup. Most buyers would be glad to do this, and I'm sure a buyer who ran into a health problem with one of your pups would contact you for sure.

I was thinking along similar lines as you wolfsoul. But decided I am going to leave it up to teh families to decide. I will let them know that I will offer a cash incentive though if they decide to do it. For some that might sway them. It is an idea you could think about.
Nicole & Sheena

I think as long as the breeder explained to me that they wanted to do this to assure the continuing health of their lines, it would make me proud to have found such a great breeder. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orangutango

That being said, I would probably expect some sort of rebate just because it is extremely expensive.

---

I think about that too...CERF testing is only $40 and I would be willing to pay for the certfification myself. Maybe if I charge say $200 less at the time of purchase if they sign a contract saying they will CERF twice? Even though I can see charging less as being less effective, I would prefer that to rebating later on.

Thanks for explaining all of that Jordan. Putting myself in the place of the average person buying a dog for the main purpose of a pet, I think if it were explained to me and maybe a bit off the initial purchase price etc. I'd probably agree with it.

My opinion: You're a caring breeder; they WANT your pups, YOU make the demands.

If they don't want to do the health screenings, have it in the contract that the dogs MUST be surgically sterilized by __ age. If they're willing to do all the required testing as you have asked for then the dog may remain in tact. (just an idea.)

I say good for you.

Now, from a buyer's perspective... I'd be willing to buy the pup from you IF you were willing to put forth at least half of the money for these tests. Otherwise, yeah I'd be deterred if i was planning on this being just a household pet. If i was planning on doing more with the dog I'd probably be wanting to get all the tests done anyhow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfsoul

Just curious how many people would do health clearances on a dog they bought from a breeder, even if it wasn't going to be used for breeding. And if the breeder made it mandatory would that be a deterrance to buy from that breeder?

I would like to make it mandatory that every puppy that comes from me have it's hips and elbows done and it's eyes done twice, but I am concerned that a really good home may pass by because they don't want to dish out the money on health certifications for a dog that will never be bred. But on the other hand I feel if it is a really good home they should be concerned about the breed in general and should be happy to do the health tests...At the same time I have talked to several people I know personally who I would adopt out a pup to in a second who still say they wouldn't do it, and I know these people personally and know they would be awesome homes.

What do you think? If your breeder asked you to do the health tests but made it optional, would you do them, or if your breeder made it mandatory, would you look elsewhere?

---

I don't agree with the whole "if you're a really good home, you'd do this" stuff. I'm proud to say I think I'm an excellent home for a dog. But I don't have the extra money to toss out at to a vet to get hips and such done twice, on a dog that I would not be breeding.

If my dog were a pet only, no, I wouldn't get it's hips and elbows certified and I would look for another breeder. For one, anesthesia carries a lot of risk, and it's also costly. I can see you requiring it for performance dogs, and I would always test my dogs before we got involved in performance. Like with Nova, I still can't tell that she has hip and elbow dysplasia, but when she was x-rayed the vet said it was severe enough that we needed to stop agility and couldn't compete in it, but jumps in obedience and rally are fine for her, since there are only a few.

Now, I could see if, when they're altered, you ask that they are done and you offer some sort of rebate (nothing huge, but enough to make it more tempting for the owner to do). But most people are probably going to have this done younger than two years so it wouldn't be a final grade, but at least you'd have some sort of clue as to what everyone's looking like.

I would CERF no problem. CERF is painless, cheap, and only takes a few minutes.

I have never heard of a vet requiring anasthetic for x-rays before. My vet doesn't require it and it only takes 20 minutes. $90 for hips and elbows, $40 for eyes.
Either way I think I will just charge less for a puppy who is getting health tested. Basically they will be saving money if they buy a pup for less and do the testing. And since I am keeping semen from every litter I breed, the males I am collecting from will be tested by myself with my own money anyways which will give me atleast one idea of how the health of my litters are. I will make it mandatory however to send in swabs to the Epilepsy research foundation.

Quote:

---

they WANT your pups, YOU make the demands.

---

That is how I feel in a way. I know so many people who have gotten a "deal" on their dog and in return their dog has to pump out several litters and they must pay for the costs of said litters. Then the breeder takes the pups and sells them. If people are willing to do that..

I think if people really were passionate about the health of their breed and spent time dealing with it they would understand better..There can be carriers for several generations who have affected siblings..but since no one keeps track of the siblings, no one knows their lovely breeding dog is a carrier. And then they bred it to another carrier, and voila, there is a litter of affected dogs. Loki probably has PRA, and since he is showing signs so early, he will probably go blind early. He has untested relatives that are showing the same symtpoms but because they are in pet homes, they haven't been tested and their owners have just assumed that their dogs are strange. If those pet dogs had been tested properly, Loki and the rest of his siblings would not have been born, and there would be less blind dogs in the world. How can people preach about responsible breeding but turn a shoulder when the responsibility falls on them? That is what I feel like. Like people care more about spending a couple hundred dollars than they do about the health of an entire breed. When you look at a pedigree you have to look at those dogs but also the dogs they produced, the dogs in their litter, the dogs behind them, their aunts and uncles, etc. It is not as easy as looking at a healthy dog and assuming it's breedable. You could be breeding a dog with good hips out of an entire litter of dysplastic siblings. Because Loki may have PRA, this means that Solo and Jaguar are probably carriers. Jaguar has just recently been bred. So many things could have been avoided if all of the relatives who weren't in the pedigree had been tested.

If the dog was just going to be a companion then no. Performance (Flyball, Agility, Herding) yes i would be happy enough to get hips and elbows done.

I think that's a totally reasonable policy for your puppies... honestly, I'd probably think twice about a breeder that WASN'T interested in the genetic health of their puppies, no matter if they're pet, performance, or show.

A dog with hip dysplasia or bad eyes or luxating patellas will still suffer & have issues, whether they're a pet dog or a show dog. Breeders should keep track of the health of alllll of the puppies they produce!

I have had both of my dogs checked out, and they're both rescue dogs, and not particularly high performance. It still matters to me, so that I can prepare for the future, in case either of them had health issues (thankfully they are both healthy).

You said how i think and feel.

It was so very frustrating when i was looking for a female to breed King to. He was the champion of health but people didn't care. All they cared about is that he wasn't AKC or the right color. Grrrrr! Perfect health and GREAT temperment. ...are people so shallow that they HAVE to have that American title saying the dog came with a vin number and family tree? Would papers saying the dog is a healthy fit specimen, and a great member of society be enough?

How can people that say they care so much about a breed, not be willing to do what is right for it?

Sure, i don't plan on ever spending over $300 on the purchase price of a dog (unless possibly getting a Saarloose... but that would be way down the years from now... when i have MUCH more property.), but if i ever was looking at getting a dog from a breeder you bet i would get the testing done. I'd want them to know what they'd produced and I'd be sure to be buying from a breeder that WANTS to know what they produced.

(Still, i much prefer rescuing off the streets :p ;) ... and by the time I'm done that dog has cost me well over $300 too. LOL)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfsoul

...That is how I feel in a way. I know so many people who have gotten a "deal" on their dog and in return their dog has to pump out several litters and they must pay for the costs of said litters. Then the breeder takes the pups and sells them. If people are willing to do that..

I think if people really were passionate about the health of their breed and spent time dealing with it they would understand better..There can be carriers for several generations who have affected siblings..but since no one keeps track of the siblings, no one knows their lovely breeding dog is a carrier. And then they bred it to another carrier, and voila, there is a litter of affected dogs. Loki probably has PRA, and since he is showing signs so early, he will probably go blind early. He has untested relatives that are showing the same symtpoms but because they are in pet homes, they haven't been tested and their owners have just assumed that their dogs are strange. If those pet dogs had been tested properly, Loki and the rest of his siblings would not have been born, and there would be less blind dogs in the world. How can people preach about responsible breeding but turn a shoulder when the responsibility falls on them? That is what I feel like. Like people care more about spending a couple hundred dollars than they do about the health of an entire breed. When you look at a pedigree you have to look at those dogs but also the dogs they produced, the dogs in their litter, the dogs behind them, their aunts and uncles, etc. It is not as easy as looking at a healthy dog and assuming it's breedable. You could be breeding a dog with good hips out of an entire litter of dysplastic siblings. Because Loki may have PRA, this means that Solo and Jaguar are probably carriers. Jaguar has just recently been bred. So many things could have been avoided if all of the relatives who weren't in the pedigree had been tested.

---

Quote:

---

All they cared about is that he wasn't AKC or the right color. Grrrrr! Perfect health and GREAT temperment. ...are people so shallow that they HAVE to have that American title saying the dog came with a vin number and family tree?

---

Is he not papered with any Kennel/ working Club?

I dont blame people for not wanting to use a non papered stud :eek:. There are plenty of those dogs being PTS everyday in pounds and shelters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crow_noir

You said how i think and feel.

It was so very frustrating when i was looking for a female to breed King to. He was the champion of health but people didn't care. All they cared about is that he wasn't AKC or the right color. Grrrrr! Perfect health and GREAT temperment. ...are people so shallow that they HAVE to have that American title saying the dog came with a vin number and family tree? Would papers saying the dog is a healthy fit specimen, and a great member of society be enough?

How can people that say they care so much about a breed, not be willing to do what is right for it?

Sure, i don't plan on ever spending over $300 on the purchase price of a dog (unless possibly getting a Saarloose... but that would be way down the years from now... when i have MUCH more property.), but if i ever was looking at getting a dog from a breeder you bet i would get the testing done. I'd want them to know what they'd produced and I'd be sure to be buying from a breeder that WANTS to know what they produced.

(Still, i much prefer rescuing off the streets :p ;) ... and by the time I'm done that dog has cost me well over $300 too. LOL)

---

Uh, why are you talking about people caring so much about a breed and not doing the right thing for it? How is breeding an unpapered dog good for any breed? Your opinion of his Champion of Health status had nothing to do with whether he fits breed standard or not, which is what shows a used for, judging the conformation and color of a certain breed to insure they are of breeding quality, which is how you "do the best for it" by trying to better the breed. All dogs being bred should have full health testing, before ever being bred, but also need to have a traceable lineage, which is why they need papers, plus they can't be shown without papers, so who is juding that the dog is even breeding worthy? Why would someone want to breed their bitch to your dog, when there are hundreds of others who DO have papers? Without papers it's just like a dog you can get at the pound, which are wonderful dogs, but shouldn't be bred as they aren't bettering any breed.

As far as would I health test a pet dog on my own dollar? no. If I'm not breeding it I don't need to know for myself. Now if the breeder wants to know, sure I'll take it in to get it done, but the breeder would have to pay for it. To me it is unreasonable to expect someone buying a pet dog to have health testing done, however, if the price is reduced by the breeder for the amount it would cost for the testing, and it's in the contract to have it done, and the new owner agrees to it, that's another story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfsoul

I think about that too...CERF testing is only $40 and I would be willing to pay for the certfification myself. Maybe if I charge say $200 less at the time of purchase if they sign a contract saying they will CERF twice? Even though I can see charging less as being less effective, I would prefer that to rebating later on.

---

I am someone who will probably never breed regardless of what type of dog I have. Of course I still want a happy healthy companion that I can hope to spend years of quality time with. Unless you were able to work with me I would probably look elsewhere as I would see it has an extra expense(we all know dogs come up with plenty of extra expenses on their own :) ) Plus I also may be concerned as to whether you already suspect your dogs are carriers and that I may be purchasing a pup with this problem.

I can also see your concerns in regards to breeding a dog and finding out later they were passing some horrible gene and their pups were ending up with difficulties later in life and having maybe already been bred themselves passing it on again. But the only problem with that is if you breed your dog now, and say you do it once a year with an average litter of 5 and it takes the first litter to show signs of having this gene 4-5 years, how has that helped the linage of your dogs? By that point, you are already talking about approximately 20-25 pups you have sold that may have it and some of those pups themselves may have already been used as a breeder and passed it on to even more pups.

That is a very hard decision, it shows that your are a concerned breeder but it will most likely deter several GOOD homes that just want a pet. I guess if I had to be you and made the decision to make it mandatory I would get it in writting and be willing to help with the costs and have copies of medical record for the parents to show that at this point have shown negative. But even getting it in writing there is no guarantee that people are going to follow through, if they move or you move most likely you will no longer be in touch or for some reason that person gets rid of the dog before it has even been tested, the second owner is not going to want to abid by an agreement that the two of you made. And as someone else above said...most people that have purchased a pup from you that run across a serious problem will be contacting you, at least I know that I would. Good luck in whatever you decide to do. Talk to other breeders to see if they have tried doing this and if it affected the selling of the pups--couldn't hurt to ask. Also talk to your vet get suggestions from them on how to handle it because you want to be a responsible reputable breeder but don't want to push away good loving homes in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloverfdx

Is he not papered with any Kennel/ working Club?

I dont blame people for not wanting to use a non papered stud. There are plenty of those dogs being PTS everyday in pounds and shelters.

---

No he wasn't. He was a rescue.

These "papered" dogs wouldn't be it that predicament if they had breeders that cared even half as much as i do.

Sorry, but i don't buy into all the hype about breed clubs and fancy linages. It's all pompous English snobbery in my opinion. It was nothing but a hobby exclusively for the rich at one time. I see standards usually as nothing but a death sentence for breeds. You need fresh blood added every so often and today's ridged standards don't allow for it.

All that i think should matter are the health and temperament of the dog.

I can see where the linage comes into play for the health of a dog, but too often all people care about with a linage are prestige.

And why would i want to breed to someone with AKC papers anyhow? It proves nothing. Even puppy mill dogs can get AKC status. I never said i was going to breed him to a dog with papers did i? I just said that all i could find. You're taking a gamble even on a dog with papers.

I am not a fan of the modern monopoly of the breeding world. I truly think people are brainwashed on what is best.

I do appreciate the few responsible breeders out there who truly care, but so many are in it just for the money or for the sport. (And i find that in itself sickening that some people do it just for the ribbons and trophies... as if their dogs were just mere objects.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vela

Uh, why are you talking about people caring so much about a breed and not doing the right thing for it? How is breeding an unpapered dog good for any breed? Your opinion of his Champion of Health status had nothing to do with whether he fits breed standard or not, which is what shows a used for, judging the conformation and color of a certain breed to insure they are of breeding quality, which is how you "do the best for it" by trying to better the breed. All dogs being bred should have full health testing, before ever being bred, but also need to have a traceable lineage, which is why they need papers, plus they can't be shown without papers, so who is juding that the dog is even breeding worthy? Why would someone want to breed their bitch to your dog, when there are hundreds of others who DO have papers? Without papers it's just like a dog you can get at the pound, which are wonderful dogs, but shouldn't be bred as they aren't bettering any breed. ...

---

If I wasn't planning on performance of any sorts with the pup, I would still do it but probably take a little bit more time. Not years and years but getting spayed/neutered would take first priority.