If purebreds are so healthy and worthy of being bred, then why are the ones that are bred *certain breeds* so prone to problems giving birth? We generally don't think it's a good idea for people who are near guarunteed problems in the delivery room to have children, what makes purebred dogs so different?
Breeders are losing fuction to form, and if we don't change some breeds from being almost c-section only, purebred prices are going to continue rising. A few years ago, my neighbor paid $600 for an English bulldog. Recently, she's been in the market and I think she said they were going to charge her $2000 for the puppy. Do you see my point?
If anyone has a list of birthrates and such for purebred AKC dogs, I'm interested in it so that I can add more truly concrete details vs. what I already know, which is mostly what people on this site have answered me.
And with purebreds, it's supply and demand. I plan to let the world know that. Read on into the question....
2006-12-14
20:09:04
·
7 answers
·
asked by
mandy
3
in
Pets
➔ Dogs
It's all supply and demand, right on back to the sire. A sire would not cost so much if it was a less desireable breed, even with all the proper health certificates. The more a breed is wanted, the more the breed will cost, and a breeder that tells you you're paying for all the previous care of mother and father and such along with the puppies has all of those things paid off after a few years, and thus should drop their prices to honestly charging what it cost to produce the puppy. Also, if you breed to a standard that makes birthing hard, is that really such a good idea. Gimme an "AYE!" if you're for form AND function.
*as in, a dog that emmulates the standard, but not to the point where birthing the puppies will be problematic. if the standard is made that way, it should be changed*
2006-12-14
20:14:32 ·
update #1
I'm not going to put every person that has responded down here, but I will point out the fact that EVERYTHING is supply and demand, but have you ever heard the folks at Cocacola claim that you're paying for what it really cost to produce a bottle of soda? I never have.
Anyone that answered dissagreeing with me failed to realize that everyone who has ever deffended purebred prices say you're paying for what it cost to produce the puppy and there's no such thing as proffit for a breeder.
Also, if you think that no one takes their mutt to the vet, you're a freaking idiot.
And breed standards often times DO contradict what would be better for breeding. A big dog with the pelvis of a "teacup" poodle that gives birth to average sized puppies is going to have issues, breed standard or not.*small exageration*
Not every standard for a breed considers function and health, per se. That's my point, and if you don't see that you're no smarter than the guy that thinks mutts don't need vet care.
2006-12-15
00:10:13 ·
update #2
Closeing details because there wasn't enough room to say what I wanted in the comment thing.
The anwer I chose got the worst rating but indeed had the most valid point. Inbred people have problems, why would animals be different? The likelyhood of genetic deffects due to inbreeding is not species specific. Breed a mouse to her brother, then siblings of each of the following litter and let's see what happens after a dozen generations. Come to think of it, I kinda would like to see a picture of a severely inbred animal that could prove to all of you just how much of a bad idea it is.
2006-12-17
15:00:42 ·
update #3