Are "puppy pyramid schemes" inherently bad?

Question

OK, it's not really the right term, I'm sure, but someone called it this in the previous question about Kimbertal Dobes.

My question is not about Kimbertal. But rather about the method of breeding whereby the breeder gives a family a ***** to raise and love and then they breed it and some sort of agreement is worked out whereby the original breeder keeps some or all of the puppies.

From my (limited) reading and hearing about this, it seems like, if done correctly, it has the potential to be a great system. (Of course it can be very bad, too.) People who want to breed get a great dog and a mentor. The breeder, if he wants to expand his bloodlines while still giving all his dogs quality of life, can do so.

I heard that it's pretty common in the Scandinavian area among the top breeders. Most breeders don't have more than one or two dogs living in their residence.

(Of course, I realize it depends on the exact agreement and situations... The breeder needs to screen his buyers very carefully. There needs to be a firm agreement as to how often and to whom the dog is bred as well as pre-breeding tests, etc., etc. I’m mostly just wondering if people are against the whole idea of it.)

Answer 1

Very common to have a GOOD agreement, whereby someone buys a show/breeding quality dog/bit ch and co-owns it with the breeder. THe breeder may show the dog, or pay the handler, the entries might be split, and breeder does the grooming.....all in return for one or two puppies when the bit ch is bred.
The difference with GOOD breeders doing this is that NOT all animals that leave under one of these agreements actually come to that. At 8-10 weeks, a pup may look good, and when it comes down to breeding, it may not look so good, or health clearances have made it clear that the dog cannot be bred. Then the dog is altered and signed totally over to the owners.
In the POOR breeders that run this "you raise the bit ches and I will get the puppies" scheme, most ALL the bit ches come back for breeding and whelping. It seem ODD that they hardly ever reject one for breeding and there is NO way that all of them should be bred!!!!!
If done with the same ethics that a good breeder would have, it can work. If done totally to make more puppies and not have to house the females, it is just mass breeding.
I have seen it done by many crappy BYB. They sell a puppy to someone saying that they can have a puppy from it, but the breeder will get all the rest of the puppies from two or more litters!!!!!! The dumb people think they are getting a great deal on a really good dog, when in fact the breeder just cannot keep anymore dogs at their house, so they farm them out knowing they can still use them as puppy machines and the people are clueless!!!!! And if the people figure it out, too bad!!! There is a contract and most of them time the owners get a pup from a second or third litter so they have incentive to keep letting the breeder breed the dog!!!!!!

Even a good breeder that farms out too many of these bit ches can get overwhelmed. If they are to take two or more puppies from one to two litters, they could have too many puppies also. It really has to be done carefully!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

I know of at least one big name Border Collie kennel that actually does this. From what I can tell, this breeder carefully screens and I believe it is up to the owner to properly pursue and champion the dog. Then, if female, she goes back to the original breeder for one litter. After that, the owner has full breeding rights and possibly gets a pup from the first litter I think.

But I also saw someone at our local dog park a while back with a Saint that she went on and on about him being a "show" dog. Now these folks appeared to know nothing they should about dogs, or dog behavior. They brought an unaltered dog to a public dog park and at one point, he supposedly had his face ripped apart by another dog in a fight and needed several stitches. These people have this dog on co-ownership. The original breeder pays someone else to show the dog, once he is championed, they will harvest sperm for AI later down the line. I am convinced that the original breeder is just a Saint puppymiller. They basically give a dog to anyone who will go on co-ownership to save a few bucks. These owners were making bad decisions left and right and it seems that the breeder doesn't care, as long as the dog gets championed and he can use him at stud. Quite sad really.

Answer 3

I raise and show dogs. Sometimes we will have a co-ownership agreement when we place a show quality dog. The agreement can be varied from one show breeder to the next but they remain similar. I have one female that a breeder gave to me. She was a puppy and my end of the deal was to show her and the breeder that gave her to me would breed a litter of pups with her. The entire litter and any expenses associated with it would be the breeders. The breeder got her litter of puppies and then signed off of the female making her entirely mine. She gave me two beautiful litters of which I kept a puppy from each of those two litters. One of those pups is a finished champion with puppies of her own now. The other pup is currently being shown and has some of her championship points already and she is not a year old.

If you have two good co-owners that agree and get along, this type of arrangement can be great. If the two people do not see eye to eye, or agree on breeding practices or stud dogs, it could be a real headache.

Answer 4

Boy, I'm sorry, but when I read the comments, including the question, my eyebrows hit the ceiling. Reminds me of the 'slave' trade. This is considered pedigree breeding? Yikes. Where is the respect, consideration and dignity towards these animals?

I understand the painful task of any breeder having to part with pups and finding good homes. I think it is a very good idea if both breeders share the responsibility for a litter, if it is based on the welfare of the dog. If I were to purchase a bltch and proposed to deliver a litter at 2 years of age, which is in human terms like asking a 14 year old teenager to have a baby, my boundaries shut down. This to me sounds like puppy farming, even though it is strictly controlled and possibly a great way to breed perfect pedigrees, I find it quite inhumane. Using animals as breeding machines is not how I consider a breeder's attitude should be encouraged. Is it any surprising if this is the example set by the professionals that the ordinary person with little knowledge about dogs shows a total lack of consideration regarding the dog culture?

People, be reasonable and ethical in line with regard to the welfare of the dog's health. Of course young dogs may want to explore at that age, but their level of maturity is really not completed until they are at least 3 years of age. Also, puppies, strictly speaking should not be taken from the mother until 10/12 weeks. I know this is hard on the breeder, been there, ended up with a tennis elbow, cleaning up after them, not to mention the racket after play. All the same, humans realised that it is not healthy for a female to give birth until a certain physical maturity level is reached, we are a lot more advanced now and such principles apply equally to the animal worlds.

I am quite stunned to read all this and I am sure that there are situations where these are absolutely good decisions, I would prefer to learn that some more thought is put into this subject and bltches are allowed the time to grow up first, before being thrown into motherhood, for the sake of making a buck and providing a top pedigree lineage. Sounds like Hitler and his arian race. Talk about discrimination and why humans are struggling with equality?

The holistic approach to any living entity has to be taken into consideration if we see ourselves as loving and mature animal handlers. I may receive of thumbs down, but my main priority is the integrity and dignity of the dogs. With the utmost of respect and humility, I sincerely pray that future litters are planned, taking into consideration the life condition of the animals in question.

The sharing of animals I have no problems with, if it suits the male and female's maturity. My two pennies for what it is worth.

Answer 5

It really depends - if the person taking care of the ***** is interested in breeding, it seems ideal, but for the average pet owner, not so much. It's just weird for me to think of someone taking away "my" dog to breed every now and then. I mean, if I'm the one providing all the vet care, feeding, training, etc, then I think decisions like breeding should be mine. I know the agreement would supersede my feelings there, and I would have signed it, but it seems like a lot of other breeding in that the motivation behind it is a big factor in its inherent "goodness." If a breeder is doing it to help mentor a new potential breeder, then great. If a breeder needs the extra help, fine. If the breeder is trying to breed as many bitches as possible to make lots of money, then it's despicable.

Answer 6

My ***** was sold to me at 8 weeks and called back after two years for breeding with one of the breeder's other dogs. He supervised the mating, my pregnant girl stayed home with us with close supervision and daily checks by the breeder, and he supervised the whelping as well. I have one of her pups.

I don't think this is very common here, but I do think it has the potential to work. But it has to be really, really strict. Obviously, not everyone is going to be a candidate for taking care of a *****, and it's not the perfect system. But it's a better solution than trying to enforce that only responsible breeders be allowed to breed - which I'm sure we can all agree is not happening.

People are always going to want to breed their dogs. No matter how many times they are told about puppy mills, shelters, euthanasia statistics - they are always going to want to breed their dogs, because they think that THEY are the special ones who will find their pups good homes. There are always going to be people breeding their dogs, but at least this system ensures that there are responsible breeders to supervise and keep them in check.

Answer 7

The way Kimbertal does it is well, ...nothing about them is ethical to start with.

It's not uncommon for breeders to sell a b*tch, and then later lease the b*tch back for breeding. Some will keep the entire litter, or offer first or second pick back to the buyer...there are as many different arrangements as there are breeders.

If the breeder leases back a b*tch they have sold, the "legal" breeder is whomever is listed on the lease agreement with AKC. Let's say a puppy buyer buys a show/breeding quality b*tch, but has no desire to whelp a litter of puppies etc..., the original breeder of the said b*tch, under the sales agreement, either gets 1 puppy back out of the first two litters, OR they can lease her back and keep the litter...

It has it's pros and cons...

Answer 8

I got one of my first show dogs this way. It was wierd....kind of a bait and switch, but I didn't have to go for it....anyway, I went to the breeder's house, she had already picked out "pick puppy dog" for me (and he was very nice....finished from the puppy class, novice owner handled). We were counting out the cash for the balance of his purchase price when she said "Ya know what....why don't you keep that....I'll tell ya what....you let me have two breedings to him, and we'll call it even." She was fair to work with, she got her breedings, and all was well. Now, for myself, I never bred the dog again. He was a "hard" dog. Always on, and a tough personality...always testing the limits. Not nasty, just pushy. We got along fine, it made him a great show dog, but I didn't like that personality for average people who just wanted a pet.

Answer 9

I have seen breeders do this, and I have seen puppy buyers do this.. 99% of the time someone ends up mad, or feeling like they are getting the short end of the stick. Best to buy your own dog and not trust someone else to keep up their end of the bargain.

Answer 10

Don't even go there. If you want to breed buy the best you can afford and you have control over your dogs. I have never heard of this in Scandinavia and would not recomend it, it sounds too messy.