Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwalt  That's your prerogative but unless you are going to be cracking open your wallet, writing the check, or swiping a card, its up to them. My only issue with you is that I have seen you post about it in places that its not warranted and it seems like some type of judgment call that you are making. Someone post about their 11 week old pup asking advice on teething bones is not the place to swoop in and tell them that their breeder is not in your opinion, "reputable". It just rubs people the wrong way.
According to your standards 95 percent of breeders probably would not live up to all the things you list as what makes them "reputable" and the majority of the people around here probably got their dogs from one of them. A few may have had bad experiences but I'm sure the majority are happy and content with their babies and they would do it all over again. In the end that's what is most important, dogs getting good homes. |
Agree but the thing is there is no one world wide opinion on what makes a breeder reputable or not. It varies significantly by country and even by state and for sure by breed.
But there are some things that should be if not actually are pretty well agreed to for example a reputable breeder would not:
1. Misrepresent or out right lie about the parentage and purebred status of the dog they are trying to sell.
2. Misrepresent or outright lie about the health status of the puppy they are intending to sell including but not limited to the shots and the vet visits this puppy has had.
3. Breed knowingly sick dogs together
4. Keep their dogs in inhumane conditions
5. Deny their dogs access to sufficient food water and health care.
6 Sell a dog way too young by knowingly fudging birth records or stating this dog is 8wks old when it is 6wks old etc.
This is a minimum kind of list. I also posit the position a breeder can be *reputable* based on above list - but not a very good breeder.