Actually, many people got into breeding because they really wanted a hobby that they believed in, and they had the money to support their hobby. I can tell you that many good breeders place their breeding dogs for free in the hands of someone who has shown great promise, and a love for the breed. I know some of you will never believe it, and especially some breeders who can't get a good name to sell them a dog.

Also, something else to consider, some of the top dogs in the country are backed by rich people with more money than you can ever imagine.

But I'm middle class, show my dogs on weekends that I can afford now and try not to go into financial ruin. I'll never be rich so I'll continue to be small potatoes in the dog show world but I will still have the passion for the breed and continue to strive for the best I can. :)

Tell the truth, do you ever think you will come close to breaking even?

Well, they are grown and married with children LOL

what's breaking even? I'm so far in the whole now I can barely see the sky LOL....really joking aside, I am in the hole considering what I've put into my dogs...that includes campaigning "two" yorkie specials and like I said, I haven't had a litter in 3 1/2 years and that was just a litter of 2.

I didn't think then or now about reporting the breeder, I don't think she did anything really that wrong in the "big picture" of dog breeding and puppy sales. If someone offered her that price for the pup and she accepted the offer, that is their business. It's not like she purposely breeds for off color, nor did she market the pup as such. My point in the post was only that high prices can be charged by any breeder.

I'm happy you are enjoying showing and wish you much success. And, of course I am thrilled and grateful you continue to help out the rescue pups!

I'm sure they are making a profit and others are too. I would think most are writing off on taxes as business expenses, the costs of showing, kenneling, employees, etc.

One of the "learnings" I will take from this thread, is that there will never be a case of "soley" numbers of annual litters, that can categorically state one way or the other, one is a good/poor/fair/better/best, breeder. Quite frankly it is not that simple as others have pointed out. And others have pointed out some of the other perhaps more important variables.

A reasonable question was asked, if there is say only 1 CH type dog in say 25 dogs, then you have 24 that are not CH quality...how is that bettering the breed?

I tried to allude to the answer in an earlier post of mine; if you are breeding to improve the standard, then the likelihood is very high, that this litter will all be good to very good representatives of the breed. That is 24 typey dogs, that actually look like Yorkies, have great temperament and health. If all breeders bred like this, then as another posted stated (look a golden retriever we see on the streets looks like a Golden, a GS like a GS), how come so often we can't be really sure if we are seeing a Yorkie? Then you would have Yorkies commonly seen on the street that would not be mistaken for whatever.

What we know from this list; instead we have lots of BYBERS, lots of individuals who want their female to have just one litter, lots of USDA licensed breeders who are NOT mandated to breed specific health test their breeding pairs, or required to breed only CH dogs. Then lets not forgot all the Yorkie mixes we have out there, some deliberately created, some/lots "oops" pregnancies.

Here is a dilemma. How many would be new Yorkie owners would you say there are annually in the USA? As a dog in the top 3 most registered and purchased breeds in North America; 25,000 new yorkies is not unreasonable to assume.

Now lets say 5000 of those yorkies will come from rescuse, shelters, or individual rehomes. That leaves us with 20,000 yorkies to be meet the demand. If one accepts the average litter size to be 4, that is 5,000 litters (or 5000 female yorkies to be bred every year).

The simple question is; where will all these litters come from? I can tell you there are not anywhere near 5,000 female yorkies being shown in any given year. The numbers are pretty staggering. If there are 200 different females being shown in any given year I'd be surprised, given the number I've seen at large shows. Given a safe breeding life of 6 years that still only gives you 1200 females when 5000 is needed.

Enter in the "mass or volumne" breeders and the BYBer's. Quite simply they wouldn't be breeding these, if they couldn't/didn't have a market for them. and that market is quite large indeed.

So looking at the numbers,one can see the extent of the problem, and can easily perceive the stress or pressure on our breed.

The sad reality is, there are just not enough "show breeders" to fulfill this demand. Where will the public go then? Well just exactly where they have gone. To the bybers, the pet stores, the mom and pop shop, and so on.

What is the solution???

I'm taking tax this upcoming semester. I'll get back to you on this. My professor is going to think I'm a nut :D :rolleyes:

Well that's to be expected...not so certain there is some vast profit being made after the numbers are crunched though.

I boggle my own mine when I add up just my expenses in showing my dogs...

I'd like to make the point (even though I haven't taken tax yet) that just because you claim expenses doesn't mean you make a profit. It is far more likely that a loss would still be incurred or you would break even. Claiming them as business expenses makes you financially better off than where you would have been, but does not mean that you will magically turn a profit.

You fill out the Schedule C form for this sort of thing. You're only allowed to take a loss for 3 or so years because the government says that businesses exist to make money. If you continue to have a loss after that, you have to claim the money as hobby income (whatever it may be), which will be taxed, and you are no longer allowed to claim any business expenses.

For example, you make $10,000 in revenue selling homemade jewelry. You have incurred $20,000 in business expenses. Thus, you have a $10,000 loss. After the 3rd year of this, you can no longer claim any business expenses. So, in your 4th year you would have to claim $10,000 of taxable hobby income from the revenue you generated, but you are not allowed to claim any business expenses.

i started reading this thread because i thought it must have a lot of great information since it has so many replies. after reading all 19 pages I can say that some people have brought up some good points regarding litter numbers, who has them, and why are some justified and some not. Lots of double standards out there.

Now there is another way to handle this.....Agriculturely ......

Oh true! Like ranch properties and such...

Yeah, I don't know much about that. That is beyond the realm of my limited VITA (volunteer income tax assistance) program knowledge.

Like I said, I haven't taken tax yet :D This is one way to handle small business income.

Very true..I have always lived in my dogs home..if they are not happy..believe me no one is happy!

This is very true..perhaps in all breeds, but the Yorkie breed seems to attract people with big bank accounts...but you can breed and finish dogs on a small bank account, I have proven that a few times.

Right there with you Pat. Donna and I can both attest to that. When traveling, you travel and share expenses. And of course that makes the traveling fun when you travel with people that share the same interest.

I have asked the same question...what is the solution? I am retired, but do co-own a couple bitches...if I tell a potential new owner they have to wait a year, I can understand them for going to the newspaper or a pet shop...if I really wanted a new pet, I would not want to wait a year either....especially if I had lost my pet and had no others.
I try hard to contact as many reputable breeders as possible and find that person a puppy with a few weeks.

Boy isn't that the truth. :D

Yup I can attest to that!! I'm surely not wealthy that's for sure! But if one studies the history of dog showing and when it all started it began with the very wealthy and they sure didn't get their money off the dogs...

Donna

Dog showing started with the wealthy?

I don't know but would have expected the first yorkies shown to come from working class type people. Isn't the history that small dogs were the only dogs poorer people were allowed to have and that was to chase off vermin from the farms and factories?

I found this website page interesting:

Political and Environmental History of Terriers

Dog shows were a way for the newly emerging middle class in the UK and the United States to try to bestow status, prestige and exclusivity on themselves. Most terrier breeds were either created or "improved and standardized" at this time. -- a direct result of the selective breeding practices learned with cattle, sheep, chickens and pigeons.

I'm not talking when just the terriers or yorkies got started in dog showing, I'm saying dog shows in general...Go read the history of Westminster Dog show Kennel Club. It was a rich man's sport. Go look at the history of the Westminster Kennel Club.

Donna

A couple of years ago...right before the Westminster show...there was a documentary on the club. It was really interesting.

WKC History - Overview of the History of the Club -Historic Timeline - WestminsterKennelClub.org

..the showing of Yorkies in America, did not start with the Yorkshire men..even in the UK dog shows were a rich mans sport...the poor man was working...in the USA our Yorkies were imported by the rich...who else could afford "such folly"..LOL

Yup, it started with Pointers and Setters...and those people had to have money for sporting events for their dogs. I sure wish I could find that article I read about a year ago regarding dog shows and when it started. I've looked a few minutes ago but I can't find that one article I read. It was very interesting. But from what I've been reading this morning I still get way back in those days you had to be of money because the poor man had to work to even make enough to keep his family fed. UGH I'm still trying to search for that article I read! LOL

Westminster may have a different class of people showing but your other post didn't indicate Westminster. I was only offering information that not all dogs shown were originally from the wealthy.

Dog shows orginated from the wealthy that was the meaning behind my post. Most people that attended and showed dogs were wealthy and very few were from working or middle class or even poor. It's still a rich man's endeavor but yes us middle class show but it's not a cheap endeavor by no means.

I thought it was in Queen Victoria's time, that dog shows or the sport of breeding and showing began. I too either read or saw a special on that, but for the life of me, can't put my hands on the book/books.
And it was definitely mentioned it was by the rich and or titled classes.

I'll see if I can find an article on that.

Here you go.
History of the Kennel Club

15-Jun-06


http://www.yorkietalk.com/download/5...istbwbuild.jpgThe middle of the 19th Century found the prosperous and leisured Victorians with a passion for exhibitions and 'instructive entertainment'. The development of the railways brought the whole country within reach of the Great Exhibition of 1851, housed in what was to become the Crystal Palace, and during the years that followed, many exhibitions of widely varying character were held.
The first organised dog show was held in the Town Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 28th and 29th June 1859. The Show was organised by Messrs. Shorthouse and Page at the suggestion of Mr R Brailsford and there were sixty entries of Pointers and Setters. Only one class was held for each breed at these early shows and the dogs were unidentified except for their kennel names. Reference to the old catalogues reveals Mr Murrel's 'Spot', competing against Mr Brown's 'Venus' for a prize of 22 shillings. By 1870 it was decided that a controlling body was necessary to legislate in canine matters and a Mr S E Shirley, MP, from Warwickshire, called together the National Dog Club Committee and a discussion ensued which resulted in twelve gentlemen meeting at No 2 Albert Mansions, Victoria Street, London, on 4th April 1873, and this meeting marked the founding of the Kennel Club.
One of the earliest undertakings of the newly formed Kennel Club was the compilation of a Stud Book. The Editor, Mr Frank C S Pearce, was the son of Revd. Thomas Pearce, of the well-known 'Idstone' kennel and contributor to 'The Field' publication.
The first volume of the Stud Book contained the records of shows from 1859-73. The Kennel Club Calendar was also compiled in the same year and lists two shows each year for the next ten years.

IT wasn't in a book that I read it but an article and if I'm not mistaken it was when I was in or right before or after I had gone to NY to the shows. It mentioned that it was for the wealthy people in that time period to show off their dogs. And some of the pictures I saw of that time era one had to be rich to wear the clothes I saw the women wearing. I sure wish I could find that article.

Donna