Thread: I must be getting old and cynical

Originally Posted by kawhia

I read through the new requirements for labs, on the whole it is a step in the right direction particularly for EIC.
However I am of the opinion the approved breeder rubbish is nothing more than a money spinner for both the nzkc and those breeders who want the fancy attached name, it has been over ten years since the TV programme pedigree dogs exposed, and the assured breeders scheme was suppose to tidy up the health of many breeds, that GSD is proof it has failed.
Now nzkc have a code of ethics they are pushing onto already overpriced registration, they have lost the plot.
A separate register may work, and could easily be run by the nzgta.
Our dogs are registered in Germany and the actual registration costs are very cheap, but by the time you add on the NZ club costs and the huge kennel fee it works out ten times more expensive than the NZKC.
Costs are pushed back to the buyers regardless, not just the paperwork but vets, fuel and feed are no longer a minor cost.
Sorry mike but you do make money out of breeding dogs, done right the outgoings match the incomings, it's what you do with the excess that counts....for us there is always another dog to bring in.

Same here, any surplus from a litter ( should the be any) is put back into the dogs , yes I charge $1700 for a pup and I have a HUGE waiting list, I have a dog coming in from the UK late next year ( should he be good enough ) and semen coming in from Sweden within the next 2 months, none of which is cheap.
As for the health testing for labradors, this can only be a good thing, and I do question people who don't want to health test, isn't it better to know of any issues rather than breed blindly.

Originally Posted by Ducdog

Same here, any surplus from a litter ( should the be any) is put back into the dogs , yes I charge $1700 for a pup and I have a HUGE waiting list, I have a dog coming in from the UK late next year ( should he be good enough ) and semen coming in from Sweden within the next 2 months, none of which is cheap.
As for the health testing for labradors, this can only be a good thing, and I do question people who don't want to health test, isn't it better to know of any issues rather than breed blindly.

Far more useful to analyse how breeders created those issues. Learn from that and don;t do it again rather than institute a bogus testing regime that keeps Vets driving Audi's. HD for instance, tested for years. no change in the incidence, no change in which dogs produce it, but the bullshit "We test" hoodwinks the public to keep the money flowing to the vets and breeders. How about someone work their dogs hard and use their skill and judgement as stock people to breed? Then you'll get the type of dogs again gracing our fields that Jim Clarke, Leon, and more produced and in the case of Gaskin and Whitehead, continue to produce. You don't test for what is not there. So when I see someone "testing" I get real nervous about what they themselves believe is there. Show dogs, of course, MUST be tested, even with tests that can;t tell you anything.... why? Because their handlers haven't done a damn thing except look at paper to evaluate their dogs. If they spent time on the hill, and I don't mean a few duck shooting sessions each winter, I mean work the bloody dog. People asked me "What testing has Brick had"? My answer "Every fucking hill from here to Hawkes Bay! If there was anything unsound we'd have seen it. The only people that need to test dogs in a vet clinic are the ones who need to look very hard at themselves... because it means they are breeding and selling dogs they haven;t tested properly for themselves on the hill. That's a clue to these dogs not being working dogs right there!

As you may tell from my tone... I lament the decline in old fashioned dog people who evaluate dogs where dogs should be evaluated... under extreme and harsh conditions in the field, where no dog with a weakness can hide it., compared to today's metro-sexual "I can sell the whole litter if I say they hunt" bullshit photos of a dog sitting ne3xt to a deer or duck and "tested" is just so much bullshit it should be on "Fair Go"!

Today's rant over.

(and to think I didn't say "Don;t piss on my boots and tell me its raining once.)

Originally Posted by Ruff

Far more useful to analyse how breeders created those issues. Learn from that and don;t do it again rather than institute a bogus testing regime that keeps Vets driving Audi's. HD for instance, tested for years. no change in the incidence, no change in which dogs produce it, but the bullshit "We test" hoodwinks the public to keep the money flowing to the vets and breeders.

OK I'll bite
Aside from not driving an Audi : the VD hip xrays examined by a panel of experts used for screening for HD for years was the best tool we had even though I agree it has not been shown to make a big difference (shown by scientidic method the same way the scheme was devised in the first instance). Penn hip certainly appears more promising for now.
Money wise, Ive worked in a bunch of practices here and in Aussie, I can think of one or two which might have made decent profit on HD xrays mostly its actually fairly cost neutral or even a loss, after anaesthetic, positioning repeat xray with 2 people and paper work its not a big money spinner - you could spey a few bitches, sew up a few pig dogs or do a simple orthopaedic procedure in the same time. Yes its all money and nobody is made of it for sure.
Penn hip also costs $$ itwas blardy expensive to train for and buy the gear for initially being a copyright procedure which also had to be passed on. Costs for Penn training and gear are now coming down, happily.
Anyways Im never going to win a vet argument with the internet on charging but be aware what you perceive as a waste of a lot of money is not done for fun at the other end either!
Dont get me started on charging for dogs being exported....

Originally Posted by ethos

Dont get me started on charging for dogs being exported....

Don't get me started on that topic as well