Thread: What would you pay for a pup?

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

Good theory but its not true in every case, as you say..

If you want a healthy long lived dog the best idea is health checks on the parents.. Backyard breeders rarely [if ever] do this, responsible breeders do.

we got burnt with our cocker...my fault entirely,rushed into it,bought from folks who looked OK,parents looked OK...but dog was more or less blind within 6 years had more loose skin on head than average undocked cock..... he was brilliant dog but VERY hard on a gundog when they can no longer see a bird go down 20 yards infront of them....
Ive always had crossbred mongrels and no real health issues...touch wood.
$200-600

having been kicking around with a couple of pighunters lately,the discussion has come up.
one runs dogs only..so he is screwed and has to buy in any new pups or find someone who likes look/ability of his dog and wants litter from thier bitch. now the fella who runs mostly bitches has much easier time...he finds a dog he likes look of and abilities of with something extra he doesnt already have with his bitch and takes her along when in season and lets nature do the rest.... when litter arrives,picks 2 pups for himself and on sells the rest...proven pig dog bitches litters arent all that hard to move on to new homes but prices wont do much more than cover cost....
he then keeps his 2 pups and spends the time with them and hopefully one turns out a cracker and the other half decent...he has continued his "line" of dogs and the older bitch gets a few years hunting with her pups before retirement and the pups take over.
we intend to one day breed from Poppy..when Meg goes to the big duck pond in the sky....and will consider options of sire very very carefully so we get something better than we have..be it smaller,less hairy,quieter,less barky,more bitey,more ducky (good luck finding anything more feather driven) or more deer inclined .....wont be for some time yet.
cant rush these things as you will have pup for 10-12 years if you make a dud,your stuck with it.

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

Good theory but its not true in every case, as you say..

If you want a healthy long lived dog the best idea is health checks on the parents.. Backyard breeders rarely [if ever] do this, responsible breeders do.

It is an in-arguable fact that heterosis masks genetic faults in a first cross. The cross of two very good fault free purebred lines will give very good results. But where are the fault free lines ? Greyhounds and Border Collies ?
None of this is 'Good theory' it is proven fact. Remember Gregor Mendel and his crosses of sweet peas from high school lessons. It has been know for a long time

If you’re doing it only for the money 100% don’t do it. If you’re doing it because your absolutely need a pup from your bitch well there’s your answer. I’ve had multiple litters and it’s a lot of work and a big expense to do it properly and when dealing with animals the only way. Good quality food for both mum and pups , parvo , worming it all adds up and that’s without any complications. It only takes one person to muck you around And you can get stuck with a pup for longer than expected which equals more time and money.
Not trying to sound blunt just trying to put it into perspective.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

It is an in-arguable fact that heterosis masks genetic faults in a first cross. The cross of two very good fault free purebred lines will give very good results. But where are the fault free lines ? Greyhounds and Border Collies ?
None of this is 'Good theory' it is proven fact. Remember Gregor Mendel and his crosses of sweet peas from high school lessons. It has been know for a long time

It does not mask genetic faults completely , it gives the 50/50 offspring a reduced chance of genetic faults.. second paragraph ?

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/article...osiseffect.htm


However again I would say that getting health checks done by a vet and only breeding from dogs that are known to be free from any problems greatly reduces your chance of what happened to me with my first dog .

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

It does not mask genetic faults completely , it gives the 50/50 offspring a reduced chance of genetic faults.. second paragraph ?

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/article...osiseffect.htm


However again I would say that getting health checks done by a vet and only breeding from dogs that are known to be free from any problems greatly reduces your chance of what happened to me with my first dog .

The real work on breed crossing is done with plants and livestock esp pigs and chickens. The author of the article would perhaps benefit from reading some of this research.
Again I ask, which dog breeds are free of genetic faults ? Not many, so crossing to produce a more healthy longer lived utility animal is often a better path than breeding pure lines unless those lines are very very good and of a foundation stock standard. In livestock and plant breeding, very productive pure lines are maintained and used to cross and produce the plants and animals we consume as food.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

The real work on breed crossing is done with plants and livestock esp pigs and chickens. The author of the article would perhaps benefit from reading some of this research.
Again I ask, which dog breeds are free of genetic faults ? Not many, so crossing to produce a more healthy longer lived utility animal is often a better path than breeding pure lines unless those lines are very very good and of a foundation stock standard. In livestock and plant breeding, very productive pure lines are maintained and used to cross and produce the plants and animals we consume as food.

I think the author of the article I put up agrees with you and so do I that you are correct but "completely correct" ?

Which breeds of dogs are free of genetic faults ? None that I know of. The point I was trying to make was that with doing health checks on the dam and sire you can quite confidently [but not with 100% certainty] rule out many of the genetic faults from a potential pup purchase ?

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

I think the author of the article I put up agrees with you and so do I that you are correct but "completely correct" ?

Which breeds of dogs are free of genetic faults ? None that I know of. The point I was trying to make was that with doing health checks on the dam and sire you can quite confidently [but not with 100% certainty] rule out many of the genetic faults from a potential pup purchase ?

In relation to Robs bitch, as she is a crossbred anyway there is no 'papered pedigree' value in her. So breeding of her would in my opinion be best aimed to produce the best utility type of dog - healthy, vigorous, long lived etc. Back crossing to a Vizla will not do this but outcrossing to a third unrelated breed will. What the best cross would be is open to debate

Relation sold a litter of GSPxLab puppies at $1300 each last year. Neither dog had ever hunted but were sold as hunting dogs.

Originally Posted by Average-Lad

Relation sold a litter of GSPxLab puppies at $1300 each last year. Neither dog had ever hunted but were sold as hunting dogs.

Think it was a different ball game last year, market isn't what it has been in the past with cross bread indicator dogs. Also see the same with pig dog pups, sellers finding it hard to find homes.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

In relation to Robs bitch, as she is a crossbred anyway there is no 'papered pedigree' value in her. So breeding of her would in my opinion be best aimed to produce the best utility type of dog - healthy, vigorous, long lived etc. Back crossing to a Vizla will not do this but outcrossing to a third unrelated breed will. What the best cross would be is open to debate

I would try and not get too involved with your version of breeding pedigree dogs, the best working stuff is usually inbred to hell and part of an ongoing programme a number of kennels are involved in, world wide. I will however put me pighunting hat on and in part agree with some of what you are saying, first x combines the best of both worlds within reason, however you can just as easily end up with rubbish… in most cases this is the case in my experience, adding a 3rd breed can produce better odds in my experience, the main issue is getting good examples of the purebred to work off.

Originally Posted by BRADS

We pay 100 max for good working farm pups
Heck, some of you have too much $

Sent from my SM-S916B using Tapatalk

I don’t race expensive machinery, I have a designer dog

Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst

I think it's retarded breeding dogs just for shits and giggles. Sure if you have buyers lined up wanting pups from a proven dog then knock yourself out but there's enough dogs already in this country that have shit lives, get put down, or end up wards of the spca etc to just go breeding your dog for no real reason.

jesus hell must of frozen over ryan and i agree on something.
i wouldnt have a vizla cross a garden shovel the one i had put me off them for life

Originally Posted by gsp follower

jesus hell must of frozen over ryan and i agree on something.
i wouldnt have a vizla cross a garden shovel the one i had put me off them for life

a lot of this stupidity started with working dogs and that bloody ''a dogs show''

Depends on the dog. From what I’ve seen, there appears to be little relationship between how expensive the dog is and how useful it is on the hill.

I paid $800 for my gsp x lab. I’ve got more than my $800 out of him in value. That’s about as far as I’d go if I was to get another.