Health Testing Pets

[mom2dogs]

^^ there's a BC breeder I know who, when her litters turn 2, have a 'kennel day' where she can see how her puppies turned out, and they get together with her vet who does offer a discount. But I think this works best for her, since she only sells puppies close by.

[CaliTerp07]

Originally Posted by xpaeanx

If we're speaking stickly pet here(the most "adventure" the dog gets is maybe some hiking, camping, and boating on weekends)... I kind of feel the same way. And, while I wouldn't mind paying an additional $300 or less for some testing on him down the road, I dont' think I'd want to be paying much more than that. And if the the price of health testing, blew the price of the puppy to a *really* high price, I wouldn't like that either. Now, I wouldn't buy a dog out of the paper, I'd just look for a breeder that fit what I was willing to do.

THIS.

If a dog is not going to be worked/shown/bred, then the benefit of the health testing is for the breeder, and the breeder should be the one paying for it. If they want to tack on the fees for their puppies, that's fine in my book (it's a business, charge whatever the heck you want--the market will settle on a fair value).

Dunno though...once someone buys a puppy, the law has proven that it's difficult for the breeder to enforce any kind of contract. I'll be very surprised if you could actually require the owner to complete the exams.

[Dekka]

It depends. I wouldn't ask for a full battery.. unless it was warrented.

But lets put it this way. If say a breeder is already loosing hundreds if not a thousand or more on a litter (don't ask ) Why is ok for them to be expected to loose more.. just because its good to know. Ultimately isn't it YOU the puppy buyer that wants to know? Isn't that why you go to a good breeder in the first place.

I am fine with the idea that breeders don't make money lol.. I am a bit shocked that they should be expected to loose even more when you (as puppy buyers) are the direct beneficiaries.

[PoodleMommy]

Originally Posted by CaliTerp07

Dunno though...once someone buys a puppy, the law has proven that it's difficult for the breeder to enforce any kind of contract. I'll be very surprised if you could actually require the owner to complete the exams.

I was thinking this too... I doubt a breeder would be able to do anything to force an owner to test their dogs... and people may mean well when they sign the contract and have all intentions of doing it and then other things come up and they cant.

The only way to even attempt to get full compliance would be (like i think Dekka said) to add the price into the purchase price and then refund it after health testing is complete.

There are some things I would never do though... for example in Yorkies, the big health issue is liver problems (shunts and MVD)... the only way to get an accurate diagnosis is with a liver biopsy... now Chloe is having one done when she is spayed because we suspect MVD, however it is not a minor procedure, my vet is very concerned because he said liver biopsies tend to bleed a lot... if the breeder said "oh get Armani checked just for my own information" I would refuse because I wouldnt want to take the risk when he has no symptoms.

I also would not put either of them under for xrays because yorkies have increased sensitivity to anesthesia and I want to use it as little as possible, basically only when there is no other option.

[xpaeanx]

Dekka, I hope you weren't thinking I was saying the breeder should loose more money.

I would assume that in the purchase price of a puppy the cost of the health tests for the parents are already factored in. Since this is STRICTLY a pet, I wouldn't need any health tests done on my dog for myself.

However, for the sake of the breeder knowing their lines and being able to better them, I would be willing to spend an additional amount(prob up to about $300) on health testing. So if I spend that $300 up front and get it back later or I spend it later(which I would prefer) that's how much I'm willing to spend on health testing.

If a breeder was asking for an additional $600 or so for health testing... then I prob wouldn't buy from that breeder.

and PM, I know armani is neutered.... so what if the Breeder asked you to wait until he was maybe 1 year old to neuter and do x-rays at the same time. This way she can at least get prelims on him & he only went under once... would you say yes or no to that?

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Dekka

I am fine with the idea that breeders don't make money lol.. I am a bit shocked that they should be expected to loose even more when you (as puppy buyers) are the direct beneficiaries.

It's not like the puppy buyer is the only one benefiting though, and I think it can be argued that the breeder is benefiting more than the puppy buyer. The puppy buyer generally ultimately concerned with their own dog. They may or may not ever buy from that breeder again or even continue to have that breed later in life.

However, the breeder is benefiting HUGELY by being able to put those results in context with results from other dogs from their lines and those could ultimately help determine the trajectory of their breeding program.

Now, if the pet owner does it on their own, then that's all on them as far as I'm concerned unless the breeder wants to help with the cost. However, if the breeder is going to require it and benefit from the info as well, I just think don't think it's right for it to all be on the puppy owner.

[mom2dogs]

Originally Posted by CaliTerp07

Dunno though...once someone buys a puppy, the law has proven that it's difficult for the breeder to enforce any kind of contract. I'll be very surprised if you could actually require the owner to complete the exams.

I guess someone could lie to the breeder and agree to do the tests, and then when the time comes to step up they step down. But that just sickens me, when they could just as easily go to someone where they can actually keep their end of the bargain. Granted, life is impossible to predict and who knows what's going to happen in 2 years... but I also don't know one breeder who wouldn't work with their buyers, but if it's just because they change their mind (or knew all along they weren't sure if they wanted to go through with it) then maybe people need to stop complaining about breeders making it difficult to purchase one of their puppies. . . because that's a great way to ruin a breeder's trust of future prospective owners. (and wasn't speaking to anyone in particular)

^^ Hopefully that made sense, been a long day so far, lol

From my experience those who choose to go to a (responsible) breeder do so because they want peace of mind they are getting a HEALTHY, well raised puppy. Well when you the buyer could help the breeder continue to strive to breed healthy, sound dogs. . . you decide it's a bit too much (again, not speaking to anyone in particular). Seems a little backwards, to me.

[Dekka]

Originally Posted by sillysally

It's not like the puppy buyer is the only one benefiting though, and I think it can be argued that the breeder is benefiting more than the puppy buyer.

Here I strongly disagree. Why go with a good breeder if you don't care about purchasing a pup from healthy tested lines? Why not go with a byb cheaper dog then? If you do care to have as healthy a puppy as possible then step up and take action lol! Why is all the onus on the breeder to loose money, etc? Don't you ultimately benefit as the puppy buyer?

As a breeder, yes I have my rep, yes I care about my dogs. BUT if I want to sell pups to the sort of people I want too.. I need to prove them. Ok so I title my dogs, health test my dogs. Why NOT have the puppy buyers pay for a CERF test? Its good for them to know too, even if its just a pet.

Anyway there is no way you would ever know if breeder X was tacking on an extra 200 for the health testing or only a 100 and 'splitting' it with the owner.

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Dekka

Here I strongly disagree. Why go with a good breeder if you don't care about purchasing a pup from healthy tested lines? Why not go with a byb cheaper dog then? If you do care to have as healthy a puppy as possible then step up and take action lol! Why is all the onus on the breeder to loose money, etc? Don't you ultimately benefit as the puppy buyer?
.

Obviously if I am going with say, a lab breeder that is health testing and paying $500 or $600+ more than a BYB for the fact that they are tested, then I care about testing. Because I think it's a little much to expected to pay for hundreds of dollars in testing on an otherwise healthy dog whose parents have had a full battery of tests who is only going to be doing the activities of a pet doesn't mean that I don't. What it means is that since the breeder will also be DIRECTLY benefiting from the testing, they should pay for some of it, work with vets for a discount, if they are going to require it.

[PoodleMommy]

Originally Posted by xpaeanx

and PM, I know armani is neutered.... so what if the Breeder asked you to wait until he was maybe 1 year old to neuter and do x-rays at the same time. This way she can at least get prelims on him & he only went under once... would you say yes or no to that?

I would say yes... because then he is still only under once and its not invasive... thats really the only thing that would worry me. I wouldnt even mind footing the cost (assuming its within reason)... I would just worry about additional risks to my "pet" dog with such a small benefit to me (and yes I realized after I typed that out that it sounds really selfish, but I just worry about my babies too much )