Puppy Cost?

[JulieM]

Just be careful; I know of at least one no-so-responsible Boxer breeder in that city. (This one is expecting five litters in a three-week period, which gives you some kind of clue about their practices....)

Ask the suggested questions that are here: http://www.boxerworld.com/rescue/questions/

Get hard copies of health test reports (a listing of recommended health tests is here: http://www.boxerworld.com/health_testing/).

 

[Kerry Jane]

FWIW - I know a breeder who may well be denied membership to ABC because they sold a white puppy for $400. What they have been told is that it is "unethical" and a violation of the COE to SELL a white puppy.
I then spoke with a number of other breeders and pretty much everyone else that I spoke with places their white puppies in a pet home for free - there is a spay/neuter deposit that one will get back when you provide proof that the puppy is spayed/neutered.
So, if you come across a breeder who is selling their whites - just know that they are in violation of the ABC COE.

 

[Net45582]

So, if you come across a breeder who is selling their whites - just know that they are in violation of the ABC COE.

Not so....you may want to visit the ABC website and re-read the code...or pop up a few responses on this thread and read what GMacLeod has quoted from the web site.

 

[gmacleod]

Well, there's sell and sell What the COE appears to say is that breeders can charge a price that covers the cost of veterinary fees associated with the pup (plus the refundable spay/neuter deposit). Since that doesn't include a share of the costs of health testing parents, the dams vet costs, food etc - it's unlikely to run to anything like $400. Thus, a breeder "selling" a white puppy for that price may well be in breach of the COE... (unless they can show vet costs of that amount attributable to that particular pup).

 

[GoCougs]

it's unlikely to run to anything like $400. Thus, a breeder "selling" a white puppy for that price may well be in breach of the COE... (unless they can show vet costs of that amount attributable to that particular pup).

Not necessarily. This is, again, very grey language by the ABC. "Expenses directly related to the puppy" leaves alot for interpretation.

For example, and this is from a real life situation. In a litter of six, a bitch free whelps four, and has to have an emergency (middle of the night) c-section for the final two....of which one is white. That c-section cost $1500. Is that a puppy expense, or a vet expense on the bitch? If you count that as an expense directly related to the pup, add the expense of vet checks on that puppy, vaccinations, and various other expenses and you are looking at a potentially $1000 white pup. Is that unethical? Is that a case for denial of membership to ABC even though the breeder worked within the COE?

Charging that much for a white boxer is unrealistic, but the ABC language is, in my opinion, intentionally vague.

 

[gmacleod]

Not necessarily. This is, again, very grey language by the ABC. "Expenses directly related to the puppy" leaves alot for interpretation.
...Charging that much for a white boxer is unrealistic, but the ABC language is, in my opinion, intentionally vague.

Grey language indeed. I cannot speak in any way for whether it's deliberately so though.

It is at least clear that it's related veterinary expenses. Which leaves the matter of food and other costs associated with the litter (which, IMO, are equally legitimate) unattributable. On a "clean whelp", the only costs a breeder could legitimately charge are that pup's vet bills (docking, dew claws, vaccinations, worming...).

Still - if it's arguably legitimate to attribute a share of the cost of a c-section - then surely it's equally legitimate to attribute a share of things like health testing? Not sure that that's the general interpretation though

 

[JulieM]

the ABC language is, in my opinion, intentionally vague.

Well, it had to be, or it wouldn't have passed at all and whites would still be unregistered and placed for free only.

Please note, however, that while it is a violation of the COE to sell a white puppy for more than a refundable spay/neuter deposit and veterinary expenses directly related to that puppy (and IMO, a stuck white puppy is the *cause* of a c-section and those costs certainly are directly related to that puppy; of course I'm not on the ABC board so my opinion is worth about as much as the paper it's written on ), it is no longer an *infraction* - i.e., punishable offense - to do so.

It may be enough to keep one out of the Club, though. $400 seems like a lot for veterinary expenses for one puppy. How much of that is the refundable s/n deposit? Was this a problematic whelping, or did the puppies experience unusual health issues? If the breeder has valid information to support that price, it could well be argued that it is not a violation (and the price of the other puppies may factor in as well - colored pups sold for $500 would be more detrimental than colored pups sold for $1000).

 

[JulieM]

surely it's equally legitimate to attribute a share of things like health testing?

Hmm - I don't think so. A c-section can be directly related to a puppy if that puppy was stuck and was the reason the bitch needed the c-section (as opposed, for example, to the section being needed because the bitch had uterine inertia, which would be indirectly related). Health testing of the bitch is not related to any of the puppies; it would have been done even if the bitch had missed and didn't produce any puppies. Health testing of the puppies would, of course, be a valid expense (such as those breeders who take the pups to a cardiologist for auscultation before they go to their new homes).

 

[gmacleod]

Hmm - I don't think so. A c-section can be directly related to a puppy if that puppy was stuck and was the reason the bitch needed the c-section (as opposed, for example, to the section being needed because the bitch had uterine inertia, which would be indirectly related). Health testing of the bitch is not related to any of the puppies; it would have been done even if the bitch had missed and didn't produce any puppies.

Yes, I thought you'd say that :D

It creates the interesting (theoretical) possibility though, of the stuck white puppy who caused a $1500 c-section ending up costing more than his coloured littermates...

 

[JulieM]

Yes, quite interesting, and that was discussed when the amendment was proposed (especially considering that so many breeders feel the white puppies are the biggest in the litter). In general, I think in that situation most breeders felt they would charge at most the price of a colored pet pup - but they would also be quite sure to have documentation from the vet that the white puppy was the reason for the c-section! (Another interesting dilemma would be if there were other white puppies in the litter, since you probably couldn't attribute the section to all of them; do you charge $1000 for the one and $250 for all the rest? Do you charge $250 for all the white puppies, but increase the price of the colored pups by $100-200 each to cover at least a portion of the c-section? Lots of variables there, and no clear answers - so long as that documentation is in hand! :D)