# How much should a pup cost?



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

I'm trying to understand the market value of a Labrador puppy. I guess it depends on what the seller thinks is reasonable plus what they can get. I realize that the title does not say everything about the dog. And there is a lot more to choosing a pup than looking at pedigree & price. 

What do you think is a reasonable purchase price in today's market for the following? Generally speaking that is. Thanks for any input.

a. Hunting and/or pet - ? Health clearances and some lower lever HT titles in 2 generation pedigree

b. MH sire and JH dam - Health clearances

c. MH/QAA sire and MH dam - " "

d. FC/AFC sire and MH dam - " "

e. FC/AFC sire and QAA/MH dam - " "

f. FC/AFC sire and FC/AFC dam - " "


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

A. $500-$800
b. $800 - $1000
c. $1000 - $1500
d. $1000 - $2000
e. $1500 - $3000
F. $2500 - $5000+

Other factors including overall pedigree, popularity of the sire and what they've produced in the past contribute to where they fall in those ranges. 

Color is also a factor even if it shouldn't be.

There is also a wider range the higher up you go. I know of FC x MH litters that sold for $1000 and others for $2000. I've seen FC x QAA litters go fast for $3000 and others for $1500


----------



## ZEKESMAN (Mar 22, 2008)

a and b the same 500 - 800
c and d 800 - 1500
e 1500 -2000
f 2000 - 10,000


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

b. $1200 with MNH paid last week
e. $2500-3000 I paid $2000 in 2012.

Your categories leave out a lot: MNH, SRS, High point dogs in field trials


----------



## JMitchell (Dec 28, 2012)

I thought I got a deal with an e) for $1000 three and half years ago.


----------



## Troy Tilleraas (Sep 24, 2010)

a. Hunting and/or pet - ? Health clearances and some lower lever HT titles in 2 generation pedigree $500

b. MH sire and JH dam - Health clearances $500-$750 Why are we breeding a JH? At 2 years old it can do a single?

c. MH/QAA sire and MH dam - " " $1500-$1800

d. FC/AFC sire and MH dam - " " $1800 +

e. FC/AFC sire and QAA/MH dam - " "$1800 +

f. FC/AFC sire and FC/AFC dam - " "$2500 + Whatever you want to ask probably sold before bred or should have been!


----------



## Jake Greenwell (Feb 28, 2005)

Where are you guys seeing these FC AFC x FC AFC litters that are in the $2,000 range at? Please send them my way if you find anything. I’ve looked at a number of litters in the past 3-4 years with both parents having a FC and I think the cheapest I’ve found is starting in the $4,000 range. 

Also as everyone knows there are a number of other factors that haven’t been stated such as success of siblings, previous offspring, Derby points, etc.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

What about an NFC or NAFC sire? x MH/QAA ?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Price also depends on where the breeder lives (NE and NW pricing is considerably higher than most are indicating here) and how the pups are raised also. 
Has the breeder got several generations of hip, elbow, eye, and cardiac clearances there? Do the pups come w/ vet well checks, eye checks, microchips and what have they already been exposed to? 
It's more than just titles to a lot of folks. Anne


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

Jake Greenwell said:


> Where are you guys seeing these FC AFC x FC AFC litters that are in the $2,000 range at? Please send them my way if you find anything. I’ve looked at a number of litters in the past 3-4 years with both parents having a FC and I think the cheapest I’ve found is starting in the $4,000 range.
> 
> Also as everyone knows there are a number of other factors that haven’t been stated such as success of siblings, previous offspring, Derby points, etc.





Billie said:


> What about an NFC or NAFC sire? x MH/QAA ?


Just recently had two friends buy pups from a FC AFC X AFC breeding for I believe $3000

I've seen NFC X MH/QAA litters for as low as $2000-$2500 but typically going to be around $3000


----------



## Jake Greenwell (Feb 28, 2005)

Bryan Parks said:


> Just recently had two friends buy pups from a FC AFC X AFC breeding for I believe $3000
> 
> Ive seen one or two litters out of an AFC bitch starting around $3,500 but nothing in the $2,000 and especially not from a bitch with a FC.


----------



## jforqueran (Apr 12, 2015)

The best answer to your question would be what ever you're willing to pay!! The puppy market is not in good shape right now unless you are in the elite group of people buying pups that are probably never even advertised and more than likely sold before the breeding ever takes place. 

I just transported a puppy for a friend that was out of a pretty nice breeding of two MH's that are very very nice dogs that sold for under 1,000.00 and heard of another breeding that wasn't even advertised from two titled FT dogs that were over 10,000.00.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

There is a saying in the race horse business that you have to breed quality to quality to get quality. 
That does not mean you will always get quality but it is necessary to get quality. Not all titled dogs 
are quality including those with N in their title. 

Paying 4 figures for any dog is absurd unless they meet the quality standard. Anything below the 
standard of FT dogs with pelts probably would not meet the standard of being worthy of a price in 
the 4 figure range, though I have seen dogs with pelts that I would have paid in the high 4 figure 
range to own a pup from their mating.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

Marvin S said:


> There is a saying in the race horse business that you have to breed quality to quality to get quality.
> That does not mean you will always get quality but it is necessary to get quality. Not all titled dogs
> are quality including those with N in their title.


Not always necessary. There was a pretty good horse that was bred right down the street from me. Not a stellar pedigree by any stretch of the imagination. He won a couple of big races here in the States and the Dubai World Cup in 2016. His earnings were $14,752,000. Not bad for a marginal breeding. You may remember his name, California Chrome.

So the rest of us newbies don't get hoodwinked when buying a pup, will you please tell us which dogs with a N in front aren't/weren't quality animals.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Bryan Parks said:


> A. $500-$800
> b. $800 - $1000
> c. $1000 - $1500
> d. $1000 - $2000
> ...


using this one, I paid A for my E!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Dave Farrar said:


> Not always necessary. There was a pretty good horse that was bred right down the street from me. Not a stellar pedigree by any stretch of the imagination. He won a couple of big races here in the States and the Dubai World Cup in 2016. His earnings were $14,752,000. Not bad for a marginal breeding. You may remember his name, California Chrome.
> 
> So the rest of us newbies don't get hoodwinked when buying a pup, will you please tell us which dogs with a N in front aren't/weren't quality animals.


The comment on race horses was given to me by someone who was in that business. My only venture into that area 
was reading "Stud" & "Horse of a Different Color". I have heard of California Chrome. I would ask, did the horse go 
to stud & how did his get do?

As for the N thing, Caveat Emptor.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

Marvin S said:


> The comment on race horses was given to me by someone who was in that business. My only venture into that area
> was reading "Stud" & "Horse of a Different Color". I have heard of California Chrome. I would ask, did the horse go
> to stud & how did his get do?
> 
> As for the N thing, Caveat Emptor.


He is currently at stud. The first foals were born about 7 months ago. He was bred 145 times at $40,000 a pop. Not a bad gig.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

In an attempt to keep it on the rails, I'll respond. I was "generally" speaking and listed some combo's. I did not choose to list all possible combinations as that could have been 3 figures.

I did a look (not a scientific assessment) of litters listed on RTF, HLP, and EE. I moved fringe listings into one of the a-e categories (SH female and no title to JH. other moves also). The majority of the litters did not list the price (see that thread if interested). 

Here's what I saw:

a. Pet/hunting - none really listed but I know that in the NW pups with clearance parents from field lines go for $1200 or more

b. MH x JH - 23 listings from $700-$1800 averaging $1,166.

c. MH/QAA x MH - 12 listings from $1000-$1800 averaging $1,238.

(added another group) FC x JH - 10 listings from $900-$1500 averaging $1,240.

d. FC/AFC x MH - 4 listings from $1500-$2,000 averaging $1,725.

e. FC/AFC x MH QAA - 10 listings $1000-$2500 averaging $1,730.

f.FC/AFC x FC/AFC - 1 listing a pup for $2,000

Special breeding from deceased FC/AFC Sire to various non FC dams - 4 listings from $2,500, $2,500, $3,000 and $7,500 

Full disclosure: it was raining outside and I didn't want to go out in it. I am considering getting a pup. So as I'm thinking I'm looking. Not sure if I'll buy a pup or breed my female so either way I'm trying to understand the market. And did I say it was raining.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Titles are a great way to guage the possible talent in a litter and will certainly help increase asking prices, as can be seen by breedings of some untitled females to FC/AFC sires.

If you're willing to do a little homework, there are some great dogs out there with strong pedigrees that may not have the titles yet. I can think of several that I have run against or judged that are fantastic animals, but don't have the pelts for various reasons. Perhaps the owner trained the dog themselves, works full time and can only afford a few trials a year. Not everyone can or wants to put their dog on a pro truck full time. Whatever the reason, that doesn't make the dogs any less talented. Personal observation, talking to others in the your chosen game and pedigree research can uncover a diamond in the rough. It's not as easy as Title shopping, but you might find FC/AFC talent for much less than a titled dog that took 6 or 7 years on a pro truck to earn the title too. Just food for thought.

Oh, and one more thought. A good, experienced and reputable breeder is worth their weight in gold! It's that whole nature vs. nurture thing. The best combination raised in the woodshed out back with little to no human contact or stimulation isn't worth nearly as much to me as an all around good breeding by an involved and caring breeder who does everything they can in the first 6-8 weeks to give each puppy the best shot at a successful career.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

There are many variables including but not limited to location, time of year, if it's a slow season with too many breedings which happens about every 7 to 8 years, breeding expenses, the breeders level of knowledge and what they think the breeding is worth (I see many litters that are way over priced, especially the FC to JH kind), the experience level of the buyer and there is a whole world of dogs being bred out there that have nothing to do with the competitive or HT venues. I haven't seen a breeding for $500 in years. Maybe an oops or no health certs on one parent. Even the puppy mills are closer to the $800 and all the way up to $1600 or more. I agree, there are potential bargains if you are patient and know what to look for.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

HarryWilliams said:


> Special breeding from deceased FC/AFC Sire to various non FC dams - 4 listings from $2,500, $2,500, $3,000 and $7,500
> .


Been seeing a couple of these pop-up. Funny thing is I remember paying a lot less on the same deceased studs a couple of years ago. My only conclusion is the well must be running dry. That said those special deceased males, have a bunch of offspring out there that one could, breed to or get a pup for much less. Some of the offspring might have even surpassed their sire in points and record. Just can't see paying overly much for an already well represented deceased male. Now if it was one with hard lines to find, and very few offspring that might be different. Yet seems like deceased males who don't already have a ton of pups on the ground, are usually held in reserve for special breeding by their owners, and you'd have to be pretty well informed to be called to the table for those litters. Even then when they come up I don't recall them going for a much as these "special breeding deceased" $3000-$7500 males.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> I haven't seen a breeding for $500 in years.


My son just bought one of those! The dog reminds me of her grandma!


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

Marvin S said:


> ErinsEdge said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen a breeding for $500 in years.
> ...


I've seen a lot out of untitled and untested parents. 

I see breedings every now and then from SH x SH or HR x HR type breedings for $600ish


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Bryan Parks said:


> I've seen a lot out of untitled and untested parents.
> 
> I see breedings every now and then from SH x SH or HR x HR type breedings for $600ish


FYI - Great Grandma was an Derby list AFC with a NAFC Son. Missed by a generation!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

There are always special circumstances out there. Hypothetical, guy breeds his 7 yo bitch to a good stud and she has 10 pups. He just want one for himself. He finds out raising a litter is a lot of work. At 7 weeks he has sold a couple and he's anxious to get them in homes and bored with the whole thing because all he wanted was a pup for himself. If you are in the right place at the right time you might luck out but to see a litter advertised in anything except a free shopper newspaper for $500 around here, haven't seen it. Even BYB ask more. Just because you find one, consider it your lucky day. The question is how much SHOULD a pup cost, not some one who found one once.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The pertinent question is not how much a pup costs but how much will a buyer pay?


----------



## taeicher (Jun 25, 2017)

$2,000 - $3,500


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

It has been known over here ..Often . To give well bred pups to certain folk for $0.00 . 
Well, at 8 weeks old ..It knows nothing .


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

ErinsEdge said:


> The question is how much SHOULD a pup cost, not some one who found one once.


My list of prices would probably be much different.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

taeicher said:


> $2,000 - $3,500


For any? Or did you have a specific un-identified group


----------



## taeicher (Jun 25, 2017)

FT...Yellow pup...the better the momma, the more you spend. There a lots of litters with good to great sires, not hard to fine. It's the other half that you have to be patient on waiting to find and I've limited myself because of yellas


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

There are bargains as well as over priced pups but overall the price is what the market will bear. What anyone thinks it should be is inconsequential.


----------



## Aaron Adame (Aug 21, 2017)

taeicher said:


> FT...Yellow pup...the better the momma, the more you spend. There a lots of litters with good to great sires, not hard to fine. It's the other half that you have to be patient on waiting to find and I've limited myself because of yellas


 I couldn’t agree more this is where the true value comes from in my opinion.


----------



## Cooper (Jul 9, 2012)

You can get as nice as it gets for $1500.00.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

HarryWilliams said:


> Special breeding from deceased FC/AFC Sire to various non FC dams - 4 listings from $2,500, $2,500, $3,000 and $7,500 .


Who in their right mind would pay $7500 for a non titled bitch puppy? A few exceptions for me would be, Super Chief, Honcho, Trumarc's Raider. I mention these great studs because they have been gone for so long you can't go to a son today.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

You have to look behind the titles. My son just last week paid $1200 for a MNH4 X JH. The behind the title of the JH: second breeding and first turned out very well. The dam was a JH only because the owner didn't pursue any more titles. But her lineage showed up well.
My Rowdy was a FC/AFC X MNH. The sire Pirate was the 2009 hi-point all age dog. The dam was also a HRCH and SRS Crown Champion with derby points. He was $2000 in 2012.
So, again you have to look behind the simplistic title groupings.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

The idea of paying what I consider an exorbitant price for a pup because of 
a pedigree worthy of comment & then exhibiting them at any level but the 
highest in your chosen field just baffles me. Bragging rights without effort?


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

If I really wanted a FT competitor, I would rather buy 5 $1000 pups than 1 $5000 pup. I paid $600 for my FC/AFC dog


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

> If I really wanted a FT competitor, I would rather buy 5 $1000 pups than 1 $5000 pup. I paid $600 for my FC/AFC dog


I look at it the complete opposite

(assumptions: training=800/mo)

5 pups @ $1,000 pups trained for 18 mos = $77,000 all in

3 FC pups @ $5,000 trained for 18 mos - $58,200 all in.

I like my chances.

Puppy price is really irrelevant in the long run.


----------



## championretrievers (Feb 7, 2008)

I paid $800 in 2007 for what is now a 6x GRHRCH UH MH MNH that is in both AKC and UKC HOF. I would and have gladly paid the increased price of $2500. It is not about bragging rights on sires title, it is the dog you get. Some throw pretty consistent pups if you do your research


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Well, the decision to buy what may well be my last pup was made a few weeks ago. The litter had not 
whelped yet, but I had done research for several months. During that time I wore out my fingers typing 
"Entry Express" and "Hunting Lab Pedigree" searches. I have screened pedigrees for years and formed a
bias for certain trends. 

The initial phone conversation with the breeder (we were not total strangers) ended with "I would like a
black female. How much?" The price was the same as the sires’ breeding fee. I replied that my deposit 
would be in the mail the next morning. I had not contacted any other breeder. 

My last five retrievers were yellow. This year it was very obvious that in the fall, a yellow becomes invisible
at about 150 yards in dead grass cover…….without binoculars. I could have probably gone cheaper with a 
different breeding, but it's only money. Thinking back to long, long ago, my first retriever (before the string
of yellows) was a black, $60 pup from a feed store breeding with no papers (pick of the litter....no less). 

Well, the yellow and black litter has just recently arrived (there are ten). I was getting the first pick black
female…….the choice will be very simple because there is only one. This means I am definitely getting the
best black female in the litter. 

Over a ten year span, this newest pup will cost me about one fifth of a gallon of gas per day (about seventy
cents). If I simply stop eating ice cream every day that will cover the cost of this pup….and I may live 
longer…….which is important because I will be eighty-eight. 

The difference in price for a $2500 vs. $1000 pup over a ten year period is about 28 cents per day. I am
fairly certain that I can deal with that.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Based on the price of a doodle with no clearances whatsoever, a lab puppy with a health guarantee and appropriate clearances should be about $4,000. Add in titled parents and they should go from $5,000 - $15,000 depending on the level of accomplishments. Believe it or not add in the price of show line lab puppies that wouldn't retriever a steak bone, much less more that twice and $4,000 for a decently bred field dog is a bargain. Lucky for us these things aren't really relative to one another in the market. 

So back to Dr. Ed's post - they're worth exactly what someone is willing to pay.

Most I ever paid was $1,200 for a 42 pt FC/AFC bred to a QAA Mama. That was 7 years ago and a bargain at that time. I'd expect to pay $2,000 - $2,500 now.

I have seen plenty of MH/JH breedings for $2,500...


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

At the current tate, field bred Labs are the best deal going. Like Darren said, look around at what people pay for various pet breeds. 
I’m paying more for my next pup than I would have ever thought I would pay for a dog, but the sire is an NAFC son of an NAFC who was a great producer. The dam is QAA in the US and has Open and Am wins in Canada. She’s the daughter of another NAFC who is a great producer and she has a littermate with a ton of AA points in the US.
Similar breedings are producing some pretty nice derby dogs so far. 
It’s always a crap shoot, but I’m doing my best to stack the odds in my favor.
Either way, I think it’s money well spent


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I'd Probably lop down $1200-$1500 without blinking an eye, $2000+ most likely wouldn't even be looking at the litter. It would have to be something really special that I was looking for to consider a dog that $2000 or above. I tend to like a different type of dog from not overly popular sires-lines; in fact tend to stay away from "big name-popular". I'm always looking. I was quoted $10,000 for a pup out of a well known FC/AFC female to a NAFC male a few years ago; almost passed out . Plus side the lines-sires I tend too like don't pull large sums for pups. So for me I watch and wait for what I want to come around, when it does I buy it.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Recently sold 10 E's (minus the MH just QAA) for $1500. Sire was #2 am dog and #4 open dog this yr.


----------



## Gun Dawg (Dec 18, 2010)

Seriously Harry, you’ve been in this game long enough to know, it’s NOT the price of the puppy. The pup you’re looking for a future FC/AFC will most likely NOT be posted on one of these doggie forums. It’s all about the bitches & if you’re lucky enough to get on the list.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

I find it hard to believe that there has been very few comments about production record. Just because a dog has a great title does not make him a great producer. For example Tiger when bred to Nikki. Many of Tigers other breedings did not compare to the breeding with Nikki. When I bred my first MHR/MH dog, Eba had just won the national and his stud fee was $1000. His sire Abe was $800. To me it was a no brainer to breed to Abe, not because of cost but he was a much more proven producer. My slogan is that I don’t want to breed to the winner, I want to know “who’s yout daddy”!!!
I would pay more for a Carbon offspring (though none available) than I would for a pup from one of his sons. Again more of a proven producer. Just making a point of proven producer over various bitch lines.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

NateB said:


> I find it hard to believe that there has been very few comments about production record. Just because a dog has a great title does not make him a great producer. For example Tiger when bred to Nikki. Many of Tigers other breedings did not compare to the breeding with Nikki. When I bred my first MHR/MH dog, Eba had just won the national and his stud fee was $1000. His sire Abe was $800. To me it was a no brainer to breed to Abe, not because of cost but he was a much more proven producer. My slogan is that I don’t want to breed to the winner, I want to know “who’s yout daddy”!!!
> I would pay more for a Carbon offspring (though none available) than I would for a pup from one of his sons. Again more of a proven producer. Just making a point of proven producer over various bitch lines.


Nate, I agree 100%. It always surprises me that the National winner gets more breedings because he just won the National than the Sire who just produced that National winner. I'm with you, I prefer to go directly to the source.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

NateB said:


> I find it hard to believe that there has been very few comments about production record. Just because a dog has a great title does not make him a great producer. For example Tiger when bred to Nikki. Many of Tigers other breedings did not compare to the breeding with Nikki. When I bred my first MHR/MH dog, Eba had just won the national and his stud fee was $1000. His sire Abe was $800. To me it was a no brainer to breed to Abe, not because of cost but he was a much more proven producer. My slogan is that I don’t want to breed to the winner, I want to know “who’s yout daddy”!!!
> I would pay more for a Carbon offspring (though none available) than I would for a pup from one of his sons. Again more of a proven producer. *Just making a point of proven producer over various bitch lines*.


Hmmmn !? ..But the "Mummy" produced the pup . and anyway ...after it was born a whole load of caveats come in to play ....for titles or ribbons . lol


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Threads that include the word "should" generate lots of opinions, few facts. Because beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. 

I am always amazed at people who buy dogs based on reputation without having seen the dogs in competition at the very least, and more importantly to me - in training. I typically start by looking for a bitch that I like, expressing my interest to the owner in a pup in the future. The owner of a good bitch typically finds a good sire. 

As for pricing, when I bred my FC/AFC Kitty to FC/AFC Ali, I asked $3500 and probably could have gotten $4000 - 4500. But, I bred for myself and wanted the pups to find good homes.

I am likely to bred Kitty again - this time to a untitled QAA male - again, because I want a pup, and will likely ask $2500 - $3000. We'll see how the market responds if that breeding comes to pass. 

I paid $5000 for a pup many years ago, who is a littermate to NFC Dottie, but had cruciate issues.
And I recently paid $4000 for a pup out of a very nice FC/AFC x FC/AFC breeding, that did not work out.

I would be hard pressed to pay more than $4000 for my next pup. But, having said that there is a very nice FC bitch that I have had my eye on for two years now that will be bred soon. So who knows?

It's all a crapshoot. 

Ted


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> *But, I bred for myself and wanted the pups to find good homes.*
> 
> I am likely to bred Kitty again - this time to a untitled QAA male - *again, because I want a pup, and will likely ask $2500 - $3000*. We'll see how the market responds if that breeding comes to pass.
> 
> ...


Were Good homes not suitable if they could pay more ? ..(Or because you asked for less?) Your post is most contradictory . - to your self.
Nice advert btw ,for the next litter ! ..Your Price appears to be dropping . 
"I asked $3500 and probably could have gotten $4000 - 4500. But, I bred for myself and wanted the pups to find good homes.

I am likely to bred Kitty again - this time to a untitled QAA male - again, because I want a pup, and will likely ask $2500 - $3000.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

polmaise said:


> Were Good homes not suitable if they could pay more ? Or because you asked for less?) Your post is most contradictory .



I think you enjoy being a pest. That being said, the higher the price, the smaller the marketplace.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Pet buyers who think they are buying a superior breeding will pay more than we will for the same breeding. My neighbors have paid $2000 plus for unimpressive show bred puppies for no other reason than wanting to buy the best. A friend of mine just paid $2500 for a pup from and field bred (not show dogs) MH sire to an untested female. The pedigrees are very good, parents health tested, and the breeder very well known in FT and HT circles. It will retrieve tennis balls and sleep on the bed with owners who are thrilled.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> I think you enjoy being a pest. That being said, the higher the price, the smaller the marketplace.


I think You enjoy being a Pillar. I was only quoting your post .


----------



## IdahoLabs (Dec 21, 2011)

A - B $500-1000 realistically, but often higher depending on the breeder's marketing skills.

C - E $1000-2500 depending on pedigree, most in the 1200-1800 range.

F $3000 minimum, I've heard 4000 a couple times, way more than I can afford for an 8 week old pup.

My budget runs around 1200-1500. I'd pay more if I could find a breeder doing OFA eye exams on pups, thorough vet exam, hearts checked by a cardiologist, full genetic panel on at least one parent, etc. The ones who do that don't have pedigrees I want, and the ones that have pedigrees I like don't do much besides hand over the pup.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Two things to consider as well:

One - Not all titles are the same, even if they have the same letters. QA2 running 25 Q’s doesn’t equal two all-age placements. 7 for 7 MH or HRCH doesn’t equal running a lifetime of hunt tests to get the same titles. 

Two - How much more is a repeat breeding that has proven puppies worth? Example, I know of a litter coming up that produced multiple dogs on the derby list, multiple were QAA by 3 and a couple have all-age placements.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

All - a very timely and useful thread/discussion for us . We re not what I call breeders with our last litter being 8+ years ago. 
Just this week and before this thread started we bred a talented young dog with points ,2 wins and no titles to a deceased FC/AFC . 
The first question I was asked is how much ! 

We haven’t answered that question yet however the discussion here and what’s important to us is for the pups to be in good caring homes then competitive environments with the knowledge and resources that can provide the opportunity to be successful and finally and just as important are the friends within our sport. Our dogs are like furry family and every decision is starts with what’s best for them 

Just a different viewpoint and it’s not always about the money 
Dk


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

A few years ago I bought a POTL pup that had 3 NC's, 2 FC-AFC's & an untitled proven brood bitch at 
the Grandma level in the 1st 6 dogs in the pedigree. All the rest of the pups went to a whose who of 
the sport. The litter was close enough that I was able to visit a couple of times a week for evaluation. 
None stood out at that time. The price was reasonable,results were less so. 

None made the Derby list, 1 became an FC after numerous trials on an outstanding pro's truck. 

But a repeat breeding of a litter where none made the Derby list though given significant opportunity 
produced an NAFC who proved to be a potent sire also. 

It is still a crap shoot but doing your due diligence can improve your odds!


----------



## kangoosehnter (Dec 19, 2018)

Last week I paid $600 for a black female out of a FC/AFC sire and HR dam.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

bjoiner said:


> Two things to consider as well:
> 
> One - Not all titles are the same, even if they have the same letters. QA2 running 25 Q’s doesn’t equal two all-age placements. 7 for 7 MH or HRCH doesn’t equal running a lifetime of hunt tests to get the same titles.
> 
> Two - How much more is a repeat breeding that has proven puppies worth? Example, I know of a litter coming up that produced multiple dogs on the derby list, multiple were QAA by 3 and a couple have all-age placements.


What's this upcoming breeding?

Repeats of successful breedings or very close pedigrees to successful breedings are worth more to me than just matching good pedigrees. If a breeding produced a bunch of QAA and one or two FC/AFCs, I would look seriously at a breeding where three of four grandparents are the same. ie; same sire or dam and half sibling on the other side. Given good health history, clearances, etc.

I would also look at what littermates have produced as well. Retriever Results is a great resource for pedigree and breeding research. With a little work you can improve your chances of getting a good nick.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

My first choice is to look for FC-AFC to FC-AFC but with bottom side of pedigree full of FC-AFC bitches.
He is an example...
huntinglabpedigree.com/pedigree.asp
.
Bitches who produced field champions who produced field champions in the 3 generations up front.
Around $5k give or take. 
A step down would be pedigree with some non FC-AFC bitches but with AA points. 
I would most likely pass on any puppy pedigree where sires/dams hadn't at least racked up AA placements.


----------



## Nathan Beach (Aug 19, 2017)

Bjoiner, Jim gonna owe u commission haha


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

There are quite a few litters from FCXFC that are priced in the $3000-4000 range that are never advertised, where the object is placement over revenue. Trying to ensure the best chance for theses puppies to have a successful field trial career. Also there are numerous instances of, say an FC x MH litters in the $1500-2000 that have very successful field trial careers so it’s not necessarily a “closed shop” in obtaining a well bred dog that can compete in the game today given that the pup receives the proper socializing, early training, transition, and all the other factors to numerous to mention that go into training a field trial dog to compete in today’s game- it’s no piece of cake!


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

What about breeder consistency? Would you pay more or less for a pup from a proven breeder, who mates two dogs with minor titles, than an unknown who breeds his/her bitch to to a big time stud? I would. I think you do the breed a disservice when the value of the pup is based on the titles earned by the parents and not on all the observed attributes of the parents and prior progeny. Titles certainly have value as they indicate to some degree the talent of the pup, but to a greater degree they indicate the depth of training experienced by that pup. For example compare two pups from any breeding. One pup goes to an enthusiast home and earns all sorts of titles. Other goes to a family who cannot afford the time or money to attain the titles. Big time dog goes through health clearances etc and is an XYZ carrier. Second pup is completely clear of all genetic defects. All other things being equal, which pup makes the better stud/dam? I know which one will get bred more, but which is the best for the breed?


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Three things determine the quality of the pup: The Dam, the Sire and the Breeder.


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

red devil said:


> What about breeder consistency? Would you pay more or less for a pup from a proven breeder, who mates two dogs with minor titles, than an unknown who breeds his/her bitch to to a big time stud? I would. I think you do the breed a disservice when the value of the pup is based on the titles earned by the parents and not on all the observed attributes of the parents and prior progeny. Titles certainly have value as they indicate to some degree the talent of the pup, but to a greater degree they indicate the depth of training experienced by that pup. For example compare two pups from any breeding. One pup goes to an enthusiast home and earns all sorts of titles. Other goes to a family who cannot afford the time or money to attain the titles. Big time dog goes through health clearances etc and is an XYZ carrier. Second pup is completely clear of all genetic defects. All other things being equal, which pup makes the better stud/dam? I know which one will get bred more, but which is the best for the breed?


Well, I have no idea if the pup that is not a carrier can mark, or is tractable, has any drive etc. 

I would prefer a carrier with superior talent versus a non-Carrier with no talent. (Assuming we are talking EIC?)


----------



## championretrievers (Feb 7, 2008)

birddogn_tc said:


> Well, I have no idea if the pup that is not a carrier can mark, or is tractable, has any drive etc.
> 
> I would prefer a carrier with superior talent versus a non-Carrier with no talent. (Assuming we are talking EIC?)


I am right there with you on this.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

birddogn_tc said:


> Well, I have no idea if the pup that is not a carrier can mark, or is tractable, has any drive etc.
> 
> I would prefer a carrier with superior talent versus a non-Carrier with no talent. (Assuming we are talking EIC?)


I am with You Too! ..But , there is always a But ...
I personally do not believe that there is any Retriever that is born a "Natural Born Marking dog" , or even Bred !!! 
Merry Christmas .
Training will Come the New year I am sure . Mark my words . lol ...


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

to reply to the last couple of comments...assume the pups are born more or less equal as far as natural ability. Not talking EIC, could be any genetic defect. And as far as not knowing if the healthy dog can mark... that's a non starter. You have no idea, when you select a pup, if that pup will be a great marker, average or poor marker.


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

If you don’t believe there are natural born markers then you must think you can “teach marking” and I don’t believe for a second that marking ability or tractability or any other genetic trait are connected to EIC carriers -I don’t know if great marking ability in the UK translates to the pinpoint marking that becomes apparent in the US field trials in the distances that are obviously disparate between the continents. IMHO there are DEFINITELY natural born markers.


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

Furthermore-then selective breeding would be be useless as far as great marking dogs and you could simply “ teach” a dog to mark and simply discard any supratentorial exercises in breeding selection .


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

That's what we are trying to breed here is breed the best markers, and yes they are born that way. The problem is we have no way of knowing which ones they are to pick them at 8 weeks. It wouldn't be such a big deal if you could teach them.


----------



## Doggieguy (Dec 9, 2018)

Nathan Beach said:


> Bjoiner, Jim gonna owe u commission haha


If you are talking about Moses x Kerry
Jim doesn't owe anybody a commission that litter should sell itself


----------



## Doggieguy (Dec 9, 2018)

Ken Barton said:


> If you don’t believe there are natural born markers then you must think you can “teach marking” and I don’t believe for a second that marking ability or tractability or any other genetic trait are connected to EIC carriers -I don’t know if great marking ability in the UK translates to the pinpoint marking that becomes apparent in the US field trials in the distances that are obviously disparate between the continents. IMHO there are DEFINITELY natural born markers.


It may surprise you to learn that there are some very knowledgeable people with a history of FC AFC dogs who prefer to buy a pup that is a carrier.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Sabireley said:


> What's this upcoming breeding?


It’s Moses x Kerry. 9 born yesterday. Just posted the add for Jim Houldridge. I have one from the first litter that is more fun to run than should be legally allowed.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

This thread points out the importance of maintaining the standard for master hunt tests. 
If dogs that can't mark 70 to 100 yard falls keep getting passed what will the average MH x MH breeding produce?


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

It may surprise you to learn that there are some very knowledgeable people with a history of FC AFC dogs who prefer to buy a pup that is a carrier.

Exactly my point-my best marker is out of Ali , he happens to be clear but that was just luck and wouldn’t have made any difference


----------



## Nathan Beach (Aug 19, 2017)

Doggieguy said:


> If you are talking about Moses x Kerry
> Jim doesn't owe anybody a commission that litter should sell itself


Yup it sure will, I was joking


----------



## Doggieguy (Dec 9, 2018)

Nathan Beach said:


> Yup it sure will, I was joking


Are you getting one?
if so I'm a bit jealous.


----------



## SD Lab (Mar 14, 2003)

I have a question about deceased studs where do you find the list or how do people find who is still available for stud?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

SD Lab said:


> I have a question about deceased studs where do you find the list or how do people find who is still available for stud?


There is no definitive "list". Basically you have to find the owner of the dog you are interested in and see if they have any for sale, or keep making calls if the owner is deceased to find if there is any around.


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking. 

Dogs have to be taught to mark in the way that is required in today's FTs and HTs. 

You have to teach a dog not to cheat water. 

You have to teach a dog to not fade with wind or terrain. 

You have to teach a dog how go straight through cover. 

You have to teach a dog how to run tight past a short gun to a long bird

...etc

These are all teaching a dog to be a great marker. 

I don't understand how you can say great marking can't be taught when a huge portion of training is focused on marking.

I assume you mean that you can't teach potential but you most certainly can teach a potentially great marker to actually become one.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bryan Parks said:


> If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking.
> 
> Dogs have to be taught to mark in the way that is required in today's FTs and HTs.
> 
> ...



You teach a dog concepts. But, the great markers have an innate ability to find guns and birds when most cannot


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Bryan Parks said:


> If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking.
> 
> Dogs have to be taught to mark in the way that is required in today's FTs and HTs.
> 
> ...


That is teaching dogs how to win a trial. A dog that cheats the water or that caves to the wind can still mark. You need to spend some time with an AA trainer. A born marker is very evident. They do get better, but a real deadly marker will take your breath away with a young dog. Sometimes they have to learn to take a handle because they are such good markers.


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

ErinsEdge said:


> Bryan Parks said:
> 
> 
> > If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking.
> ...


I believe we are saying the same thing. 

I shouldn't say that great markers aren't born. 

But even the great markers have to be taught concepts and if they aren't taught those things I mentioned they wouldn't become great markers in the way they are judged at trials. 

I don't mean to say that some dogs are t born with great innate ability.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bryan Parks said:


> I believe we are saying the same thing.
> 
> I shouldn't say that great markers aren't born.
> 
> ...



Do you run trials?

Do you judge trials?

The winners at trials demonstrate a variety of qualities of which marking, while of primary importance is just one. You are mixing apples and oranges


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

Ted Shih said:


> Bryan Parks said:
> 
> 
> > I believe we are saying the same thing.
> ...


What have I said was untrue? 

Do you believe you can take a dog without being taught marking concepts and win a trial? 

I'm not mixing anything...


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking.


And where do Blinds fit in? Although marking is of primary importance, dogs still have to run at least one land and one water technical blinds, and those don't come naturally. If a dog doesn't take direction well, he's not going to go on.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bryan Parks said:


> What have I said was untrue?
> 
> Do you believe you can take a dog without being taught marking concepts and win a trial?
> 
> I'm not mixing anything...


You are changing the course of the discussion. The question is not whether training is necessary to be a consistent competitor. The question is whether great markers are born or made. I believe that great markers are born. That ability is enhanced by training, but training cannot create that ability.


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

ErinsEdge said:


> > If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking.
> 
> 
> And where do Blinds fit in? Although marking is of primary importance, dogs still have to run at least one land and one water technical blinds, and those don't come naturally. If a dog doesn't take direction well, he's not going to go on.


I didn't say anything about blinds...

I'm not sure what you are implying. 

My statement about training material was directed at DVD sets like TRM...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bryan Parks said:


> I didn't say anything about blinds...
> 
> I'm not sure what you are implying.
> 
> My statement about training material was directed at DVD sets like TRM...



Dogs don't win if they can't run blinds. So, you cannot talk about how dogs are "judged" without considering blinds.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught* then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking*.


Do you think water cheating only has to do with marking? Do you think holding the wind has to do only with marking because you think people are "wasting time and money on training materials". How do you think blinds are set up to eliminate dogs? Don't you think training material has to do with blinds. According to the rule book, blinds should not be set up in order to be lined and there should be obstacles. It's the bolded part that is a problem


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Someone said "The question is whether great markers are born or made. I believe that great markers are born. That ability is enhanced by training, but training cannot create that ability." 
I have a fantastic Greyhound Cross that is currently in pup . Give me a call .


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bryan Parks said:


> If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking.


You are - as is your bent - overstating the point. You can make dogs better markers through training. No matter how good your dog marks, without training you dog cannot compete successfully at the higher levels. But, that does not address the central point. Great markers are born, not made. I have had a number of Field Champions, a couple of National Finalists, and, I think, some very good dogs. I think all were very good markers. I don't think that they would have titled without being good markers - and having a lot of training. None of those dogs were great markers. And I have trained with some great marking dogs, so I know what that looks like.


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

Ted Shih said:


> Bryan Parks said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say anything about blinds...
> ...


I'm in no way discounting blinds...

My only point (and what I believe I was pretty clear on) is that for a dog to become what I would consider a great marker they have to be taught things...

I'm in no way trying to say that marking ability isn't innate. 

I'm in no way saying blinds aren't as important and I'm not sure how that even came up...


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

ErinsEdge said:


> > If dogs are born great markers and it can't be taught* then there are a lot of people wasting money and time on training material completely dedicated to marking*.
> 
> 
> Do you think water cheating only has to do with marking? Do you think holding the wind has to do only with marking because you think people are "wasting time and money on training materials". How do you think blinds are set up to eliminate dogs? Don't you think training material has to do with blinds. According to the rule book, blinds should not be set up in order to be lined and there should be obstacles. It's the bolded part that is a problem


I'm not saying people are buying only marking material. I meant to say that there are materials out there that people are buying that are completely focused on marking...


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

Ted Shih said:


> You are - as is your bent - overstating the point. You can make dogs better markers through training. No matter how good your dog marks, without training you dog cannot compete successfully at the higher levels. But, that does not address the central point. Great markers are born, not made. I have had a number of Field Champions, a couple of National Finalists, and, I think, some very good dogs. I think all were very good markers. I don't think that they would have titled without being good markers - and having a lot of training. None of those dogs were great markers. And I have trained with some great marking dogs, so I know what that looks like.


I know this has been discussed on some other thread at some point in time but what 2 or 3 dogs that you have trained with were the great marking dogs? I would be interested to know who your favorite might have been. I would have guessed/thought that any FC/AFC dog is a GREAT marker but I assume what defines a "great marker" is all relative to the the person and with that person's experience in the retriever sport. 

For instance, you have seen GREAT markers (to continue with your verbiage), so you know what a really GREAT marker looks like. And you believe your dogs were only "very good markers." I would guess that if I watched your dogs I would think they were GREAT markers. But I think my benchmark might be a bit different than yours...


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

birddogn_tc said:


> For instance, you have seen GREAT markers (to continue with your verbiage), so you know what a really GREAT marker looks like. And you believe your dogs were only "very good markers." I would guess that if I watched your dogs I would think they were GREAT markers. But I think my benchmark might be a bit different than yours...


I cant find the "Like Button" ..But some Back peddling will follow soon .


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

birddogn_tc said:


> I know this has been discussed on some other thread at some point in time but what 2 or 3 dogs that you have trained with were the great marking dogs? I would be interested to know who your favorite might have been. I would have guessed/thought that any FC/AFC dog is a GREAT marker but I assume what defines a "great marker" is all relative to the the person and with that person's experience in the retriever sport.
> 
> For instance, you have seen GREAT markers (to continue with your verbiage), so you know what a really GREAT marker looks like. And you believe your dogs were only "very good markers." I would guess that if I watched your dogs I would think they were GREAT markers. But I think my benchmark might be a bit different than yours...



I think that FC/AFC Trumarc's Lean Cuisine (Kweezy) was the best marking dog I have ever trained with or seen - hands down.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

I think "Fergus" was the best marking Dog I ever seen ..until I seen "Brill" .


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Duh - has this thread gone sideways since it began. And what’s this about Ted needing to get with an AA trainer. 

Ted has pelts folks : several titled dogs, a highly competent judge including a National 

As for dogs being “ a natural marker” or a trained marker. Let me have the one with the peepers and the mutt hopefully carries my poor training 

Happy New Years all


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Cost of a pup ..Is on the line ..


----------



## rrwilly (Jul 22, 2009)

red devil said:


> What about breeder consistency? Would you pay more or less for a pup from a proven breeder, who mates two dogs with minor titles, than an unknown who breeds his/her bitch to to a big time stud? I would. I think you do the breed a disservice when the value of the pup is based on the titles earned by the parents and not on all the observed attributes of the parents and prior progeny. Titles certainly have value as they indicate to some degree the talent of the pup, but to a greater degree they indicate the depth of training experienced by that pup. For example compare two pups from any breeding. One pup goes to an enthusiast home and earns all sorts of titles. Other goes to a family who cannot afford the time or money to attain the titles. Big time dog goes through health clearances etc and is an XYZ carrier. Second pup is completely clear of all genetic defects. All other things being equal, which pup makes the better stud/dam? I know which one will get bred more, but which is the best for the breed?


Maybe I think differently than other people but if I see a trainer/breeder with a JH/SHR/CPR or less having a litter I believe it’s all about the money not bettering the breed because there isn’t anything these dogs have done to deserve to be bred. How do you know if the parents can hold up physically to daily training if they don’t do it. I look more for good pedigree, health clearances, I ask a lot of questions and yes titles! Who cares if a dog is a carrier of this or that, it is identified and can be bred around it’s the stuff that can’t be DNA tested that can only be known by asking questions. It takes someone with time and/or money to campaign a dog so if the parents aren’t proven then that type of buyer probably isn’t looking. I would consider myself an unknown breeder and when I do a litter I go the extra mile, it might take a couple years and many conservative to decide on a stud. I’m ulimately doing this for me and everyone else benefits from my efforts and sometimes heartache because I am going to campaign the pup and I want to increase my chances with a well bred animal from titled parents.


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

Dave Kress said:


> Duh - has this thread gone sideways since it began. And what’s this about Ted needing to get with an AA trainer.
> 
> Ted has pelts folks : several titled dogs, a highly competent judge including a National
> 
> Happy New Years all


That response from ErinsEdge about getting with an AA trainer was not directed towards Ted.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> Duh - has this thread gone sideways since it began. And what’s this about Ted needing to get with an AA trainer.
> 
> Ted has pelts folks : several titled dogs, a highly competent judge including a National
> 
> ...


Hey Happy early New Year to you too Dave


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

We’re looking at setting a price of 2500 for our QA2 bitch and NFC sire.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Well... I hope current (normal) puppy prices from hrch mh x hrch mh are not reflected by a litter being advertised for 2750 each. With no FT titles in at least 3 gens. Good grief.


----------

