The Business of Puppies

Do breeders make money? And should they? Should breeding happen while there are rescue dogs in need?

These questions constantly float around the dog and general communities and I see a lot more judgment, martyrdom, opinions, and misinformation than I do facts. So let’s break it down.

Here’s the deal. Puppy mills (volume breeders) absolutely make money. And small in-home breeders take market share from puppy mills. Not rescues. And puppy mill dogs end up in rescue far more than in-home breeders do. So, small in-home breeding programs fight puppy mills and reduce dogs in rescue. One little program at a time. But let’s dial in on the money aspect since it matters and that is where a large amount of the finger pointing comes from. 

Breeders run the spectrum but can essentially be divided into “commercial” (puppy mills) volume breeders and “in-home” (responsible, hobby) breeders. The key difference being if the breeding dogs live in kennels or as a pet in the home. 

Commercial breeders definitely make money. “Puppy mills” have been around since 1949 and there are thousands of them nationwide. There are conservatively 79 million pet dogs in America. There is not reliable data on what percent come from which source (rescue, hobby breeder or commercial breeder).But it is safe to say commercial breeders are accounting for MILLIONS of puppies.  

In-home breeders have long contended they have an expensive hobby and those that are doing it “right” are not making money. Is this really true? And do they deserve to make money? Well…

Commercial breeders make money and are heartbreaking and highly exploitative. Some actually do care very much about creating healthy animals with sound temperaments. (Though many do not). But even under the best of circumstances, animals who we created to need love, human companionship and freedom to run and explore live in high volume kennels. And rescues that work with commercial breed release dogs are full and turning away dogs. So commercial breeders contribute significantly to dogs in rescue. Both with the dogs they discard once they are no longer useful and the dogs they produce that have problems due to under socialization and fearful genetics.

And, the more we learn about canine development the more important the enrichment and experience in the first nine weeks of life becomes. Commercial breeders cannot provide the enrichment to build the puppy’s brain to be as happy and healthy as it can be. So even the “good” ones are highly problematic. And many aren’t “good”, let me tell you…

Commercial breeders not only supply 10s of millions of the dogs for families, but also fuel the pet industry. If you asked any dog retailer, veterinarian, daycare, or trainer how their business would be without puppy mills, in most cases they would be out of business or making very little money. To effectively combat commercial breeding we need to recognize our current dependence on it. I get more than a little punchy about people being down on puppy mills without owning the critical role it plays in the economy. Commercial breeding is not going away until that role can be replaced.

So, in looking at any intentional breeding (mixed or otherwise) of pet dogs we need to acknowledge the undisputed fact that puppy mills are providing dogs that American families, industries, and economy depend on. That is why they have been going strong since WWII despite public awareness of their cruelty and passionate advocates. 

With that in mind, comes the question of hobby or “in home” or “reputable” breeders. Do they make money? Should they? Think of how many people are on the look out for a way to make money working from home with a flexible schedule. If small breeding programs were viable income, tons of people would be doing it. If it makes money at all, in-home breeding definitely makes a lot less money than puppy mills. 

In-home breeders are not getting the volume discounts on veterinary care, formula, food, or supplies that commercial breeders get. Economies of scale (spreading the cost out over a lot more dogs) is by definition not a thing with small breeding programs. You aren’t balancing out unprofitable litters with more profitable ones. 

Commercial breeders aren’t having the same wear and tear on their homes which is no small expense. And, in-home breeders frequently keep breeding prospects that don’t work out as pets after paying a lot for them and investing in a lot of care, training, and testing. 

The cost per litter includes the cost of a stud (and usually travel costs to have the “date”). This is going to be over $1,000 typically and the breeding may or may not take. Again, no economies of scale to absorb it if it doesn’t. 

So, the bottom line is “in home” (responsible) breeding programs are FOR SURE not making the kind of margins commercial breeders (puppy mills) are, and they are a much more humane alternative. Shaming and discouraging in-home breeding only serves to provide more market share for the puppy mills. 

Leaving pragmatism aside, should people be making money on sentient beings with little free will? Should they be making dogs when there are plenty in rescue/shelters? Let’s take these one at a time.

Should they make money? By the time you pay for stud fees (including travel frequently) or an even more expensive and risky alternative Artificial Insemination, prenatal testing (you have to do daily blood tests that run about $50 each to determine the optimal time to breed), prenatal vet care (ultrasound, x-ray and routine visits), neonatal vet care, worming, formula for weaning as well as cleaning supplies and enrichment there isn’t typically much, if anything, left over. If the dog needs a c-section you will certainly lose money, and again with a smaller program you can’t absorb it into other more profitable dogs. 

So if “in home” breeders stay at it long enough, have enough luck, and big enough litters they might come out ahead. This would only be if you don’t count labor costs.

Breeders will frequently go 72ish hours with no sleep during labor and delivery. After that the litter needs 24x7 supervision for weeks. (Most breeders take time off work or work from home). The sleep deprivation is exhausting. And some litters are very vocal so there is further sleep deprivation. The cleaning takes about 2 hours a day (and it is GROSS). And if the breeders are providing enrichment and developmental activities that is a lot of physical and mental work and expertise that impact the dogs long term welfare. 

For in-home breeders there is also a huge emotional toll. When an animal has litters rather than “singletons/twins” nature's plan is for not all of them to make it. Still born puppies or puppies that don’t make it long are a thing. 

And, there is heartbreak that can’t be explained with a breeding prospect that doesn’t work out. In-home breeding is risky and physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially exhausting. 

So, if in-home breeders are making money I’m happy for them. They deserve it. You mean to tell me someone should work for free so you can have a great dog?

Let alone when commercial breeders ARE making money. Money that our economy benefits from. The overall pet services industry creates billions in revenue and supports many family owned businesses such as vet clinics and kennels. Even those that adopt rescue dogs are benefiting from puppy mill money. If the millions of dogs produced in puppy mills evaporated you likely wouldn’t have your rescue dog that you love because there would be so few dogs to go around and the price would be so high. And there wouldn’t be very good resources for them because there wouldn’t be enough demand to provide daycare, boarding, or even vet care. So if we want commercial breeders gone, the dogs they are producing have to come from somewhere else.

Our next question: is it ethical/moral for breeders to create dogs when there are many shelter/rescue/street dogs in need? We can see clearly from the status quo that in the absence of small caring breeders, the public goes to puppy mills instead. So the attitude that no dogs should be produced unless there are no rescue dogs available is another road that leads back to giving commercial breeders maximum market share. 

Even so, there is a lot of layers to unpack here. The first being do people have a moral obligation to rescue if they can, or should they feel comfortable getting any dog they want for any reason they want? Who decides who should get dogs and which ones and why?

Then there is the issue of people who may wish to rescue but are not realistically able to. Many people’s health or other situations demand the predictability of an intentionally bred dog. They may have health/back issues and not be able to walk a big dog so they need a predictable adult size. Allergies may mean you will have much better welfare with a more hypoallergenic dog. Families who travel by air frequently need to ensure the dog will stay small enough to ride in the cabin with them. Someone's living situation may be such that they need a dog with low activity levels or a breed who isn’t very vocal. 

Further, behavioral needs are a consideration. For instance, resource guarding is natural to dogs but isn’t safe in our homes. For domestic dogs we breed it out of them the best we can. But for strays, resource guarding helps them survive. So we see higher frequency and intensity of resource guarding in dogs descended from strays. Trauma and under socialization can also greatly impact behavior in ways that are unrealistic and unsafe for a family to manage. 

So in light of the big picture, yes I think small in-home breeders absolutely deserve much more than they make. And I think more people (who can) should do it. It is a great way to fight puppy mills and that combined with spay/neuter and TNR programs reduce dogs in rescue.