[Rona]

Originally Posted by KoosLetydeGraaff

Why could not be a breeder from the West an even good breeder as from the East? By the way, mostly every breeder in the West, had bought his dogs, which he breed with in the East, and when he is on a good way, he tried to breed to the standard of the East, so the same question again, where is the difference?????

Nobody says that breeders in the West are bad, and those in the East - good. What's more, everybody states here that what really matters is the quality and devotion of the breeder, and not where he comes from or how much he/she charges for the puppies. This was also Margo's claim.
I suppose this misunderstanding comes from attempts to overcome the simplified convictions of many people in the USA, Canada, Australia, and even some from the Western European countries etc. that
1. if they pay more for something they will get a better quality "product" - this rule does not apply to the complicated reality of Old and New EU countries
2. they'd rather trust sellers/ breeders/businessmen/trainers, etc. from the "more civilised" Western part of the continent rather than risk hiring or doing businesses with people from the East.
I've personally faced such attitudes many times (though not in relation to dog breeding ) and find them really unjust and unjustified

So the difference of good breeders is also not a question of origin countries but also the status of good breeder. And what is a good breeder???? Everybody has so his own opinion about this.

Well, I suppose there are certain standards. They are very clearly presented even on the wolfdog webpage.

A puppybuyer and the breeder have to be confidence in each other. If confidence is not there, then you can better not buy a puppy or sell a puppy to eachother.

Exactly this was my point What's the sense of coming from Australia and buying accidental / random Czech puppy from the first available breeder, then taking it to Australia and ..... paying $10 000 for it