Puppy Mills On The 7.30 Report

[WoofnHoof]

Don Burke was backed up by McGreevy and Company's paper telling us about how first cross dogs are healthier than purebred and more predictable. Monash uni gave the floor to a puppy farmer to tell us how to suck eggs and backed her up with Mc Greevy and Bennett. The interest in designer dogs has been generated and nurtured by people with their own agenda

and they are as much to blame if not more than PIIA

I said Pauline Bennett pushes for reform with the CC codes of conduct to enable breeders to breed puppies soley for the pet market. I didnt say she was promoting DD breeding she is promoting breeding only for the pet market whether that is DD or purebred its still a promotion of breeding lots of dogs for profit - isnt it?

At the end of the day it may be just words on a forum for some but not for all of us.

The question is whats the best thing for the dogs - what can we do to prevent dogs suffering. Promoting purebred or designer dogs isnt the answer and nor is jumping up and down and focusing on pet shops.Puppy farmers will breed whatever sells and they dont give a rats if they have to sell them selves rather than a pet shop.

From the quote above surely I could be forgiven for thinking that you were lumping McGreevy and Bennet into the same camp/category.

I'm not sure that breeding dogs for the pet market equates to breeding lots of dogs for profit, breeding dogs for pets isn't necessarily a matter of upping production it's more about producing a more suitable pet, based on the argument that what is winning in the show ring may not necessarily be what makes a great pet. Since Bennet doesn't show she may already be breeding towards the pet market yet isn't exactly churning out mass amounts of puppies so I'm not sure how you can equate the two?

At present it is just words on a forum because all I'm reading here is why this or that strategy isn't good enough, and so nothing happens arguments just go round and round in circles while the puppy farmers are out there busily promoting themselves. It's easy to see why the purebreed world has been left behind in these matters.

edited to clarify

Edited April 2, 2010 by WoofnHoof

[BJean]

I really believe in the power of the people and if people would just stop buying their pets from these people then there is no money to be made.

I am astounded by the number of people that have no idea about puppy mills or mass farming of dogs and cats. I have that "Where does my puppy come from" poster on my fridge and most people who read it say they had no idea. My T-shirt that says "The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter" is pretty effective too

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance.

Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s).

The cold hard facts are that over 250000 companion animals are PTS every year because their aren't enough good homes but people just keep producing puppies and kittens. If it stops people thinking that they'll have a litter to "calm their dog down", "let their children experience the wonders of life" or just because "she's such a nice dog" then that's good enough for me. People need to know and accept that if they bring more kittens and puppies into the world then they are responsible for them.

I don't see it as emotional blackmail - dog savvy people that choose not to desex their pet but keep them contained and don't add to the unwanted pet population probably wouldn't feel "emotionally blackmailed" as they do the right thing. I have heard people suggest that people dropping their pet off to an animal shelter should be made to watch them be PTS - is that emotional black mail or making them accept the consequences of their actions? If we don't do anything because we might make the poor humans feel bad then what hope is there?

Yes the overpopulation myth has been done to death and nope I dont buy it.

If you want to equate unwanted with overpopulation that's your business, may even be a good strategy;

fact is dogs end up pts not because there are too many but because they are not wanted - similar yet different.

No time to find for you the old threads and data on this- there's some in rescue and general.

I dont feel emotionally black mailed when I read crap like:

The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter -

bcz I know its not true; but others might.

I think there's enough valid reasons for pet owners to desex their without adding misinformation about 'pet overpopulation' which is another agenda altogether.

The issue of unwanted pets is a complex problem and to imagine that it can be solved by mass desexing of pets is simplistic at best.

The Queensland Government also commissioned research by two independent experts:

Dr Linda Marston of the Animal Welfare Science Centre, Monash University

Professor Jacquie Rand of the Centre for Companion Animal Health, University of Queensland.

Their reports include reviews of the 5300 public submissions, analysis of relevant scientific literature, interviews with key stakeholders in Queensland and interstate, and detailed reviews of desexing and early-age desexing as tools to reduce unwanted breeding. Due to the high level of interest in this program and the content of the reports, these reports to the Queensland Government are available to the public.

Have you read their literature review?

Very few dogs are killed in Australia because there are more dogs available than there homes.

Dogs and puppies are euthanised in shelters most frequently because they are not suited to available homes, rather than because there are no homes available.

Their conclusions are no different to the study actually done on the matter (and better written)

And that is

dogs are not dying in pounds because of an 'oversupply' problem. dogs are being pts for other factors helath, temperament, etc.

There is an oversupply of cats, but these cats are mostly unowned cats, and therefore are not impacted by mandatory desexing programs.

Dogs face an unwanted problem. Independent of supply.

Edited April 2, 2010 by lilli

[Chocolatelover]

Chocolatelover you've bought the PETA proganda hook line and sinker.

What Australia does not need is less dogs. Dogs don't die because there is a surplus. They die because the people who get rid of them didn't do right by them. The same person who dumps a dog will often replace it, and repeat the cycle again. Pups don't get trained, grow into unmanageable dogs and get disposed of. And the people doing this blame the dog and do it over.

What Australia does need is more responsibly bred dogs sold by people who ensure that buyers expectations are realistic. And those breeders should refuse to sell to people who can't demonstrate that they know and care enough to care for dogs properly.

Because we need most of all is more knowledgeable responsible owners.

No amount of legislation alone can improve the situation. We also need decent education campaigns.

DOGS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. PEOPLE ARE. Any legislation that targets dogs is doomed to fail. BSL is a case in point.

And as for 4 dogs being all a person can handle? Some people shouldn't be allowed to own a pet rock. Others can manage with many dogs because they have practices and motivation to do so. The number of dogs limit also fails to account for size, exercise requirements and temperament. Owning 4 Chis and 4 Neopolitan Mastiffs is not the same.

I have never read anything from PETA so I haven't bought their propaganda at all. I have been saying the whole way through that people are to blame, as for most of the worlds problems. Do you realise how many people know exactly the right things to say and do to get a dog from a breeder? Plenty - and yes I know people who did this before we start talking about my experience. Screening homes alone will not end the problem although it will help. There needs to be laws to govern who breeds and how dogs are bred and that people who "keep" dogs as their pets do the right thing by them. And the laws need to be enforced. And if that threatens you as a breeder then that means little to me. I care about the dogs and their quality of life - end of story.

[poodlefan]

And if that threatens you as a breeder then that means little to me. I care about the dogs and their quality of life - end of story.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been a dog breeder. I'm a passionate pet owner who worries a great deal about knee jerk legislation placing increasing restrictions on responsible dog owners.

Who determines how many dogs can be responsibly homed? Bear in mind (as I said) that current number restrictions take no account of dog size, home size, how the dog is cared for or whether or not it is exercised.

By your standards, someone like me should not own more than two dogs. My dogs receive the gold standard of veterinary treatment, including chiro and massage, are fed with no care for budget, exercised daily, groomed, trained and taken on holidays with me.

On my corner fenceline lives a dog that never darkens the inside of the owners house and never leaves the yard. How will a law restricting dog owners to two pets improve that dog's quality of life or find a home for the much loved dog that your proposed law would see me forced to rehome. A numerical measure of the limits of responsible dog ownership is blind to the many variables that make for a good home for a dog.

Maybe you don't recognise the PETA paradigm when you see it. Here's a few key platforms:

* An end to the breeding of pedigreed dogs

* All dogs to be sourced from shelters*

* Mandatory desexing

The upshot is that domestic dogs, if PETA have their way, will have disappeared within a generation.

These are PETA's words.. and they have penetrated through to a lot of folk, despite their inaccuracy.

Every year, more than 3 million dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, and other animals are euthanized because they were born into a world that does not have enough homes for them.

PETA is the source of that often quoted sentiment, whether you recognise it or not I'm afraid. Everytime someone tells me too many dogs are being born, I hear the echo of PETA's words and I fear for the future of dogs as pets.

Edited April 2, 2010 by poodlefan

[Jed]

Don Burke was backed up by McGreevy and Company's paper telling us about how first cross dogs are healthier than purebred and more predictable. Monash uni gave the floor to a puppy farmer to tell us how to suck eggs and backed her up with Mc Greevy and Bennett. The interest in designer dogs has been generated and nurtured by people with their own agenda

and they are as much to blame if not more than PIIA

I said Pauline Bennett pushes for reform with the CC codes of conduct to enable breeders to breed puppies soley for the pet market. I didnt say she was promoting DD breeding she is promoting breeding only for the pet market whether that is DD or purebred its still a promotion of breeding lots of dogs for profit - isnt it?

At the end of the day it may be just words on a forum for some but not for all of us.

The question is whats the best thing for the dogs - what can we do to prevent dogs suffering. Promoting purebred or designer dogs isnt the answer and nor is jumping up and down and focusing on pet shops.Puppy farmers will breed whatever sells and they dont give a rats if they have to sell them selves rather than a pet shop.

From the quote above surely I could be forgiven for thinking that you were lumping McGreevy and Bennet into the same camp/category.

I'm not sure that breeding dogs for the pet market equates to breeding lots of dogs for profit, breeding dogs for pets isn't necessarily a matter of upping production it's more about producing a more suitable pet, based on the argument that what is winning in the show ring may not necessarily be what makes a great pet. Since Bennet doesn't show she may already be breeding towards the pet market yet isn't exactly churning out mass amounts of puppies so I'm not sure how you can equate the two?

At present it is just words on a forum because all I'm reading here is why this or that strategy isn't good enough, and so nothing happens arguments just go round and round in circles while the puppy farmers are out there busily promoting themselves. It's easy to see why the purebreed world has been left behind in these matters.

edited to clarify

Well, I'd certainly put McGreevy and Bennett in the same basket. They are pushing the same barrow, at the same events. It's not what Bennett is doing, it is the ethos she embraces which is not agreed with.

What's the purebred world got to do with designer mutts and puppy farms?

[Jed]

Chocolatelover

There needs to be laws to govern who breeds and how dogs are bred and that people who "keep" dogs as their pets do the right thing by them

What type of laws do you think should be brought in - for breeders and for pet owners?

[Souff]

Big bad laws methinks.

Ones where all the dog breeders are rounded up and kept in kennels probably.

[WoofnHoof]

Well, I'd certainly put McGreevy and Bennett in the same basket. They are pushing the same barrow, at the same events. It's not what Bennett is doing, it is the ethos she embraces which is not agreed with.

What's the purebred world got to do with designer mutts and puppy farms?

What barrow are they pushing that is the same exactly? Scientists present all types of research at events all the time doesn't mean they are pushing the same barrow or even presenting the same type of research, I went to an animal welfare conference about 18 months ago in which many people presented many conflicting studies, including one paper extolling the welfare virtues of caged hen egg production (!), and a rep from APRA talking about addressing of animal welfare issues in rodeos.

The purebred world has a lot to do with designer mutts and puppy farms because of the fact that any laws enacted regarding them will impact on everyone associated with dogs, as you already know. All DD breeders and puppy farmers did was exploit a niche which opened up in the pet world, the pure breeders failed to both recognise that there was a growing gap between pet owners and registered breeders, and were too busy infighting to become a major player in the resulting change in the pet owning world.

As has been mentioned elsewhere dogs are companion animals, the predominant role of dogs in Australia is the role of the pet dog, and the purebreed world in it's obsession with introversion and looking at the past roles of dogs has been bypassed by those who recognised and responded to the change and started marketing their animals as such. In the past registered breeders advertised pups in the paper and weren't castigated for it, nowadays it's the domain of bybs and puppy farmers and we wonder why people are buying more of them???

It doesn't mean that designer mutts are more appropriate for today's society it's only that they have been marketed as such, had the purebreed world recognised this and responded in kind perhaps registered dogs would make up more of the pet population.

Complaining about the damage done to the reputation of purebreds 20 years after the first incursions isn't going to change things, only action in the form of effective marketing campaigns would change the public perception.

[Chocolatelover]

1. I don't believe that all dogs should be sourced from shelters. I have two pedigree dogs. I don't think any dogs should be ending up in shelters.

2. I never said I believe in mandatory desexing. I believe that the "average" pet owner would be better off desexing their pet. From what I see on a daily basis, many people are not capable of containing their pet to make sure it doesn't get out of their yard. If they can't contain it better to desex it.

3. If there is an undersupply of something - it is hard to get. I can pick up the paper any day of the week, phone a number and come home with a puppy. Or go to a pet shop and buy one. Or call a breeder. That is an undersupply of puppies? God help us.

4. Many people on this forum were against the idea of making it mandatory for you dog to be walked?? Why?? Doesn't a dog deserve that at the very least - to get out of it's yard (whether 500 square metres or 5 acres) and see the world? The laws I would like to see introduced do not mean that people would never be able to breed dogs. It means they would have to do it responsibly and still provide quality homes for their dogs. I am not talking about breeders that all ready do this. And people who take dogs into their homes by choice should be made to be accountable for meeting all of the dogs needs - physical, emotional and social. Of course no law will be 100% enforcable, but if it makes people think twice before acquiring a pet then how can it be a bad thing??

5. I don't think there is a shortage of homes - but there is a shortage of goodhomes.

These are my own thoughts and opinions. Please don't tell me that I have been brainwashed by some organisation that I don't know anything about. Should I assume all of you are brainwashed because you hold the same opinion as each other?

[Jed]

WoofNHoof

The purebred world has a lot to do with designer mutts and puppy farms because of the fact that any laws enacted regarding them will impact on everyone associated with dogs, as you already know. All DD breeders and puppy farmers did was exploit a niche which opened up in the pet world, the pure breeders failed to both recognise that there was a growing gap between pet owners and registered breeders, and were too busy infighting to become a major player in the resulting change in the pet owning world.

I am amazed that someone who is not and never has been an ANKC member, does not, and never has owned a registered purebred dog, but owns two petshop dogs, probably sourced from puppy farms can make such an assertive statement, from a basis or no knowledge at all.

Amazed

[poodlefan]

These are my own thoughts and opinions. Please don't tell me that I have been brainwashed by some organisation that I don't know anything about. Should I assume all of you are brainwashed because you hold the same opinion as each other?

The others may be brain washed, especially Jed but I'm not.

I work in the law. I know that new laws rarely solve community or welfare issues. I also know that no matter how good a law is, only responsible people will obey it anyway. ;)

[Jed]

1. I don't believe that all dogs should be sourced from shelters. I have two pedigree dogs. I don't think any dogs should be ending up in shelters.

2. I never said I believe in mandatory desexing. I believe that the "average" pet owner would be better off desexing their pet. From what I see on a daily basis, many people are not capable of containing their pet to make sure it doesn't get out of their yard. If they can't contain it better to desex it.

3. If there is an undersupply of something - it is hard to get. I can pick up the paper any day of the week, phone a number and come home with a puppy. Or go to a pet shop and buy one. Or call a breeder. That is an undersupply of puppies? God help us.

4. Many people on this forum were against the idea of making it mandatory for you dog to be walked?? Why?? Doesn't a dog deserve that at the very least - to get out of it's yard (whether 500 square metres or 5 acres) and see the world? The laws I would like to see introduced do not mean that people would never be able to breed dogs. It means they would have to do it responsibly and still provide quality homes for their dogs. I am not talking about breeders that all ready do this. And people who take dogs into their homes by choice should be made to be accountable for meeting all of the dogs needs - physical, emotional and social. Of course no law will be 100% enforcable, but if it makes people think twice before acquiring a pet then how can it be a bad thing??

5. I don't think there is a shortage of homes - but there is a shortage of goodhomes.

These are my own thoughts and opinions. Please don't tell me that I have been brainwashed by some organisation that I don't know anything about. Should I assume all of you are brainwashed because you hold the same opinion as each other?

Yes, but what are the laws you would like to see introduced?

[huski]

I have no doubt that there IS an under supply of puppies from reputable breeders.

I am another one who would hate to see it mandatory to walk your dog. I think it's ridiculous and unenforceable and will be a big waste of time and money. What do we define as a walk? Taking the dog off the property for x amount of time? How will we know who is walking their dogs? How will it even be trackable? What about people whose dogs are perfectly happy yet don't get walked daily because they have their mental/physical needs met in other ways? My dog can get more out a fifteen minute training session than a walk around the block.

[Jed]

PF

The others may be brain washed, especially Jed but I'm not.

Didn't I brainwash you?

Chocolatelover, people on this forum are involved on many of the things we are discussing, in one way, or several, so they have personal experience, some over many years.

Most have also read ALL the research on various subjects.

[poodlefan]

PF

The others may be brain washed, especially Jed but I'm not.

Didn't I brainwash you?

If you did, you're very good because I haven't noticed. ;)

[WoofnHoof]

WoofNHoof

The purebred world has a lot to do with designer mutts and puppy farms because of the fact that any laws enacted regarding them will impact on everyone associated with dogs, as you already know. All DD breeders and puppy farmers did was exploit a niche which opened up in the pet world, the pure breeders failed to both recognise that there was a growing gap between pet owners and registered breeders, and were too busy infighting to become a major player in the resulting change in the pet owning world.

I am amazed that someone who is not and never has been an ANKC member, does not, and never has owned a registered purebred dog, but owns two petshop dogs, probably sourced from puppy farms can make such an assertive statement, from a basis or no knowledge at all.

Amazed

Not sure where you got the idea that I've never owned a registered purebred dog, my first ever dog was a registered purebred chi bought from an ad in the paper over 20 years ago. According the rescue the little dog I got for my parents who has now come to me as my parents are unwell is also a purebred dog, they forwarded the details of the person who is confident she bred her (a registered breeder).

I don't know Jed maybe my powers of observation are better than yours but I believe it is actually possible to see to the heart of an issue without necessarily being embroiled in it personally.

[Chocolatelover]

Seriously doubt you have read ALL the research there is out there Jed. That's a big call.

I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe.

I'm sure your limited life experiences also blind you to other sides of the debate, as you say mine does.

The day no dog is forced to suffer a life of misery I will be happy - no matter what it takes.

[poodlefan]

The day no dog is forced to suffer a life of misery I will be happy - no matter what it takes.

According to Ingrid Newkirk, what it will take is no more dogs.

[justin19801]

Dogs are being temperment tested to death by unsound unscientific tests bought off the shelf from US testers. As for the number of dogs killed decreasing, given unsound TT and Breed Discriminatory Legislation there are no independent stats to go by. Using R$PCA figures would be like asking tobacco companies to monitor cancer deaths from smoking!

[01kismet]

I'm probably wadding in abit late here and to be honest I didn't read all the other pages, I actually made myself sit down and watch this show and to be honest I was disappointed. I kind of thought they didn't show the worst of it, I also thought they let the puppy farm portray itself in a ?good? (not the word I want, can't think of it) light.

We have a bitsa pound dog (gotten as a pup) and a pedigree and truthfully I love them both, I would love to see manditory desexing for regular people like me, especially with bitsa's. I know they can be the best dogs it's just so many are killed everyday and now a days there aren't many bitsa as such but designer dogs. I work for/with a large organisation and since getting out pedigree dog and finding this site my eyes have been opened, I never really thought about where puppies came from and have bought a pet shop dog before, admittedly he was a cattle cross and only cost $85 not the ones you see today, my childhood puppy was a $10 newspaper special, again not a designer. Anyway since becoming more aware I've been talking to people at work and it amazes and disgusts me, they don't think they are puppy farmers/backyard breeders but so many of them have pure breed dogs (out of the paper, no papers or proof) that they breed and sell on the work board for $$, minimum I've seen is for $300 again with no papers or even health testing of the parents.

It annoys me they go on about how they don't do it for the money, yet none of them test parents, chip puppies or any thing else. I really think we need to do something about this, I don't really know what or how, talking to the people I know doesn't seem to work up here it is a family thing they all do. In a way I'd love to see people just join together and come up with a plan to stop the every day distruction and deposale of dogs. I thought maybe they should push this more or even in some way aim the education at younger generations, wonder if we could get something introduced into high school ?