The First Of Many Questions For You Re Rescue, Breeding,owning Dogs

[WreckitWhippet]

Fevah

continue breeding but there are more irresponsible and impulse buying people out there than not so they might as well be directed to saving animals rather then to 'Oodle Institutions'.

Why does a pound dog or one in the care of rescue deserve a lesser home, than those raised by ethical breeders ?

No dog should be an impulse buy and no one should sell to an irresponsible home.

Edited July 1, 2010 by SBT123

[~Anne~]

There is no oversupply of dogs. Dog populations continue to fall whilst the Australian population continues to grow. The want and need for dogs is still there in sufficient numbers for supply. It is the consumer society issues, and a general lack of responsibility, that is the cause of dogs in rescue and shelters.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Restraint of trade seems to come up a lot in these discussions. Have lobby groups like the RSPCA or MBDA or ANKC approached the Government about this? If so what was the outcome? If not, why not?

I am not closely familiar with it but if the Government can legislate to ban imports of products made of cat and dog fur from China, why can't/won't it exclude the domestic sale of dogs and cats from restraint of trade laws on welfare grounds?

[Staranais]

If we are to have mandatory codes for trying to control puppy farmers and legislation directed at ensuring dogs which are kept for breeding don't suffer any more than they have to at puppy farms we need to all agree on what a puppy farmer is or we drop the term altogether and simply call every one who breeds dogs regardless or how many or how they do it a breeder.

That might be a smart way to do it. "Puppy farmer" is a good way to get the public on board, as it is so emotive. But I think it could prove very hard to define, as this thread has shown.

Perhaps it would be better to just concentrate on the minimum criteria for any breeder.

Or, like someone said earlier, perhaps it would be better to concentrate on accountability for breeders. Perhaps we just need some way of tracing dogs back to breeders, so breeders who continuously produce dogs with health issues or bad temperaments (from either poor breeding practices or poor socialisation), or continuously produce dogs that end up dumped at the pound (from being placed in unsuitable homes, such as from being sold through petstores), can be identified and penalised.

[OzPit]

There's a lot of talk about one of the indicators of a PF being profit as the motivation.

How would one measure this?

If "profit as the motivation" is accepted and used as the yardstick in determining who is and is not a PF, where would this take us?

Does the RSPCA or any other relevant animal welfare authority visit the farms? Do they ask the "breeder" what their motivation is?

What if "breeder"'s response to that question does not include any mention of profit, or the desire for profit?

Do they use ATO or other records to determine income from the PF? This still can't prove profit was the motivation behind the breeding, just that it was a consequence.

What if reputable registered breeders have happened to make a profit one year? What happens to them?

This whole issue is fraught with difficulties.

It's too hard to use the housing of the dogs as the defining factor. As long as the dogs have adequate and appropriate food, shelter, and water, what else can be done?

If you try to introduce a standard of conditions, what would they be? People on this forum are debating grass vs concrete. Both have their benefits and their drawbacks. If PFs are held to a standard of care, then it follows that ANKC breeders should be held to the same standards. But again, what will those standards be? Concrete kennels/runs? Free-range? There is such a difference in opinion, both here and in wider society, that there is no happy medium.

The production & ownership of dogs is very much an emotive issue, and people cling tightly to their opinions regarding what is best practice. Try to impose standards and requirements and there will be public outrage.

It's a helluva task you've set yourself, Steve. I wish you all the best.

And as a final, completely unrelated aside: why is it that I can type DD instead of the long & irritating "designer dog"; PF instead of "puppy farm"; and any number of acronyms for breeds....but there isn't a DOL-standard acronym which stands for "registered and reputable breeder"? It's so long. I'm campaigning for the use of RRB. Seriously.

[Steve]

I think we have a solution - one that would trace every animal from birth to death, one that would alert councils to where large scale breeders are, one that would ensure that everyone followed the laws with no unintended adverse consequences for the dogs or the breeders who are doing it right.

[SpikesPuppy]

I have said this before but I will say it again- I see fighting puppy farms as a losing battle. At the end of the day they have the funds to fight against any proposed legislations, and they have the funds (plus lack of morals) available to just shut up shop and re build elsewhere and keep on farming.

What I see needing to be done is to change the customers opinion and SELL PEDIGREE DOGS from responsible breeders so they feel they are making the decision to go down this path.

Can we raise enough money for the MDBA to run a television commercial?? Or a few full page newspaper adverts???

Sourcing a pedigree puppy is still relatively difficult for those who aren't into dogs. The myth they are expensive still abounds. Dog shows here in Victoria at least are unadvertised and very confusing (when I was in Sydney I was impressed by the loud speaker announcement of each breed in General Specials etc. My aunt and uncle who were with me were impressed too. But nothing like that happens here.

And the Canine Councils need to crack down on the breeders who are registered but not responsible, they need to take reports seriously and investigate every issue, ESPECIALLY the ones relating to health issues.

What I'm saying is, the only way we will defeat puppy farms is by showing potential dog owners why our 'product' is better.

Edited July 2, 2010 by SpikesPuppy

[Greytmate]

You cant go into how many dogs a person can own or breed - because restricting that is a restriction of trade.You can restrict numbers in certain zones but you cant across the board.

You cant dictate how many employees or carers a business will have per dog either. You can say what needs to be covered but its up to the business to arrange staff ratios etc in order to get that done appropriately.

You cant say what will happen to a dog when its no longer wanted for breeding.You can say how it should be bumped off but if someone wants their dog killed humanely no one is ever going to stop that.

Even rescue and pounds have the right to decide what lives or dies.

You cant say where they can sell their product either for example via a pet shop or export - attempting to restrict that is also a breach of trade and ACCC laws take precedence. You may be able to say No live animals in pet shops one day but I doubt it . If thats do- able thats a very long way off without data to prove that its the dogs that go through that sale type that more often end up in pounds or that their suppliers are not doing the right thing by their dogs.

I would agree with all but the bolded part.

I think that t-time had a good point with child-care centres. The ratios could be enforced on animal welfare and human OHS grounds.

This is something I would think worth working towards.

If we are to have mandatory codes for trying to control puppy farmers and legislation directed at ensuring dogs which are kept for breeding don't suffer any more than they have to at puppy farms we need to all agree on what a puppy farmer is or we drop the term altogether and simply call every one who breeds dogs regardless or how many or how they do it a breeder.

Then - and only then- we can move on because if we don't we run the risk that the unintended consequences ensure there are more - not less - large scale commercial breeders and less small breeders.

Before we legislate on mandatory licenses and making breeders publicise their addresses we have to be sure the unintended consequences don't mean more of the less scrupulous large breeders going to ground,going after less supplies and vet treatments in order to stay hidden if we do as is suggested and make stockists and vets and buyers dob them in. We have to be sure that these things dont mean less small hobby breeders.

In my opinion, a code needs to be developed to cover all breeders. Only on DOL is "breeder" such a loaded term. In real life a breeder is the owner, or lessee of a bitch that whelps a litter.

That is what a breeder is regardless of our feelings on the matter.

You cannot legislate on motivations. Only on practices.

The challenge for you Steve (and I want to help) is to come up with the bare minimum standard of practices that you think is necessary to breed good, happy dogs. We (ethical breeding advocates) need to come to a consensus of what that is.

An unfortunate consequence is that some breeders who are doing a great job may have to do things differently and maybe spend more money on facilities. But that is a small price to pay for 'puppy farmers' to be put under the same code.

I don't feel that this thread has been as useful as it could have been. To ask the question "What is a Puppy Farmer?" here is to get a regurgitated digest of everything people have been told about what puppy farming is on these forums. How many people here have ever seen one, let alone worked at one or owned one?

I do like the threads you have asked in the Breeder's forum, the info is so useful.

Clearly, one of the practices that good ethical breeders do is to keep the litter at optimum temperature. That is a fantastic example of a concrete thing that can be included in the code that would cause huge costs for intensive farmers. A maximum and minimum allowable temperature for each breed of dog. While this may knock out a handful of hobby breeders, others would comply, and intensive farmers would have a huge costs that may put some out of business.

And best of all, the puppies would benefit.

Using an argument of "What have you got to hide " wont win any points with me either.

Ok, I will apologise now for my tone in previous posts. I do not want to score points. I want to work with you.

Having said that I believe I have provided an example of a model where by breeders privacy is totally protected. Also where breeders cannot hide the identity of the dogs they produce and statistics can be collected that would prove beyond doubt who was producing and selling the problem dogs. A system where if an ANKC breeder is not producing problems, bodies like the RSPCA will not be able to collect information on them or monitor them.

I have nothing to hide and any one can find me and my address with in 2 seconds but there are many many reasons why someone wouldn't want everyone knowing their address.I could just see Pugrescue Sydney when it was running being happy about people just turning up day and night to see if she had a dog available. Go and have a look at the responses in the breeders forum to where breeders whelp their litters - in their homes, spare bedrooms, laundries and garages etc.even large scale breeders have a right to privacy and taking into consideration the safety of their dogs. Why on earth would they want to advertise where they live and leave themselves open to the risks associated with that.What have they got to hide? Their homes, their dogs and their families - that's all.

I think your concerns are all addressed in the solution I spoke about a few pages earlier.

I also want to speak about the supply/demand problem. This could be addressed by legislating the ban of displays of pups at point of sale. Banning pet shops. We have legislated in this way for the tobacco industry, and now it needs to be done in the dog industry.

Another thing we can do is encourage better education of buyers. The reason we have an oversupply of discarded adult dogs is because those dogs failed to meet the owner expectations. Expectations can be altered through education on so many different levels. By legislating against impulse buying we are giving a chance for education to work better than it otherwise would.

Steve have another look at the code. If the wording of the code makes it impossible for a breeder to breed a litter in the house, then that needs to be changed. It is possible to have a good code that allows the breeding of pups in a normal family home. Covering just about all of the breeders that responded to your thread about where they whelp their litters. Having a hygienic washable surface seems to be the norm for the breeders there, nobody had baby puppies on dirt at all.

[Steve]

You cant go into how many dogs a person can own or breed - because restricting that is a restriction of trade.You can restrict numbers in certain zones but you cant across the board.

You cant dictate how many employees or carers a business will have per dog either. You can say what needs to be covered but its up to the business to arrange staff ratios etc in order to get that done appropriately.

You cant say what will happen to a dog when its no longer wanted for breeding.You can say how it should be bumped off but if someone wants their dog killed humanely no one is ever going to stop that.

Even rescue and pounds have the right to decide what lives or dies.

You cant say where they can sell their product either for example via a pet shop or export - attempting to restrict that is also a breach of trade and ACCC laws take precedence. You may be able to say No live animals in pet shops one day but I doubt it . If thats do- able thats a very long way off without data to prove that its the dogs that go through that sale type that more often end up in pounds or that their suppliers are not doing the right thing by their dogs.

I would agree with all but the bolded part.

I think that t-time had a good point with child-care centres. The ratios could be enforced on animal welfare and human OHS grounds.

This is something I would think worth working towards.

If we are to have mandatory codes for trying to control puppy farmers and legislation directed at ensuring dogs which are kept for breeding don't suffer any more than they have to at puppy farms we need to all agree on what a puppy farmer is or we drop the term altogether and simply call every one who breeds dogs regardless or how many or how they do it a breeder.

Then - and only then- we can move on because if we don't we run the risk that the unintended consequences ensure there are more - not less - large scale commercial breeders and less small breeders.

Before we legislate on mandatory licenses and making breeders publicise their addresses we have to be sure the unintended consequences don't mean more of the less scrupulous large breeders going to ground,going after less supplies and vet treatments in order to stay hidden if we do as is suggested and make stockists and vets and buyers dob them in. We have to be sure that these things dont mean less small hobby breeders.

In my opinion, a code needs to be developed to cover all breeders. Only on DOL is "breeder" such a loaded term. In real life a breeder is the owner, or lessee of a bitch that whelps a litter.

That is what a breeder is regardless of our feelings on the matter.

You cannot legislate on motivations. Only on practices.

The challenge for you Steve (and I want to help) is to come up with the bare minimum standard of practices that you think is necessary to breed good, happy dogs. We (ethical breeding advocates) need to come to a consensus of what that is.

An unfortunate consequence is that some breeders who are doing a great job may have to do things differently and maybe spend more money on facilities. But that is a small price to pay for 'puppy farmers' to be put under the same code.

I don't feel that this thread has been as useful as it could have been. To ask the question "What is a Puppy Farmer?" here is to get a regurgitated digest of everything people have been told about what puppy farming is on these forums. How many people here have ever seen one, let alone worked at one or owned one?

I do like the threads you have asked in the Breeder's forum, the info is so useful.

Clearly, one of the practices that good ethical breeders do is to keep the litter at optimum temperature. That is a fantastic example of a concrete thing that can be included in the code that would cause huge costs for intensive farmers. A maximum and minimum allowable temperature for each breed of dog. While this may knock out a handful of hobby breeders, others would comply, and intensive farmers would have a huge costs that may put some out of business.

And best of all, the puppies would benefit.

Using an argument of "What have you got to hide " wont win any points with me either.

Ok, I will apologise now for my tone in previous posts. I do not want to score points. I want to work with you.

Having said that I believe I have provided an example of a model where by breeders privacy is totally protected. Also where breeders cannot hide the identity of the dogs they produce and statistics can be collected that would prove beyond doubt who was producing and selling the problem dogs. A system where if an ANKC breeder is not producing problems, bodies like the RSPCA will not be able to collect information on them or monitor them.

I have nothing to hide and any one can find me and my address with in 2 seconds but there are many many reasons why someone wouldn't want everyone knowing their address.I could just see Pugrescue Sydney when it was running being happy about people just turning up day and night to see if she had a dog available. Go and have a look at the responses in the breeders forum to where breeders whelp their litters - in their homes, spare bedrooms, laundries and garages etc.even large scale breeders have a right to privacy and taking into consideration the safety of their dogs. Why on earth would they want to advertise where they live and leave themselves open to the risks associated with that.What have they got to hide? Their homes, their dogs and their families - that's all.

I think your concerns are all addressed in the solution I spoke about a few pages earlier.

I also want to speak about the supply/demand problem. This could be addressed by legislating the ban of displays of pups at point of sale. Banning pet shops. We have legislated in this way for the tobacco industry, and now it needs to be done in the dog industry.

Another thing we can do is encourage better education of buyers. The reason we have an oversupply of discarded adult dogs is because those dogs failed to meet the owner expectations. Expectations can be altered through education on so many different levels. By legislating against impulse buying we are giving a chance for education to work better than it otherwise would.

Steve have another look at the code. If the wording of the code makes it impossible for a breeder to breed a litter in the house, then that needs to be changed. It is possible to have a good code that allows the breeding of pups in a normal family home. Covering just about all of the breeders that responded to your thread about where they whelp their litters. Having a hygienic washable surface seems to be the norm for the breeders there, nobody had baby puppies on dirt at all.

I don't believe you can legislate about staff levels for the simple reason not all breeders "work" at being breeders. And dogs are only breeding for a couple of weeks now and then. Child care centres are only open business hours too.Who is to say if I am playing with puppies at midnight and you can hardly lock children up in pens 23 hours a day either.What are we going to do count my kids into the equation because around here they play a big role in socialising and helping out with what needs to be done. The problem remains constant when you say breeder you are thinking hundreds of dogs when I say breeder Im think half a dozen. And the purpose of the thread is to discuss the fact that there is a difference. All breeders ethical or other wise keep the temp at an optimal level or they die. Cold puppies dont live and nor do hot puppies - plain and simple. There is no point in making laws to cover it.

My references to dirt were not about puppies being born in dirt my concern is that dogs live on concrete all the time. Male dogs as well as bitches which are too young yet to breed and who are between seasons etc. are kept in sheds which comply with basic standards which in my opinion are not suitable for such usage.

The law in some states let alone codes of practice prevent a breeder having a litter in the house. NSW companion animals act for example says any more than two dogs have to be housed at least 15 meters from a dwelling.

[Greytmate]

I don't believe you can legislate about staff levels for the simple reason not all breeders "work" at being breeders. And dogs are only breeding for a couple of weeks now and then. Child care centres are only open business hours too.Who is to say if I am playing with puppies at midnight and you can hardly lock children up in pens 23 hours a day either.What are we going to do count my kids into the equation because around here they play a big role in socialising and helping out with what needs to be done. The problem remains constant when you say breeder you are thinking hundreds of dogs when I say breeder Im think half a dozen. And the purpose of the thread is to discuss the fact that there is a difference.

A formula could be worked out to cover the number of adults residing at a breeder property per dog. Or a formula of x paid employee hours per day per dog. Many puppy farms would be run by family and some live-in casual help, and I believe that ethical breeders do it on a smaller scale purely because there is a limit to what family and live-in help can do properly. What is that limit exactly? A dozen dogs? You are in a better position to determine that than me for most breeds. Ethical breeders keep numbers to under what they have time to exercise and socialise adequately. They supervise children around the dogs.

All breeders ethical or other wise keep the temp at an optimal level or they die. Cold puppies dont live and nor do hot puppies - plain and simple. There is no point in making laws to cover it.

I disagree. Whole litters don't always just live or die. Instead a percentage of pups will be lost, and at the moment it may be more commercially viable to lose a few pups every now and then (cold snaps or heat waves) than control the temperature of their environment in the way that an ethical breeder would.

My references to dirt were not about puppies being born in dirt my concern is that dogs live on concrete all the time. Male dogs as well as bitches which are too young yet to breed and who are between seasons etc. are kept in sheds which comply with basic standards which in my opinion are not suitable for such usage.

So the answer may be to increase the minimum standard to include large areas of soft ground accessible to the breeder, I wouldn't want to remove the requirement for hygienic sleeping and whelping areas.

The law in some states let alone codes of practice prevent a breeder having a litter in the house. NSW companion animals act for example says any more than two dogs have to be housed at least 15 meters from a dwelling.

I don't know much about that law. It sounds like it is not being enforced.

Steve is there anything you would want to add to a code to lift the standard that all breeders have to adhere to? Or are you just against this new code applying to smaller breeders at all?

[merijigs]

I don't believe you can legislate about staff levels for the simple reason not all breeders "work" at being breeders. And dogs are only breeding for a couple of weeks now and then. Child care centres are only open business hours too.Who is to say if I am playing with puppies at midnight and you can hardly lock children up in pens 23 hours a day either.What are we going to do count my kids into the equation because around here they play a big role in socialising and helping out with what needs to be done. The problem remains constant when you say breeder you are thinking hundreds of dogs when I say breeder Im think half a dozen. And the purpose of the thread is to discuss the fact that there is a difference.

A formula could be worked out to cover the number of adults residing at a breeder property per dog. Or a formula of x paid employee hours per day per dog. Many puppy farms would be run by family and some live-in casual help, and I believe that ethical breeders do it on a smaller scale purely because there is a limit to what family and live-in help can do properly. What is that limit exactly? A dozen dogs? You are in a better position to determine that than me for most breeds. Ethical breeders keep numbers to under what they have time to exercise and socialise adequately. They supervise children around the dogs.

All breeders ethical or other wise keep the temp at an optimal level or they die. Cold puppies dont live and nor do hot puppies - plain and simple. There is no point in making laws to cover it.

I disagree. Whole litters don't always just live or die. Instead a percentage of pups will be lost, and at the moment it may be more commercially viable to lose a few pups every now and then (cold snaps or heat waves) than control the temperature of their environment in the way that an ethical breeder would.

My references to dirt were not about puppies being born in dirt my concern is that dogs live on concrete all the time. Male dogs as well as bitches which are too young yet to breed and who are between seasons etc. are kept in sheds which comply with basic standards which in my opinion are not suitable for such usage.

So the answer may be to increase the minimum standard to include large areas of soft ground accessible to the breeder, I wouldn't want to remove the requirement for hygienic sleeping and whelping areas.

The law in some states let alone codes of practice prevent a breeder having a litter in the house. NSW companion animals act for example says any more than two dogs have to be housed at least 15 meters from a dwelling.

I don't know much about that law. It sounds like it is not being enforced.

First time I've ever heard of this!

Steve is there anything you would want to add to a code to lift the standard that all breeders have to adhere to? Or are you just against this new code applying to smaller breeders at all?

[Steve]

There is much I would like to ad and that we will make public but its not just about the difference between those breeders who answered in the breeders thread and someone who pumps out a thousand puppies a year - its also about the underlying goal of any proposal, past history of similar legislation overseas and the potential for making the very thing you are trying to rein in and make better becoming worse.Its about policing, peoples basic rights and most of all what's best for the dogs not what is easiest to keep clean or more economical. Breeding dogs are different to rescue dogs or dogs kept in boarding kennels and they have different needs and that has never been acknowledged.

I know breeders who kill their pups if there are too many in a litter and others who believe that if some die then that is not such a bad thing because it ensures the fittest will survive.

No amount of laws to ensure certain temperatures in a whelping room are going to make a scrap of difference and they are impossible to enforce.The very people who you are trying to stop are known to do what ever they can to avoid complying with laws as well.

[Greytmate]

No, it isn't about what is easiest to clean. It is about requiring breeders to have accommodation that can be sanitised as opposed to the alternative, which is having dogs on surfaces that cannot be sanitised.

I do not accept that because a dog is owned by a breeder that its basic needs are any different to that of any other dog, and you haven't put forward any argument to show how it might be different.

Your 'survival of the fittest' type breeders are ones that do need to lift their game. Puppies dying slowly over a few days without vet care or euthanasia isn't acceptable to me. It is cruel.

If you dismiss my ideas on the basis of "The very people who you are trying to stop are known to do what ever they can to avoid complying with laws as well. " you are probably not going to get very far with whoever you do need to convince to get your reform through.

[OzPit]

I think that t-time had a good point with child-care centres. The ratios could be enforced on animal welfare and human OHS grounds.

This is something I would think worth working towards.

I appreciate this idea but doubt it would ever be turned into any form of legislation.

At the end of the day, childcare centres are dealing with human babies. It would take a lot to convince Joe Public that dogs used in breeding practices would require the same standards of care as human children.

Also, childcare centres have ratios which change depending of the number and age of the children present. Is it suggested that there is one adult for, say, every 10 adult dogs? Does this go down to , perhaps, one adult for every 5 puppies, as they have higher needs? What ratio would you suggest? What about night times? Midnight? 3am? What age are children considered to be competent handlers or managers of the dogs, so that they can be considered in this carer:dog ratio? You can't try to say that during business hours, a certain ratio has to be adhered to, but at night this is not applicable. Breaches of animal welfare occur at all times of day and night.

I speak from experience when I say that staff:child ratios in childcare centres are often not adhered to. It shouldn't happen, but it does, simply because of the nature of what the staff:child ratio implies. A lot of the time, this breach of practice goes unnoticed by the relevant authorities; I doubt very much that it would have any effectiveness when applied to dogs, even on grounds of animal welfare.

Another point to consider - would the carer:dog ratio also then have to be applied to other businesses dealing with dogs? Boarding kennels, veterinary practices, pet stores, doggy day care, dog walkers? If you use animal welfare as the grounds to establish a nominated carer:dog ratio then it would follow that, on the grounds of animal welfare and human OHS, these ratios would have to applied across the board.

[Steve]

No, it isn't about what is easiest to clean. It is about requiring breeders to have accommodation that can be sanitised as opposed to the alternative, which is having dogs on surfaces that cannot be sanitised.

I do not accept that because a dog is owned by a breeder that its basic needs are any different to that of any other dog, and you haven't put forward any argument to show how it might be different.

Your 'survival of the fittest' type breeders are ones that do need to lift their game. Puppies dying slowly over a few days without vet care or euthanasia isn't acceptable to me. It is cruel.

If you dismiss my ideas on the basis of "The very people who you are trying to stop are known to do what ever they can to avoid complying with laws as well. " you are probably not going to get very far with whoever you do need to convince to get your reform through.

There you go again. Im not dismissing your ideas Im having a discussion. I cant see the point in bringing in laws which will make the bad guys worse and make life harder for the people who are doing it right anyway.

I had no desire to put forth any argument to show why I think breeding dogs have different needs in this thread but having a kennel situation such as a shelter or a pound or a boarding kennel where their is a high turnover of dogs which may have been exposed to all manner of things and which only have to stay for short periods of time is different to the way breeding dogs need to be housed and treated when they are not in whelp or immediately after.

[WoofnHoof]

Just a point re the child care ratios they are very much adhered to my mother and sister worked in day care for over 20 years never were children allowed over the ratio - granted it was more strongly adhered to because of the risk of legal action were something to happen to a child on the premises and that included family day care situations as well.

I do like the concept of restricting numbers based on available carers.

[Steve]

Just a point re the child care ratios they are very much adhered to my mother and sister worked in day care for over 20 years never were children allowed over the ratio - granted it was more strongly adhered to because of the risk of legal action were something to happen to a child on the premises and that included family day care situations as well.

I do like the concept of restricting numbers based on available carers.

Yes but this is people looking after other peoples children not their own.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Just a point re the child care ratios they are very much adhered to my mother and sister worked in day care for over 20 years never were children allowed over the ratio - granted it was more strongly adhered to because of the risk of legal action were something to happen to a child on the premises and that included family day care situations as well.

I do like the concept of restricting numbers based on available carers.

Yes but this is people looking after other peoples children not their own.

excellent point. if parents have 10 children there is no ratio of parent to child that is legislated or expected.

[Steve]

You have to also consider what is likely to ever happen,whether its a realistic expectation at this current point in time or whether its just not going to be supported by those who are within and standing on the outside of the area affected. But most of all you have to consider how anything being proposed might interfere with ordinary people's rights and whether its going to prevent any dog from suffering, and whether its realistically likely that it can or will be enforced.

Property laws,freedom to trade,the right to privacy etc are basic rights which you cant expect people to give up.[These are basic magna carter stuff which are protected by federal laws] because the RSPCA want to know where breeders are. You cant seriously expect that asking stock feed suppliers and vets to dob in people who buy a lot of dog food or use a lot of vet services is going to help prevent anything.

Going after stopping the sales of live animals in pet shops in Australia based on current trade laws and the lack of viable stats to back up what appears to the outside world as radicals and rednecks was never going to happen.

[t-time]

I brought up the idea of staff:dog ratio and I never said anything about childcare centres.

Whilst nearly everyone here on DOL would believe that their dogs are indeed their babies - I never intended to equate it as such. So any comments about child-care vs dog care are really going OT -IMHO

I think this idea should be discussed on a practical level.

QUOTE (Steve @ 2nd Jul 2010 - 11:49 AM) *

I don't believe you can legislate about staff levels for the simple reason not all breeders "work" at being breeders.

Steve, I thought this discussion was about puppy farmers and although you are right, there are smaller scale breeders considered to be "farmers" who do have other regular 9-5 jobs, I thought what we were trying to target here is indeed the large-scale commercial breeders = FARMERS!

Therefore it *IS* their business, regardless if the "farm" is family-run or not and regardless if they have a outside 9-5 job.

It would take a lot to convince Joe Public that dogs used in breeding practices would require the same standards of care as human children.

In short, they don't need the same as human children but lets decide at bare minimum, what those needs are...