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

[Steve]

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...

The discussion was about the definition of a puppy farmer and whether or not its possible to legislate against puppy farmers without that affecting smaller breeders.If you are going to introduce laws to dictate staff to numbers ratio at what point would that cut in and how does an ordinary hobby breeder or even a bigger breeder with no paid staff but rather family labour go? How would it be possible to enforce this?

[Greytmate]

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.

My point is that if these breeders are giving their dogs at least a minimum standard of care, it will not be any harder for them should those minimum standards become law.

Some breeders will have to make small improvements, some may have to make big improvements, and some will decide to stop breeding.

Which is fine if they are unwilling to provide minimum care.

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.

There are differences for different dogs, but I would still argue that all dogs should have a right to a sleeping environment that can be cleaned, for all properties where breeding takes place. All dogs should also have the ability to retreat out of eyesight of other dogs at times, which is another reason for proper kennelling to be provided if the dogs will not all fit in the house.

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. The idea of a Code is that it is just expected that it will be adhered to. Only if a problem or complaint comes up will it be investigated. We have all sorts of laws covering so many things, most are not enforced unless a problem occurs. It isn't always necessary or appropriate for inspections to be done on people to ensure they are following laws.

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.

I am well aware of what sort of things can be enforced in a code and what cannot. I have been involved in writing them. Dog welfare is important to me. I believe in the need to show sound practical argument for why things should be included in the code. People who know lots of stuff about dogs should be speaking out about minimum care levels for dogs and encouraging legislative improvement. Regardless of any political obstacles.

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.

I don't expect people to give up right to privacy, and have explained a model that protects that. You don't have to explain people's right to privacy to me. The ANKC and other registries could play a crucial role in this service to their members.

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.

It has happened in some countries. Restriction on Point of Sale display has happened in our own country.

The redneck comment is puzzling, as the redneck approach is to call for less restriction of the industry and of individual rights to breed.

To be honest I do not believe we have the data yet to insist on restrictions to pet shops.

But with a scheme where all breeders are registered in some way, statistics are collected, and all dogs properly identifiable, we can collect the data. The proof that the dogs coming from certain breeders with certain practices are not being dumped or surrendered, and the proof that the dogs ending up with problems are tending to come from other breeders with different practices.

By wanting small ethical breeders to be exempt from this, would make it harder to collect information that proves they are using best practice.

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...

The discussion was about the definition of a puppy farmer and whether or not its possible to legislate against puppy farmers without that affecting smaller breeders.If you are going to introduce laws to dictate staff to numbers ratio at what point would that cut in and how does an ordinary hobby breeder or even a bigger breeder with no paid staff but rather family labour go? How would it be possible to enforce this?

I never meant to imply that looking after dogs is like looking after children, but that ratios are something that can be used in a code.

What the ratios are deserves examination in a separate topic, in the breeder's forum. But it is clear to me that there is a limit to how many adult dogs and litters that one person can raise in a way that ensures adequate socialisation and enrichment. The ratio is probably going to be higher than what the majority of ethical breeders use, but lower than that commonly used in intensive farming. Let's set the bar, so that good breeders go under it and it stops the worst type of factory breeding.

When talking about ratios we can be talking about adults residing at the property, children over 14 residing there, other adults living permanently in residence. We can also talk about hours logged as worked by paid employees, same as any other type of employment.

I don't think laws should cut in or out depending on type of breeder or size of breeder. Certainly there would be large puppy farms producing better dogs in better conditions than some small backyard breeders producing dogs of poor type in atrocious conditions including some ANKC 'hobby' breeders unfortunately.

It seems fairly simple. If a breeder has space in the house for a litter, a quiet room that isn't used as a food preparation area or thoroughfare, with a washable floor surface, the code should be able to cover them without them really changing what they do now. Large homes might accommodate more than one litter and easily accomodate more than a couple of other dogs all living inside.

But if you want to breed dogs, and they do not all fit in you house without creating unhygienic living conditions, then there should be a code that covers how you accommodate all those dogs. It isn't good enough that the dogs live in paddocks in rusting old cars, no matter what sort of breeder you are or how many dog you have.

Enforcement of the Code need only happen if problems come up or complaints are made. If you are a very private breeder producing good dogs from your family home, and placing them properly, you will be left alone. If you or your dogs start creating problems for others, it does need to be looked into.

[Steve]

Yeah that all sounds good except thats not what the current code thats being presented by the RSPCA says.

[Steve]

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=199861