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

[WreckitWhippet]

Registries hold info. There should be no compulsion to release identifying information unless there is a serious reason.

Unless they have a court order.

[Greytmate]

Registries hold info. There should be no compulsion to release identifying information unless there is a serious reason.

Unless they have a court order.

Yes. Breeders' privacy needs to be protected. There just has to be a mechanism for people to hold those breeders to account if problems come up later.

Non-identifying information, such as statistics, could be sought from registries under FOI laws.

[Greytmate]

For the purposes of law reform, I think it would not be a good idea to differentiate between breeders based on whether or not they profit or by how much they profit.

I believe this for various reasons, but mostly because a dog should not be expected to live in substandard conditions because its owner is or isn't drawing an income from breeding.

I agree - problem is my idea of sub standard conditions doesn't equal yours.

A Code of Practice has to contain practices. Things that breeders actually have to do, not dreams, wishes and daisies.

Can you post here the section of the proposed code that talks about the minimum standard of accommodation that needs to be provided by dog breeders?

If you disagree with my insistence that all dogs to be provided with sleeping areas/enclosures that have hard washable surfaces, what practice would you put into the code? I am not insisting that the dog is kept in the enclosure permanently, as that would prevent enrichment, I just think that appropriate, safe and hygienic accommodation should be provided for every dog living on a breeder's property.

A few years back I was on a committee that reviewed a Code of Practice that covered the minimum standards for kennelling. We were able to put together a Code of Practice that covered all breeders. From the breeder that only breeds the one litter from a house dog, to the biggest puppy farmers imaginable. One code. One minimum standard for all dogs.

I wouldn't like to see a situation where any breeder can legally have dogs living in paddocks with old trailers, wrecked cars or 44 gallon drums for kennels.

What would you like to see in the Code?

[Little Gifts]

The issue for me about comments re breeders breeding for profit is that what about your very expensive breeds eg bostons, frenchies, BB's these puppies are sold for very high prices does this land them in the breeding for profit category? If the breeder maintains all of the other important qualities eg health/temperament testing, conformation, hygeine, socialisation etc etc why shouldn't they make a profit?

What I mean is that it shouldn't be profit based and those not providing the other important needs should be targeted not the ones ticking the correct boxes.

Can I ask this then - do breeders make their income (as opposed to profit) wholey and soley from breeding puppies? That's how I see puppy farmers - the farm and 'making' puppies is their income. With breeders I had the impression (could be wrong) that selling puppies they have bred is only part of their overall income, which might also include stud fees, show wins, behavioural work or kenneling of dogs they have previously bred and selling older dogs no longer suitable for their breeding program.

[Greytmate]

Another way of ensuring accountability for breeders is to have all pups microchipped with the breeders registration number linked to the dog's identity, and all breeding animals having a DNA identification and certification.

That way, if there are problem dogs coming to the attention of the RSPCA or others, the breeder can be tracked down and forced to take some responsibility.

Only people that neglect dog's welfare need to be brought to the attention of the RSPCA. They should not have an automatic right to look into the business of the good breeders who breed dogs that never cause problems for anyone.

I just wanted to expand on the accountability and privacy.

Buying a dog should be like buying any other manufactured good as in you have a right to know the origin of your dog. As I said before the breeder should be linked to the pups identity. In the same way that you buy a Ford and it will have a Ford badge on it.

The dog itself is does not have any 'right to privacy.' If a dog comes from XY kennels that information should not be withheld from anyone buying the dog, accepting it as a surrender, or taking ownership in any other proper way. Vets and other professionals dealing with the dog should also have access to that information. Just the name of the kennels, which essentially is the 'manufacturer' of that dog.

However the registry should not be allowed to reveal the names, addresses or any other identifying information bout who XY kennels is, without the court order. And I would only want to see any of this put in place if all breeders were required to be on an officially recognised registry. I see nothing wrong with the RSPCA starting its own registry just to cater to breeders that are not part of any existing recognised registry like the ANKC. But the RSPCA should leave ANKC breeders alone.

[Fevah]

I am someone who 'couldn't wait' for a pup and ended up getting my Newfoundland from a pet store - it was purely by chance that I found out he was in the store, but had been looking for one for the past few months and none were available (I was 15/16 at the time, and the plan was for me to get my Newfie over the Christmas holiday period between years 9 and 10 of high school, so I would have the 2 months to raise him and then by the time I was in year 11 and into VCE stuff, he'd be older. There was no point in me getting a puppy during the school year, and it wasn't really appropriate to get a puppy at the same time as starting VCE IMO. But not knowing much about registered breeders etc (although knowing they WERE the preferred option and of course they didn't have pups on demand but even calling New Zealand breeders came up with a big fat zero male puppies), so yep, when I found out there was a male pup in a pet store, mum drove across the city and we picked him up. He was the most amazing, wonderful dog but crossed the bridge at only 8 and a half due to joint issues. HOWEVER at no point in time was he neglected (unlike his litter sister who was handed into the RSPCA as a 7 month old!!!), he was groomed & trained, fed a good diet etc. I consider myself to be a good owner, who went with the heart over the head

I m certainly not saying that there should be pups available at the snap of the fingers BUT my story is just one of MANY responsible and dedicated owners who went to another source to purchase a puppy. Breeding a pet litter (i prefer the term companion myself), is seen as such a dirty thing to do in the dog world and I don't understand it ??? If the homes are there, the sire and dam are healthy and pedigrees compatible & you have the time and finances to breed a litter, but perhaps not ready for another dog of your own.... why is that SO WRONG??? It is seen as okay amongst breeders to rehome a 'retired' dog because you have a new youngster but to breed a litter to provide youngsters to dedicated pet families is not???

The reason why puppyfarms, BYBs and pet shops are able to get away with it is because of people who won't wait for a puppy. I waited for four months for a wheaten puppy but I lucked out in meeting a breeder who had just mated his dog. No guarantee of getting one, put on a waiting list, interrogated, and observed, and there aren't a lot of people who are prepared to go through that.

Unfortunately, 'I want it NOW!' and 'Gimme' are well entrenched in our society.

Agreed.

But I am also unsure, SP, where you get the idea that breeders think 'companion animals' are a bad idea? After all, breeders will keep 1 or 2 pups a litter for future breeding and/or showing, what do you think happens to the other puppies? The breeder can't afford to keep each and every canine they have bred so these others go to forever homes; first and foremost as pets although some owners go on to show, train in obedience, agility, fly ball, etc.

Dogs are not plasma TV's which we should be able to buy by the dozen whenever the hell we want. They are living, breathing creatures with needs - I think if you aren't prepared to wait, or prove to a registered breeder/shelter/rescue group that you are the right owner for a particular dog, then you aren't being responsible in the least.

The average pet store, BYB or puppy farmer doesn't care whether you are the 'right' owner, they generally give the wrong information and they don't give a damn whether a dog they have sold will end up dead or abused. This is the main difference between an ethical, registered breeder and a pet store who sells live animals/BYB/puppy farmer.

As many have said before, owning a dog is a privilege, not a right, and if there are 250,000 or so dogs being put to sleep a year then there is definitely more supply then demand!

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I am someone who 'couldn't wait' for a pup and ended up getting my Newfoundland from a pet store - it was purely by chance that I found out he was in the store, but had been looking for one for the past few months and none were available (I was 15/16 at the time, and the plan was for me to get my Newfie over the Christmas holiday period between years 9 and 10 of high school, so I would have the 2 months to raise him and then by the time I was in year 11 and into VCE stuff, he'd be older. There was no point in me getting a puppy during the school year, and it wasn't really appropriate to get a puppy at the same time as starting VCE IMO. But not knowing much about registered breeders etc (although knowing they WERE the preferred option and of course they didn't have pups on demand but even calling New Zealand breeders came up with a big fat zero male puppies), so yep, when I found out there was a male pup in a pet store, mum drove across the city and we picked him up. He was the most amazing, wonderful dog but crossed the bridge at only 8 and a half due to joint issues. HOWEVER at no point in time was he neglected (unlike his litter sister who was handed into the RSPCA as a 7 month old!!!), he was groomed & trained, fed a good diet etc. I consider myself to be a good owner, who went with the heart over the head

I m certainly not saying that there should be pups available at the snap of the fingers BUT my story is just one of MANY responsible and dedicated owners who went to another source to purchase a puppy. Breeding a pet litter (i prefer the term companion myself), is seen as such a dirty thing to do in the dog world and I don't understand it ??? If the homes are there, the sire and dam are healthy and pedigrees compatible & you have the time and finances to breed a litter, but perhaps not ready for another dog of your own.... why is that SO WRONG??? It is seen as okay amongst breeders to rehome a 'retired' dog because you have a new youngster but to breed a litter to provide youngsters to dedicated pet families is not???

The reason why puppyfarms, BYBs and pet shops are able to get away with it is because of people who won't wait for a puppy. I waited for four months for a wheaten puppy but I lucked out in meeting a breeder who had just mated his dog. No guarantee of getting one, put on a waiting list, interrogated, and observed, and there aren't a lot of people who are prepared to go through that.

Unfortunately, 'I want it NOW!' and 'Gimme' are well entrenched in our society.

Agreed.

But I am also unsure, SP, where you get the idea that breeders think 'companion animals' are a bad idea? After all, breeders will keep 1 or 2 pups a litter for future breeding and/or showing, what do you think happens to the other puppies? The breeder can't afford to keep each and every canine they have bred so these others go to forever homes; first and foremost as pets although some owners go on to show, train in obedience, agility, fly ball, etc.

Dogs are not plasma TV's which we should be able to buy by the dozen whenever the hell we want. They are living, breathing creatures with needs - I think if you aren't prepared to wait, or prove to a registered breeder/shelter/rescue group that you are the right owner for a particular dog, then you aren't being responsible in the least.

The average pet store, BYB or puppy farmer doesn't care whether you are the 'right' owner, they generally give the wrong information and they don't give a damn whether a dog they have sold will end up dead or abused. This is the main difference between an ethical, registered breeder and a pet store who sells live animals/BYB/puppy farmer.

As many have said before, owning a dog is a privilege, not a right, and if there are 250,000 or so dogs being put to sleep a year then there is definitely more supply then demand!

not really. there is more supply of dogs with mixed breeding that i wouldnt want (no offence but nowadays i need to know what my puppy or dog will grow into)

there is not enough supply of some breeds of pure bred pedigreed dogs

[Greytmate]

The over supply is mostly with dogs rather than puppies. There is a big demand for puppies.

[SpikesPuppy]

The perceived over supply is with the dogs bred and then sold willy-nilly without care or thought.

Look at the ANKC registration statistics and then compare that to new puppies registered with local councils across Australia- the majority of these puppies will be from less than ideal situations.

One of my puppy buyers had been waiting over 6 moths for a Border, another enquiry had been waiting 4 YEARS for the right pup (unfortunately she contacted me after all pups were spoken for).

Fevah- I cannot quote you at the moment sorry (using my phone), but I know many breeders of so many breeds who speak about 'pet' puppies as if they are nothing more than a nuisance. More than one has said to me that they hate dealing with puppy buyers and breed purely to satisfy their goal of creating the perfect "insert breed here".

You seem to be missing my point though- I NEVER said breeders don't care about their companion puppies, what I actually said was I don't see breeding a litter of healthy, happy puppies that are typical of their breed in appearance and temperament without the intention of running a pup on should be regarded as such a bad thing IF THE HOMES ARE THERE!!

[t-time]

How many dogs are "too" many?

I think if this was addressed, enrichment issues could be taken into account.

A puppy farm has 100/200/300/400 dogs so there is just simply not be enough attention/people enrichment to go around.

If you legislated that part of breeding dogs in intensified situations was that they were required to have a 1 staff to 20 dogs ratio, puppy farms would have to slow down -hopefully enough to not be profitable - or at least if they did employ enough staff - the dogs would be much better looked after and receive more attention.

The welfare of the dogs in these situations is what concerns me (apart from the obvious cross-breeding and no regard for breed standards) but as Steve mentioned earlier, you can't stop individuals from crossbreeding or intensively farming dogs so at least we can aim to improve living conditions. Upping the ante with staff and enrichment sure goes a long way to improving that ideal.

JMHO

[Steve]

How many dogs are "too" many?

I think if this was addressed, enrichment issues could be taken into account.

A puppy farm has 100/200/300/400 dogs so there is just simply not be enough attention/people enrichment to go around.

If you legislated that part of breeding dogs in intensified situations was that they were required to have a 1 staff to 20 dogs ratio, puppy farms would have to slow down -hopefully enough to not be profitable - or at least if they did employ enough staff - the dogs would be much better looked after and receive more attention.

The welfare of the dogs in these situations is what concerns me (apart from the obvious cross-breeding and no regard for breed standards) but as Steve mentioned earlier, you can't stop individuals from crossbreeding or intensively farming dogs so at least we can aim to improve living conditions. Upping the ante with staff and enrichment sure goes a long way to improving that ideal.

JMHO

Some big puppy farmers are saying they do provide these things via their own family and employees. How much enrichment can you provide though if a dog lives its whole life except for 20 mins a day on concrete in a pen?

[Greytmate]

Some big puppy farmers are saying they do provide these things via their own family and employees. How much enrichment can you provide though if a dog lives its whole life except for 20 mins a day on concrete in a pen?

Where in the code does it say that the dogs are only allowed out for twenty minutes? Appropriate enrichment means that some dogs will need a lot more than twenty minutes outside, and I can't see how a Code of Practice would prevent breeders from doing a lot more with the dogs if they wanted to.

Are we discussing enrichment as a proposed reform to the code of practice or not?

There are some dogs that wouldn't need to spend a lot of time out of the enclosure (if we are writing a fair code that covers very old dogs as well as the rest). I would disagree with a code that forces any dogs out of their enclosures for an inappropriately long length of time.

Is there anything in the code that would stop a breeder using their own house to raise dogs in?

Steve please post the Code if you think there are so many problems with it. How can we discuss it with you, consider questions like the one you have posted above, if we don't actually know what is in the proposed code?

[t-time]

Some big puppy farmers are saying they do provide these things via their own family and employees. How much enrichment can you provide though if a dog lives its whole life except for 20 mins a day on concrete in a pen?

No, in those cases we are talking about maybe 10 or 15 people trying to provide enrichment, healthcare, general care for 400 dogs.....not a 1 to 20 ratio.

I picked that ratio as I have 10 dogs and I know others have more successfully but upping the ante to allow for commercial numbers and for someone to be paid for their job..

I didn't know it was 20 minutes per day exercise but I think if it's your "business" a higher standard should be provided and up that 20 minutes to at least 2 hours. That would give one full-time person with 20 dogs heaps of time to feed twice per day, clean twice per day and provide enrichment for 2-3 hours per day. It's not a home environment so let's attempt to at least promote a better environment which is more "home-like" for these dogs

I did not discuss living arrangements as I believe there have been a number of good references to this in thread.

With the photo you posted Steve - I like the idea - inside pens in the shed at night - concrete and chainlink, a nice soft bed is all fine by me and then the rest of the day in those lovely big runs with added human interaction, toys, trees/shade - if there are going to be intensive farms then at least provide this much for the dogs.

[Simply Grand]

How many dogs are "too" many?

I think if this was addressed, enrichment issues could be taken into account.

A puppy farm has 100/200/300/400 dogs so there is just simply not be enough attention/people enrichment to go around.

If you legislated that part of breeding dogs in intensified situations was that they were required to have a 1 staff to 20 dogs ratio, puppy farms would have to slow down -hopefully enough to not be profitable - or at least if they did employ enough staff - the dogs would be much better looked after and receive more attention.

The welfare of the dogs in these situations is what concerns me (apart from the obvious cross-breeding and no regard for breed standards) but as Steve mentioned earlier, you can't stop individuals from crossbreeding or intensively farming dogs so at least we can aim to improve living conditions. Upping the ante with staff and enrichment sure goes a long way to improving that ideal.

JMHO

I like something like this better than a set maximum number. Isn't that what they do with childcare? If someone can meet the requirements re staff and environment and pay the associated costs and still feel that they have a worthwhile business then they can continue. If it is not financially viable for them then they shut down. I have no idea, without the model being tested, whether it would be financially viable to have a large number of dogs, but if it is and they're properly cared for then I think people have the right to run that business if they want, whether we like it or not.

[Simply Grand]

Does anyone know if there are any figures showing how many "puppy farm" puppies go to pet shops? Is it the majority? If so, maybe stopping the selling of animals in pet shops would go a long way to stopping the farms. I know there are a lot who sell via the internet too though.

[MalteseLuna]

The over supply is mostly with dogs rather than puppies. There is a big demand for puppies.

But where do those 'in demand' puppies go... over supply of dogs essentially equals an over supply of puppies to the wrong owners.

How many dogs are "too" many?

I think if this was addressed, enrichment issues could be taken into account.

A puppy farm has 100/200/300/400 dogs so there is just simply not be enough attention/people enrichment to go around.

If you legislated that part of breeding dogs in intensified situations was that they were required to have a 1 staff to 20 dogs ratio, puppy farms would have to slow down -hopefully enough to not be profitable - or at least if they did employ enough staff - the dogs would be much better looked after and receive more attention.

The welfare of the dogs in these situations is what concerns me (apart from the obvious cross-breeding and no regard for breed standards) but as Steve mentioned earlier, you can't stop individuals from crossbreeding or intensively farming dogs so at least we can aim to improve living conditions. Upping the ante with staff and enrichment sure goes a long way to improving that ideal.

JMHO

When you think about the history of domestic dogs, how they originated, how they have been kept in the past etc you see that puppy farms are an artefact of today's consumer driven market.

Dogs evolved not to be kept as livestock for food/transport - they became domesticated as PETS or companions or to help with the hunt etc. This means that dogs EVOLVED to be included in human lives as a part of the 'pack', they are supposed to live with people and bond with people. To me this is why puppy farms and big kennel operations are so immoral - they lack the bond which should exist between human and dog.

I am not anthropomorphizing - it's a simple fact that dogs didn't evolve to live entirely kennels or be kept in paddocks like live stock animals.

Every dog needs to have clean, hygienic living quarters but I think the real difference between puppy farm and responsible breeder is the relationship between dog and owner. A puppy farmer has no relationship with the individual dogs whereas a responsible breeder does because they are PETS and companions not 'living wombs' which exist only to breed puppies to sell for $$$.

There should also be different codes for sizes of dogs - toy dogs simply should not be kept in outdoor runs year round they are too small (I don't think any dog should be kept outside year-round) at the same time they need to have outside time for enrichment/activity. For long haired dogs there needs to be a clause about grooming - i.e. brushing regularly, clipping coat if matted/dirty.

I really think there should be a max limit on the number of dogs you can have i.e. no one person can have more than 50 dogs (which is still high to me) - why people are allowed to have 100+ dogs is beyond me.

I should like to see enforced hours of human interaction for each and every dog PER day, enforced duty of care of dogs which can no longer breed (i.e. you can't just euthanize them or dump them at the pound), enforced rules about breeding dogs with genetic diseases like luxating patellas which is very prevalent in puppy farm dogs, enforced rules about helping pay for costs of vet care of puppies with genetic diseases...

Basically things which make it non-profitable/impossible to breed excessively large numbers of dogs - the average responsible breeder with 1-2 litters a year who health tests etc will not have costs increased by this.

[Fevah]

One of my puppy buyers had been waiting over 6 moths for a Border, another enquiry had been waiting 4 YEARS for the right pup (unfortunately she contacted me after all pups were spoken for).

Fevah- I cannot quote you at the moment sorry (using my phone), but I know many breeders of so many breeds who speak about 'pet' puppies as if they are nothing more than a nuisance. More than one has said to me that they hate dealing with puppy buyers and breed purely to satisfy their goal of creating the perfect "insert breed here".

You seem to be missing my point though- I NEVER said breeders don't care about their companion puppies, what I actually said was I don't see breeding a litter of healthy, happy puppies that are typical of their breed in appearance and temperament without the intention of running a pup on should be regarded as such a bad thing IF THE HOMES ARE THERE!!

Hmmm. Ok I apologise for not understanding your point but you've made it very clear here.

Perhaps there needs to be a study done in regards to which breeds need more breeders to speak for them? I've never had an issue with finding my heart dog (Min Pins) even though there are only 3 breeders here in SA and not a lot (compared to many other more 'popular' breeds) across Australia. I still believe though, if you are one of those people who can't wait, go to a rescue! I don't understand why in the USA/UK they have shelters and pet stores working together and yet here in Australia there doesn't seem to be the same trend.

I never realised some breeders regarded pets in such a negative light :/ I guess a lot of my good experiences have come here from DOL and I haven't really come across that sort of attitude.

As for the bolded bit - agree with you 100% but I do believe at the moment, since we are dealing with so many dogs being euthanized each year, that we should move the public towards rescuing until we get a better balance of supply vs. demand.

When you think about the history of domestic dogs, how they originated, how they have been kept in the past etc you see that puppy farms are an artefact of today's consumer driven market.

Dogs evolved not to be kept as livestock for food/transport - they became domesticated as PETS or companions or to help with the hunt etc. This means that dogs EVOLVED to be included in human lives as a part of the 'pack', they are supposed to live with people and bond with people. To me this is why puppy farms and big kennel operations are so immoral - they lack the bond which should exist between human and dog.

I am not anthropomorphizing - it's a simple fact that dogs didn't evolve to live entirely kennels or be kept in paddocks like live stock animals.

Every dog needs to have clean, hygienic living quarters but I think the real difference between puppy farm and responsible breeder is the relationship between dog and owner. A puppy farmer has no relationship with the individual dogs whereas a responsible breeder does because they are PETS and companions not 'living wombs' which exist only to breed puppies to sell for $$$.

There should also be different codes for sizes of dogs - toy dogs simply should not be kept in outdoor runs year round they are too small (I don't think any dog should be kept outside year-round) at the same time they need to have outside time for enrichment/activity. For long haired dogs there needs to be a clause about grooming - i.e. brushing regularly, clipping coat if matted/dirty.

I really think there should be a max limit on the number of dogs you can have i.e. no one person can have more than 50 dogs (which is still high to me) - why people are allowed to have 100+ dogs is beyond me.

I should like to see enforced hours of human interaction for each and every dog PER day, enforced duty of care of dogs which can no longer breed (i.e. you can't just euthanize them or dump them at the pound), enforced rules about breeding dogs with genetic diseases like luxating patellas which is very prevalent in puppy farm dogs, enforced rules about helping pay for costs of vet care of puppies with genetic diseases...

Basically things which make it non-profitable/impossible to breed excessively large numbers of dogs - the average responsible breeder with 1-2 litters a year who health tests etc will not have costs increased by this.

ML You express yourself far more eloquently then me, but this is essentially what I wanted to say. I do not believe dogs should be kept in 'livestock' like conditions either just because of our consumer driven market!

[Sheridan]

As for the bolded bit - agree with you 100% but I do believe at the moment, since we are dealing with so many dogs being euthanized each year, that we should move the public towards rescuing until we get a better balance of supply vs. demand.

No, no, no.

This is a more polite way of expressing the argument of 'If you get a dog from a breeder, you're killing a dog in a pound' that's used so often by animal rights whackjobs. Frankly, I do not like being told that I have to rescue a dog instead of getting one from a breeder and the argument is illogical anyway. If I could not have a breed that I liked, I wouldn't rescue a dog, I would simply not get one.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Sheridan

[Fevah]

As for the bolded bit - agree with you 100% but I do believe at the moment, since we are dealing with so many dogs being euthanized each year, that we should move the public towards rescuing until we get a better balance of supply vs. demand.

No, no, no.

This is a more polite way of expressing the argument of 'If you get a dog from a breeder, you're killing a dog in a pound' that's used so often by animal rights whackjobs. Frankly, I do not like being told that I have to rescue a dog instead of getting one from a breeder and the argument is illogical anyway. If I could not have a breed that I liked, I wouldn't rescue a dog, I would simply not get one.

No I'm not saying that Sheridan.

Of course those of us who are set on a certain breed will wait and be responsible.

You can't change a whole society from being consumer driven and wanting everything now, now, now overnight - so instead of pointing the general public to BYB/Puppy Farms/Pet Stores there should be a move towards giving rescue dogs a second chance.

I never said it was either one or the other nor do I believe; 'If you get a dog from a breeder, you're killing a dog in a pound'.

If a breeder can guarantee all their pups will be placed in good homes then good on them, 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'.

I don't think I'm expressing myself very well, but I hope you understand what I mean.

[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.

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.

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