Rspca Proposals For A Mandatory Code For Puppy Farmers.

[toy dog]

you will find that they weren't going to include registered breeders until we all kicked up a stink. they were going to just put it across the board like the RSPCA are proposing now.

Sorry I don't quite follow you, could you please explain.

the bill wasn't going to include registered breeders and the goverment was completely by-passing us all, so the VCA set up a govt liaising area/department or whatever you want to call it to be up with all government policies and bills so we get included in on current laws being written and being in the loop.

no the bill wasn't stopped but it was modified to include us.

[Steve]

you will find that they weren't going to include registered breeders until we all kicked up a stink. they were going to just put it across the board like the RSPCA are proposing now.

Sorry I don't quite follow you, could you please explain.

the bill wasn't going to include registered breeders and the goverment was completely by-passing us all, so the VCA set up a govt liaising area/department or whatever you want to call it to be up with all government policies and bills so we get included in on current laws being written and being in the loop.

no the bill wasn't stopped but it was modified to include us.

yeah it included you alright!

[toy dog]

when you look at it, its all geared towards a business, hobby breeders don't make money but the RSPCA probably think because the pedigree dog is so much we make squillons. i don't think anyone in the RSPCA has actually gone out into the field and seen what pedigree dogs are all about. it shows in what they right about under pedigree dogs in their website, i had a debate with one of their staff who wrote to me when i wanted to use their link to puppy farms, i took the chance to inform them that their information is very negative about pedigree dogs and running down pedigree breeders. her response was that pedigree breeders are just as cruel because they cull puppies particularly the rhodesian ridgeback breeders. i said they are in the minority compared to greyhound breeders/traininers who put down dogs in their thousands when they don't make the cut in racing! what are they going to do about that and shouldn't they campaign for greyhounds to be adopted instead of put down? got no response after that.

so RSPCA looked to me like they were out to get the pedigree breeders blood as well as puppy farmers because they see us as one and the same.

how are they going to implement and police all of this? will it still be left up to the shires and councils, if so we know that the shires are doing a wonderful job not policing or monitoring the big big puppy farms because they tell us they have no time they have no resources.

its all will restrict the little people it will not get to the big businesses, because they are already doing all that was listed, ABN numbers, addresses listed etc. etc. so it will be no skin off their noses, it will be skin off the pedigree hobby breeders nose though!!!!!!!

Edited August 6, 2010 by toy dog

[Steve]

Introducing a mandatory licensing scheme means that anyone who wants to breed a dog and be able to sell one will need to be licensed.

Historically this means that a high percentage of these people will play the game in order to get what they want but they will already be

devising ways of dodging what they have agreed to do.

Data coming from the UK would back this up as they are saying there has been minimal impact since the beginning of their licensing system some 10 years ago and those who are less likely to comply with the law have found more ways of avoiding detection.

Licenses would cause a person who is breeding one or two litters per year to come under the same fees and require the same set up etc

as someone who breeds hundreds of litters each year.

A more preferable method of tracking who is breeding how many and where is available via the microchip system.

We see breeders who only vaccinate one male and one female from each litter and photocopy the certificates to go home with all of the puppies, we see breeders who forge vet signatures, change dates etc and some breeders vaccinate their own dogs and issue their own certificates of vaccination. Some breeders register an extra bitch for every pup they keep to enable them to breed every season and still register their litters.

These issues need to be taken into account with any regulation of sale proposals as anyone who wants to circumvent the laws will find ways of doing so. Again make it law and only those who are already doing the right thing will do the right thing.

3.Tightening of export provisions for sale of puppies overseas

Currently breeders who sell puppies en masse’ to overseas export do not own the dog at the time it is exported. This is why even though ANKC codes of practice state that puppies should not be exported until 12 weeks of age thousands of registered purebred pups go our annually to an overseas pet shop at the age of 8 weeks. The breeders sell these pups to a dealer [ in this case Transpet] who then owns the animal and the pup is exported via Sydney the following day.

It enables the registered breeder to remain within their codes of conduct and still be able to utilize this as a method of moving their puppies in bulk for high profits.

Purebred and cross bred puppies which are sent out via a dealer in Perth to Asian pet shops are purchased without any paper work ever showing who the breeder is, with the agent paying for air fares from the eastern states and payments made via a bank account to get them to Perth with no requirement for microchips etc.

Dealers who visit the breeders’ properties in at least NSW and Victoria that I am aware of and take out litter loads of puppies pay cash and on sell the pups to export. No paper work ever changes hands.

These dealers make it very easy for those who are breeding dogs without wanting any involvement in the sale to the owners and who want to remain under the radar to make a very lucrative living. These breeders are the most likely to be those who do not and will not comply with any laws or codes as they avoid selling to the public, advertising or selling to pet shops.

Some may also sell to pet shops but in limited numbers in comparison to those which are sold to dealers.

It is our belief that the export of puppies to overseas pet shops is the most contributing factor in animals being produced for sale in bulk without the need for anyone knowing where they come from or how they are produced.

This is a multi million dollar enterprise with everyone involved having the potential of making large profits. The breeder, the dealer, the transport company, the vets, aqis and the various State Canine Associations all make a lot of money from exportation of puppies each year. It will be a huge task to try to introduce legislation which would see no puppies being exported until 6 months of age and impact so much on the ability for these to trade freely in an international market place. In this month's canine journal one breeder exported 9 litters. The CC wont issue the export pedigree tyill they are 8 weeks old - big deal! By then they are already in their new homes.

The Solutions.

1. The microchip system.

We believe that part of the solution lays in tweaking current microchip laws which are now in place in NSW and introducing that nationwide.

We feel that whoever is responsible for the dog at the time it whelps should be recorded on the microchip details including those who whelp puppies from a rescue situation as well as breeders. Currently anyone who sells a pup to a pet shop, or dealer is able to sell the dog without a chip and therefore the breeder’s details are never entered on the registry.

The dealer or the pet shop do not ever show on the chip details either as the dog is not chipped until it is chipped into the new owners’ name.

If these exemptions were removed council could then see who is breeding dogs, whether the

numbers they have registered ads up of registered parents to puppies produced and it would enable accurate statistics to be available. This would tell the dog’s story from birth to death

and enable us to identify who is breeding dogs most likely to be dumped, who is breeding dogs which are sold to pet shops and export etc. It would give us addresses of breeders and owners and has the potential to do that much better than a licensing system ever could.

Buyers could be fined for purchasing dog without a chip and breeders fined for selling them.

When puppies and dogs are advertised they should be advertised with their chip numbers.

Those breeders who are members of groups such as the MDBA and AAPDA which have an opt in membership with entry criteria, codes of conduct and methods of policing their members should be supported and given the same opportunities for recognition by government bodies as is now conferred on

the purebred show dog breeding associations even though their focus is on the people who breed dogs rather than a stud registry.

The MDBA also have opt in rescue members who are accepted after they meet certain criteria, agree to a code of conduct and are watched and policed which ensures our members are not part of the other problem which sees dogs suffering under the banner of rescue [and breeding] where hoarding is part of the risk factors.

However, no law, will do what it is intended to do unless there is the ability and motivation to police it and considering mandatory micro chipping was introduced in NSW in 1998 and there are still breeders from all groups who sell puppies without microchips to the public and dogs which are not chipped still coming into NSW pounds this does not instill confidence that any new laws will be much more than scoff laws for the people it is most aiming to control.

[toy dog]

you will find that they weren't going to include registered breeders until we all kicked up a stink. they were going to just put it across the board like the RSPCA are proposing now.

Sorry I don't quite follow you, could you please explain.

the bill wasn't going to include registered breeders and the goverment was completely by-passing us all, so the VCA set up a govt liaising area/department or whatever you want to call it to be up with all government policies and bills so we get included in on current laws being written and being in the loop.

no the bill wasn't stopped but it was modified to include us.

yeah it included you alright!

it was modified to recognise a registered breeder and exclude a registered breeder rather from puppy farmers or people trying to sell pups for a quick buck and knowingly selling a dog with a disease. it was a while ago now a bit hazy but we were all going to be lumped in with puppy farmers or large puppy businesses.

you know what went on then Steve??? surely you know what i mean??? I seem to be digging a deeper hole for myself here. im not explaining it well becasue it was a while ago now and alots happened to me since im afraid! we all wrote in and complained to the MP's when they were going to put the bill to the senate in. i think it may have only been in Victoria i can't remember, help me out???

well it looks like no one is going to help me out, but i can get the file when i go home tonight and i will tell you exactly.

its like as though it didn't exist what happened but im pretty sure the reason why we were all up in arms was becuse they didn't mention registered breeders and considered them at all, they were going to lump us on in with the breeders of big puppy businesses i.e. puppy farms and backyard operations.

Edited August 6, 2010 by toy dog

[Jed]

mac'ella

Just been reading a few reactions to my reply Naturally registered breeders are fearfull they will be prevented from breeding by the RSPCA,(I don't agree with a lot of their rules and practices)

Most breeders aren't fearful they will be prevented from breeding. Most registered breeders will walk away when they are required to pay large licence fees, have their names published in newspapers, and are forced to undergo inspections by nameless bureaucrats - in addition to some of the other mooted regulations.

Registered breeders produce an extremely small minority of the pups bred in Australia every year. Each year, they produce a smaller percentage of the whole.

Since docking regulations, the number of breeders of utility dogs has been decimated. So buyers are turning to unregistered byb or puppy farm stock for lack of anything else.

Once these regulations are law, more and more will walk. New breeders will enter the hobby to take the place of those leaving, be unable to deal with the regulations, and they too will walk.

Which is the aim of the organisations framing these regulations.

And when it is nearly impossible to buy a purebred dog, the Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders - aka Puppy Farms - will be able to supply endogenous fluffy crossbreds at inflated prices.

[toy dog]

Naturally registered breeders are fearfull they will be prevented from breeding by the RSPCA,(I don't agree with a lot of their rules and practices) but do you want to just sweep the whole issue under the carpet this will just let the puppy farmers go and do what they like

I think you will find that registered ethical breeders should not, and don't want to be lumped in with Puppy farming businesses. Ethical registered breeders already do the right thing. Puppy farms and puppy factories do not.

I would not like what I do, lumped in with people who raise dogs and puppies like livestock in multiple pens in sheds with absolutely no idea where they end up or who with.

There needs to be legislation that deals with Puppy farms and farmers. I do not think that someone as myself should be mentioned in the same breathe as a puppy farmer.

but this is just the problem in my opinion, who do we recognise as a pedigree puppy farmer? its in my experience that the people who breed to sell puppies hand over fist for profit not to improve a breed and for the breed alone, remain hidden, they are secretative about it they blend with the "hobby" breeder - they don't want anyone to know because they know its wrong??? why else would they hide it??? who would police this? do they break into their houses and check their accounts to find out if they are a puppy farmer? do they have a big sign on their heads?

i think its ridiculous all it will do is penalise the breeders who are doing the right thing. puppy farmers are already doing all the stuff they have written (abn's, registered addresses etc. etc.) and they'll still be laughing all the way to the bank.

JMHO

[zenchel]

you will find that they weren't going to include registered breeders until we all kicked up a stink. they were going to just put it across the board like the RSPCA are proposing now.

Sorry I don't quite follow you, could you please explain.

the bill wasn't going to include registered breeders and the goverment was completely by-passing us all, so the VCA set up a govt liaising area/department or whatever you want to call it to be up with all government policies and bills so we get included in on current laws being written and being in the loop.

no the bill wasn't stopped but it was modified to include us.

yeah it included you alright!

it was modified to recognise a registered breeder and exclude a registered breeder rather from puppy farmers or people trying to sell pups for a quick buck and knowingly selling a dog with a disease. it was a while ago now a bit hazy but we were all going to be lumped in with puppy farmers or large puppy businesses.

you know what went on then Steve??? surely you know what i mean??? I seem to be digging a deeper hole for myself here. im not explaining it well becasue it was a while ago now and alots happened to me since im afraid! we all wrote in and complained to the MP's when they were going to put the bill to the senate in. i think it may have only been in Victoria i can't remember, help me out???

well it looks like no one is going to help me out, but i can get the file when i go home tonight and i will tell you exactly.

its like as though it didn't exist what happened but im pretty sure the reason why we were all up in arms was becuse they didn't mention registered breeders and considered them at all, they were going to lump us on in with the breeders of big puppy businesses i.e. puppy farms and backyard operations.

There seems to be some confusion about the chain of events that led to the establishment of the Victorian POCTA Heritable Defects Code of Practice. The legislation was foreshadowed sometime in 2007 (maybe even the year before, can't quite remember). The fact that there was going to be some legislation of this type was fairly common knowledge; I was told about it in 2007 and thought "omigod no, they can't do this!" The VCA Management was also made aware of it, however they obviously thought the same as I did and hoped it would all go away.

Well, it didn't - the dog community in Vic found out about the legislation when it went into the House for its second reading and all hell broke loose. The legislation was passed with the addition of a Code of Practice which was drawn up with the assistance of Dr Bruce Robertson (ACES Chief Panellist), Dr Karen Hedberg (Vet and Chair of ANKC Canine Health), Dr Steve Tait (Bureau of Animal Welfare, DPI), George Sofronidis from GTG and various other interested parties including RSPCA and a working party from the VCA, who had precious little input, not through lack of trying.

The Code of Practice sets out to clarify what is legal or not legal in the implementation of the law covering the five diseases mentioned - PRA, vWD, HC, NCL and CEA, all of which have a DNA test available. It all became incredibly confusing and convoluted, which imo it still is. The CoP doesn't do registered breeders any favours, it simply allows certain mating combinations under breeding programs set up through an "approved organisation", in this case Dogs Victoria. This is why all the breed clubs have been asked by Dogs Vic to submit any breeding programs that they have operating and breed clubs have been working hard to set up programs that cover their members under the Code of Practice.

Not only does the legislation do us no favours, it actively discriminates against us. The problem is that it relies on proof of parentage and testing, due to the fact that it covers diseases that have DNA tests. With puppy farms and dogs obtained through pet shops, there is no way to prove who those pups' parents are and therefore if they've been tested for whatever disease it is. Hence the importance of making microchipping at point of breeding rather than point of sale mandatory and also requiring all sellers of puppies to declare where the puppy was bred. Out of interest, at a final meeting with Minister Helper before the Code was accepted, the Dogs Vic and the RSPCA representatives were in furious agreement that in its present state, the Code is useless against puppy farmers

Code of Practice

Hope this helps,

Sylvia Power

Chair

Canine Health Committee

Dogs Victoria

[toy dog]

thank you Sylvia for clearing that up!

[JRzipper]

Good post Sylvia,

The CoP sure did cause some confusion for the Victorian breed clubs whose breed was nominated in the CoP for a disease we'd never seen. I followed this up with Dr Tate at the time to try and find out what the basis for listing this disease for Bullmastiffs was. I never really got a satisfactory answer as he didn't seem too sure what the origin of the list of Breeds against each disease was, which I found a bit disturbing.

PRA is listed against the Bullmastiff which surprised the hell out of the Bullmastiff community as we just don't see it here. Then it was discovered that the only PRA test we could do here wouldn't apply as the Bullmastiff form of PRA is dominant PRA for which there wasn't a test available in Australia at the time (I think there is now). Despite a pretty extensive search by breed club members and veterinary networks we weren't able to identify one confirmed case of dominant (or any other) PRA in the Bullmastiff in Australia. Looking overseas we found a couple of confirmed cases in the US. Given that is a dominant form of the disease which means it only takes one parent to pass it on, we should have at least seen some evidence of the disease if any affected dog had been bred from.

Some proactive clubs in other states are now proposing a national program that will see any imported Bullmastiffs or semen tested for dominant PRA before they are used in any breeding programs, which I think is a sensible step even though I personally still feel that PRA in Bullmastiffs shouldn't even be in the CoP since there is no evidence it has ever been a problem here.

JR

[Parkeyre]

We see breeders who only vaccinate one male and one female from each litter and photocopy the certificates to go home with all of the puppies, we see breeders who forge vet signatures, change dates etc and some breeders vaccinate their own dogs and issue their own certificates of vaccination. Some breeders register an extra bitch for every pup they keep to enable them to breed every season and still register their litters.

That is insane!

Some very dodgy people out there!

[zenchel]

Good post Sylvia,

The CoP sure did cause some confusion for the Victorian breed clubs whose breed was nominated in the CoP for a disease we'd never seen. I followed this up with Dr Tate at the time to try and find out what the basis for listing this disease for Bullmastiffs was. I never really got a satisfactory answer as he didn't seem too sure what the origin of the list of Breeds against each disease was, which I found a bit disturbing.

PRA is listed against the Bullmastiff which surprised the hell out of the Bullmastiff community as we just don't see it here. Then it was discovered that the only PRA test we could do here wouldn't apply as the Bullmastiff form of PRA is dominant PRA for which there wasn't a test available in Australia at the time (I think there is now). Despite a pretty extensive search by breed club members and veterinary networks we weren't able to identify one confirmed case of dominant (or any other) PRA in the Bullmastiff in Australia. Looking overseas we found a couple of confirmed cases in the US. Given that is a dominant form of the disease which means it only takes one parent to pass it on, we should have at least seen some evidence of the disease if any affected dog had been bred from.

Some proactive clubs in other states are now proposing a national program that will see any imported Bullmastiffs or semen tested for dominant PRA before they are used in any breeding programs, which I think is a sensible step even though I personally still feel that PRA in Bullmastiffs shouldn't even be in the CoP since there is no evidence it has ever been a problem here.

JR

Yep, this is the same situation in several breeds and several diseases. Simply because there is a DNA test available doesn't mean the disease exists in that breed in this country. In Dr Tate's defence, he stated at the Dogs Vic seminar on the Code of Practice that each breed/disease needs to be examined on its own merits to establish where the breed is at and each breed community needs to figure out a breeding program that is in the best interests of the breed.

S.

[mac'ella]

I can see some good ideas coming out now.

No one I feel is lumping ethical breeders in with puppy farmers the question is how do we separate the high volume registered breeders from the hobbie and show breeders and then the straight out puppy farmers.I think that the breed clubs should have a large say in who obtains and keeps a licence.I visited a few ''licenced'' breeders who would not allow us to view the parents or the story of the pups are only kept here to sell cos we dont want dog fighters dognapping our dogs mmmm maybe.They could all rattle off the names of other breeders who their pups descended from, if this was true I think this is a good reason to sell only desexed dogs to anyone who is not recognised by the breed club.This could also reduce the cross breeders as well,the limited registar does not stop them.

With micro chipping, if dogs from any breeder turn up at pounds or with unsuitable owners at a high rate they should be deregistered that way the good ethical breeders who vet their prospective buyers will survive which will in turn keep the breed standards high.

Pet shops and (especially market stalls) should be banned immediately from keeping pups in the ''shop'' and only recommend available breeders, both for health reasons and also for the fact that litters are suddenly taken from the mother usually at only 6 weeks and gradually reduced to the last pup which is left alone overnight.Take a look at the reptile system you cant buy them in shops, only from the breeder and I dont think reptiles suffer from anxiety and separation issues.

People who go looking for the cheapest pup are more likely to refuse or can't afford to pay for vet care in my opinion they therefore cant afford to own a dog.

[Sheridan]

I can see some good ideas coming out now.

No one I feel is lumping ethical breeders in with puppy farmers the question is how do we separate the high volume registered breeders from the hobbie and show breeders and then the straight out puppy farmers.I think that the breed clubs should have a large say in who obtains and keeps a licence.I visited a few ''licenced'' breeders who would not allow us to view the parents or the story of the pups are only kept here to sell cos we dont want dog fighters dognapping our dogs mmmm maybe.They could all rattle off the names of other breeders who their pups descended from, if this was true I think this is a good reason to sell only desexed dogs to anyone who is not recognised by the breed club.This could also reduce the cross breeders as well,the limited registar does not stop them.

With micro chipping, if dogs from any breeder turn up at pounds or with unsuitable owners at a high rate they should be deregistered that way the good ethical breeders who vet their prospective buyers will survive which will in turn keep the breed standards high.

Pet shops and (especially market stalls) should be banned immediately from keeping pups in the ''shop'' and only recommend available breeders, both for health reasons and also for the fact that litters are suddenly taken from the mother usually at only 6 weeks and gradually reduced to the last pup which is left alone overnight.Take a look at the reptile system you cant buy them in shops, only from the breeder and I dont think reptiles suffer from anxiety and separation issues.

People who go looking for the cheapest pup are more likely to refuse or can't afford to pay for vet care in my opinion they therefore cant afford to own a dog.

Not every breed has a breed club and some breed communities are so divided that neither side could be trusted to be objective about the other.

[mac'ella]

I can see some good ideas coming out now.

No one I feel is lumping ethical breeders in with puppy farmers the question is how do we separate the high volume registered breeders from the hobbie and show breeders and then the straight out puppy farmers.I think that the breed clubs should have a large say in who obtains and keeps a licence.I visited a few ''licenced'' breeders who would not allow us to view the parents or the story of the pups are only kept here to sell cos we dont want dog fighters dognapping our dogs mmmm maybe.They could all rattle off the names of other breeders who their pups descended from, if this was true I think this is a good reason to sell only desexed dogs to anyone who is not recognised by the breed club.This could also reduce the cross breeders as well,the limited registar does not stop them.

With micro chipping, if dogs from any breeder turn up at pounds or with unsuitable owners at a high rate they should be deregistered that way the good ethical breeders who vet their prospective buyers will survive which will in turn keep the breed standards high.

Pet shops and (especially market stalls) should be banned immediately from keeping pups in the ''shop'' and only recommend available breeders, both for health reasons and also for the fact that litters are suddenly taken from the mother usually at only 6 weeks and gradually reduced to the last pup which is left alone overnight.Take a look at the reptile system you cant buy them in shops, only from the breeder and I dont think reptiles suffer from anxiety and separation issues.

People who go looking for the cheapest pup are more likely to refuse or can't afford to pay for vet care in my opinion they therefore cant afford to own a dog.

Not every breed has a breed club and some breed communities are so divided that neither side could be trusted to be objective about the other.

Too true Sheridan and that creates problems for themselves but I think the issue is to weed out those who are breeding numerous litters without any thought of maintaining the standards and show no interest other than money in the breed.there are also the ''pioneers''who want to import a new breed,but these would probably have been involved with other breeds or with that breed in other countries,so would have a reputation good or bad and Im sure theres a lot involved,also with the less popular breeds these wouldnt be targeted by puppy farmers and it would be near impossible to buy undesexed dogs to breed with its more the ones who cash in on the breed of the moment and designer dogs,

Years ago our family bought a giant schnauzer out of the one of the first Australian litters these dogs had great temps and were very healthy others imported later in other states had bad temps which may have been either bad luck or bad choice but it could have destroyed the breeds reputation in Australia.

[Steve]

Sorry I think having breed clubs decide who should and who shouldnt breed is a horrible idea.

Many of us wont join breed clubs for numerous reasons.

[WreckitWhippet]

Sorry I think having breed clubs decide who should and who shouldnt breed is a horrible idea.

Many of us wont join breed clubs for numerous reasons.

Yep.

[Sheridan]

I can see some good ideas coming out now.

No one I feel is lumping ethical breeders in with puppy farmers the question is how do we separate the high volume registered breeders from the hobbie and show breeders and then the straight out puppy farmers.I think that the breed clubs should have a large say in who obtains and keeps a licence.I visited a few ''licenced'' breeders who would not allow us to view the parents or the story of the pups are only kept here to sell cos we dont want dog fighters dognapping our dogs mmmm maybe.They could all rattle off the names of other breeders who their pups descended from, if this was true I think this is a good reason to sell only desexed dogs to anyone who is not recognised by the breed club.This could also reduce the cross breeders as well,the limited registar does not stop them.

With micro chipping, if dogs from any breeder turn up at pounds or with unsuitable owners at a high rate they should be deregistered that way the good ethical breeders who vet their prospective buyers will survive which will in turn keep the breed standards high.

Pet shops and (especially market stalls) should be banned immediately from keeping pups in the ''shop'' and only recommend available breeders, both for health reasons and also for the fact that litters are suddenly taken from the mother usually at only 6 weeks and gradually reduced to the last pup which is left alone overnight.Take a look at the reptile system you cant buy them in shops, only from the breeder and I dont think reptiles suffer from anxiety and separation issues.

People who go looking for the cheapest pup are more likely to refuse or can't afford to pay for vet care in my opinion they therefore cant afford to own a dog.

Not every breed has a breed club and some breed communities are so divided that neither side could be trusted to be objective about the other.

Too true Sheridan and that creates problems for themselves but I think the issue is to weed out those who are breeding numerous litters without any thought of maintaining the standards and show no interest other than money in the breed.there are also the ''pioneers''who want to import a new breed,but these would probably have been involved with other breeds or with that breed in other countries,so would have a reputation good or bad and Im sure theres a lot involved,also with the less popular breeds these wouldnt be targeted by puppy farmers and it would be near impossible to buy undesexed dogs to breed with its more the ones who cash in on the breed of the moment and designer dogs,

Years ago our family bought a giant schnauzer out of the one of the first Australian litters these dogs had great temps and were very healthy others imported later in other states had bad temps which may have been either bad luck or bad choice but it could have destroyed the breeds reputation in Australia.

No, it doesn't. Frankly, some breeds are better off without clubs.

Sorry I think having breed clubs decide who should and who shouldnt breed is a horrible idea.

Many of us wont join breed clubs for numerous reasons.

+1

Breed clubs are a great idea as long as there are no people involved.

[Steve]

+1

Breed clubs are a great idea as long as there are no people involved.

definitely

[sandgrubber]

Seems to me that whatever law gets enacted, it will be no better than its enforcement. The detailed nature of the proposed laws invites highly intrusive enforcement and in my years in Australia I didn't sense that authorities, in most locations, were likely to be willing or able to enforce such laws.

I've moved to a county in California where we have manditory desexing, but breeders can get licensed to keep entire dogs with vet certificates. The law isn't used much and the vet I checked in with seems to be more interested in whether you give heartworm meds than anything else. The mandatory desexing rules are likely to be acted on if anyone is in frequent violation of dog laws (wandering dogs, dogs killing livestock, aggressive dogs not under control, dog fighting, etc.) Aside from these things, there's no enforcement and everyone seems pretty much to ignore the law. California and almost every county in the state are nearly bankrupt and people don't like government meddling.

The numbers of dogs and cats in shelters has gone way down under these programs, probably because anyone can get a spey or neuter done for $42 under the subsidized scheme. I don't think there are any puppy farms left in the county... but I don't think that is due to mandatory desexing laws. I don't think I've seen a single oodle in the months I've been here (lots of chihuahua crosses, though).

I don't think I've said this very well .. . but I do think there are much better ways to cut down on abuses in dog breeding than nanny state legislation. And I'm amused to find what seems, on paper, to be highly intrusive legislation works pretty well in practice here. . . cause it is mostly ignored.

Edited August 9, 2010 by sandgrubber