Breeder Feedback - Criteria To Determine Acceptable Breeding Practises

[BJean]

Dogs Victoria (insert and therfore Dogs NSW, QLD and SA)

are establishing criteria to

determine whether a member's breeding practices are acceptable to the organisation.

Motivation stems from the RSPCA legistlation against puppy farms - Dogs VIctoria supports the RSCPA legislation

so it needs to come up with a system to categorise ANKC breeders.

If we try to purge the organisation of puppy farmers without such measurable criteria we face a significant legal risk.

Proposed Criteria:

We are offended by large numbers of puppies so should we set a limit on the number of litters per

year ? Would such a limit be fair across all breeds ?

For example a limit of three litters could equate

to 30 puppies for a Boxer breeder, but only 9 puppies for a French Bulldog breeder.

Also, would we penalise 4 litters in one year if none had been produced in the previous year ? Or would we average

the number over a given period, for example any three year period ?

Should we limit the number of puppies ? Again fairness across all breeds has to be considered – a

limit of 20 puppies might equate to 1 ½ litters of Great Danes but 7 litters of Pugs.

We currently limit the number of litters a bitch can produce – should we limit the use of a stud dog ?

Should we limit the number of breeds any one member can breed with ? Puppy farmers often have

five or more breeds, and the breeds change with the market. How many breeds can a member

effectively manage under an acceptable breeding program ? Would the number depend upon such

factors as the size of the dog, or the size of the litters of that breed. What other factors would need

to be considered ?

Should a breeder be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of their program ? For example a

specific number of titles ?

How would we view a breeder who shows regularly and successfully, breeds excessively, and uses

the proceeds of their breeding to finance the importation of good specimens of the breed ?

How do we define the difference between commercial and hobby breeding ?

Should the VCA conduct random inspections of members kennels and breeding?

Reg 3.7.7.empowers to VCA to do so but what would the inspection be gauged against ?

http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/Content.asp...6&SubID=400

Edited August 2, 2010 by lilli

[Sandra777]

Should a breeder be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of their program ? For example a

specific number of titles ?

Just thinking of really popular breeds here with strong breed clubs. Someone who only shows at speciality shows has virtually no chance of titling large numbers of their dogs, but a could have all their dogs placing highly in classes of 20 or 30 5 or 6 times (or more) a year. Are they inferior breeders to someone who breeds the same amount, plays the game, knows the "right" judges and gets multiple dogs made up but is never seen out under a judge they know won't be facey??

Performance/Obedience titles are different obviously, so I mean specifically conformation titles here.

How would we view a breeder who shows regularly and successfully, breeds excessively, and uses

the proceeds of their breeding to finance the importation of good specimens of the breed ?

These people used to be viewed as the lynchpins of the development of breeds. Breeding high quality dogs and importing high quality dogs to improve the breed can only be good things surely? People who obviously know what they're doing surely should be encouraged to do it, rather than allowing the weird mentality to creep in where those that are good at something have to be judged by the standards used to judge those that shouldn't be in charge of a pet rock let alone a breeding programme.

[oakway]

Dogs Victoria (insert and therfore Dogs NSW, QLD and SA)

are establishing criteria to

determine whether a member's breeding practices are acceptable to the organisation.

Motivation stems from the RSPCA legistlation against puppy farms - Dogs VIctoria supports the RSCPA legislation

so it needs to come up with a system to categorise ANKC breeders.

If we try to purge the organisation of puppy farmers without such measurable criteria we face a significant legal risk.

Proposed Criteria:

We are offended by large numbers of puppies so should we set a limit on the number of litters per

year ? Would such a limit be fair across all breeds ?

For example a limit of three litters could equate

to 30 puppies for a Boxer breeder, but only 9 puppies for a French Bulldog breeder.

Also, would we penalise 4 litters in one year if none had been produced in the previous year ? Or would we average

the number over a given period, for example any three year period ?

Should we limit the number of puppies ? Again fairness across all breeds has to be considered – a

limit of 20 puppies might equate to 1 ½ litters of Great Danes but 7 litters of Pugs.

We currently limit the number of litters a bitch can produce – should we limit the use of a stud dog ?

Should we limit the number of breeds any one member can breed with ? Puppy farmers often have

five or more breeds, and the breeds change with the market. How many breeds can a member

effectively manage under an acceptable breeding program ? Would the number depend upon such

factors as the size of the dog, or the size of the litters of that breed. What other factors would need

to be considered ?

Should a breeder be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of their program ? For example a

specific number of titles ?

How would we view a breeder who shows regularly and successfully, breeds excessively, and uses

the proceeds of their breeding to finance the importation of good specimens of the breed ?

How do we define the difference between commercial and hobby breeding ?

Should the VCA conduct random inspections of members kennels and breeding?

Reg 3.7.7.empowers to VCA to do so but what would the inspection be gauged against ?

http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/Content.asp...6&SubID=400

Well that's one way to kill the dog world off.

[WreckitWhippet]

The CC's play right into the RSPCA's hands.

[whippets]

Since when did a hobby become a job?

[bordacollies4me]

Dogs QLD are implementing an Accredited Breeders Scheme...

http://www.dogsqueensland.org.au/Member-Forms.aspx

[Bisart Dobes]

And here we were concerned about the new regulation in regards to showing mated bitches

When did Hugh Wurth become the CEO of the VCA ??????????

[Parkeyre]

There goes dog breeding..

[amstaffchick]

Should we limit the number of puppies ? Again fairness across all breeds has to be considered – a

limit of 20 puppies might equate to 1 ½ litters of Great Danes but 7 litters of Pugs.

WTF??? So what does the Dane Breeder do with the other 1/2 a litter? get a fine for every pup he/she produces over said limit?

[oakway]

At the moment we have so many changes to rules and regulations.

What's more they are being aired so publicly.

These so called rules are usually just sprung upon us.

I am starting to wonder if this just a smoke screen to keep us all busy while something else is going on far bigger.

Maybe we should all be digging deeper to find out if there is.

[asal]

Should we limit the number of puppies ? Again fairness across all breeds has to be considered – a

limit of 20 puppies might equate to 1 ½ litters of Great Danes but 7 litters of Pugs.

WTF??? So what does the Dane Breeder do with the other 1/2 a litter? get a fine for every pup he/she produces over said limit?

naturally.

if theres going to be so much less breeders there has to be some way to keep fees comming in surely

n what about the toy breeds with one or two pups?

but as i was told once before when the number of litters was passed and asked what about if u have a one pup one litter mum?

thats only produced 6 boys to date. that to want another chance at a girl is only puppy farming.

so ..... surely anyone that cant find their one to keep in a litter of 10 has no excuse to need a second litter surely?

in my case my girl had "litter" 7 luckily before the rule came in and bingo have my long awaited bitch puppy. yay. do i care it made me a puppy farmer?

couldnt give a rats anymore.

let em legistlate emselves out of business, thats whats its going to come too. they wont be able to afford the rates or the rent or whatever it costs to stay at erskin park if the incoming rules end up so few to register the income just will no longer be there to pay for it and staff.

why should a breeder of a big litter breed be able to have 20 pups n more pups to the one bitch n not be labled puppy farmer yet a small litter breeder is?

ive a friend whose golden retriver had 32 pups in her first two litters

she had 5 litters in her lifetime. u do the maths. she never had less than 14 pups.

Edited August 3, 2010 by asal

[BJean]

The CC's play right into the RSPCA's hands.

Or in conjunction with them.

Isnt the President of DogsNSW aiming to be the next CEO of the RSPCA?

DogsViC are supporting the RSPCA's proposals for puppy farms ie a licensing system, desexing, inspections and more powers to the RSCPA,

so "to protect their members" DogsVic are trying to come up with definitions of what a puppy farm is.

I am so disheartened by DogsVic response,

I've written letters to DogsVic about the RSPCA and I get the run around -

My AGM items asking DogsVic their position on the RSPCA and what it means for their beeder members - the CEO rang me hours before the deadline to tell me that my submitted "discussion paper" was too detailed for inclusion as AGM items, my option was to reword the AGM Items or submit them the management committee for comment/feedback.

Of course months pass and I have no feedback.

They wont listen and there is no in. You cant change anything because they block you out and its like no other breeders care. DogsVic and the other CCs are sending us down the river and there is nothing we can do because it seems we just pay our fees and shutup.

The alternative is to not be a member and not to breed dogs anymore, but then that is a win to the RSPCA.

But then so is to be a member of Dogs Vic.

So now DogsVic is trying to come up with a system to categorise puppy farms and 'excessive' puppies, litters, breedings.

How would we view a breeder who shows regularly and successfully, breeds excessively, and uses the proceeds of their breeding to finance the importation of good specimens of the breed ?

Look how they now paint as questionable and akin to scum of the earth, the cornerstone breeders who raised the standards of their breeds. There go all the breeders who ever made an impact and showed me what good breeders do for a breed.

To breed for your breed is now something to be shameful of, anything more than three litters per year is 'excessive'.

DogsVic are not protecting or standing up for their members rights against an RSPCA legislative push - DogsVic are prepping their members and paving the way for it.

I believe it has got to the point where the CCs have never been before - a point where pedigree dog breeders desperately need a registry alternative because there is nothing else, because what is available will decimate their breed and numbers.

The Hunting club in Vic has 1000s of members, many more than Dogs Vic ....

why cant there be another representative body for pedigree dogs?

I've heard the nay reasonings before (and been in agreement with them), but now I am in despair as I cant see how anything else can be done as the CCs are not run by those who give their life to dogs, but by 9-5 bureaucrat sycophants.

I used to think there was hope for the CCs but not anymore. Not by DogsVic response.

I want to do something to save my pedigree registry and organisation but there is nothing I can do, its being pushed towards a future that I find untenable and there's no means to change its course unless your part of the status quo and will tow the anti-breeder line.

I think of ways to utilise dual citizenship and somewhere wrangle FCI pedigrees for my dogs, but I cant stand to abandonn a sinking ship. I cant stand to walk away and give up and I'm frustrated because I cant see options. I'm infuriated at the apathetic numbnut breeders who think what DogsVic are doing is just fine, I'm fed up with the DogsVic runaround, I want to hit (sorry balkan temper coming through) the vacuous and seemingly oblivious exhibitors who are content to sit on their arses doing nothing but whinge, those blonks will do nothing and just shuffle along and follow whatever organisation will give them their pedigree. I suppose if it doesn't seem to effect them directly and right now, then it's not a concern for them. Or maybe they derive pious self-satisfaction that they're doing the right thing. Who knows.

Edited August 3, 2010 by lilli

[Steve]

You know for me breeding has been a passion almost like a religion. Ive enjoyed the thrill of it all and the opportunity its given me to grow a little ,learn about science and nutrition, natural pet care and I have had a fair buzz out of knowing Ive made so many families happy as well as being able to brag about the occasional champ.

Maybe Im just getting old but it sure doesn't feel like the hobby of breeding dogs is anywhere near the fun it used to be.

I truly believe that rather than making it more difficult to be a registered breeder it should be made easier. I think the more we breed - well the less demand their will be for pet shop pups and the like.

My dogs live as well as my kids do and I'm arrogant enough to believe I'm capable of making decisions on what is best for my dogs without every tiny detail being dictated to me by people who seem to be on a mission to shrink the gene pool of our breeding purebred dogs and control us more with our dogs than we are with our kids.

Its bad enough when a bunch of idiots in government think they know whats best for my dogs but its starting to erode my passion to know that the very people who should be standing up to them are

backing us into a corner.

[Bisart Dobes]

You know for me breeding has been a passion almost like a religion. Ive enjoyed the thrill of it all and the opportunity its given me to grow a little ,learn about science and nutrition, natural pet care and I have had a fair buzz out of knowing Ive made so many families happy as well as being able to brag about the occasional champ.

Maybe Im just getting old but it sure doesn't feel like the hobby of breeding dogs is anywhere near the fun it used to be.

I truly believe that rather than making it more difficult to be a registered breeder it should be made easier. I think the more we breed - well the less demand their will be for pet shop pups and the like.

My dogs live as well as my kids do and I'm arrogant enough to believe I'm capable of making decisions on what is best for my dogs without every tiny detail being dictated to me by people who seem to be on a mission to shrink the gene pool of our breeding purebred dogs and control us more with our dogs than we are with our kids.

Its bad enough when a bunch of idiots in government think they know whats best for my dogs but its starting to erode my passion to know that the very people who should be standing up to them are

backing us into a corner.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Bisart Dobes]

They wont listen and there is no in. You cant change anything because they block you out and its like no other breeders care. DogsVic and the other CCs are sending us down the river and there is nothing we can do because it seems we just pay our fees and shutup.

The alternative is to not be a member and not to breed dogs anymore, but then that is a win to the RSPCA.

But then so is to be a member of Dogs Vic.

/quote]

This is a great concern to alot of breeders I have spoken to over the past week or so. But in order to make a difference we need to stand together and stand up for our rights and our dogs rights.

OR:

We can finally make those moves towards a new National Canine Association and blow the lot of them. The cat fancy have 3 governing body's and horses even more - why do we need to be bogged down by the CC's that now exist when they are not fighting FOR us.

[Steve]

At the moment we have so many changes to rules and regulations.

What's more they are being aired so publicly.

These so called rules are usually just sprung upon us.

I am starting to wonder if this just a smoke screen to keep us all busy while something else is going on far bigger.

Maybe we should all be digging deeper to find out if there is.

There is something going on in the back ground.

The Bateman report in the UK was being watched with much anticipation and the recommendations in it were welcomed by all of the welfare orgs I'm aware of.

In that the main recommendation was for an independent body to oversee all canine related activities. This would see the CCs answering to an independent body which assessed what could and could not be used in breed standards, what could and could not be done pretty much across the board - not just in breeding but showing, training and all other things we do with our dogs.

Pretty much the basic message was - its time now for the CCs to sort out whether they are going to be nothing but a stud registry - which is what they started out to be or whether they would be more focused on welfare. The threat of course is that if they dont show they are making decisions based on welfare that they will be considered incapable of making decisions on whats best for dogs and they will answer to a higher power.

So what is happening now which seems to be in quick succession across the board may be about showing that they are able to take these things into their own hands.

However, this is folly and its kind of like feeding crocodiles where they get a little bit closer each time and make you think you're safe before they eat your arms off.

[Steve]

My concern is that even if a miracle happened and a new Canine Association were to set up - by the time they get enough umph its going to be too late as they are sold out already.

I stand back and I watch periodically how a couple make a move to making it happen and then it dies out because they fight to the death before they even get it off the ground.

Purebred breeders have this crazy belief that they are better than anyone else and they are immune from being pushed out .They beat their chests about puppy farmers but they dont see that they are held in as much if not more contempt than those they think are the targets.

The MDBA is doing all we can to best defend our members but they wack into us and beat us about to try to chase us off too as if we are the enemy. Give them a new org and they wont join anyway.

[alpha bet]

The most simple solution is usually the most obvious.... just that the powers that be don't wish to address it.

Number 1 objective should be : Pushing for regulation to prevent the sale of puppies thru petshops.

One of the reasons the commercial puppy farmer gave at the Building Better Dogs Seminar was that the registered dogs are not being produced in sufficient numbers to meet the public demand. Although we do have to question where these statistics are coming from!

It is not necessary for the Purebreed Associations nor the RSPCA to restrict the Association membership from having litters. Chances are the industry would start to settle into an acceptable level as the excessive breeders have lost the avenue to 'dump' excess puppies via the pet stores, hence they are likely to reduce their breeding program over time, whereas the 'acceptable' breeders are often breeding with some puppies being pre-ordered and/or only running one litter at any one time which gives a stronger likelyhood of homeing all pups.

Stopping the Pet Shops provides the advantage of:

1. immediately removes the spontaneous purchase of puppies by the general public.

2. removes the retail outlet for the BYB who thinks they can make some quick bucks.

3. no longer provides the commercial puppy farmer with a retail outlet; or for somewhere to dump their excess stock.

4. even the Registered Breeders who have excess stock will not be able to dump them (without papers).

How can we start to Halt the Pet Shops ?

The easiest way is to start to hit them in their wallets. Lets place stronger restrictions on the Pet Shop instead of the Association Members. Making it more difficult to get a pup thru retails. Some examples:

1. Live animals cannot be sold to people under the age of 18 (proof required) and therefore cannot be sold by staff under the age of 18 - - (responsible adults to ensure correct education - same as selling cigarettes or alcohol).

2. Staff member must have received a certificate to authorise them to sell live pets. This could be like many industries that require the staff member has competed a course (e.g. forklift license / OH&S / St Johns). These could be run by Lort Smith / RSPCA etc. - could be a two day course that costs similar to other industry courses which allows for these charities to make some extra money. A certificate could have a life of 3 years (same as First Aid) to ensure that the holder is able to ensure they are updated with any state laws.

3. Public who wish to purchase a dog/cat have to fill out an application form - This must have proof of identifaction so that the pup can be microchipped and registered prior to collection. Perhaps the form needs to be authorised by a JP and then they can collect their pet in a couple of days. This is a similar system to the application for gun laws.

I know this is somewhat wishful thinking - however perhaps we need to aim high....... get rid of the petshops and leave the breeders alone.

[angelsun]

The question comes to mind....will these rules help or will they simply push a large number of people to drop their membership to their controlling body and breed anyway...seeing as these unregistered dogs will not be under the umbrella of people like the VCA?

Sure they will not be able to show/trial....but the way many of the shows go and the blantent politics that happen (predetermined winners at 8am) Many are disillusioned now and ready to throw in the proverbial towel when it comes to dog shows.

For those that truly adore their breed and want to protect it...a championship title isn't needed...good strong ethics to breed healthy dogs are.....being associated with the controling kennel registry won't stop people from breeding nice healthy dogs....suddenly those employed at our state registries may find they don't have the work load...and then *gasp* perhaps they won't have a job.....trickle down effect is amazing sometimes.

[asal]

The most simple solution is usually the most obvious.... just that the powers that be don't wish to address it.

Number 1 objective should be : Pushing for regulation to prevent the sale of puppies thru petshops.

One of the reasons the commercial puppy farmer gave at the Building Better Dogs Seminar was that the registered dogs are not being produced in sufficient numbers to meet the public demand. Although we do have to question where these statistics are coming from!

It is not necessary for the Purebreed Associations nor the RSPCA to restrict the Association membership from having litters. Chances are the industry would start to settle into an acceptable level as the excessive breeders have lost the avenue to 'dump' excess puppies via the pet stores, hence they are likely to reduce their breeding program over time, whereas the 'acceptable' breeders are often breeding with some puppies being pre-ordered and/or only running one litter at any one time which gives a stronger likelyhood of homeing all pups.

Stopping the Pet Shops provides the advantage of:

1. immediately removes the spontaneous purchase of puppies by the general public.

2. removes the retail outlet for the BYB who thinks they can make some quick bucks.

3. no longer provides the commercial puppy farmer with a retail outlet; or for somewhere to dump their excess stock.

4. even the Registered Breeders who have excess stock will not be able to dump them (without papers).

How can we start to Halt the Pet Shops ?

The easiest way is to start to hit them in their wallets. Lets place stronger restrictions on the Pet Shop instead of the Association Members. Making it more difficult to get a pup thru retails. Some examples:

1. Live animals cannot be sold to people under the age of 18 (proof required) and therefore cannot be sold by staff under the age of 18 - - (responsible adults to ensure correct education - same as selling cigarettes or alcohol).

2. Staff member must have received a certificate to authorise them to sell live pets. This could be like many industries that require the staff member has competed a course (e.g. forklift license / OH&S / St Johns). These could be run by Lort Smith / RSPCA etc. - could be a two day course that costs similar to other industry courses which allows for these charities to make some extra money. A certificate could have a life of 3 years (same as First Aid) to ensure that the holder is able to ensure they are updated with any state laws.

3. Public who wish to purchase a dog/cat have to fill out an application form - This must have proof of identifaction so that the pup can be microchipped and registered prior to collection. Perhaps the form needs to be authorised by a JP and then they can collect their pet in a couple of days. This is a similar system to the application for gun laws.

I know this is somewhat wishful thinking - however perhaps we need to aim high....... get rid of the petshops and leave the breeders alone.

please forgive me while i kak myself laughing

do you realise that the RSPCA special constables are "preferably ex police with prosecution experience willing to undergo animal care course" that said constables do not have to pass the course all they have to do is attend?

my husband was teaching a class and when he reported to the principle that a number of members of the class paid no attention and there was no way he could give them a pass was told not to worry, all they have to do is attend they dont have to pass. they are rspca inspectors.

yet all they have to do under the law is "form the opinion" an animal is negleted or needs to be seized to do so. they dont have to have any actual animal care qualifications yet you expect more of a pet shop employee?????????