Puppy-mill Turned Kennel?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

good post steve.

where does it stop if we allow the rspca to investigate anyone for any reason especially if the people being investigated have no way to appeal the process....very scary indeed.

[Steve]

Its not only that while the breeder is out the back scrubbing out concreted kennels, and making sure the areas set aside for the dogs are all squeaky clean and in order as well as playing with her dogs and socialising her puppies that means they might not get to the front sign area as often as they would like. I live on 30 acreas and since this thread I sort of took more notice of what the footpath and front gate area of my property looks like which is about 800 metres from my house yard [which no one can see from the gate or the front street ].

Id better get down there and put a bit of lipstick on it so people who drive past dont think that around where we and the dogs live and run is as bad as the front area. But some crazy greenies came through a couple of years ago and planted all of these pine trees on our footpath which is 1.5 kilometres long and the other greenies tell me I cant take away felled trees because native animals like to play in them and because its not my property anyway but it is owned by council they come in now and then and mow down everything in their way - including my front fence to spray silver nightshade , locusts and brambles. The noctious weeds people are terrorists!

The paddocks between the front and the house block look pretty good today because yesterday the boys went through and ploughed in the patersons curse some of which was over my head because of the rain to prepare it for sowing any day now and right now as I type the trucks - 2 B doubles are here delivering the hay and straw for storage in the side paddock area. Inside the fenced house area its all LOVERLY though and tomorrow when my puppy buyers arrive to take home their baby Im proud to have them here and I hope they understand that my front gate is the least of my worries [im not sure its my job anyway]

[Tim'sMum]

This is from their site;

The RSPCA is opposed to puppy factories and outraged that this intensive farming of companion animals continues. It is unfortunate that our Inspectors have no power to stop them operating. However, there are legal requirements as to how these puppy factories should operate. Council officers are the legal authority responsible for inspecting these operations to ensure compliance with the code of practice for breeding establishments. RSPCA Inspectors also conduct inspections when cruelty complaints are received.

Although this is obviously not an official 'policy or guideline' document, it would seem that there needs to be a complaint made about cruelty. I would assume that you would have to have witnessed this cruelty or that the indications of cruelty (like crying or whimpering dogs, bodies etc or whatever) are evident.

In the OPs case, it doesn't appear there was any evidence at all.

So, by rights, the OP should have called the local Council, and asked for a Ranger to inspect the premises...because Council officers are responsible for ensuring 'puppy farms are comlying with the code for breeding facilities?

Why then, when the OP called the RSPCA, did they not say..'Unless you have witnessed actual cruelty, you should call the local Council and ask them to investigate'. :)

You could then assume that if a Council Ranger encountered any abuse, they would then call in the RSPCA?

It seems like a lack of communication all round? The OP sees what looks like a puppy farm, which concerns them and is worried that there might be neglect occuring due to the number of dogs and the disrepair of the premises, so calls the RSPCA, thinking they are the correct authority to call. They hear nothing back, so calls again, and again...and still hears nothing back from the RSPCA.......but by rights, should have been told by the RSPCA to call the local Council to report their concerns in the first place. :D

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

This is from their site;

The RSPCA is opposed to puppy factories and outraged that this intensive farming of companion animals continues. It is unfortunate that our Inspectors have no power to stop them operating. However, there are legal requirements as to how these puppy factories should operate. Council officers are the legal authority responsible for inspecting these operations to ensure compliance with the code of practice for breeding establishments. RSPCA Inspectors also conduct inspections when cruelty complaints are received.

Although this is obviously not an official 'policy or guideline' document, it would seem that there needs to be a complaint made about cruelty. I would assume that you would have to have witnessed this cruelty or that the indications of cruelty (like crying or whimpering dogs, bodies etc or whatever) are evident.

In the OPs case, it doesn't appear there was any evidence at all.

So, by rights, the OP should have called the local Council, and asked for a Ranger to inspect the premises...because Council officers are responsible for ensuring 'puppy farms are comlying with the code for breeding facilities?

Why then, when the OP called the RSPCA, did they not say..'Unless you have witnessed actual cruelty, you should call the local Council and ask them to investigate'. :)

You could then assume that if a Council Ranger encountered any abuse, they would then call in the RSPCA?

It seems like a lack of communication all round? The OP sees what looks like a puppy farm, which concerns them and is worried that there might be neglect occuring due to the number of dogs and the disrepair of the premises, so calls the RSPCA, thinking they are the correct authority to call. They hear nothing back, so calls again, and again...and still hears nothing back from the RSPCA.......but by rights, should have been told by the RSPCA to call the local Council to report their concerns in the first place. :D

it appears so. i think there is a huge problem here TM and very poor communication from the people in authority

[Moselle]

The RSPCA investigates complaints of animal abuse and neglect. This was not a complaint about animal abuse and neglect - the OP/complainant had never seen any because they hadnt been on the property. Craning your neck as you drive by does not constitute witnessing animal cruelty.

What next - dob in a neighbour whose property Joe Blow has never been on or animal abuse and cruelty never witnessed just because they didnt mow their front lawn every week?

There was more to it than simply an overgrown lawn hence the reason why the op was dubious. It all boils down to the RSPCA not getting back in touch with her, leaving her to believe that they had not looked into the matter. Had they bothered to contact her I am sure she would not have continued to ring them.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Moselle

[WreckitWhippet]

The RSPCA investigates complaints of animal abuse and neglect. This was not a complaint about animal abuse and neglect - the OP/complainant had never seen any because they hadnt been on the property. Craning your neck as you drive by does not constitute witnessing animal cruelty.

What next - dob in a neighbour whose property Joe Blow has never been on or animal abuse and cruelty never witnessed just because they didnt mow their front lawn every week?

There was more to it than simply an overgrown lawn hence the reason why the op was dubious. It all boils down to the RSPCA not getting back in touch with her, leaving her to believe that they had not looked into the matter. Had they bothered to contact her I am sure she would not have continued to ring them.

Every complaint is assigned a number, when you call the RSPCA and lodge a complaint you are given a case number ( can't remember the exact name of it, I can go back through my diary of the report I made ).

I called the RSPCA back a couple of weeks after I lodged a complaint regarding and emaciated dog, I was told that a notice had been issued to the owner and that they would check back at a later date to ensure it had been complied with.

They must have complied as the dog put on weight and it's still in their back yard.

It is NOT the RSPCA's responsibility to call everyone back who lodges a complaint and inform them of the outcome.

Edited November 3, 2010 by ReadySetGo

[Moselle]

The RSPCA investigates complaints of animal abuse and neglect. This was not a complaint about animal abuse and neglect - the OP/complainant had never seen any because they hadnt been on the property. Craning your neck as you drive by does not constitute witnessing animal cruelty.

What next - dob in a neighbour whose property Joe Blow has never been on or animal abuse and cruelty never witnessed just because they didnt mow their front lawn every week?

There was more to it than simply an overgrown lawn hence the reason why the op was dubious. It all boils down to the RSPCA not getting back in touch with her, leaving her to believe that they had not looked into the matter. Had they bothered to contact her I am sure she would not have continued to ring them.

Every complaint is assigned a number, when you call the RSPCA and lodge a complaint you are given a case number ( can't remember the exact name of it, I can go back through my diary of the report I made ).

I called the RSPCA back a couple of weeks after I lodged a complaint regarding and emaciated dog, I was told that a notice had been issued to the owner and that they would check back at a later date to ensure it had been complied with.

They must have complied as the dog put on weight and it's still in their back yard.

It is NOT the RSPCA's responsibility to call everyone back who lodges a complaint and inform them of the outcome.

Okay but not everyone is aware of this; seems like the op was not supplied with a case number or whatever it may be called. You would expect that the RSPCA inspectors would know and hence pass this onto complainants and advise them that should they want to know the outcome that they are to ring back.

[WreckitWhippet]

The RSPCA investigates complaints of animal abuse and neglect. This was not a complaint about animal abuse and neglect - the OP/complainant had never seen any because they hadnt been on the property. Craning your neck as you drive by does not constitute witnessing animal cruelty.

What next - dob in a neighbour whose property Joe Blow has never been on or animal abuse and cruelty never witnessed just because they didnt mow their front lawn every week?

There was more to it than simply an overgrown lawn hence the reason why the op was dubious. It all boils down to the RSPCA not getting back in touch with her, leaving her to believe that they had not looked into the matter. Had they bothered to contact her I am sure she would not have continued to ring them.

Every complaint is assigned a number, when you call the RSPCA and lodge a complaint you are given a case number ( can't remember the exact name of it, I can go back through my diary of the report I made ).

I called the RSPCA back a couple of weeks after I lodged a complaint regarding and emaciated dog, I was told that a notice had been issued to the owner and that they would check back at a later date to ensure it had been complied with.

They must have complied as the dog put on weight and it's still in their back yard.

It is NOT the RSPCA's responsibility to call everyone back who lodges a complaint and inform them of the outcome.

Okay but not everyone is aware of this; seems like the op was not supplied with a case number or whatever it may be called. You would expect that the RSPCA inspectors would know and hence pass this onto complainants and advise them that should they want to know the outcome that they are to ring back.

You don't speak to an inspector, you speak to someone who is works in a call centre.

[Steve]

This is from their site;

The RSPCA is opposed to puppy factories and outraged that this intensive farming of companion animals continues. It is unfortunate that our Inspectors have no power to stop them operating. However, there are legal requirements as to how these puppy factories should operate. Council officers are the legal authority responsible for inspecting these operations to ensure compliance with the code of practice for breeding establishments. RSPCA Inspectors also conduct inspections when cruelty complaints are received.

Although this is obviously not an official 'policy or guideline' document, it would seem that there needs to be a complaint made about cruelty. I would assume that you would have to have witnessed this cruelty or that the indications of cruelty (like crying or whimpering dogs, bodies etc or whatever) are evident.

In the OPs case, it doesn't appear there was any evidence at all.

So, by rights, the OP should have called the local Council, and asked for a Ranger to inspect the premises...because Council officers are responsible for ensuring 'puppy farms are comlying with the code for breeding facilities?

Why then, when the OP called the RSPCA, did they not say..'Unless you have witnessed actual cruelty, you should call the local Council and ask them to investigate'.

You could then assume that if a Council Ranger encountered any abuse, they would then call in the RSPCA?

It seems like a lack of communication all round? The OP sees what looks like a puppy farm, which concerns them and is worried that there might be neglect occuring due to the number of dogs and the disrepair of the premises, so calls the RSPCA, thinking they are the correct authority to call. They hear nothing back, so calls again, and again...and still hears nothing back from the RSPCA.......but by rights, should have been told by the RSPCA to call the local Council to report their concerns in the first place. :D

Yes but you also have to remember that different rules apply to different places too.

I agree that it would have been a much quicker process to simply say this isnt something we would normally look at however, I know they do record info which lets them know where possible puppy farmers are and when they say they arent interested they would get kicked around a bit too.

In Victoria at least until the next election it is most definitely a local council issue unless its a definite act of cruelty in Prevention of animal cruelty legislation.

Who ever was on the other end of the phone most definitely should have explained that to the OP in my opinion but thats assuming the person on the other end knew.

Perhaps they take the calls and a second party looks them over and decides what to do next.

[Jed]

n think about it, how many dog breeders even rate a bitch by her ability to self whelp AND raise her pups herself?

so few even give that a thought so many generations of ceasered pups that a vet on the payroll is a must for so many breeds now, is that really on the ethical radar?

used to be considered important to the early breeders but then there wasnt a vet at nearly every interesction like today.

but what about those out west of the divide??? any bitch sold that direction from such breeding is facing an uncertain future unless desexed.

detest the garden knome but that was one point it raised i agree with

Assumption much asal!!!!!

Sorry, but aside from the fact that I find it incredibly difficult to read your posts due to lack of punctuation and capital letters.....a lot of what you say is absolute crap based upon your own misconceptions and pre-conceived ideas of dog breeders.

sweetie, just talk to your own vet. thats not assumptions, the rate of bitches who have never had a litter naturally is amazing and some are generations of such mums.

one breeders bitches wont even feed their pups past day 10 so they are hand fed from then, thats not assumptions. has been breeding for decades that breed. imagine a newbie starting out with a bitch pup from such lines. they will be wreaks trying to understand why the pups are hungry.

another friend out coonabarabran bred their bitch and discovered she couldnt deliver so had to drive 200 km to nearest vet. to learn 4 generations of ceasers behind her. does not look like assumptions to me anyway

DARLING, I've been breeding purebred dogs for 24 years and I know for a FACT that I don't tolerate consistently problematic lines and I do not take over from mother nature without a VERY good reason. I would also suggest that very few breeders enjoy having to spend a lot of money on sections that could be avoided. I would also hazard a guess that asking some vets may not be a good idea because some of them LOVE recommending unneccessary sections because it is a lovely source of ready revenue.

So, until you are a dog breeder and KNOW for a fact what goes on behind closed doors, you should probably just keep your assumptions to yourself because each and every time you put your fingers to your keyboard, you show yourself to be a nasty, spiteful person with a lot of opinion and very little real knowledge about certain issues.We all KNOW you've had your issues with the RSPCA but to be honest, you are sounding more and more like that organisation and the gardener every day and that is of great concern IMO.

Not meaning to be quarrelsome, Ellz, but I believe asal has been breeding for considerably longer than 24 years. And I don't believe asal was accusing you of anything - she was stating what she believed happens - which imho, does not make her a nasty spiteful person - but I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong

[ellz]

n think about it, how many dog breeders even rate a bitch by her ability to self whelp AND raise her pups herself?

so few even give that a thought so many generations of ceasered pups that a vet on the payroll is a must for so many breeds now, is that really on the ethical radar?

used to be considered important to the early breeders but then there wasnt a vet at nearly every interesction like today.

but what about those out west of the divide??? any bitch sold that direction from such breeding is facing an uncertain future unless desexed.

detest the garden knome but that was one point it raised i agree with

Assumption much asal!!!!!

Sorry, but aside from the fact that I find it incredibly difficult to read your posts due to lack of punctuation and capital letters.....a lot of what you say is absolute crap based upon your own misconceptions and pre-conceived ideas of dog breeders.

sweetie, just talk to your own vet. thats not assumptions, the rate of bitches who have never had a litter naturally is amazing and some are generations of such mums.

one breeders bitches wont even feed their pups past day 10 so they are hand fed from then, thats not assumptions. has been breeding for decades that breed. imagine a newbie starting out with a bitch pup from such lines. they will be wreaks trying to understand why the pups are hungry.

another friend out coonabarabran bred their bitch and discovered she couldnt deliver so had to drive 200 km to nearest vet. to learn 4 generations of ceasers behind her. does not look like assumptions to me anyway

DARLING, I've been breeding purebred dogs for 24 years and I know for a FACT that I don't tolerate consistently problematic lines and I do not take over from mother nature without a VERY good reason. I would also suggest that very few breeders enjoy having to spend a lot of money on sections that could be avoided. I would also hazard a guess that asking some vets may not be a good idea because some of them LOVE recommending unneccessary sections because it is a lovely source of ready revenue.

So, until you are a dog breeder and KNOW for a fact what goes on behind closed doors, you should probably just keep your assumptions to yourself because each and every time you put your fingers to your keyboard, you show yourself to be a nasty, spiteful person with a lot of opinion and very little real knowledge about certain issues.We all KNOW you've had your issues with the RSPCA but to be honest, you are sounding more and more like that organisation and the gardener every day and that is of great concern IMO.

Not meaning to be quarrelsome, Ellz, but I believe asal has been breeding for considerably longer than 24 years. And I don't believe asal was accusing you of anything - she was stating what she believed happens - which imho, does not make her a nasty spiteful person - but I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong

Jed, highly uncharacteristic for you to be quarrelsome....but my entire "argument" with asal is not based upon what asal may or may not have been accusing ME of....what I have stated it is the impression that I get from many of her posts. Those of course, that I can actually read and understand that is.....

[*Bones*]

short step

As far as the ANKC taking action, that would be another issue that would be addressed if breeders stopped breeding. Again the outcome is not certain. But if everyone lets their prefix laps, which you then have 5 years to reinstate, for those 5 years you are not a breeder and you are not paying prefix dues. There would also be no pups registered. All loss of funds. ANKC would have to reorganize due to the loss of funds. Now more people are affected, ribbon supplies, dog shows connected such as motels and restaurants, agility trials and so forth would all be at risk. No dog at the Royals would attract more attention provided their several ANKC booths handing out information.

It would also demonstrate clearly where the ANKC needs to reorganize. Their role needs to be much more than just keeping records and insurance providers. Anyway it is just an idea, but truly we have reached the point where something has to be done.

This is what Peta was pushing to reduce the number of unwanted dogs. If no dogs were bred for 5 years, dog numbers would fall. For most bitches, 5 years plus is too old for a first litter. A lot of dogs of 7 or 8 are not as fertile, and those around 5 which have probably never had a bitch wouldn't know what to do.

The majority of breeders would not breed a 5 or 6 year old bitch.

There would be fewer or no litters. If it was only registered breeders, the public would buy spoongles and pet shop jobs, and registered breeds would be forgotten.

Are you aligned with Peta?

Edited November 5, 2010 by *Bones*

[shortstep]

short step

As far as the ANKC taking action, that would be another issue that would be addressed if breeders stopped breeding. Again the outcome is not certain. But if everyone lets their prefix laps, which you then have 5 years to reinstate, for those 5 years you are not a breeder and you are not paying prefix dues. There would also be no pups registered. All loss of funds. ANKC would have to reorganize due to the loss of funds. Now more people are affected, ribbon supplies, dog shows connected such as motels and restaurants, agility trials and so forth would all be at risk. No dog at the Royals would attract more attention provided their several ANKC booths handing out information.

It would also demonstrate clearly where the ANKC needs to reorganize. Their role needs to be much more than just keeping records and insurance providers. Anyway it is just an idea, but truly we have reached the point where something has to be done.

This is what Peta was pushing to reduce the number of unwanted dogs. If no dogs were bred for 5 years, dog numbers would fall. For most bitches, 5 years plus is too old for a first litter. A lot of dogs of 7 or 8 are not as fertile, and those around 5 which have probably never had a bitch wouldn't know what to do.

The majority of breeders would not breed a 5 or 6 year old bitch.

There would be fewer or no litters. If it was only registered breeders, the public would buy spoongles and pet shop jobs, and registered breeds would be forgotten.

Are you aligned with Peta?

Yea right, anyone reading my posts over time would know I am a full paid up card carrying member of PETA.

I said 4-5 years and I have breed several 4 year old bitchs for the first time, perhaps not idea for some breeds but for many breeds it is fine. I was reading recently on a genetic health list that some breeds in some countries are not bred until they are 5 years old, as they want the dog totally proven in its work and in fact many of these folks were doing so with their dogs. Though I have heard that in some breeds they must be bred young or having problems whelping. Edited to ad, surely they can wait till the bitch is 3 - 3.5 years old before breeding it? Anyway I am sure for many not haveing a couple of litters a year would be too big an ask. But not to worry, soon there will be no litters at all buy law.

BTW in case you have not noticed there are more oodles being bought right now than purebreds. The plan to control oodle breeding did not work either, and that plan was?

Further I said it was just an idea and asked for other ideas.

Instead calling peopel who offer ideas to stop the end of dog ownership PETA members,

what is your big idea? or are you the real PETA member?

Edited November 5, 2010 by shortstep

[raz]

Getting back to the OP re reporting yet again just because some property that you think is 'trailer trash' is selling puppies and now is a boarding kennel - what exactly are you reporting them for?

[*Bones*]

short step

As far as the ANKC taking action, that would be another issue that would be addressed if breeders stopped breeding. Again the outcome is not certain. But if everyone lets their prefix laps, which you then have 5 years to reinstate, for those 5 years you are not a breeder and you are not paying prefix dues. There would also be no pups registered. All loss of funds. ANKC would have to reorganize due to the loss of funds. Now more people are affected, ribbon supplies, dog shows connected such as motels and restaurants, agility trials and so forth would all be at risk. No dog at the Royals would attract more attention provided their several ANKC booths handing out information.

It would also demonstrate clearly where the ANKC needs to reorganize. Their role needs to be much more than just keeping records and insurance providers. Anyway it is just an idea, but truly we have reached the point where something has to be done.

This is what Peta was pushing to reduce the number of unwanted dogs. If no dogs were bred for 5 years, dog numbers would fall. For most bitches, 5 years plus is too old for a first litter. A lot of dogs of 7 or 8 are not as fertile, and those around 5 which have probably never had a bitch wouldn't know what to do.

The majority of breeders would not breed a 5 or 6 year old bitch.

There would be fewer or no litters. If it was only registered breeders, the public would buy spoongles and pet shop jobs, and registered breeds would be forgotten.

Are you aligned with Peta?

Yea right, anyone reading my posts over time would know I am a full paid up card carrying member of PETA.

I said 4-5 years and I have breed several 4 year old bitchs for the first time, perhaps not idea for some breeds but for many breeds it is fine. I was reading recently on a genetic health list that some breeds in some countries are not bred until they are 5 years old, as they want the dog totally proven in its work and in fact many of these folks were doing so with their dogs. Though I have heard that in some breeds they must be bred young or having problems whelping. Edited to ad, surely they can wait till the bitch is 3 - 3.5 years old before breeding it? Anyway I am sure for many not haveing a couple of litters a year would be too big an ask. But not to worry, soon there will be no litters at all buy law.

BTW in case you have not noticed there are more oodles being bought right now than purebreds. The plan to control oodle breeding did not work either, and that plan was?

Further I said it was just an idea and asked for other ideas.

Instead calling peopel who offer ideas to stop the end of dog ownership PETA members,

what is your big idea? or are you the real PETA member?

In fact, I didn't name you are as a Peta member. I asked if you were one. The reason I asked was because your idea is exactly the same idea Peta was mooting some years ago as a way of reducing dog dumpage.

If you were offended by my question, my apologies. I did not mean any offense.

Dog breeders in North America have banded together to fight any threats to purebred dogs. The ACK is very active for the cause. NZ dog breeders and the NZKC have simply warded off all opposition. The information is there for Australian dog breeders, yet they do nothing.

If the RSPCA is a problem, become members, over come them with numbers, load the meeting, vote in your own committee, dismiss any employees who are anti-purebred dog breeders. If your kennel clubs are the problem, do the same thing.

Naturally, the will to do that has to be there.

Perhaps I am the real Peta member.

[shortstep]

In fact, I didn't name you are as a Peta member. I asked if you were one. The reason I asked was because your idea is exactly the same idea Peta was mooting some years ago as a way of reducing dog dumpage.

If you were offended by my question, my apologies. I did not mean any offense.

Dog breeders in North America have banded together to fight any threats to purebred dogs. The ACK is very active for the cause. NZ dog breeders and the NZKC have simply warded off all opposition. The information is there for Australian dog breeders, yet they do nothing.

If the RSPCA is a problem, become members, over come them with numbers, load the meeting, vote in your own committee, dismiss any employees who are anti-purebred dog breeders. If your kennel clubs are the problem, do the same thing.

Naturally, the will to do that has to be there.

Perhaps I am the real Peta member.

Infiltrating and taking over organizations is a PETA tactic.

Dog breeders in the US have not banded together. There is a huge split between working dog breeders, other registries and private breed club/registries in opposition to the kennel club. In fact, in a number of breeds there are far more dogs registered in 'other' registries than in the kennel club. In fact, the kennel club has done hostile take overs of popular breeds when the breed clubs have refused to join the kennel club. There is no love lost between the different groups of dog owners/breeders and the kennel club in the US.

In my opinion, comparing AKC (not ACK) to ANKC is a like comparing apples and oranges anyway. AKC registered about 1.4 million dogs last year, ANKC maybe 60,000 if lucky. AKC is the largest Kennel club in the world with over 5000 local clubs. AKC has a huge profit margin with many full time lawyers and lobbyist. There is no way ANKC could begin to do what AKC does as far as fighting far left animal rights radicals.

There are other huge differences. The US is 70% conservative, center to leaning right, left wing radical values are not accepted as easily into main stream thinking. The US has a totally different culture. The US highly values the rights of personal freedom, capitalism and ownership. For the most part they do not like nanny state laws and they are not a socialist country. The culture in general is far more likely to fight any preceived threat to freedom, both on a personal and national level. They also hate being told what to do. Dogs are far more integrated into society in America (and Canada). Just one example, dogs can stay in almost all motels and hotels, the better the motel/hotel the better the service they provide to dogs.

So lets talk reality, using the USA as a model for Australia is not realistic in my opinion.

[~Anne~]

This is from their site;

The RSPCA is opposed to puppy factories and outraged that this intensive farming of companion animals continues. It is unfortunate that our Inspectors have no power to stop them operating. However, there are legal requirements as to how these puppy factories should operate. Council officers are the legal authority responsible for inspecting these operations to ensure compliance with the code of practice for breeding establishments. RSPCA Inspectors also conduct inspections when cruelty complaints are received.

Although this is obviously not an official 'policy or guideline' document, it would seem that there needs to be a complaint made about cruelty. I would assume that you would have to have witnessed this cruelty or that the indications of cruelty (like crying or whimpering dogs, bodies etc or whatever) are evident.

In the OPs case, it doesn't appear there was any evidence at all.

So, by rights, the OP should have called the local Council, and asked for a Ranger to inspect the premises...because Council officers are responsible for ensuring 'puppy farms are comlying with the code for breeding facilities?

Why then, when the OP called the RSPCA, did they not say..'Unless you have witnessed actual cruelty, you should call the local Council and ask them to investigate'.

You could then assume that if a Council Ranger encountered any abuse, they would then call in the RSPCA?

It seems like a lack of communication all round? The OP sees what looks like a puppy farm, which concerns them and is worried that there might be neglect occuring due to the number of dogs and the disrepair of the premises, so calls the RSPCA, thinking they are the correct authority to call. They hear nothing back, so calls again, and again...and still hears nothing back from the RSPCA.......but by rights, should have been told by the RSPCA to call the local Council to report their concerns in the first place.

it appears so. i think there is a huge problem here TM and very poor communication from the people in authority

Yes, I have to agree with you both on that count.

[~Anne~]

If the RSPCA is a problem, become members, over come them with numbers, load the meeting, vote in your own committee, dismiss any employees who are anti-purebred dog breeders. If your kennel clubs are the problem, do the same thing.

This is also the way I think we should move although obviously you have stated it in a very simplistic manner, but the gist of it is very much true in my opinion. The only way to alter the course is for concerned people to become the people who make the decisions.

[~Anne~]

Infiltrating and taking over organizations is a PETA tactic.

And if we listen to what people say, they are very successful with this tactic. Maybe we can be as well.

[ellz]

If the RSPCA is a problem, become members, over come them with numbers, load the meeting, vote in your own committee, dismiss any employees who are anti-purebred dog breeders. If your kennel clubs are the problem, do the same thing.

This is also the way I think we should move although obviously you have stated it in a very simplistic manner, but the gist of it is very much true in my opinion. The only way to alter the course is for concerned people to become the people who make the decisions.

This was actually attempted but very few members of the canine controlling bodies actually had membership applications accepted.