So Whats The Answer ?

[Shazzapug]

Microchipping wont work until all vets scan and check details on every dog that walks thru their doors.

[vetrg]

Microchipping wont work until all vets scan and check details on every dog that walks thru their doors.

Vets are there to maintain the health and welfare of the animals. If they are required to check all chips, then report any dog that is not chipped, the owners of unchipped dogs will not seek medical aid for that animal. The responsibility of the vet is to the animal, not to enforce legislation. Having said that I am in favour of compulsory chipping- if all cattle and horses can be chipped in the uk then i'm sure all dogs can be.

[Shazzapug]

Microchipping wont work until all vets scan and check details on every dog that walks thru their doors.

Vets are there to maintain the health and welfare of the animals. If they are required to check all chips, then report any dog that is not chipped, the owners of unchipped dogs will not seek medical aid for that animal. The responsibility of the vet is to the animal, not to enforce legislation. Having said that I am in favour of compulsory chipping- if all cattle and horses can be chipped in the uk then i'm sure all dogs can be.

Why do we chip then if not to help protect our dogs and make it easier for them to find their way home if stolen or lost??

Are we to carry scanners in our hip pockets....you tell me where else does a dog get scanned other than if they end up in the pound. Also a vet is making money, big money implanting them and yet not required to scan....doesnt make sense.

[Pippa]

The responsibility of the vet is to the animal, not to enforce legislation. Having said that I am in favour of compulsory chipping- if all cattle and horses can be chipped in the uk then i'm sure all dogs can be.

Yet vets will dob in people with docked or debarked dogs...

[BigDaz]

Microchipping wont work until all vets scan and check details on every dog that walks thru their doors.

Vets are there to maintain the health and welfare of the animals. If they are required to check all chips, then report any dog that is not chipped, the owners of unchipped dogs will not seek medical aid for that animal. The responsibility of the vet is to the animal, not to enforce legislation. Having said that I am in favour of compulsory chipping- if all cattle and horses can be chipped in the uk then i'm sure all dogs can be.

Why do we chip then if not to help protect our dogs and make it easier for them to find their way home if stolen or lost??

Are we to carry scanners in our hip pockets....you tell me where else does a dog get scanned other than if they end up in the pound. Also a vet is making money, big money implanting them and yet not required to scan....doesnt make sense.

From an animal welfare point of view I think it does make sense. If someone took ownership of their dog via questionable means, although not great, you don’t want the dog to have to suffer because of this.

If people like this knew the dog would be scanned if taken to the vet, they just won’t take it and the dog would be made to suffer. Let’s face it, scum like this probably don’t take their pets to the vet anyway, regardless, you can’t legislate with the end result being increasing the suffering of animals.

I dont I would think differently if my dogs were stolen, if it is a choice of my stolen dog getting appropriate medical treatment or being made to suffer, I will take medical treatement.

[shortstep]

Maybe make the owner who dumps the dog responsible? No that would not be right, it is the breeder who placed the dog 4 years ago that is responsible. BTW I microchip every pup and have done so for 15 years. I also follow every pup and they are all still in their homes. No law is going to make me responsible, it is something you know you should do.

Moosmum who said people do not know how to own dogs any more is right. More and more people are not growing up with dogs. So this is a good reason? to make owning a dog even more difficult so that even fewer people will own one and even more children do not grow up with a dog (or any animal according to PETA).

I saw a kid the other day and I had a 9 week old cute as can be pup in my lap. Dad petted the pup and offered to his child to pet it, she just shook her head, I could see she in her eyes she had zero desire to interact with the pup, her mom just held her hand tightly. I ask dad if he had dogs as a kid and he said yes, I asked mum and she said no. It only takes one generation folks. So we need to make it darn hard to get a dog with lots of tests, licenses, inspections and fees?? keeping most homes dog free?? Then have the schools teach kids how to pet dog at their visit to petting zoo. Think.

[Rusky]

Rusky, anyone can abuse, breed and abandon. Even Registered Breeders!

You're right about not being able to control people, but I fail to see how you think the number of puppies can be controlled. As long as it's legal to sell live animals via Gumtree, ebay, etc there will be a market and there are unscrupulous people who will take advantage of this.

If you did a Root Cause Analysis of unwanted puppies, what do you think the root cause is? It's selfish humans. Why should individual dogs suffer because people are basically idiots?

have a quick look at my post. I addressed gumtree etc, they should not sell there or in stores. Compulsary chipping should be part of the dog act and puppies can be controlled by desexing. The farms feed the stores, the backyard the gumtree ...

Why do individual dogs suffer by desexing? I think they suffer a heck of a lot more having litter after litter in dreadful conditions.

Actually I will just ask the wee 10 week old pup who is here after being picked up starving to death at a truck stop.......

If you choose not to desex your dog for whatever reason there is a chance she can have puppies, it is a simple equation.

There can not be any breed dogs in farms if the farmers are unable to access the breed dogs.

[OSoSwift]

MAybe we need more vets to do tubal ligations and vasectomies so the dogs can have the hormones to ensure correct growth but no have babies and then they are desexed when older????? Just a thought

[raz]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't imagine that any breeder could possibly understand what a pet owner feels towards their dog.

OK I'll answer that - you're wrong. Ofcourse breeders understand what their puppy buyers feel towards their dogs if the buyer first creates a bond with the breeder. What a silly generalisation.

As for mandatory desexing - that's just another law. I dont know what the answer is to crack down on puppy farms but screaming for more and more legislation is just going to impact on everyone.

[shortstep]

So how many pups do you guys think there should be allowed each year? Only ANKC registered dogs and breeds?

Can I ask how many people who want to do this have ever studied animal breeding?

This is a little old now, but can I suggest that everyone read this that wants to legislate severely restricting the selection process in dog breeding and severely limiting the number of dogs in the breeding population.

Please note that this is several pages long, click 'Next' at the bottom of each page to follow through to the end.

http://www.netpets.com/dogs/healthspa/bragg.html#toc

Now if you are too lazy to read it all, here is a one line which sums it up

'Population geneticists insist that limited populations under strong artificial selection, subjected to high levels of incest breeding simply cannot maintain genetic viability and vigor.'

Here is only one page about selection pressures.

Lessons from Population Genetics

Gene Frequencies

Much of the work of population genetics involves estimating or calculating gene frequencies, which quantify the relative commonness or scarcity, within a particular population, of alleles at a particular gene locus. If there is only one version of a gene in the population, then the entire population is necessarily homozygous for that gene. Gene frequencies are expressed as decimal fractions which must add up to unity, so a gene without alternative alleles has a frequency of 1.0. The gene frequency figure is a ratio of the number of copies of alternate versions of a gene in the population, independent of the number of animals involved and of whether they have the gene in homozygous or heterozygous form. An individual may have two copies of the same allele or it may have one or none. For example, if a locus has two alleles, and the population involved consists of fifty animals, and there are 25 copies of one allele, then the frequency for that allele is 0.25; therefore the frequency of the other allele must be 0.75, with 75 copies of it in the same population. It must be emphasised that gene frequency by itself says nothing about relative heterozygosity or homozygosity; it deals only with quantitative aspects of alleles in the population, not the diploid genotype of individuals.

Founder Events

Perhaps the most crucial concept in population genetics for dog breeders is the founder event, for its theory describes perfectly what takes place when a breed is "recognised" by CKC or a similar registry. Whatever may be the state of genetic balance or the frequency with which particular alleles are found in the general canine population, it all changes when a founder event occurs. In nature such events happen when individuals of a species occupy and reproduce in territory new to the species, losing contact with the source population of the migrants (as when small birds are deposited by hurricane winds on mid-ocean islands). The founder event describes the establishing of a small population, although later on it may grow to be a large one. When a finite number of individuals found a new population group, the genome of the new group will necessarily reflect the genes brought to it by the founder animals; gene frequencies within that population will reflect the gene frequencies within the founder group rather than that of the source population. In this way, when a founder event occurs, a gene quite rare in the source population may have a much higher frequency in the new population; conversely, genes common in the source population may be infrequent or even absent from the new population. It all depends on the genes of the founders! Thus a genetic defect extremely rare in the overall canine population can come to be common in a particular breed simply because one or more individuals of a small breed foundation carried that gene.

Hardy-Weinberg Principle

The Hardy-Weinberg Principle states that under certain specific conditions (random mating, very large population group, no mutations, absence of selection pressure, for example), the relative allele frequencies of genes at a given locus will not change from generation to generation and can be described by an equation, allowing the geneticist to create a mathematical model of gene frequencies within the population. Without trying to explain the equation and its operation here, we can still say in general that the net result is that heterozygote organisms will be much more numerous than homozygotes in a Hardy-Weinberg population. Many natural populations can be described in this way, although purebred dog populations cannot, since they are subject to inbreeding, artificial selection, non-random mating and small populations. Nonetheless, the principle has a certain significance, in that the overwhelming preponderance of heterozygotes in natural populations means natural selection tends to favour the heterozygote. Thus the natural genetic balance systems of most species include a high degree of heterozygosity [Carson, 1983]. When we as dog breeders use incest breeding and artificial selection to fix characteristics arbitrarily, we are therefore quite likely to upset the natural genetic balance of the canine species in our breed populations. Moreover, the natural preponderance of heterozygotes is rendered even more important by overdominance effects, described below.

Genetic Drift

Small populations, such as most purebred dog breeds, are subject to a condition known as genetic drift. This is a situation in which gene frequencies change at random from generation to generation, varying from statistical expectations because of sampling error. (Sampling error occurs when too small a number of trials departs from the expectations of probability, as when someone flips a coin six times and gets five heads and one tail - if he flipped it 600 times, the results would be close to 300 heads, 300 tails, but in a small sample, chance can cause a departure from the expected result.) This happens also when gametes unite to form zygotes in reproduction; the union of gametes is at random by hazard. A dominant black dog, whose dam was white, when bred to a white bitch should in theory produce equal numbers of white and black pups, but few breeders would be very surprised to see 2 whites and 6 blacks, or vice versa. Yet when such sampling errors occur in small populations, over subsequent generations gene frequencies can change, taking a random walk that leads finally to the loss of one allele and the fixation of the other! The smaller the population, the fewer generations this result is likely to take. In a very large population, it will not happen at all. Genes are lost and other genes fixed completely at random in this way by genetic drift.

Generation Time

Since in limited, genetically isolated populations such as CKC breeds a certain amount of genetic diversity is lost with each reproductive event through the action of genetic drift, inbreeding and artificial selection. The number of generations from the founder event becomes an issue. The average time between one generation and the next is a convenient yardstick to help us realise the relative rate of genetic attrition. A few instances exist in which certain bloodlines - working dogs, usually - are bred conservatively enough that the generation time is as much as an average six or seven years.

But this appears to be exceptional. Many exhibition lines seem to operate on the following model: "Phoo-Phoo" starts his show career at six months of age in Junior Puppy class, is heavily "campaigned" and has all his Championship points by ten months of age. The owners' immediate "bragging ad" in "DOGS in Canada" or the breed club newsletter recounts his triumph, adding that "puppies from Ch. (subject to CKC confirmation) Phoo-Phoo are eagerly awaited next month". In such lines the average generation time may be two years or even less. This reproductive rush has two implications: first, a greatly accelerated rate of loss of genetic diversity; second, an implicit selection for early maturity which carries with it an elevated risk of joint disease and a lowering of average longevity.

Effective Breeding Population

The population figure that matters in situations such as random genetic drift is not the total number of individuals alive at any one time. Nor is it even, as one might think, the actual number of individuals that contribute progeny to the next generation. Variations in breeding population from one generation to the next have a marked effect, such that the effective breeding population, especially where variations in number are extreme, tends to be only modestly greater than the lowest number. Another factor which makes a great difference and is crucially important in purebred animals is the sex ratio of successful reproductors. The effective breeding population can never be greater than four times the number of males, no matter how numerous the females may be, since gametes must come from both sexes. Thus anything that limits the number of males in use drastically restricts the effective breeding population. Overuse of popular sires is a tremendous factor in the genetic impoverishment of purebred dogs. One of the major drawbacks of the proposed CKC Advanced Registry is the virtual certainty that the existence and promotion of a few "elite" sires, titled, temperament-tested and certified "clear" of major hereditary diseases, will further dramatically reduce the effective breeding population in many breeds, causing further declines in breed vitality and viability and leading to the loss of vitally-needed breeding lines which happen not to be among the elite group.

Linkage Disequilibrium

Genes found on the same chromosome will fail to assort independently in accordance with Mendelian principles. Such genes are said to be in a state of linkage disequilibrium. This simple fact has a devastating effect in artificial selection, since it means in practice that when a breeder selects for or against any single-gene trait whatever, whether he is aware of the fact or not he is also selecting for or against every other gene located on the same chromosome. This is how genetic defects become rapidly fixed in inbred populations subjected to artificial selection. Since dogs have only 78 chromosomes (diploid number) but many thousands of genes, obviously linkage disequilibrium can be tremendously influential. Genes that are linked eventually become unlinked over time (except in certain special situations) through crossing over, a process whereby chromosome pairs exchange segments of their DNA structure during meiosis. The unlinking process however, is slow and unpredictable; it offers little hope of remedying the linkage disequilibrium problem in a few generations and of course is no help at all where deleterious alleles have already become fixed.

Overdominance

Situations exist in which a heterozygote individual enjoys a survival advantage over both the recessive homozygote and the dominant homozygote of the same gene; this is called overdominance or heterozygote superiority. As yet not much seems to be known about this mechanism and proven examples of specific overdominant genes are rare. Nonetheless this mechanism may be one reason (apart from their usually recessive nature) why genetic defects are persistently found in genomes despite their apparent fitness disadvantage in the homozygous state. While on this subject it is worth noting that population genetics offers mathematical models for various forms of selective breeding, including the selective elimination of individuals bearing homozygous recessive genes for harmful traits. These models demonstrate that the elimination from the breeding population of individuals homozygous for unwanted traits has only the smallest effect in changing the allele frequency! It has been calculated, for example, that to reduce the expression of the recessive albino gene in humans from one in ten thousand to one in one million, simply by prohibiting albino (i.e. homozygote) individuals from having children, would require nine hundred generations of such selective breeding to accomplish! This is one of several reasons why screening programmes, although perhaps profitable for the veterinary profession, are of questionable effectiveness, since they identify only affected (usually homozygous) individuals.

Heterosis

More commonly known as hybrid vigour, heterosis is a situation in which a cross of two or sometimes three highly-inbred bloodlines displays enhanced performance for some desired trait, as for example higher yield in corn. It works best in plant species capable of self-fertilisation, but has been amply demonstrated in domestic livestock species. It is worth noting that in practice many different inbred lines must be developed at the same time, that most of the inbred lines become so unfit that they must be discarded as they become non-viable, and that considerable random trial of different crosses must be done to establish which lines will actually yield the desired result. Although the seed-grower's methods are unsuited to purebred dogs, the overall principle is of interest, since it is thought that heterosis works because of the heterozygosity of the hybrid generation, probably through the action of both dominant and overdominant genes. Geneticists are now starting to realise that the balanced-heterozygote systems of many wild species involve a heterosis effect which gives them a high degree of fitness.

Inbreeding Depression

As genetic variability diminishes and homozygosity rises through inbreeding, a syndrome known as inbreeding depression sets in. It is characterised by a reduction in viability (survival of individual progeny), birth weight, fecundity (number of young) and fertility (reproductive success), among other things. Much of it is caused by the homozygous presence of rare, deleterious recessive alleles. Part of it may also be due to the relative absence of overdominant heterozygote combinations. As inbreeding depression becomes more severe, highly inbred lines tend to become extinct through the loss of ability to reproduce successfully and / or inability of the young to survive. It varies somewhat in intensity from species to species, due probably to variations in the number and nature of lethal, sublethal and subvital alleles involved. Some wild mammals which show almost no juvenile mortality when bred in captivity without inbreeding, exhibit 100 percent juvenile mortality when inbred! A survey of captive breeding records for 44 species [Ralls & Ballou, 1979, 1982] showed that juvenile mortality of inbred young was higher than that of noninbred young in 41 of the 44 species for which records were analysed.

Genetic Load

The difference between the fittest genotype of a population and the average fitness of that population is known as genetic load. [Muller, 1950] It is, of course, caused by the presence of lethal, sublethal and subvital alleles. The more such alleles found in a population, the greater the genetic load. Genetic load is sometimes measured by the number of lethal equivalents, and the severity of inbreeding depression can be quantified in this way. Humans in general normally carry in a heterozygous state from 5 to 8 lethal equivalents per person - genes or combinations of genes any one of which, if homozygous, would cause the death of the organism. It should be emphasised that genetic load is present in every population, since never are all individuals maximally fit. The presence of lethal, sublethal and subvital genes is a normal state of affairs in all species. Homozygotes for such genes are usually so infrequent as to have little effect on species fitness. It is only when founder events and inbreeding occur that the gene frequency of deleterious alleles rises and genetic defects start to become a problem as the growing genetic load degrades the fitness of the inbred, limited population. Thus in the case of purebred dogs the problem does not inhere in the presence of "defect" genes, but in the registry and breeding practices of the purebred dog fancy!

Balanced Heterozygous Population Structure

In recent decades growing evidence from DNA studies of protein polymorphism conclusively disproved the "classical" view of species as being homozygous at most loci, with the phenotypes of all individuals of a species conforming to that of a type specimen. Population geneticists and evolutionary biologists now realise that typological concepts are useless in a natural world in which populations may best be described genetically not as individuals conforming to a type but as arrays of genetic variability. Some of the implications of the "balance view" are elucidated by one geneticist as follows:

Species that are diploid and cross-fertilised [this includes all mammals]... characteristically carry large stores of genetic variability in a balanced state in their populations... Genetic recombination naturally generates diverse genetic types from the large field of variability in the gene pool. In order to meet environmental challenges, natural selection in many such organisms tends to develop a system based on the higher fitness of heterozygotes. These are maintained under regimes of selection that exploit the advantages of heterozygosity for many alleles simultaneously. In these, the large amount of genetic variability is continually being recombined as balanced hybrid vigour is maximised...

The genetic system is not a fixed and frozen entity but is dynamic and variable... By its very nature, this genetic system is inimical to the perpetuation of sameness. At each reproductive event an enormous field of genetic variability is produced. Most of the variability is held in sexual populations by a complex balancing selection based on the superiority of fitness of heterozygotes...

The biological conserver, short of putting the DNA into liquid nitrogen, cannot hope to freeze the characteristics of any natural population, be it a deme (local population), a subspecies, or a species.

Hampton L. Carson. The Genetics of the Founder Effect, 1983

Efforts at artificial selection and breeding which attempt to defy this system of balanced heterozygosity and variability will almost certainly fall foul of the kind of difficulties we are now encountering in purebred dog breeds. It is hopeless to attempt to freeze the genetic characteristics of small populations and even the attempt, which is doomed to eventual failure, is quite costly in terms of the loss of hardiness and viability. Artificially selected populations, too, can and should be maintained in a state of dynamic heterozygous balance. Thus the entire problem of genetic defects would be minimised.

Assortative Mating

Assortative mating is a method of selective breeding capable of creating homozygosity for desired traits without having as great an effect on overall homozygosity as does inbreeding. It consists of mating phenotypically similar individuals that are not closely related. This method of selective breeding would be capable of maintaining a reasonable range of breed type in a balanced-heterozygosity breed system with an open studbook.

Having now acquired a few of the more crucial concepts of population genetics, we are prepared to examine in a new light the nineteenth-century system of dog breeding and registration which we have inherited. As we prepare to enter the twenty-first century, perhaps we can conceive a renewed system which will serve our dogs and their breeders far better than the present one.

[espinay2]

To me, if we can do one thing only to start with, I would have to agree that improving record keeping will be of the biggest assistance. Mandatory microchipping/permanent identification of pups by breeders nationwide and the breeders details staying on the dogs records. Information collected on where 'dumped' dogs are coming from. Then at some point once this is up and running and being enforced, establishing protocols for accountability by breeders for those dogs they produce. I will note that realisticall despite even the most careful screening of puppy buyers by breeders, some will always slip through the net somewhere regardless of how good breeders are. Certainly good screening will reduce the chance of this occurring and this is where responsible breeders excel but what is important also is what a breeder does when one does slip through the net (or more importantly when the breeder does not have a net in the first place). In a nutshell and put rather crudely - establish a system where breeders are obligated to clean up their own messes.

Edited November 6, 2010 by espinay2

[Crisovar]

Microchipping wont work until all vets scan and check details on every dog that walks thru their doors.

Vets are not police or local law enforcers, they are animal health care providers.

[Crisovar]

The responsibility of the vet is to the animal, not to enforce legislation. Having said that I am in favour of compulsory chipping- if all cattle and horses can be chipped in the uk then i'm sure all dogs can be.

Yet vets will dob in people with docked or debarked dogs...

Some mongrels do but most just do their job, which is not law enforcement.

[shortstep]

To me, if we can do one thing only to start with, I would have to agree that improving record keeping will be of the biggest assistance. Mandatory microchipping/permanent identification of pups by breeders nationwide and the breeders details staying on the dogs records. Information collected on where 'dumped' dogs are coming from. Then at some point once this is up and running and being enforced, establishing protocols for accountability by breeders for those dogs they produce. I will note that realisticall despite even the most careful screening of puppy buyers by breeders, some will always slip through the net somewhere regardless of how good breeders are. Certainly good screening will reduce the chance of this occurring and this is where responsible breeders excel but what is important also is what a breeder does when one does slip through the net (or more importantly when the breeder does not have a net in the first place). In a nutshell and put rather crudely - establish a system where breeders are obligated to clean up their own messes.

So you want breeders to be responsible for any dog that they bred for the life time of that dog. What would you you make them do to provide this responsibility? Perhaps paying for an insurance policy that will pay for the dog being put to sleep or perhaps you want expenses covered for the dogs care for for the remainder of it's natural life? Or you want them to put their own dogs down to make room for any throw away when ever that might occur?

Meanwhile the message to dog owners is, Hey it is not your fault that you are a total disgrace to the human race, it is the dog breeders fault. Get any dog you want, when ever you want, and as many as you want. Toss them out as desired, because the breeders of dogs are bastards and a criminals! They are responsible for you being a total ****head.

This is exactly what we are telling out children these days. It is never their fault and they never fail, their poor work and poor effort is someone else's fault. What are we getting? A world full of people who want everyone else to be responsibly for their behavior.

BTW before you go off thinking I have dogs dumped in every pound, think again,. Every dog I have bred for the last 15 years has been chipped. No dogs of mine breedings have ever been in the pound.

If everyone, and yes that means first and foremost the owner of the dog is responsible, then you do not have dogs tossed out. Think.

[Leema]

I have not read everything in this thread, and I'm unlikely to actually make a reply after my post. (If you have anything you would really like an answer to, please PM me.) But here is my suggestion.

My suggestion is that breeders become responsible for their puppies for the entirety of their lives.

As in many states microchipping is currently compulsory, and it is likely to make its way into other states as time progresses, I think this is a great way to monitoring dogs throughout the entirety of their lives. All we would need is, in the CAR database, for an additional field, 'breeder', to be added for every puppy. In this way, dogs are permanently linked to their breeder.

This means that, if that dog ends up into a facility (i.e. a pound), then the breeder can be responsible. If a facility fails to find the owner of an animal, the breeder would be contacted. The breeder would have the opportunity to receive the animal back (administration costs only), or else pay the facility a fee and allow the facility to receive ownership for the animal, and consequently rehome it (or otherwise).

I argue that this is a suitable solution as it would mean that:

a) Responsible breeders have the opportunity to get back any animal that, unawares to them, ends up in unsatisfactory care.

b) Breeders may be less likely to have litters if they are concerned that their puppies may cost them a fee if they end up in inappropriate care.

c) Breeders will seriously consider the homes in which the puppies end up in, as securing a 'forever home' first up would ensure no fees later down the track.

d) Pound-like facilities would also have monetary benefits as a result of this proposal.

I don't believe tougher animal welfare standards are necessary. These standards are already adequate (though poorly enforced), and any changes to these standards only make things more demanding for breeders who recognise legislation.

I don't believe additional licensing (of owners or of breeders) is feasible. There would be lots of administrative costs associated, and obviously there would be people who would 'slip under the radar'.

The beauty of this suggestion is that, as far as I'm concerned, it is only unscrupulous breeders unconcerned with their animals welfare which would object to this proposal. As a future breeder, I would LOVE to have the opportunity to get any animal I bred back out of a pound-like facility and rehome them myself.

There would be no additional restrictions or legislation to be enforced, just an extra field to create on the CAR database. Pound facilities would not have a hugely additional workload - instead of calling two phone numbers when a microchipped animal enters the facility, they would call three numbers.

The main kink in this proposal is that individuals would be able to sell animals which are not microchipped, as I am sure they currently do. There needs to be more policing of microchipping. This is a difficulty. One potential solution is to educate puppy buyers the importance of microchipping, and emphasising ideas such as "you wouldn't buy a vehicle without a warranty, so why would you buy a puppy without a micrcohip?".

[Steve]

O.K. Great stuff is coming out and Id like to discuss them all and debate them as we go through but the intent here is to find possible solutions which dont entail introduction of new laws.

I agree with this lady.

http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Regulatory_co...95Jackson_0.pdf

[shortstep]

breeders become responsible for their puppies for the entirety of their lives.

Can the breeder at least put limits on the costs or types of service they have to provide to the owner of the dog when the owner wants to bail out on their pet?

For example can they only pay for the needle and the cheapest form of disposal or do they have to pay for cremation with decorative urn, and who would get the urn the breeder or the owner?

Or I like this way even better. The breeder can just pay for this cost at the time of sale. For example the pup cost $1000.00. The end of life costs or bail out of pet ownership costs are $2000.00. So the breeder pays the buyer $1000.00 to own the pup.

Then the owner is responsible to bail out of their own pet using the money that they have been paid to do this with by the breeder.

I really like that way of doing. It puts the responsibility back on the owner of bailing out of their own dog but the breeder still pays all their cost up front. Yet it still punishes the breeder,not only the cost of breeding the litter, but an additional $1000.00 penalty per pup for ever having bred the pup.

The world has gone mad.

Edited November 6, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

This subject is continually raised. Answers are given. None are accepted. If you doubt me, check the previous threads on the subject. A puppy farm is a commercial eterprise where dogs are housed as a commercial entitty. Governments, RSPCA and other bodies do not accept this, as it does not suit their intention. Dogs are not and should not be treated as farm animals. Instead of continually raising the same question why not ask your registering body to make a submission to the government, or make individual ones yourselves.

That type of unsuitable breeding leads to dogs which are not ideal pets and which are the ones most lkely to be dumped, because they have various issues whch pet owners cannot cope with

This is not true I accept many answers and explore them - some Ive hung onto. If I had to make up a definition of what is a puppy farm I would be right there with yours and personally I think just as a sheep farmer is someone who breeds sheep for a profit and sees their animals as stock that this should also apply to any definition of any other farmer. Therefore if a breeder farms their animals for profit and sees their dogs as stock then the term should apply to them.

There are several problems with that but one of the biggest is that those in power who are at the end of the day calling the shots regarding policy and laws dont agree.

Its that simple what you or I think should be the defining criteria doesnt really count so for the purposes of this duscussion the definition of a puppy farmer is someone who breeds dogs in sub standard conditions. This is against the law and commercially breeding dogs under standard conditions is not so if we are going to address the issue of both the need to be addressed separately.

Instead of continually raising the same question why not ask your registering body to make a submission to the government, or make individual ones yourselves.

I have no desire to ask my registering body to make any submission to the government in fact based on recent activity I'd rather they didnt and there is much happening on a more individual level than you or most could know at this time. Before any submission or even any suggestion of a possible solution can be formulated with any confidence I would prefer to have a varied input to allow us all to be involved and debating the issues so that when we do move we can do so having our idea tested and challenged by people who have the welfare of dogs as their first priority who actually know something about the subject from a varied start point.

So if you think its all a waste of time thats your take but I dont think it is which is why Im asking the question.

[shortstep]

O.K. Great stuff is coming out and Id like to discuss them all and debate them as we go through but the intent here is to find possible solutions which dont entail introduction of new laws.

I agree with this lady.

http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Regulatory_co...95Jackson_0.pdf

That was a nice read, nice to hear some common sense. It was written in 1995, did she do any follow up papers later?

Edited November 6, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

Steve, I don't believe that any kind of restrictions on dogs, such as BSL, mandatory desexing, etc is going to end puppy farming. From my perspective, we need laws on pet ownership. Animals should be treated with respect and only those who can give an animal the home it deserves and needs should have them. Animals should not be treated as a possession, but they so often are.

We need to have a system where every puppy is registered with a central body and any health/temperament concerns are listed for everyone to see. It must be so easy for a puppy farmer to convince unsuspecting people that they are selling well bred dogs. It must also be easy for registered breeders to sell "less than perfect" pups for a good profit.

Way back when the Magna Carta was signed people didnt see animals as property [ animals as in cattle, sheep , horses etc] If they werent seen as property it meant anyone could just come along and remove them and take them home and it meant that no one had to be responsible for them.The fact they are called chattle which is so close to cattle is no co incidence.

So if we dont see them as property or possessions how then do we keep them as our own and be made responsible for them ? If not possessions then what is a viable solution?

How do you think introducing such a system would stop people from breeding dogs which are kept in horrible conditions? I can see that it may give a heads up about any puppies which have developed helth problems or temperament issues but that can happen even if you give the parents everything they need and then some by way of treatments and care.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Steve