So Whats The Answer ?

[Steve]

I think all puppies should be chipped and the information regarding who bred them should stay on there.

THen pwoplw would have an idea of where all these puppies are coming from. I think when we have more of an idea where they are coming from can we then figure out the best way to manage the excess of puppies being euthed, dogs surrended etc.

Oh and purebred does not mean registered or from a person doing the right thing.

So you are seeing that part of the answer is to know who is breeding them and where they are coming from? O.K. So how do you think this would stop people from breeding them in horrible conditions?

[Steve]

Forgive my somewhat biased opinion here but I am coming from a different standpoint to a lot of the breeders on here. Try not to shoot me down too much because I love a good, ethical breeder as much as the next person!

I don't believe we should be breeding as much as we are. This comes after seeing the sheer amount of dogs in rescue groups and shelters. It's a constant stream of people giving away their pets, which goes to show there are a lot of unworthy owners... The sad thing is that there's a lot of purebred dogs out there... not just the crossbreeds. Too many dogs are dying, foster carers are overloaded and people still keep buying puppies... Right now there's a lactating mother in the LDH, the owners don't want her back because she's too much of a hassle and they're planning to raise the puppies themselves. This type of person is the people I am targeting above all else in my idea, not the type of people who post on this forum...

Ideally, I would love to see a licencing system put in place for both breeders and pet owners. I would love for mandatory desexing of dogs and cats (aside from those with a breeder/show licence) and a mandatory day course & test before a pet can be purchased. This won't be the end of all unnecessary deaths in shelters, but I'm sure it would help alleviate the problem.

The thing is, we need a body other than the RSPCA to organise this, because they care about nothing more than lining their coffers... Maybe the money collected from the licences could be used to run a department for this?

Believing that we shouldnt be breeding as much as we are is a minefield. There are way too many legal, political, and economy reasons why making obvious attempts at stopping someone from breeding dogs based on a presumption that we as a group are breeding too many especially when there are so many sub groups will be given a quick flick.

The last thing we want to see is where dog breeding is made illegal which is the big deal thing that I have against introducing a new law to licence breeders.

When we agree to license our dogs or what we do with our dogs we agree to give over our ownership right to the licensing agency, which can at any time revoke our use rights. We grant them absolute control over our animals. They can come onto our real property, and remove our transitory property (dogs) without due process of law.

The places which require licensing can refuse to issue further licenses, and revoke the privilege of dog ownership. Mandatory dog licensing or breeder licencing is the initial step in removing dogs from our ownership and or stopping us from doing certain activities with our dogs.

A license is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to have something or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the license. It makes dog ownership and dog breeding illegal. It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency which can at any time, inspect, confiscate, suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. It’s a way of taking away your property without compensation and the same goes for the "permits " being introduced all over the place for people to be able to keep entire dogs.

When you add to that power to an organisation with no method of being held accountable to police these things we get closer and closer to having no one BUT large scale puppy farmers breeding dogs because no one can stay in the game.

[raz]

When you add to that power to an organisation with no method of being held accountable to police these things we get closer and closer to having no one BUT large scale puppy farmers breeding dogs because no one can stay in the game.

Yep. I'm hearin ya loud and clear. Pretty friggin frightening, isnt it.

[Steve]

My very far fetched 2cents worth

I would think being able to trace a puppy back to the original source- so micro chips identifying the breeder which could be recorded on a national data base. Alows identification of where dumped pups originate from so that there can be effective communication/education to the consumers that are likely to go there.

Laws actually making a breeders desexing agreement legal. It's thrown around all the time that people will buy a pup and then not bother to desex and a breeder has no control over that and that a desexing agreement is really worth nothing.

So perhaps a legal document that can be drawn up stating that the dog is not to be bred from and a fine it is proven that it is. This would of course be expensive to prove as it would require DNA testing, but it would at least allow some control over pure bred dogs ending up at puppy farms

The ANKC also has to stand up and ensure that the code of ethics is not being breached. They can't control non registered breeders but perhaps if they were more pro active in searching for poor breeders they would be able to have more influence.

It also has to come from the other canine registries as a joint front it think to make sure their code of ethics is being monitored. And to just lobby the govt into putting money into education and enforcing current laws.

In order fo this to become a possibility basic contract laws would need to change and that is something that its not realistic to advocate for no matter how much we think it should be the case.

The ANKC are pretty good at policing their codes of conduct but so what .No code says they cant breed hundreds of dogs, or cross bred dogs, or sell to pet shops so what part of the code of conduct is going to ensure they are not breeding puppies in rotten conditions?

[Steve]

Anyone who cares about the welfare of individual dogs would not condone mandatory desexing. I'm talking about higher risks of some cancers in certain breeds.

Mandatory desexing will not stop puppy farming. Responsible people who register their dogs will have them desexed. People who farm them will not.

As long as these people are allowed to advertise their pups in newspapers, online, etc, people will buy them.

Yes and Im waiting to see how long its going to be before pet owners who have been given no choice about having their animals desexed or microchipped mount class actions against councils when their animals get sick.

peopel who breed puppies in back yards because they can are not puppy farmers and mandatory desexing wont stop that becaus ethey are breeding them for themselves and each other.

Even if you stop them from advertising on line , in newspapers etc people will still buy from them or they will still sell more of them to pet shops and agents.

Stopping a breeder from advertising when they have puppies doesnt prevent dogs from being bred in rotten conditions and it is against fair trading laws.

[Steve]

If a person is not capable of doing the right thing by that dog, then that person should not be allowed to have that dog.

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies.

Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws.

[anna]

If a person is not capable of doing the right thing by that dog, then that person should not be allowed to have that dog.

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies.

Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws.

Is that you, Khmer Rouge?

[Steve]

Puppy farmers hiding behind their Dogs Vic or what ever state society membership would be registering their puppies, Yes....when a breeder is registering a litter every month or 2 or 3 a month, or goes over what ever number one would consider a large amount of puppies one would consider them a puppy farmer, why cant then things be in place to visit this breeder....and go from there.? The state societys have all the records why cant they use for the good of the dogs rather than just money grabbing from members.

So you think that if someone breeds more than - how many- they should come under the notice of their state canine association and be treated as potentially people who keep their dogs in sub standard conditions? What happens to the ones who keep their dogs in poor conditions but only breed now and then, or those who have 3 or 4 different prefixes , or those who breed one litter of purebreds to 10 litters of cross breds?

What is this magic number which demonstrates a breeder is breeding commercially rather than breeding more often in order to identify or breed out an issue in the breed?

Edited November 7, 2010 by Steve

[Steve]

One thing I'd like to see is that pet shops be required to provide the info on who they purchase their puppies from to the council... this way council could check for appropriate licencing / dog rego and do a visit to see what the conditions were like.

Microchips being required to record the info of the breeder permanently... this could then help councils (via pound info) to know if there are lots of dogs coming from a particular breeder and do an inspection.

Stopping the dodgy backyard breeder would be a whole lot harder. I'm not sure how you would find them or inspect them.

Pets shops have to keep these records and have to show them to anyone who asks for them already including councils.

[Steve]

Mandatory microchipping,used as a life time trace for dogs could be a very valuable tool.

I believe the current laws,if properly policed,are sufficient.(provided that mandatory 'chipping as a trace is utilised)

I believe the main problems come down to a lack of knowledge by Joe average.

Dogs are no longer a normal part of life for the majority of people,and most of the Joe averages who do have dogs no longer have the wealth of information available from friends and neighbours when there are problems.

People no longer know any better.

They have no idea where to get a dog and turn to the pet shops,papers and on-line.

They have no idea the sort of help thats available from behaviourists or training clubs and groups.

No idea of diet unless its on the supermarket shelf in front of them.

No idea how many dogs are pt each day.

No idea whats involved in raising and training a puppy.

Or caring for an older dog.

No idea that some breeds are known for certain traits that may mean its an unsuitable choice for them.

No idea of their responsibilities or the laws.

No idea that socialisation is required or why.

You want a dog,you just go get one.Easy.

I realy believe the only way around this education as part of schooling ,startying in primary school right up to high school.Even if only 2 days a year.

Going to animal shelters to see what happens to unwanted dogs/pets.

Learn about the laws and responsibilities of keeping animals.

See and handle dogs while learning about safe behaviour around animals.Learn about service dogs.Behaviourists,vets,trainers,kennels etc.

Show children that animals DO have a place in society,but that comes with responsibilities for us all.

Peer pressure,once a greater understanding is known,will eventualy see a lot of these problems enormously reduced.

Ignorance is the biggest problem IMO.

What people don't understand,they fear or abuse.

I think this is a great post and definitely needs more attention and exploration.

[Steve]

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

How will this help in stopping dogs being bred in adverse conditions?

[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

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

I havent found any but Im looking for her. Id like to have a cuppa with her. Doesnt look like she had much success in holding them off though does it?

[Steve]

If a person is not capable of doing the right thing by that dog, then that person should not be allowed to have that dog.

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies.

Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws.

Is that you, Khmer Rouge?

Ive much experience in controlling humans . Im a mother to 8 kids 6 of which are adults,grandmother to 13. I worked in juvenile justice and the biggest battle I fight every single day of my life with being responsible for ensuring two teenagers make it to reasonable maturity without a disaster is peer pressure.

[Rusky]

If a person is not capable of doing the right thing by that dog, then that person should not be allowed to have that dog.

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies.

Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws.

If that were the case there would be no crime. I am speaking of our democratic society. You can certainly educate or attempt education to those who want to listen.

Small backyards, cute window shop puppies, no compulsary microchipping, little desexing of pet puppies from breeders, internet sites like gumtree,TV presenters who advocate mixed breeds,slack councils,TV stars, lack of real facilities for dogs to go and have fun with their owners, beaches closed to dogs, parks closed to dogs, outdoor cafes closed to dogs, and simple human apathy all contribute to the number of dogs abandoned. Those are actually just a few, you can't control people, you can desex dogs.

The shires and RSPCA are the first point of call for people who care and see a bad situation in which a puppy has been raised. RSPCA says food, water and shelter are all that is required, the shire investigates smells and barking. I believe that the councils should have an educated team to investigate and have police power. I believe that complaints from breeders about breeders who are housing dogs in shocking conditions should be properly investigated by the canine body and that if they are deregistered it shouldn't end there but that the ANKC can report to the investigators from council who can close it down. That councils then report to a national body so that it isn't a simple case of moving shires and setting up again, that all licences be approved by a national body.

That inspections be mandatory by your shire.

[Steve]

If a person is not capable of doing the right thing by that dog, then that person should not be allowed to have that dog.

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies.

Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws.

If that were the case there would be no crime. I am speaking of our democratic society. You can certainly educate or attempt education to those who want to listen.

Small backyards, cute window shop puppies, no compulsary microchipping, little desexing of pet puppies from breeders, internet sites like gumtree,TV presenters who advocate mixed breeds,slack councils,TV stars, lack of real facilities for dogs to go and have fun with their owners, beaches closed to dogs, parks closed to dogs, outdoor cafes closed to dogs, and simple human apathy all contribute to the number of dogs abandoned. Those are actually just a few, you can't control people, you can desex dogs.

The shires and RSPCA are the first point of call for people who care and see a bad situation in which a puppy has been raised. RSPCA says food, water and shelter are all that is required, the shire investigates smells and barking. I believe that the councils should have an educated team to investigate and have police power. I believe that complaints from breeders about breeders who are housing dogs in shocking conditions should be properly investigated by the canine body and that if they are deregistered it shouldn't end there but that the ANKC can report to the investigators from council who can close it down. That councils then report to a national body so that it isn't a simple case of moving shires and setting up again, that all licences be approved by a national body.

That inspections be mandatory by your shire.

O.k. Ill concede you probably cant control humans but controlling the numbers of puppies bred cant be controlled by mandatory desexing either.

Whilever there is a demand there will be peopLE prepared to offer the supply . You may prevent some puppies being bred by accident but you wont control the numbers because the less which are available via one means will have the void filled via another. Accidental litters definitely have an impact but they dont see hundreds of dogs being kept for years of their lives in appalling conditions either. How will mandatory desexing or limiting the amount of puppies bred prevent people who breed puppies in horrible conditions?

Edited November 7, 2010 by Steve

[Steve]

If a person is not capable of doing the right thing by that dog, then that person should not be allowed to have that dog.

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies.

Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws.

If that were the case there would be no crime. I am speaking of our democratic society. You can certainly educate or attempt education to those who want to listen.

Small backyards, cute window shop puppies, no compulsary microchipping, little desexing of pet puppies from breeders, internet sites like gumtree,TV presenters who advocate mixed breeds,slack councils,TV stars, lack of real facilities for dogs to go and have fun with their owners, beaches closed to dogs, parks closed to dogs, outdoor cafes closed to dogs, and simple human apathy all contribute to the number of dogs abandoned. Those are actually just a few, you can't control people, you can desex dogs.

The shires and RSPCA are the first point of call for people who care and see a bad situation in which a puppy has been raised. RSPCA says food, water and shelter are all that is required, the shire investigates smells and barking. I believe that the councils should have an educated team to investigate and have police power. I believe that complaints from breeders about breeders who are housing dogs in shocking conditions should be properly investigated by the canine body and that if they are deregistered it shouldn't end there but that the ANKC can report to the investigators from council who can close it down. That councils then report to a national body so that it isn't a simple case of moving shires and setting up again, that all licences be approved by a national body.

That inspections be mandatory by your shire.

So who will need these licences and how many dogs should a breeder have to breed to have these mandatory inspections?

[raz]

beaches closed to dogs, parks closed to dogs, outdoor cafes closed to dogs, and simple human apathy all contribute to the number of dogs abandoned.

Are you seriously saying that because I cant take my dog to a certain beach or cafe that I'm going to dump it? How funny but I do get the point you're making in a roundabout fashion.

Comes back to why puppy farms and pet shop sales need to be trampled on. Ethical breeders will grill a potential owner to make sure they're going to be responsible. Puppy farmers and girls who work in big pet shop franchises wont.

[Steve]

beaches closed to dogs, parks closed to dogs, outdoor cafes closed to dogs, and simple human apathy all contribute to the number of dogs abandoned.

Are you seriously saying that because I cant take my dog to a certain beach or cafe that I'm going to dump it? How funny but I do get the point you're making in a roundabout fashion.

Comes back to why puppy farms and pet shop sales need to be trampled on. Ethical breeders will grill a potential owner to make sure they're going to be responsible. Puppy farmers and girls who work in big pet shop franchises wont.

Yes but why cant we take our dogs to these places any more? Do you think we have more laws in regard to this now because the people who had their dogs at these places were apathetic and were likely to abandon their dogs? I dont - I think these laws are there because people loved their dogs to a point where they couldnt see that they needed to control them and consider people as well as their dogs.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Steve

[xKALIx]

Forgive my somewhat biased opinion here but I am coming from a different standpoint to a lot of the breeders on here. Try not to shoot me down too much because I love a good, ethical breeder as much as the next person!

I don't believe we should be breeding as much as we are. This comes after seeing the sheer amount of dogs in rescue groups and shelters. It's a constant stream of people giving away their pets, which goes to show there are a lot of unworthy owners... The sad thing is that there's a lot of purebred dogs out there... not just the crossbreeds. Too many dogs are dying, foster carers are overloaded and people still keep buying puppies... Right now there's a lactating mother in the LDH, the owners don't want her back because she's too much of a hassle and they're planning to raise the puppies themselves. This type of person is the people I am targeting above all else in my idea, not the type of people who post on this forum...

Ideally, I would love to see a licencing system put in place for both breeders and pet owners. I would love for mandatory desexing of dogs and cats (aside from those with a breeder/show licence) and a mandatory day course & test before a pet can be purchased. This won't be the end of all unnecessary deaths in shelters, but I'm sure it would help alleviate the problem.

The thing is, we need a body other than the RSPCA to organise this, because they care about nothing more than lining their coffers... Maybe the money collected from the licences could be used to run a department for this?

You realize we do not require all this for a person to have a child.

You believe dogs should be more protected by laws, tests, screening, mandatory medical treatments and licenses than human babies deserve.

Further you believe only certain superior people should be allowed to breed a dog or own a dog, yet anyone can have a baby.

I think it is way way over the top.

People in general are good not bad, though I know this is not a popular way of looking at humans these days.

Can I ask, do you think you are a good enough human to own a dog?

How many other people have you met in your life you think are good enough to own a dog, must not be very many since you feel all this is needed for them to cleared to own a dog.

The more I think about it the more sorry I feel for you, what a terriable way to see the world.

I love your wonderful assumption about how I feel about humans having children. Love it. Especially when it is completely off the track, incorrect and has nothing to do with this topic.

Love it, just love it.... especially the 'i feel sorry for you' part.

Back to the topic at hand though, I will attempt to give my feeling on the rest of your post. I don't think 'good enough' is the correct term to be used... 'Educated' is more along the lines of where I'm going. I know when and how to worm and de-flea a dog. I know what they need nutrition-wise. I know how much exercise they need per day. I know how to clip nails, correct types of brush for almost every type of coat and basic training. I know basic first aid. I would hope that this makes me educated enough to keep those two dogs lounging on the floor next to me happy and healthy.

The above is something many, many people have no clue on. I also know that people in pet shops and BYB don't know many of those things... When a large amount of pets are being sold in pet stores without the correct information and little to no screening and no one being held accountable, where do we go from here? We assure ourselves that everyone buying a pet from this day onwards is aware of what they are getting into, by making sure they have the information BEFORE they buy that pet. This is where someone does a short course on pet ownership and gets a licence afterwards. This is not a yearly licence like the reptile/bird ones you can get, this is not something that can be revoked without good reason.. All it's there to do is show the purchaser that this person knows what they are getting into.

I used to have people coming into Petstock all the time with a new puppy and NO IDEA what to buy. They would set their unvaccinated puppy down on the floor of the store and ask me about collars and leads. These people had no idea they had to worm their puppies, that they needed more than a ball to play with or that socialisation was an important factor in raising a well-adjusted dog. The basics of pet ownership shouldn't be learned on-the-job. All i'm saying is that people should know what they're getting into before they jump.

[Roseclipt]

Ethics. You cannot legislate for it. Population genetics - diversity - also in human primate, so there will always be difference of opinion and consciousness. Polarisation of opinion - there seems to be no middle ground in anything anymore.

You can try to make your own little slice better and ensure that those under your care and responsibility have the best of lives. We can only control what is under our direct guardianship.

I am a believer in only breeding from the soundest of animals, so I health test for all that I can, and guarantee my puppies.

I am a believer that I only need to breed a bitch once to get a better result than her if I am doing my job correctly, so don't see the point in breeding multiple litters form the same bitch.

I am a believer in the "birth to death" responsibility, so that I chip, and before that, tattooed.

I am a believer in putting every puppy that I am not keeping with me on limited register.

I am a believer in supplying a voucher to an owner so that the desexing is at no cost to them at an appropriate age.

I am a believer in taking, or buying, back any puppy or dog that I breed that can no longer be kept by their owner.

I do not believe in the exploitation of animals - but do I not exploit them by selling them?

These things work for me - but they may not work for you. So who is right? And who sets themselves up to be the ultimate judge?

This, I think, is the impossibility of legislation against puppy farmers ever working correctly- we will ALL be caught in that trap.

Maybe, in an ideal world, microchipping, with every breeder and stud dog owner responsible for the costs of every dog of theirs that turns up in the pound? Verification of parentage and ownership of parents by DNA prior to chipping? Verification of every breeder at chipping time with 100 points identification? After all, it has to be done for a bank account.