So Whats The Answer ?

[xKALIx]

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.

In a way, I think you've hit the nail right on the head. This is a good long-term solution.

Tell me though, what do you think the breeders should be obligated to do if it's found 50% of their puppies are dumped? Do you think they should be shut down, or simply asked to control their practices more? I am interested as to how far you think this should go.

[raz]

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.

Yes and further to that, because idiots like that twit in news subforum thought they could just flaunt the law because they simply didnt agree with it, then make a mockery of the whole thing by being such an arrogant asshole.

What does that have to do with puppy farms? Nothing I've just got a bee in my bonnet about irresponsible dog owners. Sorry for the hijack, Steve.

[xKALIx]

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.

If every breeder did those things, the world would be a much better place.

[Steve]

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.

Yes and further to that, because idiots like that twit in news subforum thought they could just flaunt the law because they simply didnt agree with it, then make a mockery of the whole thing by being such an arrogant asshole.

What does that have to do with puppy farms? Nothing :D I've just got a bee in my bonnet about irresponsible dog owners. Sorry for the hijack, Steve.

No that far off topic - its still about the same thing really people who know the law but do what they like anyway or people who dont know the law and dont have any basic common sense.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Steve

[raz]

No that far off topic - its still about the same thing really people who know the law but do what they like anyway or epopel who dont know th elaw and dont have any basic common sense.

I think it's a combination - people who know the law and do what they like anyway without having any common sense and not giving a rats' ass about how it impacts on other people

[shortstep]

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.

All i'm saying is that people should know what they're getting into before they jump.

I never assumed how 'you' feel about humans having children, (thought I do have a idea which I kept to myself).

What I said was what you want to require dog owners to do prior to being able to get a dog, is not required of people prior to having babies. I do not find it off topic. I am trying to put dog ownership in to normal relation with all things in life. As such, if it requires more rules, licenses, tests and permits to have a dog than it does to have a child, I think there is something wrong with that process.

Again you prove my point with the last sentence. Humans should know what they are doing prior to having a baby, but there are no laws, no tests, no permits, no inspections that force them to comply with before they can have a baby.

[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.

I dont think people had an idea of this stuff ever. In fact Id say that part of the problem is that some of us have evolved and see it on a higher level but lots are still in the spot where people where when I was a child. When I think of some of the things that went on back then which people did as a matter of course they would put puppy farmers in an elevated position!

Edited to add back then a dog was truly your property. You got to do what ever you wanted with it as long as it didnt bother the neighbours. If it did bother the neighbours you would get punched in the nose or the dog was shot. I remember lots of people throughout my life who had the odd litter - none of whom would ever consider a whelping box.The dog went under the house dug a hole and had puppies. This was common practice.Dogs still had puppies , no such thing as considering a C section or AI , heater lamps , hot water bottles, why on earth would anyone take a dog's temperature? Who would look in its mouth to see how its teeth were and if it got fleas which might jump on the kids you painted em with kero.

As a teenager I did a bit of a stint in what was back then the antz pantz in purebred breeder kennels. They had very healthy and very happy dogs but they lived more like dingoes than battery caged dogs the way we have to house them today.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Steve

[shortstep]

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.

If every breeder did those things, the world would be a much better place.

I in fact do almost all of these things and most of the breeders I know do too.

However you do realize if all breeders only place their pups on desex agreement, then there are no new bloodlines for anyone, and that will quickly mean the end of dogs. So I do not think that to be an 'ethical' breeder, or 'for the world to be a better place', that all dog breeders should place all their pups on desex contract. I think that is a fatal idea for the future of dogs.

Secondly and here is the one area I do differ with you. I do not believe that a bitch should only be bred once if you are doing your job as a breeder correctly. A quality bitch, especially one that throws a trait you are really after (such as consistent really good hips in a breed that does not have the best of hips for example) should not be limited to being used only once (edited grammer). Personally I would put that bitch to at least two different sires and keep at least one bitch pup or even a stud pup (If I really thought I had something special in the genetics) from each litter to possibly go forward with.

In the end you may only use one of the combinations from the bitch, however you may use both and again diversify those breedings by using different sires with each. You need to be able to select and cull but not totally loose every line you work with in the process. Sometimes it is not until you see the grand pups that you really know what you have got. If you put all your eggs in one basket you will end up dumping baskets and changing baskets that you may never gain any control over what you are producing. Good breeders in my opinion never think they have a done deal, they are always looking to modify and refine their bloodlines. You can only do that when you have different dogs to select from. Again I would never put this sort of moral restriction on what I would call an 'ethical breeder. It is not in the best interest of future generations of the breed to deliberately inhibit diversity in the gene pool.

Just my opinion.

Edited November 7, 2010 by shortstep

[shortstep]

I dont think people had an idea of this stuff ever. In fact Id say that part of the problem is that some of us have evolved and see it on a higher level but lots are still in the spot where people where when I was a child. When I think of some of the things that went on back then which people did as a matter of course they would put puppy farmers in an elevated position!

Edited to add back then a dog was truly your property. You got to do what ever you wanted with it as long as it didnt bother the neighbours. If it did bother the neighbours you would get punched in the nose or the dog was shot. I remember lots of people throughout my life who had the odd litter - none of whom would ever consider a whelping box.The dog went under the house dug a hole and had puppies. This was common practice.Dogs still had puppies , no such thing as considering a C section or AI , heater lamps , hot water bottles, why on earth would anyone take a dog's temperature? Who would look in its mouth to see how its teeth were and if it got fleas which might jump on the kids you painted em with kero.

As a teenager I did a bit of a stint in what was back then the antz pantz in purebred breeder kennels. They had very healthy and very happy dogs but they lived more like dingoes than battery caged dogs the way we have to house them today.

Totally agree, looking back 60 years, things have really changed and they have changed for the better.

Just look at dog training methods, they have come on miles in the past 25 years and it was not a law that brought about that change. Look at the routine medical care most dogs get, yearly examines, vaccinations, special diets (oh gees diet in general has really improved), prevenative medicine, the list goes on and on. Back then almost no one desexed dogs or cats. Leash laws, well can't remember dogs on leash much. I will say that I never saw a dog fight, nor ever heard of anyone getting attacked. Of course there was no internet to make a big deal out it, but I also think dogs were better socialized back then becasue they more a part of everyday life.

[~Anne~]

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...

If we are to believe that the reason why so many dogs end up in rescues and pounds across Australia is due to the 'oversupply' of dogs in the pet market, then how do we explain the declining dog ownership growth when compared to the growth of the population of Australia?

Also, I think the definition of 'purebred' dogs in pounds needs to be clarified. If you have 50 'purebred' dogs in one month in a pound, how many of that 50 do you think would be registered pedigree dogs? I would say that the percentage of registered pedigrees would be very minimal.

[Roseclipt]

And a very valid one.

As I said, it doesn't work for all - diversity of opinions.

But I looked around at the breeders who may have wanted my puppies, and decided that they were better off in great pet homes, where they didn't become battery dogs, but loved companions.

As to breeding more than once, well, yes, also a valid opinion, but the "one litter" method worked for us, as we only needed one good one to go on with, and I knew my lines quite well. My nightmare was generally weeding out the potential buyers, and my rule of thumb was that no puppy went into a home that wasn't as good, or better, than the one they came from. I owed them that.

[xKALIx]

Also, I think the definition of 'purebred' dogs in pounds needs to be clarified. If you have 50 'purebred' dogs in one month in a pound, how many of that 50 do you think would be registered pedigree dogs? I would say that the percentage of registered pedigrees would be very minimal.

Can't give you an answer there, as I'm only stating my opinion on what I've seen as I troll through rescue sites on a daily basis. You would be better asking that question to Pug rescue or Beagle rescue (as they both seem to be huge and have a good sample-size) and see what their view on the matter is.

Your other question confuses me a little, as a decline in dog ownership as a percentage of the population would in itself be a contributing factor in the large amount of dogs in shelters and rescues.

Edited November 7, 2010 by xKALIx

[shortstep]

They had very healthy and very happy dogs but they lived more like dingoes

Do you remember that book The Hidden Life of Dogs? Talk about the times have changed.

Edited November 7, 2010 by shortstep

[shortstep]

on what I've seen as I troll through rescue sites on a daily basis

Wow that is very committed. Every day eh?

Are you looking for a dog?

Or you would be doing that because ??

[OSoSwift]

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?

IT won't at least in the beginning, but surely if we know where they are coming from when can then be better informed about how to control/fix the issue. If a majority are coming from puppy farms then commonsense would tell me that the laws and conditions they need to adhere to are not working. They may need to have the rules changed for them.

If they are coming from BYB breeders then maybe we need to look at a way to vastly reduce how many people do that. If they ar coming from rego'd breeders then the canine controls need to crack down on the big time and find their teeth which they apear to lack severly.

All too often you hear "many of the dogs we get through the pound are purebred" yes but WHERE ARE THEY COMING FROM?????? They may be from someone who has quite a few of a certain breed and pumps them out litter after litter.

A relative of mine had pugs. Some were sourced from rego'd breeders, some BYB. They had 8 bitches and two dogs from memory. They breed quite a few litters as they had a demand for them. Now to most people these dogs could end up in the pound and they were purebred, but from a BYB that was verging on a PUppy farmer. Luckily for those PUgs they had two Caesars and decided it cost to much and gave them all away. I just hope they went to better owners than they themselves were.

I really do not see how anything can be worked out to attempt to control dogs ending up in pounds and being dumped if we have no idea where they are coming from.

Slightly off topic. I think all microchips should have the breeder info on not only so that we can figure out where the dogs are coming from, but also so they can get them back if they end up in pounds. I would pay to get my puppies out of the pound or whatever situation they were in if I needed to. The puppy farms are not necessairly going to want them back, but an ethical breeder will.

Hope that answers your question Steve - woken up with toncillitus so not really thinking clearly

[~Anne~]

Also, I think the definition of 'purebred' dogs in pounds needs to be clarified. If you have 50 'purebred' dogs in one month in a pound, how many of that 50 do you think would be registered pedigree dogs? I would say that the percentage of registered pedigrees would be very minimal.

Can't give you an answer there, as I'm only stating my opinion on what I've seen as I troll through rescue sites on a daily basis. You would be better asking that question to Pug rescue or Beagle rescue (as they both seem to be huge and have a good sample-size) and see what their view on the matter is.

Your other question confuses me a little, as a decline in dog ownership as a percentage of the population would in itself be a contributing factor in the large amount of dogs in shelters and rescues.

Up until September last year, I was Pug Rescue Sydney :D :D

Maybe you misunderstood the figures I was pointing out. I haven't the exact numbers on me at the moment but I have quoted them on this forum before. The population of Australia has grown by (let's pick a number just for illustartive purposes only) 10 million in the last 20 years, while the number of people who own dogs grew by only 1.5 million in the last 20 years. This suggests very strongly to me that there is no 'oversupply' problem.

However, the numbers of dogs arriving in pounds and rescues each year increase. Why?

My best guess is that it is more to do with how we view pets and our responsibility towards them, than any issue with how many we are allowing to be born into this world.

Edited November 7, 2010 by ~Anne~

[OSoSwift]

I think you have a very valid point Anne and the problem is how do you try to counter act peoples thoughs and feelings towards their dog/dogs????

[moosmum]

While I agree that many breeders should take more responsibility for dogs they breed,I think its its a mistake to demand life time responsibility for each and every dog.

This idea only encourages buyers to disregard their own responsibilities.

You would have the blame for any problems being increasingly laid on the breeders,leading eventualy to more law suits and general flack aimed at breeders.

Thats not to say breeders should not have to think about pups once they walk out the door...

Here,all pups are microchipped before leaving.

It is a condition of sale that I have the right to contact the new owners at any time,and I do so several times in the 1st year for each and every pup,and often later if it seems warranted or welcomed.

I ask about any behaviour or health issues.

There are very few I have lost complete contact with.Many I see here on Dol and can pretty much relax about them.

This is not just for the pups,but for me too.

I have a much better idea of how pups are likely to develope both pysicaly and mentaly,and how to match them with owners.If health issues were to pop up,I could address that.

Where I choose to advertise should not come into any question of my ethics.

Steve,

You are likey right that people never did have much idea of dog ownership,but overall I think dogs and people were more balanced a generation ago as a result of the day to day interaction that was taken for granted.

Kids (and most adults) did have a basic understanding of how to behave around dogs,and dogs being allowed to roam with the kids all day were pretty well socialised as rule.

There was not the same fear of dogs or their impact on society thats becoming so common,or the need to slowly legislate them out of exsistence.

But yeah,there was a lot of ignorance then too.

There was also peer pressure( or disapearing dogs) on the worst of owners and a lot of help for those who sought it,even if it might not have been the best of advise.

[~Anne~]

I think you have a very valid point Anne and the problem is how do you try to counter act peoples thoughs and feelings towards their dog/dogs????

Education and awareness campaigns.

At the moment, at local government level in particular, they appear to spend more time and resources on cleaning up the mess by operating impound facilities, employing rangers and managing social and or health impacts on the community. Perhaps it is more logical to switch resources to prevention?

I really don't know the answer and to be honest, I think the answer is far too complex and involved to be summed up in a thread on the internet.

Surely though logic and common sense has to come back into the equation somewhere and recognition that life is different now in the 21st century and we live and play differently.

[shortstep]

Up until September last year, I was Pug Rescue Sydney :D :D

Maybe you misunderstood the figures I was pointing out. I haven't the exact numbers on me at the moment but I have quoted them on this forum before. The population of Australia has grown by (let's pick a number just for illustartive purposes only) 10 million in the last 20 years, while the number of people who own dogs grew by only 1.5 million in the last 20 years. This suggests very strongly to me that there is no 'oversupply' problem.

However, the numbers of dogs arriving in pounds and rescues each year increase. Why?

My best guess is that it is more to do with how we view pets and our responsibility towards them, than any issue with how many we are allowing to be born into this world.

I see exactly what you are saying.

And I think it will get worse and worse if we do not change the way things are being handled pretty soon.

People are more and more urbanized and know less and less about animals in general and specifically how to care and live with them.

The fewer people that have dogs, the more difficult we make it to own a dog (just say owner license and permits), the more detached and uneducated people will become about dogs.

The moral of the story is education, encouragement and support with the goal of getting dogs back into the family home.

It is not rocket science, nor is it something unnatural as we have been living with dogs for 10's of thousands of years and not a dog law in sight.

Edited November 7, 2010 by shortstep