So Whats The Answer ?

[Natsu chan]

I haven't read all of this thread, as I have a colossal headache. I'll come back later and read it through but to my mind only two things will stop the rot and I can't see either happening. That is education and putting the responsibility for pets (all pets) back on to the owners. People are very ignorant about animals now, for all sorts of reasons. That's why we have so many issues with dog attacks and the like, lack of education, knowledge and a sense of responsibility on the part of the owner and a lack of training on the part of the dog. If laws we have now were enforced and there was peer pressure to be responsible a lot of the issues we have now would be so minor as to be unimportant.

People scream about animals having rights but how can they? With rights come responsibilities and how can we expect an animal to behave in an appropriate way in our society by instinct? What we really mean is that if we as humans want animals then we have to show the responsibility to provide them with the care and education that we owe them and more than that we need to show them enough respect to aknowledge that they are animals not little people in fur coats. Rights is a loaded word and that's where a lot of the problems come from, we put the responsibility on to the animals by saying they have rights instead of saying owners have responsibilities.

Anyway Steve I'd love to know what you're up too and I'm sure everyone else has far more practical suggestions than me! :D

[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.

Up until September last year, I was Pug Rescue Sydney

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.

Sorry, I didn't realise. Although I was on this site a while ago, I haven't been around for long and don't know everyone. Let me just say though that I respect anyone who rescues. I am fostering a cat and her 5 kittens at the moment and that takes a lot out of me, I couldn't do it all the time. Kudos to you for all your hard work.

I do see your logic, but still respectfully disagree in a small way. Isn't the very definition of an oversupply problem that there's more than is wanted/needed? If there's not as many people owning dogs, and thousands are being killed in shelters, then why are we still breeding more? I don't want this to be seen as an attack on registered breeders (because i know more often than not they do the right thing) but how the hell do we get this into the head of the BYB and irresponsible owners who let their un-desexed cats roam?

It sickens me the way some people see a dog as a possession, a thing there for money-making... and don't think of the bigger picture.

[xKALIx]

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 ??

Yes, everyday. Reason isn't important and I would appreciate you stop hounding me. We are both on the same side here, for the dogs, and even though our opinions differ you should respect mine as I respect yours. I'm not saying I don't enjoy a healthy debate but take a second to read your posts back before you hit reply.

[Steve]

I haven't read all of this thread, as I have a colossal headache. I'll come back later and read it through but to my mind only two things will stop the rot and I can't see either happening. That is education and putting the responsibility for pets (all pets) back on to the owners. People are very ignorant about animals now, for all sorts of reasons. That's why we have so many issues with dog attacks and the like, lack of education, knowledge and a sense of responsibility on the part of the owner and a lack of training on the part of the dog. If laws we have now were enforced and there was peer pressure to be responsible a lot of the issues we have now would be so minor as to be unimportant.

People scream about animals having rights but how can they? With rights come responsibilities and how can we expect an animal to behave in an appropriate way in our society by instinct? What we really mean is that if we as humans want animals then we have to show the responsibility to provide them with the care and education that we owe them and more than that we need to show them enough respect to aknowledge that they are animals not little people in fur coats. Rights is a loaded word and that's where a lot of the problems come from, we put the responsibility on to the animals by saying they have rights instead of saying owners have responsibilities.

Anyway Steve I'd love to know what you're up too and I'm sure everyone else has far more practical suggestions than me!

You're right we are up to something and my hope is that when we say what that is that everyone will see that its something they can get behind and become involved in.

This is why for me listening to everyone's suggestions and thinking them through whilst openily debating and discussing them is so important.

Its easy when you belong to one group or another to be biased and not be able to see it all from a different perspective and lots of animal rights based stuff seems to

feed on that . I dont want that to continue because I dont think over all its the best thing for our dogs.If we are going to find an answer its going to take something different , something that hasnt been tried before because so far everything world wide thats been tried has been disatrous for the future of our breeds and our rights to dog ownership. Ive had a couple of tastes of the illusion of being involved and having all groups at the table so that any outcome is supposedly based on what different groups agree is the best thing for the future but it is more like someone telling you that your bill is $10,000 - making you scream and sweat over how you're going to pay it and then saying "oops its only $6000" You then feel its a bargain and you are happy to pay it and shut up thanking God you got out of it so lightly. Trouble is where laws and policies are involved with dogs the consequences are too high for me to be happy with the $6000 - if you get what I mean. I think sooner or later they will get me for much more than the $10,000.

[Natsu chan]

The other thing with bringing in new laws is, that anything that restricts breeders will also negatively impact on rescue as well. You can not restrict one without restricting the other legally it just isn't possible and I am sure that no one wants to see all those little rescues shut their doors over all this too all that would do is increase the euthanasia rate.

Yep Steve I know exactly what you mean.

Oh for the days when animals where animals and people where people and we didn't expect more from the animals than we expected from ourselves!

Edited November 7, 2010 by Natsu chan

[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 ??

Yes, everyday. Reason isn't important and I would appreciate you stop hounding me. We are both on the same side here, for the dogs, and even though our opinions differ you should respect mine as I respect yours. I'm not saying I don't enjoy a healthy debate but take a second to read your posts back before you hit reply.

I do not think I hound people when I ask question about something they said. So not a problem that you do not want to say why you do this, but I still find it a very interesting comment.

[xKALIx]

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 ??

Yes, everyday. Reason isn't important and I would appreciate you stop hounding me. We are both on the same side here, for the dogs, and even though our opinions differ you should respect mine as I respect yours. I'm not saying I don't enjoy a healthy debate but take a second to read your posts back before you hit reply.

I do not think I hound people when I ask question about something they said. So not a problem that you do not want to say why you do this, but I still find it a very interesting comment.

What makes it so interesting?

[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.

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.

To be honest, I don't know the answer on how it should be controlled. Having the information on where the problem is actually coming from though allows a more targetted response. Responsible breeders already pride themselves on having an interest in the dogs they breed 'for the life of the dog' - you hear this promoted all the time and I will presume in most cases it is more than just lip service (it is at least with me and with those I know personally). Careful placement can limit the opportunity for dogs turning up in a bad situation. No one can guarantee 100% success though, though there are those that may possibly achieve it. Those that screen well however, are also those who usually take on some form of responsibility if something goes wrong down the track. I would hate to see any kind of penalty in place for a 'one off' type situation where the breeder was willing to take responsibility for the dog and would have done anyway (as soon as they are notified of the situation courtesy of that microchip). If a large number of dogs from one breeder are turning up over time requiring assistance from rescue organisations however, that is a flashing red light. Certainly there is responsibility from the owner in this type of situation. Though how you would place this responsibility on owners at the 'back end' of the deal when they are getting rid of the dog I don't know (apart from enforcement of current welfare laws and regulations which wont cover all or even most situations). The place to do it is really up front when they get the dog...which brings us back to the breeder. There are examples available of situations where a seller is held responsible for who they sell goods to and where they end up. Not refrigerators I will admit, but seller responsibility is not a new thing altogether. What form that could take for dogs, I don't know. But perhaps if at the very least breeders are 'made aware' of where the dogs they breed end up and this data is available more widely in some form (privacy restrictions considered) there may be leverage to start 'cleaning things up' a bit more at the front end when it comes to the wholesale and/or indiscriminate sale of dogs? JMHO and musings...

[espinay2]

So you want breeders to be responsible for any dog that they bred for the life time of that dog.

Responsible breeders already make this claim frequently.

What would you you make them do to provide this responsibility?

Initially? Greater visibility of where the dogs are coming from. Basically the ability to track a product back to its source.

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?

Assistance with 'crisis care' or rehoming or even the ability to take the dog back are perhaps things to be considered though as mentioned previously, I would be wary of how or even if this was enforced. I understand that some rescue organisations currently dont even allow the breeder that type of role even if they want it. As for putting their own dogs down to make room, IMO a bit of a reactionary emotive response? I doubt anyone would even consider that even close to being on the board. The issue of what options there are in relation to a dog that someone has bred that needs care when you can't have them at your home for some reason has been discussed before - there is at least one reasonably recent thread in the breeders forum. I can't see this being any more of an issue for responsible breeders than it is now though as they generally have this covered already. More of a problem for mass producers if their dogs re turning up frequently and creating a burden for rescue organisations.

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.

Yes, owners are responsible. No one is denying that at all. And perhaps therefore there should be more done about those turning the dogs over to rescue or dumping them in the first place? Perhaps you have some views on how that can be achieved. The brief here however, is about the breeders and breeders have a responsibility too. Who they sell the dogs to in the first place for example. Visibility of where the dogs end up and where they are from may help put pressure to improve screening at the other end of the pipeline.

For example, while a person may be responsible for the amount of alcohol they consume (and holds the ultimate responsibility for their own actions), a licenced publican is also responsible if they continue to sell to a person who is inebriated (or to a minor). They hold responsibility for the decision they make at the point of sale and the consequenses of that decision. This is the sort of concept I am suggesting in regards to 'moral accountability'.

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.

Good for you. No doubt you screen your buyers well and have a system in place to minimise issues down the track. But if one did end up in the pound for some wild unknown reason (who knows - all the family killed in a car crash for example - wild conjecture here), are you positive you would know about it? Are your details still on all your dogs microchip records? How would someone get in touch with you if the owners didn't? Would you want to know happened to the dog?

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

That is right - and it is the breeders responsibility to ensure that the person they sell the dog to will - to the best of their knowledge - be a responsible owner.

Think.

I think we are.

Edited November 7, 2010 by espinay2

[asal]

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.

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

you made some good points but the last sentance in your other post sort of refudes the points before it.

i am constantly amazed at the niavety of so many i read.

'HO i never breed mor than one/two litters. to breed more than one litter to the same sire is just puppy farmong" and so on.

if those who say such things actually did some research just one mating can give thousands of possibilities of how each and ever pup could turn out.

every pup is a new combination of the parents genes. read any genetics book, you need a minimum of 16 progeny to check for the existance or not of just one gene alone if you suspect the parents are carriers and any number of progeny under that number you darent think they are not carriers.

sometimes there can be 100 and all clear, its happened.

and here we are hoping the best genes of a coupe of hundred thousand possible combinations will match up and expect only the good ones will elect to be born of one?????????? litter.

no hope no way.

the best could be the first or the last of 100. I dont think there is a genetists in the world who would say number 6 will be the one to keep for example.

yet dog breeders think they can actually do this with one or two litters? and have a ghost of a chance of genetic improvement at the same rate as some (obviously unethical) who actually breeds a few dozen and picks the best, and even worse lets other breeders access to a couple if not more of the best to use as well.

doesnt happen anymore the way it used to back in the bad old days. more people then used to think helping each other was a good idea.

unethical wasnt on the radar then.

the picture painted is the picture of a rapidly shrinking genepool, or am standing at the wrong angle so the picture is out of alignment? Steve HELP!

[Florise]

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.

I thought that Petshops did not have divulge that information? Where are the laws saying this?

[Steve]

I wil admit Im unsure of laws in other states and Im probably guilty of assuming this was the case in all states.

NSW.

(7.2) RECORD-KEEPING

7.2.1 Standards

7.2.1.1 Appropriate records must be kept for:

The acquisition/breeding of animals, including the date of birth, date of • acquisition and the name and address of the supplier/breeder of the animals.

The sale of animals (except fish), including: the date of sale, and the name • and contact details of the new owner.

The death or euthanasia of animals at the premises, including the date • of death and, where known, the circumstances surrounding the death or euthanasia.

Veterinary treatment of animals, including routine husbandry procedures • such as worming or parasite control.

Trading in animals subject to regulatory control, for example birds traded • under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

The date of cleaning and disinfection for all enclosures.•

7.2.1.2 Records must be kept for a minimum of 5 years, on the premises, and all staff must be able to produce the records.

[BigPaws]

Sorry I haven't read through all the posts after my last comment.

Steve, I didn't realise you were talking about answers that don't require any new laws. I think the only answer without legal intervention is education. If possible, find influential people who care about this and get them to tell stories about dogs from puppy farms who get put to sleep because it's their best option. I know there aren't any well known vets in Bondi currently who promote responsible dog ownership, but it would be fantastic if someone in such an influential position could help the general public understand the issues here.

[Rusky]

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

licence would be required by anyone with breeding dogs in a kennel exactly as it is now but that a separate body of educated people in animal husbandry to have police powers and to inspect regularly. I would imagine that the extras which I feel are basic such as a run, comfortable bedding, regular excercise and cuddles could easily be added to the pathetic current requirements. I know and understand completely the breeders on this thread who are doing it right will feel irritated but it isn't for them, they would just become part of it to improve living conditions for all dogs in a kennel ( farm) situation.

I agree with Anne too that there is not an oversupply but I belive the comments I made earlier about restrictions have added to the problem. There was a day whe dogs took themselves off to do whatever and came home when they felt like it, there used to be heaps of dogs wandering around, life was simpler then, times have changed and fines are heavy. You can't take your dog where you please either, that irritates me a lot in fact Fremantle council just one day decided that dogs could not be in the main CBD and that was that... I loved Sundays at freo with my dog and all the other dogs, shopping coffee relaxing.

It is increasingly difficult to find a rental which allows dogs etc etc

[Natsu chan]

Educating the public and encouraging and rewarding (and publicising that) good owners is the only thing that will work in the long term.

If the bill Mr Brumby has promised the RSPCA is passed all that will happen is more puppies not less will be bred in puppy farms because the majority of good breeders will be too intimidated and afraid of loosing everything to continue. It will become too hard.

The root of the problem is lack of education. People buy puppies with no more than the most basic knowledge, sometimes not even that. They don't understand that gun dogs are working dogs, that herding dogs are mentally busy, that terriers are hunters. They don't understand about canine language, they don't understand that dogs need an education before they can be expected to behave in a particular way. They don't understand that Lassie was made not born and that that requires effort, learning, knowledge and persistence on their part. But most of all they don't understand that when they buy a pup they are buying responsibility. Even the most loving and well meaning owners are often completely lacking in knowledge.

Without education, it is easy to blame the dog. So the dog ends up at the pound and they buy another puppy and so the cycle continues. Dog savy people don't buy pups from pet shops, they look for a breeder or a rescue, who tend in turn to give them even more knowledge.

Breeders aren't really the problem. Puppy farms would die a natural death if people knew more, but there will always be some.

It is completely counter productive to keep tightening controls and punishing everyone for the acts of the few, however awful. The vast majority of dogs in this country are well looked after by people who do their best by them. To listen to the hype you'd think good dog owners where like gold dust.

The thing is we need domesticated animals. They connect us to the natural world, they teach us about love and they give us empathy for the world of wild animals that are ever lastingly at our mercy. Would people be so keen to save the tiger if it wasn't for the domestic cat? Or the Wolf if it wasn't for the dog?

[Shazzapug]

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?

Dont we have to start somewhere???? You ask for discussions and yet are so quick to squash suggestions, hey I can sit in my own little safe world or I can chose to join y'll and try and find solutions...I have had a bleeping bad day...4 of my sheep had to be shot this morning cos they were literally mauled within an inch of their life by bloody cross breds that no matter what happens to puppy farmers there will always be mongrels to maul sheep.

I thought this was about puppy farms so yes if a reg breeder is registering more than 1 litter a month sorry but I consider that puppy farming....either that or they are making a shit load of money and not breeding for the betterment of the breed.

[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?

Dont we have to start somewhere???? You ask for discussions and yet are so quick to squash suggestions, hey I can sit in my own little safe world or I can chose to join y'll and try and find solutions...I have had a bleeping bad day...4 of my sheep had to be shot this morning cos they were literally mauled within an inch of their life by bloody cross breds that no matter what happens to puppy farmers there will always be mongrels to maul sheep.

I thought this was about puppy farms so yes if a reg breeder is registering more than 1 litter a month sorry but I consider that puppy farming....either that or they are making a shit load of money and not breeding for the betterment of the breed.

Im sorry to hear about your sheep and I understand that its been a bad day but Im not squashing suggestions Im trying to discuss the issues - I asked you what you thought should instigate the measures you suggested and you have answered that you think anyone who is breeding more than and registering more than a litter a month should be inspected and have these checks done on them.

So given that the definition of a puppy farmer is anyone who breeds puppies in sub standard conditions how does this provide a solution to the problem of people who are breeding registered puppies at less than a litter a month or breeding any litter and not being registered?

Why do you think that someone who is making money or breeding more than a litter a month cant be breeding for the betterment of the breed?

There isnt much point in making suggestions if no questions are asked and the possibility of that making any impact are discussed.

[Steve]

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

licence would be required by anyone with breeding dogs in a kennel exactly as it is now but that a separate body of educated people in animal husbandry to have police powers and to inspect regularly. I would imagine that the extras which I feel are basic such as a run, comfortable bedding, regular excercise and cuddles could easily be added to the pathetic current requirements. I know and understand completely the breeders on this thread who are doing it right will feel irritated but it isn't for them, they would just become part of it to improve living conditions for all dogs in a kennel ( farm) situation.

I agree with Anne too that there is not an oversupply but I belive the comments I made earlier about restrictions have added to the problem. There was a day whe dogs took themselves off to do whatever and came home when they felt like it, there used to be heaps of dogs wandering around, life was simpler then, times have changed and fines are heavy. You can't take your dog where you please either, that irritates me a lot in fact Fremantle council just one day decided that dogs could not be in the main CBD and that was that... I loved Sundays at freo with my dog and all the other dogs, shopping coffee relaxing.

It is increasingly difficult to find a rental which allows dogs etc etc

I think its a little bit more than irritated. I can tell you right now that a very high percentage of people who breed dogs on a small scale will walk away if they have to allow people with police powers who are not policemen to inspect their homes regularly in order to be able to breed a litter of puppies.Mandatory codes and laws pertaining to breeding dogs apply to everyone breeding dogs including those who only breed a litter every couple of years and the only ones who will feel comfortable about that are big puppy farmers who have the money and facilities to feel comfortable about this. If small hobby breeders decide its not worth the grief and stop breeding, if the demand stays the same,if those who already have planning permits can ensure they pass inspections and those who hide and dont apply for a permit and operate without anyone knowing they are there continue to do so Im having a hard time seeing how this will help much. There are also major issue and that is should people who breed dogs have no right to free enjoyment of their own property. Is it acceptable for people to loose their basic rights because they want to breed a litter of puppies? I dont think so and its why Im asking for suggestions of possible solutions without needing to change laws.

Just as you feel that law changes have impacted in areas people didnt anticipate or care about when they bought in new laws in your area they will also have negative consequences if they are aimed at controlling breeders.

Personally I think if there are any law changes they should be less prohibitive rather than more prohibitive.

[Gayle.]

Puppy farms are first and foremost a business enterprise, and the way to stop them is to stop them producing puppies. And how to do that? Stop people from buying them. As soon as there is no demand for the product, they will stop producing it.

And how to stop people buying puppy farm puppies? Start letting them know where to buy better puppies.

People go to pet stores because they are convenient, friendly, accessible and because they've been told that crossbreds are better/healthier than purebreds. And no one is telling them otherwise.

[raz]

I have had a bleeping bad day...4 of my sheep had to be shot this morning cos they were literally mauled within an inch of their life by bloody cross breds that no matter what happens to puppy farmers there will always be mongrels to maul sheep.

That's terrible. How traumatic for you, sharon. Poor little buggers.