Next Question

[supercharged]

One issue I'd like to see clamped down on is registered breeders sending whole litters overseas to puppy agents. There are a few notable examples of that.

Personally I don't think you should be able to sell a a pup overseas unless its to a private buyer.

+1 here, it is terrible - every month we open the CCC mag to count how many a certain person is taking and to analyse the re-occuring prefixes.........how it that not puppy farming???

[shortstep]

I can not see any reason why ANKC can not limit the number of litters a member breeds.

For example in many countries in Europe, in the kennel clubs limit their members dogs to how many litters/pups they can have in their lifetime, to prevent popular sire syndrome.

I believe there are cities in California that also limits the number of litters a dog that lives in the city can and this applies to both males and female.

We have lots of rules that limit what we can do, even restrict what we can do. Rules that say you can only breed a dog with X health score (like say hips at better then half the breed average), when there is no law that says that and you could find a lot of science which would not even agree with that method. Rules you can not bred your ANKC dog to an unregistered dog, which is a rule they impose for ethical reasons. I know a breed club that does not allow the dogs to become show champions, if they do they pull their reg papers. There are more examples. It is your choice to belong to the club and obey the rules.

So I would be very slow to say that a club can not limit their members to ethical goals they set. After all if you don't like it you can still breed your dog you just can't do it with their approval. This is already happening in several countries.

I think that limiting the number of litters is not exactly an extreme restriction, provided it not too severe of a small number. Who breeds more than 12 litters a year, or over one a month? Are there lots of breeders having 2 litters per month or 24 litters a year? Surely breeding 3 litters a month 36 a year is....???

I think that we can draw a line and say that anything over that is clearly large scale commercial breeding. I think it is more than Ok, even being demanded, that we say we do not condone large scale puppy breeding.

When we are being threatened with removing property rights and ownership rights of dogs, well I am ready to pull some people in on their breeding habits in an effort to show that we can be responsible 'owners' and we can 'control ' our own members, that we can be held to a high standard. We can then say that that the ANKC does not allow large scale commercial puppy farming by it's members.

I also know it will not make all breeders with less litters all give the best care. We all know someone can breed one litter in their life and do a darn bad job of it. That is not what this is meant to stop anyway.

It is meant to stop large scale commercial dog breeding with in the ANKC membership and I see no reason at all the ANKC should not do take this step.

However if they would put it to a vote and most members want to have large scale commercial breeders producing X number of litters per year in the ANKC, then OK.

As long as I have been in dogs these topics have gone round and round and have never been solved at least with in the kennel clubs I have been part of. It really is time to just get it done.

Edited November 23, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

The Canine Councils are private membership where you have to pay a fee to be registered each year.

There are rules and you have to follow them.

Someone like McDougal who sets up Australian citizen "employees" and gets them a prefix, is flouting the lax breeding requirements and export conditions the CCs place on pups and breeders. They may be following the rules but by DOG - a long way to go as far as ethics are concerned.

Surely being a private organisation, the CCs have a say as to the rules their members must follow? I hear "fair trading" bandied about a lot but if you don't want to follow the rules of a club including the ethical requirements, how is that against fair trading?

Go breed the pups if you want to but do it without the blessing of the CCs. I can hear you Steve LOL - about to say, "but we should be encouraging new breeders" and while I strongly agree, these "agents" are not who we should be encouraging!

It's high volume puppy farmers like McDougal who give ethical registered breeders a bad name. It's the McDougals we need to weed out first and then start on smaller registered BYBs who are keeping their dogs in less than satisfactory conditions.

And I'm not talking "new rules" but how about simply enforcing the ones have in place already?

You are not allowed to export Limit Register puppies and I think that's wrong. We should be encouraging use of the Limit Register for puppies exported as pets.

Since when is mcDougal a puppy Farmer? Why would he want to be? He owns several USA Pet stores and advertises that he only sells Australian bred registered puppies from great Aussie breeders via Transpet who is their sole agent in Australia . Ive never ever heard of him breeding a pup himself.

[Steve]

I can not see any reason why ANKC can not limit the number of litters a member breeds.

For example in many countries in Europe, in the kennel clubs limit their members dogs to how many litters/pups they can have in their lifetime, to prevent popular sire syndrome.

I believe there are cities in California that also limits the number of litters a dog that lives in the city can and this applies to both males and female.

We have lots of rules that limit what we can do, even restrict what we can do. Rules that say you can only breed a dog with X health score (like say hips at better then half the breed average), when there is no law that says that and you could find a lot of science which would not even agree with that method. Rules you can not bred your ANKC dog to an unregistered dog, which is a rule they impose for ethical reasons. I know a breed club that does not allow the dogs to become show champions, if they do they pull their reg papers. There are more examples. It is your choice to belong to the club and obey the rules.

So I would be very slow to say that a club can not limit their members to ethical goals they set. After all if you don't like it you can still breed your dog you just can't do it with their approval. This is already happening in several countries.

I think that limiting the number of litters is not exactly an extreme restriction, provided it not too severe of a small number. Who breeds more than 12 litters a year, or over one a month? Are there lots of breeders having 2 litters per month or 24 litters a year? Surely breeding 3 litters a month 36 a year is....???

I think that we can draw a line and say that anything over that is clearly large scale commercial breeding. I think it is more than Ok, even being demanded, that we say we do not condone large scale puppy breeding.

When we are being threatened with removing property rights and ownership rights of dogs, well I am ready to pull some people in on their breeding habits in an effort to show that we can be responsible 'owners' and we can 'control ' our own members, that we can be held to a high standard. We can then say that that the ANKC does not allow large scale commercial puppy farming by it's members.

I also know it will not make all breeders with less litters all give the best care. We all know someone can breed one litter in their life and do a darn bad job of it. That is not what this is meant to stop anyway.

It is meant to stop large scale commercial dog breeding with in the ANKC membership and I see no reason at all the ANKC should not do take this step.

However if they would put it to a vote and most members want to have large scale commercial breeders producing X number of litters per year in the ANKC, then OK.

As long as I have been in dogs these topics have gone round and round and have never been solved at least with in the kennel clubs I have been part of. It really is time to just get it done.

So for you its a numbers game? Will this number be determined by litters or pups? Who will determine this number ? How will you stop breders doing what they do now - have several different prefixes in family members names? How much hope do we really have - even if we could in stopping this when at least one board member of Dogs NSW exports stacks of pups a year and someone happens to be related to the guiy who owns Transpet and was instrumental in the whole export thing from the ACT even starting in the first place?

Edited November 23, 2010 by Steve

[shortstep]

I can not see any reason why ANKC can not limit the number of litters a member breeds.

For example in many countries in Europe, in the kennel clubs limit their members dogs to how many litters/pups they can have in their lifetime, to prevent popular sire syndrome.

I believe there are cities in California that also limits the number of litters a dog that lives in the city can and this applies to both males and female.

We have lots of rules that limit what we can do, even restrict what we can do. Rules that say you can only breed a dog with X health score (like say hips at better then half the breed average), when there is no law that says that and you could find a lot of science which would not even agree with that method. Rules you can not bred your ANKC dog to an unregistered dog, which is a rule they impose for ethical reasons. I know a breed club that does not allow the dogs to become show champions, if they do they pull their reg papers. There are more examples. It is your choice to belong to the club and obey the rules.

So I would be very slow to say that a club can not limit their members to ethical goals they set. After all if you don't like it you can still breed your dog you just can't do it with their approval. This is already happening in several countries.

I think that limiting the number of litters is not exactly an extreme restriction, provided it not too severe of a small number. Who breeds more than 12 litters a year, or over one a month? Are there lots of breeders having 2 litters per month or 24 litters a year? Surely breeding 3 litters a month 36 a year is....???

I think that we can draw a line and say that anything over that is clearly large scale commercial breeding. I think it is more than Ok, even being demanded, that we say we do not condone large scale puppy breeding.

When we are being threatened with removing property rights and ownership rights of dogs, well I am ready to pull some people in on their breeding habits in an effort to show that we can be responsible 'owners' and we can 'control ' our own members, that we can be held to a high standard. We can then say that that the ANKC does not allow large scale commercial puppy farming by it's members.

I also know it will not make all breeders with less litters all give the best care. We all know someone can breed one litter in their life and do a darn bad job of it. That is not what this is meant to stop anyway.

It is meant to stop large scale commercial dog breeding with in the ANKC membership and I see no reason at all the ANKC should not do take this step.

However if they would put it to a vote and most members want to have large scale commercial breeders producing X number of litters per year in the ANKC, then OK.

As long as I have been in dogs these topics have gone round and round and have never been solved at least with in the kennel clubs I have been part of. It really is time to just get it done.

So for you its a numbers game? Will this number be determined by litters or pups? Who will determine this number ? How will you stop breders doing what they do now - have several different prefixes in family members names? How much hope do we really have - even if we could in stopping this when at least one board member of Dogs NSW exports stacks of pups a year and someone happens to be related to the guiy who owns Transpet and was instrumental in the whole export thing from the ACT even starting in the first place?

Look anyone can pick hole in any idea. Anyone can and some will cheat. Nothing new there and you deal with it the best you can. It is time to take a stand and do something, the only thing that ANKC can do is make it's own rules and set limits on the behaviour of it's own members. We nned to just get on with it do what we can and stop making up reasons why we can not stop puppy farmers in are own ranks.

Edited November 23, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

for me it is about the quality of life the breeding animals and the puppies have. are their needs being met, are they meeting developmental stages

i dont care how many puppies someone breeds as long as all the dogs and puppies are being looked after physically and psychologically at the correct level

Edited November 23, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[shortstep]

for me it is about the quality of life the breeding animals and the puppies have. are their needs being met, are they meeting developmental stages

i dont care how many puppies someone breeds as long as all the dogs and puppies are being looked after physically and psychologically at the correct level

Well we already have that in most states with the dog breeding welfare codes and it sounds like the RSPCA will soon be policing all breeders to make sure that happens.

That has nothing to do with ANKC taking a stand against large scale commercial breeders with in it's own ranks.

Just my personal opinion and it comes from 20 years of breeding and most of that time being home full time. I would never want a pup from somone breeding 3 litters a month and doing it year in and year out. I do not think they could or would give those pups the kind of care I would want my pups to have. And I also I do not want a pup raised by employees in breeding facilities no matter how well educated, monitored and regulated they are. But to each their own.

Edited November 23, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i believe someone could breed a few litters and do nothing for the development of the puppies so numbers don't make sense to me as a measure of animal welfare standards

[shortstep]

i believe someone could breed a few litters and do nothing for the development of the puppies so numbers don't make sense to me as a measure of animal welfare standards

True and I am sure people can mull over that problem till the cows come home.

It still has nothing to do with the ANKC taking a stand against large scale puppy farmers.

I think this is why nothing in ANKC every gets solved.

We do not focus in on one problem and solve it.

Instead we keep throwing in other problems, so of course the solution will not solve all the other problems.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i believe someone could breed a few litters and do nothing for the development of the puppies so numbers don't make sense to me as a measure of animal welfare standards

True and I am sure people can mull over that problem till the cows come home.

It still has nothing to do with the ANKC taking a stand against large scale puppy farmers.

I think this is why nothing in ANKC every gets solved.

We do not focus in on one problem and solve it.

Instead we keep throwing in other problems, so of course the solution will not solve all the other problems.

i think it does have a point because until we agree or know what the baseline is we don't know who's breaking the rules

Edited November 23, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[shortstep]

i believe someone could breed a few litters and do nothing for the development of the puppies so numbers don't make sense to me as a measure of animal welfare standards

True and I am sure people can mull over that problem till the cows come home.

It still has nothing to do with the ANKC taking a stand against large scale puppy farmers.

I think this is why nothing in ANKC every gets solved.

We do not focus in on one problem and solve it.

Instead we keep throwing in other problems, so of course the solution will not solve all the other problems.

i think it does have a point because until we agree or know what the baseline is we don't know who's breaking the rules

Ok lets turn it around and lets stick to one thing, does ANKC or does it not support large scale puppy breeding?

So here we are looking at the front page of ANKC and we can see one of 2 sentences.

1. ANKC does not support, nor do we allow our members to participate in large scale breeding of puppies.

or

2. ANKC encoupanse all types of breeder from small home breeders to the largest puppy farms in the country, we do not regulate or monitor the number of puppies any of our breeds produce.

Which one?

[shortstep]

i believe someone could breed a few litters and do nothing for the development of the puppies so numbers don't make sense to me as a measure of animal welfare standards

True and I am sure people can mull over that problem till the cows come home.

It still has nothing to do with the ANKC taking a stand against large scale puppy farmers.

I think this is why nothing in ANKC every gets solved.

We do not focus in on one problem and solve it.

Instead we keep throwing in other problems, so of course the solution will not solve all the other problems.

i think it does have a point because until we agree or know what the baseline is we don't know who's breaking the rules

Ok lets turn it around and lets stick to one thing, does ANKC or does it not support large scale puppy breeding?

So here we are looking at the front page of ANKC and we can see one of 2 sentences.

1. ANKC does not support, nor do we allow our members to participate in large scale breeding of puppies.

or

2. ANKC encourages all types of breeders from small home breeders to the largest puppy farms in the country, we do not regulate or monitor the number of puppies any of our breeders produce.

Which one?

Edited November 23, 2010 by shortstep

[Greytmate]

I'm for regulating number of litters a dog can have, regulating how many times a dog can be used at stud, regulating how many people/staff per dog per property. But no limit on numbers of dogs.

The best dog I ever owned was raised at a large kennel. He was tops.

[shortstep]

I'm for regulating number of litters a dog can have, regulating how many times a dog can be used at stud, regulating how many people/staff per dog per property. But no limit on numbers of dogs.

The best dog I ever owned was raised at a large kennel. He was tops.

Sorry miss understood your post. but will leave this part..LOL

edited to add,

Wouldn't it be nice if the government came to the ANKC to ask how to manage dog breeding problems i nthe rest of the community. I think that day could come, but only if ANKC pulls us up to the level of the best breeding programs in the world.

Edited November 23, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I'm for regulating number of litters a dog can have, regulating how many times a dog can be used at stud, regulating how many people/staff per dog per property. But no limit on numbers of dogs.

The best dog I ever owned was raised at a large kennel. He was tops.

i could live with this as well

Edited November 23, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[shortstep]

I'm for regulating number of litters a dog can have, regulating how many times a dog can be used at stud, regulating how many people/staff per dog per property. But no limit on numbers of dogs.

The best dog I ever owned was raised at a large kennel. He was tops.

i could live with this as well

So back to the questions

We are looking at the front page of ANKC and we can see one of 2 sentences.

1. ANKC does not support, nor do we allow our members to participate in large scale breeding of puppies.

or

2. ANKC encourages all types of breeders including the largest puppy farms in the country. Our puppy farm policy includes regulating number of litters a bitch can have, regulating how many times a dog can be used at stud, regulating the number of staff per dog per property on the large puppy farms.

So you like option #2 for the ANKC position on puppy farming?

I still pick option 1 hands down.

But may be add a few more rules for the puppy farms and I might warm up to it.

Edited November 23, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i would need something in there about the dogs and puppies having an enriched environment that meets their developmental needs

eta i am not fixed in my view at all, what i want is something that works for the dogs

Edited November 23, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[Jed]

Greytmate

I'm for regulating number of litters a dog can have, regulating how many times a dog can be used at stud, regulating how many people/staff per dog per property

I see the sense in this. However, just to be (as usual) the fly in the ointment. Consider A breed. 2 fatal diseases. DNA tests recently developed. Many of the better dogs are found to be carriers for one disease or another. The choices in stud dogs are limited - if they aren't carriers for one disease, the bitch is. Some dogs are carriers for both. Remember there was no way to identify the problem until the dog developed symptoms.

A new dog is imported. He is clear of everything, so all the carriers can safely be mated to him. He does not have many genes in common with any of the bitches, so he is an outcross which gives breeders and opportunity to breed clear or carrier pups from their lovely, but carrier status bitches.

So he is used very extensively at stud. However, the pups by him can now go on and breed without the risks involved in these diseases. Now the breeders have clear or carrier dogs they can go back to whatever lines they like.

Limiting the number of services he was allowed would have seen the 2 problems continue in this country, for many many bitches, without any way forward.

I would disagree with limited services - always.

With Cavs and SM and MVD, if the genes involved are ever discovered (and I don' t think they will be), one or some dogs will need to be used quite a lot at stud to work the way around these problems, I think. Limiting the number of times a dog can be used at stud will retard breeding away from the problems.

[Sheridan]

From the UK:

Kennel Club Takes The Lead On Litter Limits For Bitches

The Kennel Club has announced that from 2012 it will normally register no more than four litters from any one bitch because of concerns that the current legal limit of six litters can potentially be detrimental to a bitch’s welfare.

The decision was made by the Kennel Club General Committee after receiving a recommendation from its Dog Health Group and will be effective for litters born on or after 1st January 2012.

Six litters per bitch is the current legal limit enshrined in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999.

Bill Lambert, the Kennel Club’s Health and Breeder Services Manager, said: “The Kennel Club wants to ensure that all breeders put the health and welfare of their puppies and breeding bitches first and foremost, and this decision underlines our commitment to this issue.

“Whilst the law allows bitches to have six litters in a lifetime and our registration system has previously fallen in line with this, the vast majority of responsible breeders feel that this is too high and that there is potential for this to have a negative impact on the welfare of the bitch.

“Very serious consideration has to be given to the matter if a breeder wishes a bitch to have more than four litters but the Kennel Club may grant permission for this to happen if it believes that there is good and justifiable reason for doing so on a case by case basis.”

The Kennel Club has also urged the government to follow suit and to tighten up the law in order to help clamp down on puppy farmers.

Mr Lambert added: “Of course, this decision will sadly not impact on those people who do not register their litters with the Kennel Club, in particular puppy farmers who breed purely for profit and tend to show little consideration for an animal’s welfare. Legislation needs to be tightened so that these people can be brought to account.”

The Kennel Club has called for the principles and standards of the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme to be made mandatory for all dog breeders. This means that breeders would have to put the health and welfare of their puppies first, for example by giving their dogs the required health tests for their breed and ensuring that potential buyers see the puppies with their mothers and in their home environment. A petition with 15,000 signatures supporting this objective was handed in to Number Ten Downing Street just a year ago by Ian Cawsey MP.

[Janba]

The regulation of the number of litters a bitch has is the same throughout the breeds but regulating the number of times a stud dog is used with out having a predominant sire effect or being potentially detrimental to the size of the gene pool is a lot harder. In the case of a GSD who sires 25 litters a year (say 125 pups) or 3% of the GSD pups registered in 2009 is going to have less of an impact than a dog siring 1 litter of 5 pups or over 10% of the pups registered in 2009 Tervueren Vallhund or 1 litter and 25% of the briards born that year etc. While I realise 25 litters may seem a lot in a year it does happen with some new imports. The other problem with regulating the number of times a stud dog can be used is that in the numerically larger brreds it can lead to dogs of lesser quality being used.

When I first started in pure bred dogs (in the 70s) there where large scale breders who bred a lot of litters to get there next show dogs and produced as a result a large number of healthy pets. The dogs were well looked and loved. One of these breeders was one of my mentors and still breeds albeit on a smaller scale. Nowadays these breeders would be labled as puppy farmers but they weren't they were reputable respected breeders.

With only about 12% of the dogs in Auustralia being ANKC reistered and that number is slowly falling if registered breeders don't breed more litters the future of registered dogs is black. Regulating the number of litters a breeder can breed in a year isn't the answer.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe as well as ensuring that all breeding dogs a kept in a MINIMUM standard of accomodation, excersise, socialisation etc but not regulating to the point where a litter raised in the family home is breaching regulations. I also would like to think that the mandatory recording of DNA test, hips scores etc on pedigreesv or an up to date health certificate for things like heart disease in breeds prone to those conditions was implemented as it has now been for BCs as of 1/1/11 but I am also worried about where else that information may end up.