C.c.c. Qld's New Breeder Accredited System

[Erny]

What do you think they should do to improve the system? I see a lot of poohooing but very little in the way of constructive ideas.

I'd like to see answers and ideas in response to this as well.

[Wags]

I would like to thank everyone who has posted a reply to my question and it is clear by the responses where this system sits with everyone.

Thank you for your time.

I wouldnt take that much notice of what breeders who havent joined have to say.

Ask the ones who have and also understand that they will be promoting this to puppy buyers and regardless of what the breeders who dont or cant join have to say that may just make the difference.

If you are concerned about what other breeders might think of you if you do - forget that they will find numerous other things whether you're in or out.

Its nice to know the difference between me being ethical and unethical is simply $22.

What a crock!!!!!!

Yes Jed - I agree that you can't make people change their ethics unless they choose to, however, there is nothing wrong in creating a system which highlights those with ethics in order to give the general public a measure. The focus on the (incorrect) fee as a means to accreditation means that the person doing so hasn't fully taken on board the requirements of accreditation, but hey, if they choose not to do so, it is their bag. The application is not the entire scheme - it is merely entry into it.

If the breeders of long standing who believe they're the ants pants are too high and mighty for screening, then perhaps they're a little afraid they might be nudged off their pedestals, instead of seeing it as confirmation of what they're claiming.

I can only repeat my previous quote.

Wags. please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say, nor do I think that "breeders of long standing" (including me) believe they are the ants pants, and are afraid of being nudged off their pedestals etc ...... you said that, not me. I didn't even think it.

I do not see any point in being part of a scheme with someone who, according to the CCCQ is better than others, despite telling lies when purchasing dogs, selling a pup with a broken leg, selling pups full of hookworm, and refusing to refund the full purchase amount and auctioning pups on popular sites --- oh I could go on.

Registered pups are so difficult to acces (except in some popular breeds) that most of the public would happily buy from Bluebeard, if the pup looked ok, and will never ask, or care whether the breeder is a member of an Accredited Scheme or not.

The system almost works in UK, although a lot of very good breeders wont join, but it is less likely to work here because of differences in UKKC and Dogsqld.

And whilst the CCCQ may think it is a great idea to snuggle up with RSPCA instead of standing up for what their members want, they will find themselves standing alone as breeders walk away from their prefixes.

And I agree with Mysticview and Oakway. DO you work for Dogsqld?

No, I don't work for Dogs Queensland, but I have gone into it, know what an accreditation scheme is all about and appreciate what it can do for an industry. It is not a matter of stating that some breeders are 'better than others', or that they 'need monitoring', although there are responsible registered breeders and irresponsible and unethical registered breeders as you have noted. The scheme and it's ongoing requirements should weed out the irresponsible and unethical so that the general public and other breeders have a measure of confidence in the remaining breeders. It is the ongoing requiements that will achieve this, something there seems to be an element of ignorance or innocence about on this thread.

Dogs Queensland have had the courage to make improvements and are presently giving everyone the opportunity to volunteer for the process and are being greeted with outrage by people who have complained about irresponsibility, called people puppy farmers and anything else they can think of to discredit them and objected to people being registered etc. etc. I really and truly am mindblown at the response.

There is unlikely to be one of us who hasn't come across a registered breeder who is not necessarily a good advertisement for the industry. And this isn't necessarily confined to new breeders and can certainly include so called reputable and/or long standing breeders. We can choose which way we go with our breeding principles and programmes and ethics and the majority of us no doubt take the positive road. But when you are presented with an opportunity to hopefully make it uniformly so that registered breeders conduct themselves and their breeding in an ethical and principled manner with all the endeavours of being a breeder practiced, including assisting new breeders to do it well, then why on earth aren't you right behind it ???

[Wags]

Sandra, I would suggest you re-read the paperwork more closely as it does outline the ongoing requirements.

WHERE, It is full of mights and maybes - we might drop in and have a cuppa and see if you're being a good person. I can't find anything that states you must do this that or the other, just "I promise I will" and "we might check up and maybe keep you to your promise"

And as for your other comment - Yes I do have proof of this person's unethical behaviour but you don't need to visit a property to identify an unethical puppy farmer, if you believe this to be so and are in some way related to the implementation of this scheme then doG help us all.

This is absolute rubbish - you haven't read anything I'm afraid.

[Wags]

Sandra, I would suggest you re-read the paperwork more closely as it does outline the ongoing requirements.

WHERE, It is full of mights and maybes - we might drop in and have a cuppa and see if you're being a good person. I can't find anything that states you must do this that or the other, just "I promise I will" and "we might check up and maybe keep you to your promise"

And as for your other comment - Yes I do have proof of this person's unethical behaviour but you don't need to visit a property to identify an unethical puppy farmer, if you believe this to be so and are in some way related to the implementation of this scheme then doG help us all.

Tell me Sandra, what exactly denotes a puppy farmer and what is is about this breeder you are maligning that proves to you that it is a puppy farmer, since you obviously don't even know the person or seen the operation. It's easy to simply make suggestive maligning comments about anyone any time isn't it.

[Sandra777]

Sandra, I would suggest you re-read the paperwork more closely as it does outline the ongoing requirements.

WHERE, It is full of mights and maybes - we might drop in and have a cuppa and see if you're being a good person. I can't find anything that states you must do this that or the other, just "I promise I will" and "we might check up and maybe keep you to your promise"

And as for your other comment - Yes I do have proof of this person's unethical behaviour but you don't need to visit a property to identify an unethical puppy farmer, if you believe this to be so and are in some way related to the implementation of this scheme then doG help us all.

This is absolute rubbish - you haven't read anything I'm afraid.

Please show me where I am wrong. Please show me where the compulsion to comply is. Please explain to us all why our perception of this scheme is wrong. I don't think everyone here who is saying the scheme is a joke is saying so because they feel like it, I am saying it because I have read everything I can find about the CCCQ accredited breeder's scheme and none of it fills me with any confidence.

Please show us why we are wrong believing what we do.

And please stop referring to the hobby breeding of pure bred dogs under the CCCQ banner as an industry

Ernie: IMO an accredited breeders scheme should require the applicant to demonstrate an on going and ''long term'' dedication to the improvement of their breed through continued participation in a sport which can measure their progress involving dogs of their breeding - be this conformation shows, obedience/trials, agility, gundog working trials, herding trials (ssh) Schutzhund work...... The breeding of dogs primarily for the pet market should not be an acceptable reason to breed. To be accepted they should show an ongoing "long term" commitment to health schemes as appropriate for their breed, with documented proof being required up front - no namby pamby we might ask you clause.

This really is just a start.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Sandra777

[Sandra777]

Tell me Sandra, what exactly denotes a puppy farmer and what is is about this breeder you are maligning that proves to you that it is a puppy farmer, since you obviously don't even know the person or seen the operation. It's easy to simply make suggestive maligning comments about anyone any time isn't it.

I have never visited this person's property but I DO know them - do you only know people you have actually visted at their home?

But why is my knowing them personally or otherwise relevant? I have dealt with the aftermath, studied their actions and seen their "product".

"The operation" as you say - you can be a puppy farmer with immaculate facilities so going to someone's property and inspecting "the operation" proves nothing.

ETA: A puppy farmer IMO is someone who breeds entirely for money with no interest in any other facet of breeding. It is not a numbers game, it is an intentions game.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Sandra777

[Sandra777]

...

Edited February 1, 2011 by Sandra777

[WoofnHoof]

I'm being naughty and haven't read the whole thread but the last post strikes a chord because it has been suggested numerous times here that performance testing of breeding stock would be a good measure of health and soundness but inevitably people have a problem with it because some breeds can't be tested for their original purpose (even though I'm sure they could participate in something to prove a dogs soundness) or breeders don't have time to train for sports etc etc, of course a scheme will fall over if it includes any kind of mandatory testing because there will be people who carry on because they can't do it for this or that reason, those topics always die a natural death which is why nothing gets done, united we stand and all that.

ETA not the last post now but Sandras response to Erny re performance testing.

Edited February 1, 2011 by WoofnHoof

[Wags]

Sandra, I would suggest you re-read the paperwork more closely as it does outline the ongoing requirements.

WHERE, It is full of mights and maybes - we might drop in and have a cuppa and see if you're being a good person. I can't find anything that states you must do this that or the other, just "I promise I will" and "we might check up and maybe keep you to your promise"

And as for your other comment - Yes I do have proof of this person's unethical behaviour but you don't need to visit a property to identify an unethical puppy farmer, if you believe this to be so and are in some way related to the implementation of this scheme then doG help us all.

This is absolute rubbish - you haven't read anything I'm afraid.

Please show me where I am wrong. Please show me where the compulsion to comply is. Please explain to us all why our perception of this scheme is wrong. I don't think everyone here who is saying the scheme is a joke is saying so because they feel like it, I am saying it because I have read everything I can find about the CCCQ accredited breeder's scheme and none of it fills me with any confidence.

Please show us why we are wrong believing what we do.

And please stop referring to the hobby breeding of pure bred dogs under the CCCQ banner as an industry

Ernie: IMO an accredited breeders scheme should require the applicant to demonstrate an on going and ''long term'' dedication to the improvement of their breed through continued participation in a sport which can measure their progress involving dogs of their breeding - be this conformation shows, obedience/trials, agility, gundog working trials, herding trials (ssh) Schutzhund work...... The breeding of dogs primarily for the pet market should not be an acceptable reason to breed. To be accepted they should show an ongoing "long term" commitment to health schemes as appropriate for their breed, with documented proof being required up front - no namby pamby we might ask you clause.

This really is just a start.

And ...... the problem is? It seems that at least most of these requirements are in the scheme now. Certainly continued monitoring will ensure longterm 'commitment', wouldn't it?

If you are a registered breeder, in Queensland, you would have been party to the monthly Dog Blog, where the GM has practically shouted responses to your criticisms above. He is making every endeavour to ensure that breeders understand that there are ongoing requirements and monitoring that this is not just some flippant effort to gain a whole $22 per registered breeder, per three years - huge amount of income isn't when you think about it (tongue in cheek).

Dog breeding is an industry - and I'm sorry to have to tell you but anyone who sells but one puppy is a commercial breeder.

I'd really like to hear of one registered breeder who hasn't sold puppies to the 'pet market'. Indeed most show homes sell the majority of their puppies to the pet market on limited registration.

If indeed you are privvy to this, understand the process of accreditation, then I have no need to explain anything more than I already have.

As I've said before, Dogs Queensland are brave enough to instigate positive change, and it's amazing that with all the accusations, criticism and maligning in the industry, there hasn't been a rush of support.

The instigate of positive change is certainly a more attractive alternative to your cynicism, maligning and negativitgy.

[Steve]

I would like to thank everyone who has posted a reply to my question and it is clear by the responses where this system sits with everyone.

Thank you for your time.

I wouldnt take that much notice of what breeders who havent joined have to say.

Ask the ones who have and also understand that they will be promoting this to puppy buyers and regardless of what the breeders who dont or cant join have to say that may just make the difference.

If you are concerned about what other breeders might think of you if you do - forget that they will find numerous other things whether you're in or out.

Its nice to know the difference between me being ethical and unethical is simply $22.

What a crock!!!!!!

Yes Jed - I agree that you can't make people change their ethics unless they choose to, however, there is nothing wrong in creating a system which highlights those with ethics in order to give the general public a measure. The focus on the (incorrect) fee as a means to accreditation means that the person doing so hasn't fully taken on board the requirements of accreditation, but hey, if they choose not to do so, it is their bag. The application is not the entire scheme - it is merely entry into it.

If the breeders of long standing who believe they're the ants pants are too high and mighty for screening, then perhaps they're a little afraid they might be nudged off their pedestals, instead of seeing it as confirmation of what they're claiming.

I can only repeat my previous quote.

Wags. please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say, nor do I think that "breeders of long standing" (including me) believe they are the ants pants, and are afraid of being nudged off their pedestals etc ...... you said that, not me. I didn't even think it.

I do not see any point in being part of a scheme with someone who, according to the CCCQ is better than others, despite telling lies when purchasing dogs, selling a pup with a broken leg, selling pups full of hookworm, and refusing to refund the full purchase amount and auctioning pups on popular sites --- oh I could go on.

Registered pups are so difficult to acces (except in some popular breeds) that most of the public would happily buy from Bluebeard, if the pup looked ok, and will never ask, or care whether the breeder is a member of an Accredited Scheme or not.

The system almost works in UK, although a lot of very good breeders wont join, but it is less likely to work here because of differences in UKKC and Dogsqld.

And whilst the CCCQ may think it is a great idea to snuggle up with RSPCA instead of standing up for what their members want, they will find themselves standing alone as breeders walk away from their prefixes.

And I agree with Mysticview and Oakway. DO you work for Dogsqld?

No, I don't work for Dogs Queensland, but I have gone into it, know what an accreditation scheme is all about and appreciate what it can do for an industry. It is not a matter of stating that some breeders are 'better than others', or that they 'need monitoring', although there are responsible registered breeders and irresponsible and unethical registered breeders as you have noted. The scheme and it's ongoing requirements should weed out the irresponsible and unethical so that the general public and other breeders have a measure of confidence in the remaining breeders. It is the ongoing requiements that will achieve this, something there seems to be an element of ignorance or innocence about on this thread.

Dogs Queensland have had the courage to make improvements and are presently giving everyone the opportunity to volunteer for the process and are being greeted with outrage by people who have complained about irresponsibility, called people puppy farmers and anything else they can think of to discredit them and objected to people being registered etc. etc. I really and truly am mindblown at the response.

There is unlikely to be one of us who hasn't come across a registered breeder who is not necessarily a good advertisement for the industry. And this isn't necessarily confined to new breeders and can certainly include so called reputable and/or long standing breeders. We can choose which way we go with our breeding principles and programmes and ethics and the majority of us no doubt take the positive road. But when you are presented with an opportunity to hopefully make it uniformly so that registered breeders conduct themselves and their breeding in an ethical and principled manner with all the endeavours of being a breeder practiced, including assisting new breeders to do it well, then why on earth aren't you right behind it ???

Good points but please go slowly what is it exactly in this accreditation process which is any different to what is already in place for registered breeders via their COE and regulations in Queensland?

[Wags]

I'm being naughty and haven't read the whole thread but the last post strikes a chord because it has been suggested numerous times here that performance testing of breeding stock would be a good measure of health and soundness but inevitably people have a problem with it because some breeds can't be tested for their original purpose (even though I'm sure they could participate in something to prove a dogs soundness) or breeders don't have time to train for sports etc etc, of course a scheme will fall over if it includes any kind of mandatory testing because there will be people who carry on because they can't do it for this or that reason, those topics always die a natural death which is why nothing gets done, united we stand and all that.

ETA not the last post now but Sandras response to Erny re performance testing.

Yes, I agree. Some breeds weren't bred as performance dogs. And yes, it's not always possible to be involved in breeding and other life responsibilities and get to shows and performance events. Sometimes breeders have to rely on their extended families (ie those that have bought a puppy for show or performance purposes) to do it for them.

[centitout]

I forgot to say in my prior post.

What if every breeder in Queensland becomes accredited ?.

That puts us all back on the same level. Oh well back to square one and a lot more money in Dogs Queensland pockets.

But thats really the whole point - if they felt it was needed why didn't they just make it a change to the COE for everyone?

Why did they set a system up which made it look like they allowed members who were rotten and why did they set a system up which sees puppies being regsitered by some who may not be doing the right thing

Why didnt they just tell them to bugger off , that we were all doing the right thing and if we dont they will chuck us out ?

Why did they play this game? It cant be for more money.

Time will tell but now its done sooner or later breeders will give in and pay the money tick the boxes or be seen to be lesser breeders.Would have been different if no one joined but looks to me like its a run away train.

Its a done deal and accredited breeders are being promoted over any others even though any one who can read can still see they dont have to do anything more than they do now. Whats more they can still sell to pet shops and still breed crossbred dogs and still breed hundreds of puppies each year.

Then they would all need to be transparent and screened regularly - something they seem to be dodging. You see, it's not just the application and it's components, it's the ongoing monitoring and screening which is designed to keep everyone on the straight and narrow. Those not keeping up with standards will be given the opportunity to change, and be more closely screened in the process. Those that refuse will then be dealt with accordingly.

Canine control councils presently only act on (some) complaints. This is an ongoing monitoring and screening independant of personal grudges and breeder jealousy as is sometimes the case in complaints being received by CCC to date.

If you've ever been involved with accreditation in the care industry, you will also know that it is taken very very seriously because passing accreditation means they can continue to operate. I see no reason why breeder accreditation should be treated any less seriously. It may well be feared by those who fully understand the process and who are not confident in maintaining it.

Personally I believe that every registered breeder ought to be under an accreditation scheme. I'm actually hoping that this is a prelude to the need for accreditation, but not until we've got the unregistered breeders monitorable and answerable. Indeed the State register may well be a pathway to more people taking their breeding seriously and becoming accredited. Wouldn't that be wonderful.

I have worked in several animal industries that require äccreditation",and it is a crock of $%#t.Welfare standards are blatantly ignored,covered up or paid off,the ones doing the auditing tend to turn blind eyes to everything.Animal äccreditation"is not the same as human accreditation.

This will be no different-how hard is it to get 2 made up refs and a vet reference?

I know of a reg poodle breeder that is a puppy farmer-she has/had 30 odd bitches,we never saw any of them at the vet clinic,only the pups for vaccinations-she also glowingly told us about all her öodle"orders she had,you can breed 2 unpapered dogs together no problem,but hey you never know,she is prbably now accredited fine to go and buy a crappy puppy off.Her dogs are brought up in a shed like livestock,no socialisation whatsoever,but the shed meets the requirements for the scheme.

None of her dogs are health tested at all either,and the pups get sold to petshops

Bloody glad i got out of it when i did.

[Wags]

I would like to thank everyone who has posted a reply to my question and it is clear by the responses where this system sits with everyone.

Thank you for your time.

I wouldnt take that much notice of what breeders who havent joined have to say.

Ask the ones who have and also understand that they will be promoting this to puppy buyers and regardless of what the breeders who dont or cant join have to say that may just make the difference.

If you are concerned about what other breeders might think of you if you do - forget that they will find numerous other things whether you're in or out.

Its nice to know the difference between me being ethical and unethical is simply $22.

What a crock!!!!!!

Yes Jed - I agree that you can't make people change their ethics unless they choose to, however, there is nothing wrong in creating a system which highlights those with ethics in order to give the general public a measure. The focus on the (incorrect) fee as a means to accreditation means that the person doing so hasn't fully taken on board the requirements of accreditation, but hey, if they choose not to do so, it is their bag. The application is not the entire scheme - it is merely entry into it.

If the breeders of long standing who believe they're the ants pants are too high and mighty for screening, then perhaps they're a little afraid they might be nudged off their pedestals, instead of seeing it as confirmation of what they're claiming.

I can only repeat my previous quote.

Wags. please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say, nor do I think that "breeders of long standing" (including me) believe they are the ants pants, and are afraid of being nudged off their pedestals etc ...... you said that, not me. I didn't even think it.

I do not see any point in being part of a scheme with someone who, according to the CCCQ is better than others, despite telling lies when purchasing dogs, selling a pup with a broken leg, selling pups full of hookworm, and refusing to refund the full purchase amount and auctioning pups on popular sites --- oh I could go on.

Registered pups are so difficult to acces (except in some popular breeds) that most of the public would happily buy from Bluebeard, if the pup looked ok, and will never ask, or care whether the breeder is a member of an Accredited Scheme or not.

The system almost works in UK, although a lot of very good breeders wont join, but it is less likely to work here because of differences in UKKC and Dogsqld.

And whilst the CCCQ may think it is a great idea to snuggle up with RSPCA instead of standing up for what their members want, they will find themselves standing alone as breeders walk away from their prefixes.

And I agree with Mysticview and Oakway. DO you work for Dogsqld?

No, I don't work for Dogs Queensland, but I have gone into it, know what an accreditation scheme is all about and appreciate what it can do for an industry. It is not a matter of stating that some breeders are 'better than others', or that they 'need monitoring', although there are responsible registered breeders and irresponsible and unethical registered breeders as you have noted. The scheme and it's ongoing requirements should weed out the irresponsible and unethical so that the general public and other breeders have a measure of confidence in the remaining breeders. It is the ongoing requiements that will achieve this, something there seems to be an element of ignorance or innocence about on this thread.

Dogs Queensland have had the courage to make improvements and are presently giving everyone the opportunity to volunteer for the process and are being greeted with outrage by people who have complained about irresponsibility, called people puppy farmers and anything else they can think of to discredit them and objected to people being registered etc. etc. I really and truly am mindblown at the response.

There is unlikely to be one of us who hasn't come across a registered breeder who is not necessarily a good advertisement for the industry. And this isn't necessarily confined to new breeders and can certainly include so called reputable and/or long standing breeders. We can choose which way we go with our breeding principles and programmes and ethics and the majority of us no doubt take the positive road. But when you are presented with an opportunity to hopefully make it uniformly so that registered breeders conduct themselves and their breeding in an ethical and principled manner with all the endeavours of being a breeder practiced, including assisting new breeders to do it well, then why on earth aren't you right behind it ???

Good points but please go slowly what is it exactly in this accreditation process which is any different to what is already in place for registered breeders via their COE and regulations in Queensland?

puff, puff, puff ...... Hi Steve, you are usually a relative voice of reason.

A quick outline (I've been endeavouring to explain this throughout this thread) is: Dogs Queensland have instigated a, presently voluntary, accreditation scheme for it's registered breeders. The application requirements, as with any bone fide accreditation scheme, consists of a self-examination (with guidelines provided), production of valid and meaningful references from other breeders and clients and also from a vet who has known the breeder for some time and dealt with him/her, which is relevant to breeding principles. There is also a requirement for an undertaking in regard to continued breeding principles and practices. That is the application and it sounds simple but does take quite a bit of thought and effort.

The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

They have also instigated ability for accredited breeders to become Mentors to other breeders, however, this carries requirements of experience and performance, it is not just a waving of the hand with an 'oh yes, I suppose I could be a mentor'.

It would take quite a bit of time to give you all the fine details, but this ought to be a reasonable outline. Both Accreditation and Mentorship is for three years at which time it has to be reapplied for and the whole process is repeated as with any accreditation scheme. Site inspections can occur at any time throughout the three year period.

Now, some of the Queensland breeders have taken up the option and passed their application for accreditation - the self-examination etc. at which point Dogs Queensland are listing them as accredited breeders. Some breeders who have not elected to apply or breeders in other states who know little about the scheme, or, dare I say it, backyard and puppy farmers, are condemning the system, maligning breeders who have gone through the process and belittling everything as merely a means of obtaining more income by Dogs Queensland (fees are $22 per 3 years). They are now claiming that Dogs Queensland are favouring accredited breeders, presumably because they are listed as accredited.

Frankly I've always seen it as a very positive and proactive move on the part of Dogs Queensland, and view the Qld State Governments innovation of a state dog breeders registration for any breeder, registered or otherwise, purposely or accidentally breeding and the legal requirement to register each and every puppy born in the state equally as proactive and productive. It will be illegal to sell any puppy which is not registered and microchipped and there will other health check requirements as well. pufff, puffff, pufff - I'm starting to feel like a recording.

No I don't work for Dogs Queensland or RSPCA, although we do foster for them from time to time, I just have a good understanding of an accreditation scheme and it's benefits.

I innocently assumed that with more information, the negativity and cynicism might be allayed. Silly me.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Wags

[Wags]

I forgot to say in my prior post.

What if every breeder in Queensland becomes accredited ?.

That puts us all back on the same level. Oh well back to square one and a lot more money in Dogs Queensland pockets.

But thats really the whole point - if they felt it was needed why didn't they just make it a change to the COE for everyone?

Why did they set a system up which made it look like they allowed members who were rotten and why did they set a system up which sees puppies being regsitered by some who may not be doing the right thing

Why didnt they just tell them to bugger off , that we were all doing the right thing and if we dont they will chuck us out ?

Why did they play this game? It cant be for more money.

Time will tell but now its done sooner or later breeders will give in and pay the money tick the boxes or be seen to be lesser breeders.Would have been different if no one joined but looks to me like its a run away train.

Its a done deal and accredited breeders are being promoted over any others even though any one who can read can still see they dont have to do anything more than they do now. Whats more they can still sell to pet shops and still breed crossbred dogs and still breed hundreds of puppies each year.

Then they would all need to be transparent and screened regularly - something they seem to be dodging. You see, it's not just the application and it's components, it's the ongoing monitoring and screening which is designed to keep everyone on the straight and narrow. Those not keeping up with standards will be given the opportunity to change, and be more closely screened in the process. Those that refuse will then be dealt with accordingly.

Canine control councils presently only act on (some) complaints. This is an ongoing monitoring and screening independant of personal grudges and breeder jealousy as is sometimes the case in complaints being received by CCC to date.

If you've ever been involved with accreditation in the care industry, you will also know that it is taken very very seriously because passing accreditation means they can continue to operate. I see no reason why breeder accreditation should be treated any less seriously. It may well be feared by those who fully understand the process and who are not confident in maintaining it.

Personally I believe that every registered breeder ought to be under an accreditation scheme. I'm actually hoping that this is a prelude to the need for accreditation, but not until we've got the unregistered breeders monitorable and answerable. Indeed the State register may well be a pathway to more people taking their breeding seriously and becoming accredited. Wouldn't that be wonderful.

I have worked in several animal industries that require äccreditation",and it is a crock of $%#t.Welfare standards are blatantly ignored,covered up or paid off,the ones doing the auditing tend to turn blind eyes to everything.Animal äccreditation"is not the same as human accreditation.

This will be no different-how hard is it to get 2 made up refs and a vet reference?

I know of a reg poodle breeder that is a puppy farmer-she has/had 30 odd bitches,we never saw any of them at the vet clinic,only the pups for vaccinations-she also glowingly told us about all her öodle"orders she had,you can breed 2 unpapered dogs together no problem,but hey you never know,she is prbably now accredited fine to go and buy a crappy puppy off.Her dogs are brought up in a shed like livestock,no socialisation whatsoever,but the shed meets the requirements for the scheme.

None of her dogs are health tested at all either,and the pups get sold to petshops

Bloody glad i got out of it when i did.

Anyone who has difficulty in meeting requirements and regulations would certainly view things from this point of view.

[Steve]

Im sorry I know how it feels when you feel you are repeating yourself but........

O.K. Lets have a good look then.

Wags says - The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

So the difference must be in the detail

Because isn't this covered by –

Current Queensland code of ethics

b. I shall permit any person authorised in writing by the CCC(Q) Secretary/General Manager pursuant to

a resolution of the committee to enter and inspect any premises owned or occupied by the member for the

purpose of investigating compliance with section 2a of this Code;

i. I shall adhere to all the current ANKC Regulations Parts 6.2 4-8, 6.8 2-11, & 6.9.1 & 6.9.19 and any subsequent amendments (as per Appendix to these Rules) if specified for my particular breed. Breeders shall record such scores for breeds as required by any ANKC regulations;

Edited February 1, 2011 by Steve

[Wags]

Tell me Sandra, what exactly denotes a puppy farmer and what is is about this breeder you are maligning that proves to you that it is a puppy farmer, since you obviously don't even know the person or seen the operation. It's easy to simply make suggestive maligning comments about anyone any time isn't it.

I have never visited this person's property but I DO know them - do you only know people you have actually visted at their home?

But why is my knowing them personally or otherwise relevant? I have dealt with the aftermath, studied their actions and seen their "product".

"The operation" as you say - you can be a puppy farmer with immaculate facilities so going to someone's property and inspecting "the operation" proves nothing.

ETA: A puppy farmer IMO is someone who breeds entirely for money with no interest in any other facet of breeding. It is not a numbers game, it is an intentions game.

You have no right to malign anyone based on hearsay and you are quite wrong in your summation of a puppy farmer. Some breeders choose to have their own breeders instead of going outside for matings, requiring more dogs, which are beautifully maintained and cared for and they are utterly responsible for the wellbeing of their puppies and the homes their puppies are adopted into. You certainly haven't given any justification here for maligning this breeder. Indeed, it looks a bit like using attack as the best form of defence, when someone has the courage to question you. Knowing of someone, without knowing them intimately enough to have viewed their operation is not sufficient evidence.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Wags

[Wags]

I would like to thank everyone who has posted a reply to my question and it is clear by the responses where this system sits with everyone.

Thank you for your time.

I wouldnt take that much notice of what breeders who havent joined have to say.

Ask the ones who have and also understand that they will be promoting this to puppy buyers and regardless of what the breeders who dont or cant join have to say that may just make the difference.

If you are concerned about what other breeders might think of you if you do - forget that they will find numerous other things whether you're in or out.

Its nice to know the difference between me being ethical and unethical is simply $22.

What a crock!!!!!!

Yes Jed - I agree that you can't make people change their ethics unless they choose to, however, there is nothing wrong in creating a system which highlights those with ethics in order to give the general public a measure. The focus on the (incorrect) fee as a means to accreditation means that the person doing so hasn't fully taken on board the requirements of accreditation, but hey, if they choose not to do so, it is their bag. The application is not the entire scheme - it is merely entry into it.

If the breeders of long standing who believe they're the ants pants are too high and mighty for screening, then perhaps they're a little afraid they might be nudged off their pedestals, instead of seeing it as confirmation of what they're claiming.

I can only repeat my previous quote.

Wags. please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say, nor do I think that "breeders of long standing" (including me) believe they are the ants pants, and are afraid of being nudged off their pedestals etc ...... you said that, not me. I didn't even think it.

I do not see any point in being part of a scheme with someone who, according to the CCCQ is better than others, despite telling lies when purchasing dogs, selling a pup with a broken leg, selling pups full of hookworm, and refusing to refund the full purchase amount and auctioning pups on popular sites --- oh I could go on.

Registered pups are so difficult to acces (except in some popular breeds) that most of the public would happily buy from Bluebeard, if the pup looked ok, and will never ask, or care whether the breeder is a member of an Accredited Scheme or not.

The system almost works in UK, although a lot of very good breeders wont join, but it is less likely to work here because of differences in UKKC and Dogsqld.

And whilst the CCCQ may think it is a great idea to snuggle up with RSPCA instead of standing up for what their members want, they will find themselves standing alone as breeders walk away from their prefixes.

And I agree with Mysticview and Oakway. DO you work for Dogsqld?

No, I don't work for Dogs Queensland, but I have gone into it, know what an accreditation scheme is all about and appreciate what it can do for an industry. It is not a matter of stating that some breeders are 'better than others', or that they 'need monitoring', although there are responsible registered breeders and irresponsible and unethical registered breeders as you have noted. The scheme and it's ongoing requirements should weed out the irresponsible and unethical so that the general public and other breeders have a measure of confidence in the remaining breeders. It is the ongoing requiements that will achieve this, something there seems to be an element of ignorance or innocence about on this thread.

Dogs Queensland have had the courage to make improvements and are presently giving everyone the opportunity to volunteer for the process and are being greeted with outrage by people who have complained about irresponsibility, called people puppy farmers and anything else they can think of to discredit them and objected to people being registered etc. etc. I really and truly am mindblown at the response.

There is unlikely to be one of us who hasn't come across a registered breeder who is not necessarily a good advertisement for the industry. And this isn't necessarily confined to new breeders and can certainly include so called reputable and/or long standing breeders. We can choose which way we go with our breeding principles and programmes and ethics and the majority of us no doubt take the positive road. But when you are presented with an opportunity to hopefully make it uniformly so that registered breeders conduct themselves and their breeding in an ethical and principled manner with all the endeavours of being a breeder practiced, including assisting new breeders to do it well, then why on earth aren't you right behind it ???

Good points but please go slowly what is it exactly in this accreditation process which is any different to what is already in place for registered breeders via their COE and regulations in Queensland?

puff, puff, puff ...... Hi Steve, you are usually a relative voice of reason.

A quick outline (I've been endeavouring to explain this throughout this thread) is: Dogs Queensland have instigated a, presently voluntary, accreditation scheme for it's registered breeders. The application requirements, as with any bone fide accreditation scheme, consists of a self-examination (with guidelines provided), production of valid and meaningful references from other breeders and clients and also from a vet who has known the breeder for some time and dealt with him/her, which is relevant to breeding principles. There is also a requirement for an undertaking in regard to continued breeding principles and practices. That is the application and it sounds simple but does take quite a bit of thought and effort.

The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

They have also instigated ability for accredited breeders to become Mentors to other breeders, however, this carries requirements of experience and performance, it is not just a waving of the hand with an 'oh yes, I suppose I could be a mentor'.

It would take quite a bit of time to give you all the fine details, but this ought to be a reasonable outline. Both Accreditation and Mentorship is for three years at which time it has to be reapplied for and the whole process is repeated as with any accreditation scheme. Site inspections can occur at any time throughout the three year period.

Now, some of the Queensland breeders have taken up the option and passed their application for accreditation - the self-examination etc. at which point Dogs Queensland are listing them as accredited breeders. Some breeders who have not elected to apply or breeders in other states who know little about the scheme, or, dare I say it, backyard and puppy farmers, are condemning the system, maligning breeders who have gone through the process and belittling everything as merely a means of obtaining more income by Dogs Queensland (fees are $22 per 3 years). They are now claiming that Dogs Queensland are favouring accredited breeders, presumably because they are listed as accredited.

Frankly I've always seen it as a very positive and proactive move on the part of Dogs Queensland, and view the Qld State Governments innovation of a state dog breeders registration for any breeder, registered or otherwise, purposely or accidentally breeding and the legal requirement to register each and every puppy born in the state equally as proactive and productive. It will be illegal to sell any puppy which is not registered and microchipped and there will other health check requirements as well. pufff, puffff, pufff - I'm starting to feel like a recording.

No I don't work for Dogs Queensland or RSPCA, although we do foster for them from time to time, I just have a good understanding of an accreditation scheme and it's benefits.

I innocently assumed that with more information, the negativity and cynicism might be allayed. Silly me.

Im sorry I know how it feels when you feel you are repeating yourself but........

O.K. Lets have a good look then.

Wags says - The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

So the difference must be in the detail

Because isn’t this covered by –

Current Queensland code of ethics

b. I shall permit any person authorised in writing by the CCC(Q) Secretary/General Manager pursuant to

a resolution of the committee to enter and inspect any premises owned or occupied by the member for the

purpose of investigating compliance with section 2a of this Code;

i. I shall adhere to all the current ANKC Regulations Parts 6.2 4-8, 6.8 2-11, & 6.9.1 & 6.9.19 and any subsequent amendments (as per Appendix to these Rules) if specified for my particular breed. Breeders shall record such scores for breeds as required by any ANKC regulations;

These are undertakings which most of us take seriously, but experience has shown that some don't. Dogs Qld are now 'monitoring and policing' these undertakings through various ways, such as new owner surveys and site inspections.

[Wags]

I would like to thank everyone who has posted a reply to my question and it is clear by the responses where this system sits with everyone.

Thank you for your time.

I wouldnt take that much notice of what breeders who havent joined have to say.

Ask the ones who have and also understand that they will be promoting this to puppy buyers and regardless of what the breeders who dont or cant join have to say that may just make the difference.

If you are concerned about what other breeders might think of you if you do - forget that they will find numerous other things whether you're in or out.

Its nice to know the difference between me being ethical and unethical is simply $22.

What a crock!!!!!!

Yes Jed - I agree that you can't make people change their ethics unless they choose to, however, there is nothing wrong in creating a system which highlights those with ethics in order to give the general public a measure. The focus on the (incorrect) fee as a means to accreditation means that the person doing so hasn't fully taken on board the requirements of accreditation, but hey, if they choose not to do so, it is their bag. The application is not the entire scheme - it is merely entry into it.

If the breeders of long standing who believe they're the ants pants are too high and mighty for screening, then perhaps they're a little afraid they might be nudged off their pedestals, instead of seeing it as confirmation of what they're claiming.

I can only repeat my previous quote.

Wags. please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say, nor do I think that "breeders of long standing" (including me) believe they are the ants pants, and are afraid of being nudged off their pedestals etc ...... you said that, not me. I didn't even think it.

I do not see any point in being part of a scheme with someone who, according to the CCCQ is better than others, despite telling lies when purchasing dogs, selling a pup with a broken leg, selling pups full of hookworm, and refusing to refund the full purchase amount and auctioning pups on popular sites --- oh I could go on.

Registered pups are so difficult to acces (except in some popular breeds) that most of the public would happily buy from Bluebeard, if the pup looked ok, and will never ask, or care whether the breeder is a member of an Accredited Scheme or not.

The system almost works in UK, although a lot of very good breeders wont join, but it is less likely to work here because of differences in UKKC and Dogsqld.

And whilst the CCCQ may think it is a great idea to snuggle up with RSPCA instead of standing up for what their members want, they will find themselves standing alone as breeders walk away from their prefixes.

And I agree with Mysticview and Oakway. DO you work for Dogsqld?

No, I don't work for Dogs Queensland, but I have gone into it, know what an accreditation scheme is all about and appreciate what it can do for an industry. It is not a matter of stating that some breeders are 'better than others', or that they 'need monitoring', although there are responsible registered breeders and irresponsible and unethical registered breeders as you have noted. The scheme and it's ongoing requirements should weed out the irresponsible and unethical so that the general public and other breeders have a measure of confidence in the remaining breeders. It is the ongoing requiements that will achieve this, something there seems to be an element of ignorance or innocence about on this thread.

Dogs Queensland have had the courage to make improvements and are presently giving everyone the opportunity to volunteer for the process and are being greeted with outrage by people who have complained about irresponsibility, called people puppy farmers and anything else they can think of to discredit them and objected to people being registered etc. etc. I really and truly am mindblown at the response.

There is unlikely to be one of us who hasn't come across a registered breeder who is not necessarily a good advertisement for the industry. And this isn't necessarily confined to new breeders and can certainly include so called reputable and/or long standing breeders. We can choose which way we go with our breeding principles and programmes and ethics and the majority of us no doubt take the positive road. But when you are presented with an opportunity to hopefully make it uniformly so that registered breeders conduct themselves and their breeding in an ethical and principled manner with all the endeavours of being a breeder practiced, including assisting new breeders to do it well, then why on earth aren't you right behind it ???

Good points but please go slowly what is it exactly in this accreditation process which is any different to what is already in place for registered breeders via their COE and regulations in Queensland?

puff, puff, puff ...... Hi Steve, you are usually a relative voice of reason.

A quick outline (I've been endeavouring to explain this throughout this thread) is: Dogs Queensland have instigated a, presently voluntary, accreditation scheme for it's registered breeders. The application requirements, as with any bone fide accreditation scheme, consists of a self-examination (with guidelines provided), production of valid and meaningful references from other breeders and clients and also from a vet who has known the breeder for some time and dealt with him/her, which is relevant to breeding principles. There is also a requirement for an undertaking in regard to continued breeding principles and practices. That is the application and it sounds simple but does take quite a bit of thought and effort.

The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

They have also instigated ability for accredited breeders to become Mentors to other breeders, however, this carries requirements of experience and performance, it is not just a waving of the hand with an 'oh yes, I suppose I could be a mentor'.

It would take quite a bit of time to give you all the fine details, but this ought to be a reasonable outline. Both Accreditation and Mentorship is for three years at which time it has to be reapplied for and the whole process is repeated as with any accreditation scheme. Site inspections can occur at any time throughout the three year period.

Now, some of the Queensland breeders have taken up the option and passed their application for accreditation - the self-examination etc. at which point Dogs Queensland are listing them as accredited breeders. Some breeders who have not elected to apply or breeders in other states who know little about the scheme, or, dare I say it, backyard and puppy farmers, are condemning the system, maligning breeders who have gone through the process and belittling everything as merely a means of obtaining more income by Dogs Queensland (fees are $22 per 3 years). They are now claiming that Dogs Queensland are favouring accredited breeders, presumably because they are listed as accredited.

Frankly I've always seen it as a very positive and proactive move on the part of Dogs Queensland, and view the Qld State Governments innovation of a state dog breeders registration for any breeder, registered or otherwise, purposely or accidentally breeding and the legal requirement to register each and every puppy born in the state equally as proactive and productive. It will be illegal to sell any puppy which is not registered and microchipped and there will other health check requirements as well. pufff, puffff, pufff - I'm starting to feel like a recording.

No I don't work for Dogs Queensland or RSPCA, although we do foster for them from time to time, I just have a good understanding of an accreditation scheme and it's benefits.

I innocently assumed that with more information, the negativity and cynicism might be allayed. Silly me.

Im sorry I know how it feels when you feel you are repeating yourself but........

O.K. Lets have a good look then.

Wags says - The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

So the difference must be in the detail

Because isn’t this covered by –

Current Queensland code of ethics

b. I shall permit any person authorised in writing by the CCC(Q) Secretary/General Manager pursuant to

a resolution of the committee to enter and inspect any premises owned or occupied by the member for the

purpose of investigating compliance with section 2a of this Code;

i. I shall adhere to all the current ANKC Regulations Parts 6.2 4-8, 6.8 2-11, & 6.9.1 & 6.9.19 and any subsequent amendments (as per Appendix to these Rules) if specified for my particular breed. Breeders shall record such scores for breeds as required by any ANKC regulations;

These are undertakings which most of us take seriously, but experience has shown that some don't. Dogs Qld are now 'monitoring and policing' these undertakings through various ways, such as new owner surveys and site inspections.

Frankly I can't see the problem as it only confirms that accredited breeders have adhered to their undertaking.

[centitout]

I forgot to say in my prior post.

What if every breeder in Queensland becomes accredited ?.

That puts us all back on the same level. Oh well back to square one and a lot more money in Dogs Queensland pockets.

But thats really the whole point - if they felt it was needed why didn't they just make it a change to the COE for everyone?

Why did they set a system up which made it look like they allowed members who were rotten and why did they set a system up which sees puppies being regsitered by some who may not be doing the right thing

Why didnt they just tell them to bugger off , that we were all doing the right thing and if we dont they will chuck us out ?

Why did they play this game? It cant be for more money.

Time will tell but now its done sooner or later breeders will give in and pay the money tick the boxes or be seen to be lesser breeders.Would have been different if no one joined but looks to me like its a run away train.

Its a done deal and accredited breeders are being promoted over any others even though any one who can read can still see they dont have to do anything more than they do now. Whats more they can still sell to pet shops and still breed crossbred dogs and still breed hundreds of puppies each year.

Then they would all need to be transparent and screened regularly - something they seem to be dodging. You see, it's not just the application and it's components, it's the ongoing monitoring and screening which is designed to keep everyone on the straight and narrow. Those not keeping up with standards will be given the opportunity to change, and be more closely screened in the process. Those that refuse will then be dealt with accordingly.

Canine control councils presently only act on (some) complaints. This is an ongoing monitoring and screening independant of personal grudges and breeder jealousy as is sometimes the case in complaints being received by CCC to date.

If you've ever been involved with accreditation in the care industry, you will also know that it is taken very very seriously because passing accreditation means they can continue to operate. I see no reason why breeder accreditation should be treated any less seriously. It may well be feared by those who fully understand the process and who are not confident in maintaining it.

Personally I believe that every registered breeder ought to be under an accreditation scheme. I'm actually hoping that this is a prelude to the need for accreditation, but not until we've got the unregistered breeders monitorable and answerable. Indeed the State register may well be a pathway to more people taking their breeding seriously and becoming accredited. Wouldn't that be wonderful.

I have worked in several animal industries that require äccreditation",and it is a crock of $%#t.Welfare standards are blatantly ignored,covered up or paid off,the ones doing the auditing tend to turn blind eyes to everything.Animal äccreditation"is not the same as human accreditation.

This will be no different-how hard is it to get 2 made up refs and a vet reference?

I know of a reg poodle breeder that is a puppy farmer-she has/had 30 odd bitches,we never saw any of them at the vet clinic,only the pups for vaccinations-she also glowingly told us about all her öodle"orders she had,you can breed 2 unpapered dogs together no problem,but hey you never know,she is prbably now accredited fine to go and buy a crappy puppy off.Her dogs are brought up in a shed like livestock,no socialisation whatsoever,but the shed meets the requirements for the scheme.

None of her dogs are health tested at all either,and the pups get sold to petshops

Bloody glad i got out of it when i did.

Anyone who has difficulty in meeting requirements and regulations would certainly view things from this point of view.

Thanks-you know me and my dogs do you??How dare you.

Accreditation is not the bees knees you make it out to be-i have sat in on several audits-TB'S,pigs and chickens,that is how i know accreditation is a load of bullshit,flagrant flouting of the rules,standards and some cases auditors that didnt even show up-but they passed their accreditation????

I hip/elbow scored 2 generations,and some siblings,and had also arranged to test select siblings as well when old enough,was also going to do cardiac testing(not a requirement in my breed),i showed and man trailed as well .I tried to ensure the right thing by my pups by offering $250 desexing rebates,gave all puppies exhaustive socialisation,spent whole weekends with puppy owners telling them the ins and outs.

I can give you as many references as you wish,by puppy owners,i had people come to me for pups that had one of the first ones i ever bred in 1999 when i didnt have a clue,i have ones that have pups from later litters that have bought another from me.I can also give you refs from police officers,teachers where i did demos at the school and my SES unit,as well as AQUIS supervisors in the active dog section and several judges.

So dont tell me i am afraid because i wouldnt meet the requirements for the breeder scheme.I would have joined the MDBA before any other as at least they have a clue and strict entry requirements .As a breeder,what do YOU offer to your breed that puts you right up in the exalted ranks of accredited breeders far above us shifty low lifes that have always done whats in their bloody scheme anyway.

[Steve]

There is no problem for me I can see what you're saying but if everyone has to already agree to this when they become members and already give the nod to having their site inspected etc what am I missing?

It implies that those who have agreed to be accredited have agreed to something different to or more difficult to comply with than any other registered breeder yet at least in this regard I cant see the difference - I sort of get the feeling there is more to it.

So if they are now policing it more with site inspections which they can pull on any member at any time anyway and surveys why not just leave this one out?

Why have this in there ? Does this mean if you are not accredited you dont have to comply with this? I dont think so because accredited or not you have agreed to comply with it. Does this mean if you are not accredited you are off the hook and wont be inspected?

Hard to see the logic in it .