Piaa Press Release On Puppy Farms

[whippets]

Gee the PIAA certainly have their own head firmly implanted into their own ass.

[Tim'sMum]

PIAA believes that while pet stores are a minor part of the cause, they are a major potential player in the solution. Pet retail stores represent a professional and well managed resource for any policy response to the problem of unwanted pets. Professionally operated pet retail stores provide informed advice in matching pets with owners. Pet retail stores demonstrate a duty of care to both the pets and potential owners – so the right animal is selected for the conditions in which a family lives.

We have Australia Veterinary Association data that shows a pet selected following good advice from a pet shop is less likely to end up in a pound than an animal sourced elsewhere. We are developing a solid platform to rebuff activist claims and demonstrate the role pet shops can play in responsible pet ownership, from breeder through to pet owner. During this process we have sought the views of various PIAA members, RSPCA Australia, the Australian Veterinary Association, the Animal Welfare League, the Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders and the Australian National Kennel Council.

Oh please!

From what I have seen....

People walk into a pet shop & see a gorgeous looking puppy and are 'hooked',

They are told all sorts of incorrect information, particularly about grooming, by a 16 yr old weekend casual,

They are told it is 'papered'...because it comes with a piece of paper from whatever puppy mill it came from, showing it's nefarious mixed breeding,

They purchase said puppy for a ridiculous price + get conned into buying a puppy pack full of useless cutesy wootsy equipment and wave goodbye to a very large amount of money.

They are not scrutinised, have a home check done for fencing/suitability, questioned as to their suitability to own a dog or reminded that they will need the ability to pay constantly for grooming and vet fees for the rest of the dog's life if required.

They are not advised that certain breeds or breed X's will require certain levels of exercise/mental stimulation (eg: anything crossed with a Kelpie) to be a happy non-destructive dog that does not bark constantly, dig holes, rip things apart in boredom etc..

The pet shop gets it's money, the new owner gets a puppy which may or may not be suitable, which may or may not have health problems, which may or may not be dumped at some stage but the pet shop owner will never know, or most likely care much....end of story.

Our local pet shop, which sells oodles of oodles has a big banner across the glass boxes...'We do not buy our stock from puppy farms!' So where do they buy these puppies from? I asked one staff member that question and was told.... 'From ethical breeders!'

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I wonder if they are only talking about their members, ie PIAA pet shops and they are not talking about all the other pet shops that sell animals?

If so then they are only telling us a very small part of the story.

I also wonder how many PIAA pet shops there are?

[shortstep]

MDBA Breeders code of conduct.

9.I will never knowingly sell any puppy/adult dog to laboratories, pet shops or dealers in dogs or to person's known to sell stock to any of the above. I shall not provide any stud services to such persons (a dealer is defined as any person who regularly buys stock for sale at a profit).

Perfect! That is what all registires need in their code of conduct! Well done.

[Steve]

But the RSPCA has defined a puppy farmer as someone who keeps their animals in substandard conditions.

They say they dont buy from people who keep their animals in sub standard conditions and unless we do some undercover work and trace the dogs back fromthe source which we can prove is keeping them in substandard conditions its theory and not fact.

Now if - for example these people who do illegal raids on puppy farms held off until they had evidence of them being sold to a pet shop and then produced the evidence that would be different but on the whole especially of recent times there's not much backing up that the pet shops are buying from any one who is keeping their dogs in substandard condition. Commercial farming for the pet shop industry is not being seen as the bad guy especially now they have their own registry and codes etc.

We may not think that large scale breeding of mutts is ethical but thats not what is being promoted as a puppy farmer.

Even then you still have to prove they are a primary contributor to unwanted dogs - pretty hard to do based on what is in place and the numbers they actually sell.

[~Anne~]

Even if someone could - and they can if they take a minute to do some research - prove that some registered breeders are BYB or puppy farmers that still doesnt say that they are the main players in the unwanted dog problem. Statistically purebred registered breeders only breed about 9% of dogs sold throughout Australia - that in itself is evidence enough for me to suggest as a group they can hardly be held accountable for the other couple of hundred thousand that end up unwanted. even if every single one of the 30,000 odd they breed each year ended up as unwanted they still could not be held out to dry as a primary causal factor.

The problem now, always has been and always will be is that there is not enough data to prove or disprove any defence or theory other than the numbers we actually breed and sell. Based on current figures both registered breeders and pet shops are in the clear because what they sell is only a drop in the ocean to numbers cited for unwanted dogs.

Until such time as they are able to gather accurate statistics no one can say where the unwanted masses originate from.

I firmly believe we are barking up the wrong tree and applying massive resources of time and energy on battling pet shops.

Not only do pet shops and registered breeders sell the lowest number sof dogs, both groups have been, in NSW at any rate, microchipping dogs by law for in excess of 10 years.

A quick view of the dogs listed on the Renbury site as of this morning reveal;

62 dogs. Of those 62 dogs, only 21 are microchipped.

This isn't a once off, but an every day occurrence where the number of microchipped dogs is a only around 1/3 of the dogs impounded. You could loosely conclude that less than 1/3 od the dogs impounded come from pet shops or registered breeders.

Why do we waste time pursuing petshops?

The biggest issue is the sourcing of the dogs in pet shops. If common sense prevailed, then registered breeders, rescuers and the public would work with pet shops to ensure that puppy farms are not used as a source of puppies.

Edited April 7, 2011 by ~Anne~

[poodlefan]

I pass along without comment the Pet Industry Association of Australia's press release on Puppy Farms.

The PIAA has for the past four months been working on a policy in response to community concerns about puppy farms.Activists are making two accusations about our industry:

• We buy dogs from puppy farms that are cruel and unregulated
  
• By offering dogs at retail, we are creating the problem of unwanted pets that are being euthanased in great numbers.
  

Both claims are wildly exaggerated.

But interestingly, PIAA don't say that they are not without substance.

PIAA believes that while pet stores are a minor part of the cause, they are a major potential player in the solution. Pet retail stores represent a professional and well managed resource for any policy response to the problem of unwanted pets. Professionally operated pet retail stores provide informed advice in matching pets with owners. Pet retail stores demonstrate a duty of care to both the pets and potential owners – so the right animal is selected for the conditions in which a family lives.

Lets see them back up that claim with money back guarantees, health guarantees for inherited defects etc. As if.

We have Australia Veterinary Association data that shows a pet selected following good advice from a pet shop is less likely to end up in a pound than an animal sourced elsewhere. We are developing a solid platform to rebuff activist claims and demonstrate the role pet shops can play in responsible pet ownership, from breeder through to pet owner. During this process we have sought the views of various PIAA members, RSPCA Australia, the Australian Veterinary Association, the Animal Welfare League, the Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders and the Australian National Kennel Council.

BIG qualifier. Lets not forget that there's more than a couple of vets that run puppy factories either.

The RSPCA will argue that their campaign is aimed at cruel puppy factories, and they do not necessarily have a problem with PIAA pet retailers. But when the RSPCA endorses posters with headlines stating “puppy factories are the suppliers of the cute puppy that you see in the pet shop window” it is hard not to believe elements in the RSPCA are joining the radicals who want to shut down our industry.

Puppy factories ARE the supplers you knobs. Show me the lifestyles of the dogs that produce your puppies, put your hands on your hearts and tell me that these dogs lead decent lives. We all know otherwise.

[Steve]

I wonder if they are only talking about their members, ie PIAA pet shops and they are not talking about all the other pet shops that sell animals?

If so then they are only telling us a very small part of the story.

I also wonder how many PIAA pet shops there are?

From what I can see The press release does not qualify PIAA pet shops but is using the term pet shop generically and the figures they quote are for the entire industry not just their members.

PIAA doesnt have that many members - especially those who are pet shops.

About 300 Australia wide - last time I looked.

[Steve]

Poodle Fan - Puppy factories ARE the supplers you knobs. Show me the lifestyles of the dogs that produce your puppies, put your hands on your hearts and tell me that these dogs lead decent lives. We all know otherwise.

Yep I agree however, the RSPCA have given a tick to commercial breeders as long as they dont keep their animals in substandard conditions. That is Standard conditions as described by mandatory codes for breeding dogs.

[raz]

I also wonder how many PIAA pet shops there are?

Jaxx, i think they're all listed on their website.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I wonder if they are only talking about their members, ie PIAA pet shops and they are not talking about all the other pet shops that sell animals?

If so then they are only telling us a very small part of the story.

I also wonder how many PIAA pet shops there are?

From what I can see The press release does not qualify PIAA pet shops but is using the term pet shop generically and the figures they quote are for the entire industry not just their members.

PIAA doesnt have that many members - especially those who are pet shops.

About 300 Australia wide - last time I looked.

I thought they might just be representing their members. They are taking a huge risk representing all pet shops who sell live animals.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I also wonder how many PIAA pet shops there are?

Jaxx, i think they're all listed on their website.

Thanks raz..off to look.

[Steve]

I wonder if they are only talking about their members, ie PIAA pet shops and they are not talking about all the other pet shops that sell animals?

If so then they are only telling us a very small part of the story.

I also wonder how many PIAA pet shops there are?

From what I can see The press release does not qualify PIAA pet shops but is using the term pet shop generically and the figures they quote are for the entire industry not just their members.

PIAA doesnt have that many members - especially those who are pet shops.

About 300 Australia wide - last time I looked.

I thought they might just be representing their members. They are taking a huge risk representing all pet shops who sell live animals.

Yep pretty dumb.

[shortstep]

Even if someone could - and they can if they take a minute to do some research - prove that some registered breeders are BYB or puppy farmers that still doesnt say that they are the main players in the unwanted dog problem. Statistically purebred registered breeders only breed about 9% of dogs sold throughout Australia - that in itself is evidence enough for me to suggest as a group they can hardly be held accountable for the other couple of hundred thousand that end up unwanted. even if every single one of the 30,000 odd they breed each year ended up as unwanted they still could not be held out to dry as a primary causal factor.

The problem now, always has been and always will be is that there is not enough data to prove or disprove any defence or theory other than the numbers we actually breed and sell. Based on current figures both registered breeders and pet shops are in the clear because what they sell is only a drop in the ocean to numbers cited for unwanted dogs.

Until such time as they are able to gather accurate statistics no one can say where the unwanted masses originate from.

Yes agree but the battle cry is often, as it was in this thread that the real problem is BYB and Puppy farmers, not 'registered" which I guess means only ANKC breeders.

I am simply pointing out that as far as I know there are no rules in the ANKC that stop BYB (what ever they are) from being members of ANKC and so forth.

I really believe the only way to stop the dumping of pets is through education.

Education will prevent people from buying a pet they will not keep.

Education will prevent people from not desexing their pets if they know they cannot meet the needs of an intact pet.

Education will prevent people from shoping in stores that sell cats and dogs, this will educate the stor owner if he wants to sell pet products he better stop selling pets.

If one wants to stop set shop sales, then there are proven methods to make this happen.

I believe, if ANKC, MDBA, WKC and other registries, ADAA, Flyball, Trial , the AVA and so forth (after they each write a policy nationwide that no member may sell to pet shops if they do not already have this) in partnership with RSPCA and other rescue orgnaizations called on all members and owners and the public at large to refuse to shop at all pet shops that sell cats and dogs. Send letters to all pet shops explaining what ia required to get on the list of approved pet supply shops. Get the news papers and TV to cover the calling by dog owners, breeders and concerned associations across Asutralia for the request that all person not shop at pet stores that sell cats and dogs.

If every dog owner would take just a few min everytime the pass a pet shop that sells pets to speak to the owner manger or even the clerk to tell them you will never shop or recommend their shop to anyone you know with dogs because they sell cats and dogs.

Then make an online list of Approved pets shops who have pledged to not sell cats or dogs.

In short, notify by public action, that all pet shops need to stop selling pets. Always pollite but gets the point across. You want our buinsess stop selling cats and dogs.

This has worked.

Do I think preventing pet shops from selling cats and dogs will stop unwanted pets at shelters? Not a chance.

But I still think that pet shop sales of cats and dogs is not the right way to get a pet for the owners but more importantly it is not in the best interest of the pets being sold.

Edited April 7, 2011 by shortstep

[Leema]

Activists are making two accusations about our industry:

• We buy dogs from puppy farms that are cruel and unregulated
  
• By offering dogs at retail, we are creating the problem of unwanted pets that are being euthanased in great numbers.
  

Both claims are wildly exaggerated.

This press release does well to disassociate pet shops with unwanted animals. Statistically, yes, pet shops do not account for many dogs and so are unlikely to be a major contributor to the problem. I did not need this media release to convince me of such.

However, the media release does consider the first point here - "We buy dogs from puppy farms that are cruel and unregulated". This press release does nothing to address the origins of their puppies and their welfare.

The other major issue with pet shops, not addressed anywhere in this press release, is that pet shops place puppies in conditions that are not ideal to their development. That is, keeping puppies in a small area forcing them to excrete in the same area as they sleep. Additionally, this small area is on display which allows for potentially harmful interactions with people during the critical socialisation period to take place. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent a puppy to spend the entirety of its critical socialisation period in this small space. All these issues make for a pet shops potentially impacting adversely on a dog for the rest of it's life.

The press release is fine and good for combating the obvious - pet shops don't account for much in terms of unwanted pets.

However, what it does not address is the other major (and a lot more substantial) arguments against pet shops selling animals. This omission incriminates pet shops, as failure to counter argue this opposition perhaps implies a lack of legitimate counter-arguments.

[Steve]

Even if someone could - and they can if they take a minute to do some research - prove that some registered breeders are BYB or puppy farmers that still doesnt say that they are the main players in the unwanted dog problem. Statistically purebred registered breeders only breed about 9% of dogs sold throughout Australia - that in itself is evidence enough for me to suggest as a group they can hardly be held accountable for the other couple of hundred thousand that end up unwanted. even if every single one of the 30,000 odd they breed each year ended up as unwanted they still could not be held out to dry as a primary causal factor.

The problem now, always has been and always will be is that there is not enough data to prove or disprove any defence or theory other than the numbers we actually breed and sell. Based on current figures both registered breeders and pet shops are in the clear because what they sell is only a drop in the ocean to numbers cited for unwanted dogs.

Until such time as they are able to gather accurate statistics no one can say where the unwanted masses originate from.

Yes agree but the battle cry is often, as it was in this thread that the real problem is BYB and Puppy farmers, not 'registered" which I guess means only ANKC breeders.

I am simply pointing out that as far as I know there are no rules in the ANKC that stop BYB (what ever they are) from being members of ANKC and so forth.

I really believe the only way to stop the dumping of pets is through education.

Education will prevent people from buying a pet they will not keep.

Education will prevent people from not desexing their pets if they know they cannot meet the needs of an intact pet.

Education will prevent people from shoping in stores that sell cats and dogs, this will educate the stor owner if he wants to sell pet products he better stop selling pets.

If one wants to stop set shop sales, then there are proven methods to make this happen.

I believe, if ANKC, MDBA, WKC and other registries, ADAA, Flyball, Trial , the AVA and so forth (after they each write a policy nationwide that no member may sell to pet shops if they do not already have this) in partnership with RSPCA and other rescue orgnaizations called on all members and owners and the public at large to refuse to shop at all pet shops that sell cats and dogs. Send letters to all pet shops explaining what ia required to get on the list of approved pet supply shops. Get the news papers and TV to cover the calling by dog owners, breeders and concerned associations across Asutralia for the request that all person not shop at pet stores that sell cats and dogs.

If every dog owner would take just a few min everytime the pass a pet shop that sells pets to speak to the owner manger or even the clerk to tell them you will never shop or recommend their shop to anyone you know with dogs because they sell cats and dogs.

Then make an online list of Approved pets shops who have pledged to not sell cats or dogs.

In short, notify by public action, that all pet shops need to stop selling pets. Always pollite but gets the point across. You want our buinsess stop selling cats and dogs.

This has worked.

Do I think preventing pet shops from selling cats and dogs will stop unwanted pets at shelters? Not a chance.

But I still think that pet shop sales of cats and dogs is not the right way to get a pet for the owners but more importantly it is not in the best interest of the pets being sold.

Shortstep

Dogs NSW backed PIAA against moves to ban sales of live animals in pet shops and they actively advertise and promote the ability for their members to sell to PIAA recognised pet shops and agents.

The ACCC will not allow the ANKC to prevent their members form selling to a pet shop - this has been tested in a major court case and it is seen as a restriction of trade which is against federal law.

This is the main reason the MDBA set up under the business entity we did in the first place.

In some states such as SA the clause remains that they are not to sell to retail outlets however it is a proven fact that this is against this federal law and cannot stick.

[Steve]

ANKC code of conduct

26. A member shall not:

.1 Sell or dispose of a dog to a commercial pet wholesaler or retail pet shop

unless they are accredited by the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA).

[shortstep]

Even if someone could - and they can if they take a minute to do some research - prove that some registered breeders are BYB or puppy farmers that still doesnt say that they are the main players in the unwanted dog problem. Statistically purebred registered breeders only breed about 9% of dogs sold throughout Australia - that in itself is evidence enough for me to suggest as a group they can hardly be held accountable for the other couple of hundred thousand that end up unwanted. even if every single one of the 30,000 odd they breed each year ended up as unwanted they still could not be held out to dry as a primary causal factor.

The problem now, always has been and always will be is that there is not enough data to prove or disprove any defence or theory other than the numbers we actually breed and sell. Based on current figures both registered breeders and pet shops are in the clear because what they sell is only a drop in the ocean to numbers cited for unwanted dogs.

Until such time as they are able to gather accurate statistics no one can say where the unwanted masses originate from.

Yes agree but the battle cry is often, as it was in this thread that the real problem is BYB and Puppy farmers, not 'registered" which I guess means only ANKC breeders.

I am simply pointing out that as far as I know there are no rules in the ANKC that stop BYB (what ever they are) from being members of ANKC and so forth.

I really believe the only way to stop the dumping of pets is through education.

Education will prevent people from buying a pet they will not keep.

Education will prevent people from not desexing their pets if they know they cannot meet the needs of an intact pet.

Education will prevent people from shoping in stores that sell cats and dogs, this will educate the stor owner if he wants to sell pet products he better stop selling pets.

If one wants to stop set shop sales, then there are proven methods to make this happen.

I believe, if ANKC, MDBA, WKC and other registries, ADAA, Flyball, Trial , the AVA and so forth (after they each write a policy nationwide that no member may sell to pet shops if they do not already have this) in partnership with RSPCA and other rescue orgnaizations called on all members and owners and the public at large to refuse to shop at all pet shops that sell cats and dogs. Send letters to all pet shops explaining what ia required to get on the list of approved pet supply shops. Get the news papers and TV to cover the calling by dog owners, breeders and concerned associations across Asutralia for the request that all person not shop at pet stores that sell cats and dogs.

If every dog owner would take just a few min everytime the pass a pet shop that sells pets to speak to the owner manger or even the clerk to tell them you will never shop or recommend their shop to anyone you know with dogs because they sell cats and dogs.

Then make an online list of Approved pets shops who have pledged to not sell cats or dogs.

In short, notify by public action, that all pet shops need to stop selling pets. Always pollite but gets the point across. You want our buinsess stop selling cats and dogs.

This has worked.

Do I think preventing pet shops from selling cats and dogs will stop unwanted pets at shelters? Not a chance.

But I still think that pet shop sales of cats and dogs is not the right way to get a pet for the owners but more importantly it is not in the best interest of the pets being sold.

Shortstep

Dogs NSW backed PIAA against moves to ban sales of live animals in pet shops and they actively advertise and promote the ability for their members to sell to PIAA recognised pet shops and agents.

The ACCC will not allow the ANKC to prevent their members form selling to a pet shop - this has been tested in a major court case and it is seen as a restriction of trade which is against federal law.

This is the main reason the MDBA set up under the business entity we did in the first place.

In some states such as SA the clause remains that they are not to sell to retail outlets however it is a proven fact that this is against this federal law and cannot stick.

Then how come MDBA can restrict their members trade and ANKC can not. Is only ANKC bond by the federal law you speak of. I do not understand how it would apply to one and not the other?

It is my understanding that ANKC is a club, and they can can restrict the conduct of their members as they see fit, as the member represents ANKC.

This is why they can say you can only do certain types of TV work.

This is why they say you cannot use your stud for over dogs not registered in ANKC or for cross bred litter service, that is restricting your trade too?

On this case, was there actually a court trail and verdict, if so you do have any records of the judgement? Dates and so forth.

Edited April 8, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

ANKC code of conduct

26. A member shall not:

.1 Sell or dispose of a dog to a commercial pet wholesaler or retail pet shop

unless they are accredited by the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA).

Another question,

How can they 'restrict' their trade to only commercial sellers of that one orgnaization. If is federal law that ANKC can not restrict their right trade, then why are they not free to trade with who every they want? Would the federal government mandate a monlopy of trade to only one orgnisation of pet shops? Seems they are restricting their right to trade to only one orgnaization of pet shops from reading this rule. This does not ring right to me.

Edited April 8, 2011 by shortstep

[mita]

This press release does well to disassociate pet shops with unwanted animals. Statistically, yes, pet shops do not account for many dogs and so are unlikely to be a major contributor to the problem. I did not need this media release to convince me of such.

However, the media release does consider the first point here - "We buy dogs from puppy farms that are cruel and unregulated". This press release does nothing to address the origins of their puppies and their welfare.

The other major issue with pet shops, not addressed anywhere in this press release, is that pet shops place puppies in conditions that are not ideal to their development. That is, keeping puppies in a small area forcing them to excrete in the same area as they sleep. Additionally, this small area is on display which allows for potentially harmful interactions with people during the critical socialisation period to take place. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent a puppy to spend the entirety of its critical socialisation period in this small space. All these issues make for a pet shops potentially impacting adversely on a dog for the rest of it's life.

The press release is fine and good for combating the obvious - pet shops don't account for much in terms of unwanted pets.

However, what it does not address is the other major (and a lot more substantial) arguments against pet shops selling animals. This omission incriminates pet shops, as failure to counter argue this opposition perhaps implies a lack of legitimate counter-arguments.

Leema, this is an excellent post.

You are right. The press release contains 'motherhood' statements. They say pet stores don't source from cruel & unregulated puppy farms & their sales numbers are less than from other quarters. But no evidence is supplied about where they do source from & if the conditions of breeding/raising meet the standards of state- of- the- art practices to work towards puppy welfare. Which should include after-care support

Just a note. Those organisations presenting a counter-argument by setting out best practices for preventing later dumping, also need to supply evidence & not just state ideals. There needs to be means worked out to collect actual statistics, not just trade 'motherhood' statements.

The total absence of regard for the critical issue of socialisation is highly significant, as you say. Not only the socialisation of the puppies, but also that of the mother dog. There's some evidence which links how well socialised a mother dog is, with the early learning of the puppies that forms the base to their adult dog behaviour.

The pet buying public need to know how important it is to have documented knowledge of a puppy's background and the conditions....both physical & social...in which both it and its parents were raised. There needs to be an actual checklist, of what's required, that must be ticked off....& monitored to the extent to which the conditions are met. That, is evidence[/i], not just untested 'motherhood' statements.

Edited April 8, 2011 by mita