Interesting Read..

[sandgrubber]

Sorry but finally someone is doing something to stop puppy farms, I see on this sight all the time people getting slammed for buying a dog from a pet shop because it might have come from a puppy farm, and now people on the same forum that are agenced puppy farms are now sticking up for them..... So confussing

So sorry you are confussed.

One person's puppy farm is another person's prestige kennel.

If you define anyone who makes a profit breeding dogs as a 'puppy farmer', I refuse to condemn puppy farmers. And there are some 'puppy farms' that I greatly admire. Doing a good job breeding dogs is demanding work, and those who devote their lives to it deserve to make a profit. Importing quality stock, maintaining breeding standards, keeping quality facilities, properly socialising pups, screening puppy buyers, etc. is expensive. Hobby breeders who subsidise their efforts from the income from a well-paying job cannot carry the whole burden. It might be nice if there were a landed gentry who carried all the costs of sustaining and improving breeds as part and parcel of being noblility, but these guys are long gone.

I am happy to jump on any breeder who doesn't do health testing, uphold basic veterinary standards, allow dogs to exercise, consider sire and dam's temperament in doing breeding, maintain critical hygene standards, and generally act in an ethical fashion . . . regardless if they are a pedigree dog breeder, elite kennel, BYB, alleged puppy, family breeder, hobby breeder, or whatever other terms you choose to use.

The lady in question has been campaigning for a long time and doesn't seem to have much success in stopping 'puppy farms' or the practice of selling pups in pet shops. I get the feeling she's dodgy, and has done more harm than good.

[Steve]

One person's puppy farm is another person's prestige kennel.

How very true. Ive seen a couple of commercial kennels and some big show breeder's kennels which had facilities Id love to have.

People have been hearing lots of stuff about all the terrible things breeders do to dogs,to a point where even breeders have been affected by it and have bought it.

In order to score points against another group we decide on rules for ourselves which will make us look like we are better breeders, caring more for our dogs and having animal rights leaving us alone and animal welfare recommending us.

Who decided that breeding dogs when they are older is better for them ? Who decided it was better for them not to have back to back litters ?

Not canine reproduction specialists or experienced breeders who had the honour of being able to test various protocols and decide what was best for their dogs based on the unique biology of the brood bitch.

Who tells us the opposite to what is true - that bitches get mammary cancer when they are bred more often. Who tells us that uterine or vaginal prolapse is the result of being over bred?

Animal rights campaigns so far re breeding dogs has been pretty successful to a point where a breeder is limited in some states by law on making decisions based on what they and science think is best for their dogs. Trying to even point out the science and the truth in canine reproduction and husbandry brings on all manner of attacks and accusations because everyone has been educated on what should be done with breeding dogs by those who have no knowledge of or experience in breeding dogs.

Canine Councils and state governments have obviously been told what is best for breeding dogs based on crap - or they know its crap and play politics or just in case some breeder somewhere allows a dog to get pregnant when it isnt in condition all breeding bitches have to be at greater risk and all people who want to breed their dog have to do what they are told.

Codes for breeding dogs echo what animal rights and animal welfare think is best for breeding dogs when in fact its good for rescue dogs or boarding dogs, not necessarily breeding dogs . Its not good for breeding dogs to have vaccinations EVERY YEAR either.

Dog breeding in this country has been held to ransom by fanatics and politics and a desire for one group to score points rather than what is truly best for the dogs. We have to stop just being led by the loudest voice and consider what possible consequences come for the majority who dont need legislation to make them care for their dogs and decide what is best for our dogs based on facts and not constant emotional calls for new laws or bans.

[fuzzy82]

Confused. The pictures in the article show Oscar well groomed and looking superficially healthy. The story says Trantor was arrested the day after he was rescued. The event must have happened more than a year ago, cause there were Oscar's Law rallies in October last year. If Deborah Trantor has been working for two decades, she has done so without getting much press. Google shows she has achieved almost no mainstream media coverage and I can find no indication that she has been arrested, other than one 2008 incident reported by the Herald Sun.

No dog lover can support low-grade puppy farms, and only a tiny minority would support sale of puppies in pet shops. But I think we have to be skeptical of Animal Lib people.

It says quite clearly in the story that she first rescued him nearly 2 years ago, then she was arrested and Oscar returned to the puppy farm, and it was only 18 months later than she was able to go and buy him back. That was in June I think.

[Steve]

Sorry but finally someone is doing something to stop puppy farms, I see on this sight all the time people getting slammed for buying a dog from a pet shop because it might have come from a puppy farm, and now people on the same forum that are agenced puppy farms are now sticking up for them..... So confussing

Yes this is the whole point - for me.

Because its so obviously sensationalised and so easliy discredited in so many areas it makes me feel mad as hell that it looks like I am not against puppy farms when I question it or talk about it.

I want to fight against puppy farms if puppy farms are people who breed dogs in sub standard conditions regardless of how many they breed, or what they breed.

But Im not going to fight to have everyone who wants to breed dogs judged guilty of some terrible thing and held under control with limited rights in case their dogs may suffer because some think they do or they do breed for profit.

Im not going to support stalking, break and enter, trespass, assault, theft or using extreme cases of mismanagement abuse and cruelty to misrepresent and vilify animal owners and related interests or

fundraising that uses crises that it is distorted or sensationalized.

or attemps to use the political process to turn public concern for animals into laws that deprive private citizens of the right to make ethical, educated decisions about their relationships and management with animals.

[Prydenjoy]

I don't know the ins and outs of this ladies life, but I do know that the story is a good read, and a good eye opener for the lay person who has never heard of a puppy farm and is about to buy a pup from a pet shop. We can pick to bits everything that anyone does, or we can see something positive and just go with it...

Would it bother you if (a) the story wasn't true; and (b) the lady has a history of attacking and defaming decent breeders?

Of course it would bother me. But as far as the article itself goes I wouldn't hesitate in passing it on to raise awareness of puppy farms. If it stops people buying puppies from pet shops then at least some good can come from it.

[Steve]

I don't know the ins and outs of this ladies life, but I do know that the story is a good read, and a good eye opener for the lay person who has never heard of a puppy farm and is about to buy a pup from a pet shop. We can pick to bits everything that anyone does, or we can see something positive and just go with it...

Would it bother you if (a) the story wasn't true; and (b) the lady has a history of attacking and defaming decent breeders?

Of course it would bother me. But as far as the article itself goes I wouldn't hesitate in passing it on to raise awareness of puppy farms. If it stops people buying puppies from pet shops then at least some good can come from it.

But what of the negative things that can come of it ?

[Prydenjoy]

But what of the negative things that can come of it ?

I suppose it depends on what people get out of reading the article. Based on the assumption that most people will read it, be shocked that these puppy farms exist, and perhaps tell others not to buy from pet shops as a result, then that in itself is not a bad thing. I'm not saying I'm in support of Oscars Law per se, just that I don't agree with puppy farming and believe awareness needs to be raised as far too many people support it without even knowing.

[Steve]

But what of the negative things that can come of it ?

I suppose it depends on what people get out of reading the article. Based on the assumption that most people will read it, be shocked that these puppy farms exist, and perhaps tell others not to buy from pet shops as a result, then that in itself is not a bad thing. I'm not saying I'm in support of Oscars Law per se, just that I don't agree with puppy farming and believe awareness needs to be raised as far too many people support it without even knowing.

But how do you justify raising people's awareness based on smoke and mirrors ? What is it exactly that you feel people should be more aware of ? If in fact these puppy farms exist to a point where we need this kind of action and behaviour there are laws already which people can and should be charged with under the prevention of cruelty to animals act. Where are they? How many have been charged and convicted? If there really is this epidemic of filthy puppy farmers then why is there a need to tell fibs and beat up emotion based on these rather than having enough real evidence to be able to maintain credibility?

Pet shops say they dont buy from puppy farmers and if the puppy farmers are as bad as is being represented that they do buy from then how could a pet shop make any profit from sick,filthy puny and dying puppies?

Pet shops say they buy from commercial breeders who are complying with mandatory codes and there is no evidence what ever to prove other wise.

Who has the data to say that a person who is charged with keeping animals in substandard condition has sold their pups to a pet shop ? One person who should know and who is pretty high up and able to collect data tells me if the info of where the majority of puppies in pet shops come from were made public that purebred registered breeders are way up there as the suppliers too. This is also my experience I know commercial breeders who sell to pet shops but I have more knowledge of those who are registered purebred breeders who hand the ones they dont want to keep over to a third party to be sold in pet shops. I have witnessed these deals and seen this with my own eyes. At one time and perhaps still now it was common for purebred breeders to take their puppies to an agent for shipment to a pet shop in Hawaii and if they failed the vet test due to a hernia , heart murmur etc then simply duck into one pet shop known to pay good cash prices on the way home for around a hundred less than export prices.

The fact is your opinion has been impacted by exposure to the stuff animal rights puts out ,not by valid facts backed up by research and data and you feel its acceptable to pass this around to spread it and undo everything others who are looking at it working at finding solutions which will work , where those presenting it are seen as reasonable fair minded people,credible and not crimminals and rednecks sucked in by animal rights propoganda.

If we are to be serious and really ever do anything to move Jo public away from buying pets from pet shops we have to stop looking like a bunch of redneck fanatics and present the real provable tangible reasons as to why they should avoid buying pets from them.And there is heaps - which can be proven and used to educate people in a reasonable temperent manner without Jo public and pollies shutting down because we hold no credibility.

There is no evidence that pet shop puppies are more likely to end up dumped - in fact the opposite is the case.In NSW it has been the law for pet shops to chip puppies as they go out for around 13 years and yet most dogs that are dumped are not chipped.

There is no evidence to support claims puppies sold in pet shops are likely to be more sick than puppies bought any where else and at least if they go through a pet shop rather than a breeder who doesnt vaccinate etc you know there is a fair chance the pup is at least healthy when it goes home. There is no evidence that dogs sold in pet shops are more prone to temperament issues than dogs sold anywhere else.

So

We believe that regardless of how progressive and well run a pet store which sells live animals may be, an argument against purchasing pet store puppies is that prospective buyers cannot contact the breeder to be sure of the parent dog’s temperament and health in order to understand the potential problems or management issues.

It is very easy to purchase a pup from this source as an impulse and the store is often motivated to sell the pup above any consideration as to whether the dog and the buyer will suit each other.

It’s difficult to believe the pet shop assistant is as qualified to educate the buyer on the breed’s characteristics and offer support as well as a breeder who has devoted their lives to learning about and becoming expert in their hobby.

There is no safety net in place for the puppy buyer for advice or support or to take back the dog if things go wrong.

We do not believe it is in the best interests of the dog for breeders to place their pups in pet shops and who as a result choose not to be involved in or take responsibility for the dogs they breed past sending them off to market.

Our policy regarding sales of puppies to pet shops is that under no condition should puppies be sold to pet shops and that we will educate breeders and puppy buyers and the general public on the facts and issues involved in this and promote alternative methods for pet shop owners with the aim of no live dogs being sold in pet shops.

When this crap that is in this article is distributed it is assumed everyone who is against live animals being sold in pet shops is animal rights and it prevents real progress but it also educates people on lies - how on earth can that ever bring us to a place where anything can be done to stop dogs suffering and not create more division and more obstacles to progress?

[Prydenjoy]

The fact is your opinion has been impacted by exposure to the stuff animal rights puts out ,not by valid facts backed up by research and data and you feel its acceptable to pass this around to spread it and undo everything others who are looking at it working at finding solutions which will work , where those presenting it are seen as reasonable fair minded people,credible and not crimminals and rednecks sucked in by animal rights propoganda.

If we are to be serious and really ever do anything to move Jo public away from buying pets from pet shops we have to stop looking like a bunch of redneck fanatics and present the real provable tangible reasons as to why they should avoid buying pets from them.And there is heaps - which can be proven and used to educate people in a reasonable temperent manner without Jo public and pollies shutting down because we hold no credibility.ivision and more obstacles to progress? [/b]

You raise some good points, Steve. Things that I hadn't considered with my limited amount of spare time

[Steve]

The fact is your opinion has been impacted by exposure to the stuff animal rights puts out ,not by valid facts backed up by research and data and you feel its acceptable to pass this around to spread it and undo everything others who are looking at it working at finding solutions which will work , where those presenting it are seen as reasonable fair minded people,credible and not crimminals and rednecks sucked in by animal rights propoganda.

If we are to be serious and really ever do anything to move Jo public away from buying pets from pet shops we have to stop looking like a bunch of redneck fanatics and present the real provable tangible reasons as to why they should avoid buying pets from them.And there is heaps - which can be proven and used to educate people in a reasonable temperent manner without Jo public and pollies shutting down because we hold no credibility.ivision and more obstacles to progress? [/b]

You raise some good points, Steve. Things that I hadn't considered with my limited amount of spare time

All I ask of anyone is that they challenge what they are being fed. I know 100% that most of the people involved in Oscars Law are there because they truly believe it the best way to go to stop dogs suffering. I have no doubt that those who follow feel the same.

But one of the things that amazed me very much when we went into speak with Clover Moores people back when they were pushing for laws in NSW to stop the sales of pets in pet shops and various other sins that breeders do was there almost complete lack of knowledge of what the true situaion was in the dog breding world. All or at least a huge amount of their information came from animal lib in Sydney. I was pretty new to the whole - lets make a new law thing back then - and I couldnt believe that with this lack of knowledge they were prepared to go ahead . So little research had been done - they didnt even know that Dogs NSW breeders were able to sell puppies to pet shops via their code of conduct - and then when that group didnt back them they were surprised.

They all have this magic list of supposedly what only puppy farmers do and why you shouldnt buy a puppy from them etc - these things are everywhere but its all still one sided and the lists have been drafted by welfare or animal rights without breeder in put .

Its gone on so long that it influences so many things. Breeders are too frightened to stand up or argue what is best for them and their dogs in the fear that if they do they will be judged and seen as one of them, supporting them etc .We have codes of conduct which over the years have been changed - not because it is what is best for dogs or what purebred breeders have known to be successful but because it makes one group look like they are doing what animal rights think is what is best for our dogs.

There is one group working to stop breeding too many - what ever that may be - because its cruel and another working to stop purebred breeding because that is cruel another working at showing what ails purebred dogs via a software program pushed to vets.

All of them have great big fat faults in them which are so easliy squashed but worse what is not condusive to being what is best for the dogs or the people who buy them.

If in fact we are all in this to ensure what is best for the dogs then we need to work together, get educated on what it is that is really a problem and find solutions. We cant do that if we all just see something we dont agree with without being educated on what it is we are seeing ,assuming what the cause is , assuming what the solution is and not getting to a point where less dogs suffer.

Our knowledge has to come from facts and quite simply in this country the facts have been left out to a point where we have expectetions on breeders which are not in the best interests of their dogs.

Yes breeder education is a problem but they shouldnt be hindered by being able to learn what is best for their breeding programs and how they keep them,and select them and how and when they breed them by information whichis assumed to be correct because its pushed so loudly by people who have never bred a dog.

[Prydenjoy]

There is one group working to stop breeding too many - what ever that may be - because its cruel and another working to stop purebred breeding because that is cruel another working at showing what ails purebred dogs via a software program pushed to vets.

All of them have great big fat faults in them which are so easliy squashed but worse what is not condusive to being what is best for the dogs or the people who buy them.

If in fact we are all in this to ensure what is best for the dogs then we need to work together, get educated on what it is that is really a problem and find solutions. We cant do that if we all just see something we dont agree with without being educated on what it is we are seeing ,assuming what the cause is , assuming what the solution is and not getting to a point where less dogs suffer.

..................................

Yes breeder education is a problem but they shouldnt be hindered by being able to learn what is best for their breeding programs and how they keep them,and select them and how and when they breed them by information whichis assumed to be correct because its pushed so loudly by people who have never bred a dog.

I should know, I have come up against these people myself! On a group about banning sale of pets in pet shops, I found out the hard way that they condemned not only any kind of breeding whatsoever, but also purebred dogs in general. I tried to explain the difference for pumping out puppies for profit and trying to better a breed, often at a great expense to the breeder. But they all jumped ontop of me and flamed me for adding to "the problem" by breeding my dogs, even though I try so hard to do the right thing in doing so. I left the group, as I didn't want to be a part of such a narrow minded group of extremists!!

[Feather]

It is a difficult question, though. People throw the phrase 'working to better the breed' around as though it's some kind of panacea, but is it? It seems to me as though it's more or less meaningless unless you can rationalise it - unless you've actually sat down, planned it out and are able to say to people 'this is what I'm breeding for, this is why it's necessary, and here's the evidence that it's working (or is very very likely to work)'. I'm not overly convinced by statements like 'I'm breeding for good temperaments' or 'I'm breeding for healthier dogs' (unless you can actually prove that your breeding stock is markedly healthier than the average, in which case I'm all for it) either - they're pretty wishy-washy.

Unless a breeder can both elucidate and prove exactly how they're bettering the breed and why it needs to be done, I don't think the vague claim to altruistic motivations actually means anything.

And I'll get off my soap-box now, that phrase is just a pet peeve of mine.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Feather

[sandgrubber]

It is a difficult question, though. People throw the phrase 'working to better the breed' around as though it's some kind of panacea, but is it? It seems to me as though it's more or less meaningless unless you can rationalise it - unless you've actually sat down, planned it out and are able to say to people 'this is what I'm breeding for, this is why it's necessary, and here's the evidence that it's working (or is very very likely to work)'. I'm not overly convinced by statements like 'I'm breeding for good temperaments' or 'I'm breeding for healthier dogs' (unless you can actually prove that your breeding stock is markedly healthier than the average, in which case I'm all for it) either - they're pretty wishy-washy.

Unless a breeder can both elucidate and prove exactly how they're bettering the breed and why it needs to be done, I don't think the vague claim to altruistic motivations actually means anything.

'Improving the breed' is subtle and subjective. Proof is hard, especially with temperament, and "exact" can be misleading. You can, for example, get a low COI using a 5 gen pedigree, and a high COI if you go back to the days when the stud books were closed (ie, an exact COI that has high precision but no accuracy).

The easiest 'proof' of 'bettering' the breed is simple tests, like hip/elbow scores, plus the frequency of Ch. or Gr Ch. on the pedigree. This may mean breeding for exaggerated characteristics and good hips/elbows/eyes, while ignoring temperament and harder to quantify health problems, like tendency to cancer or heart problems. Personally, I wouldn't choose a mate based on beauty show results and some bone X-ray results.

I have a breeder friend who pts'd a dog she imported from top UK show lines cause he mauled a puppy (breed standards and reputation are strong against any sort of aggression). Anecdote, not proof, and not something you'd advertize. But it made a big impression on me.

Now my soapbox: I wish pedigrees recorded dates of death as well as dates of birth. If I am looking for a companion, the most second most important assurance (temperament is #1) to me would be indications that the dog is likely to lead a long, healthy life. Sorry. The dog world doesn't keep records of mortality, much less morbidity. WTF.

Most breeders work with the bitches in hand and try to 'improve' by choosing the right stud. I sometimes use working test results in choosing a stud. But it's risky. Sometimes going for retrieving titles (I run Labs) ends you out with high-strung dogs who have a beautiful water entry and have no problem with a triple retrieve, but who will drive you crazy if you try to keep them as house dogs. You have to also consider things that aren't quantified . . . is the dog a good bed dog? Does he have undesirable quirks, like resource guarding? Or sweet quirks, like loving children and being protective in a very good way. The breeder really has to meet the dog and do some research to come up with a good choice of studs. . . . and the bottom line is still subjective.

IN SUM:

It's hard to define 'improving the breed'. BUT we can work to make it harder for bottom feeders who keep NO records of pedigree, who don't socialise their pups, who don't do any health testing, etc. . . .

I'm not convinced that the Oscar's Law crowd have ANY rational criteria for defining a 'puppy farmer' and are doing ANYTHING to improve the breed or X-breed, or mutt.

Edited September 17, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

It is a difficult question, though. People throw the phrase 'working to better the breed' around as though it's some kind of panacea, but is it? It seems to me as though it's more or less meaningless unless you can rationalise it - unless you've actually sat down, planned it out and are able to say to people 'this is what I'm breeding for, this is why it's necessary, and here's the evidence that it's working (or is very very likely to work)'. I'm not overly convinced by statements like 'I'm breeding for good temperaments' or 'I'm breeding for healthier dogs' (unless you can actually prove that your breeding stock is markedly healthier than the average, in which case I'm all for it) either - they're pretty wishy-washy.

Unless a breeder can both elucidate and prove exactly how they're bettering the breed and why it needs to be done, I don't think the vague claim to altruistic motivations actually means anything.

'Improving the breed' is subtle and subjective. Proof is hard, especially with temperament, and "exact" can be misleading. You can, for example, get a low COI using a 5 gen pedigree, and a high COI if you go back to the days when the stud books were closed (ie, an exact COI that has high precision but no accuracy).

The easiest 'proof' of 'bettering' the breed is simple tests, like hip/elbow scores, plus the frequency of Ch. or Gr Ch. on the pedigree. This may mean breeding for exaggerated characteristics and good hips/elbows/eyes, while ignoring temperament and harder to quantify health problems, like tendency to cancer or heart problems. Personally, I wouldn't choose a mate based on beauty show results and some bone X-ray results.

I have a breeder friend who pts'd a dog she imported from top UK show lines cause he mauled a puppy (breed standards and reputation are strong against any sort of aggression). Anecdote, not proof, and not something you'd advertize. But it made a big impression on me.

Now my soapbox: I wish pedigrees recorded dates of death as well as dates of birth. If I am looking for a companion, the most second most important assurance (temperament is #1) to me would be indications that the dog is likely to lead a long, healthy life. Sorry. The dog world doesn't keep records of mortality, much less morbidity. WTF.

Most breeders work with the bitches in hand and try to 'improve' by choosing the right stud. I sometimes use working test results in choosing a stud. But it's risky. Sometimes going for retrieving titles (I run Labs) ends you out with high-strung dogs who have a beautiful water entry and have no problem with a triple retrieve, but who will drive you crazy if you try to keep them as house dogs. You have to also consider things that aren't quantified . . . is the dog a good bed dog? Does he have undesirable quirks, like resource guarding? Or sweet quirks, like loving children and being protective in a very good way. The breeder really has to meet the dog and do some research to come up with a good choice of studs. . . . and the bottom line is still subjective.

IN SUM:

It's hard to define 'improving the breed'. BUT we can work to make it harder for bottom feeders who keep NO records of pedigree, who don't socialise their pups, who don't do any health testing, etc. . . .

I'm not convinced that the Oscar's Law crowd have ANY rational criteria for defining a 'puppy farmer' and are doing ANYTHING to improve the breed or X-breed, or mutt.

Improving the breed is unique to pure breds and one of the things they attacks us on. Its not possible to claim you are breeding to improve anything if you dont breed on with it and record what you are doing for those who come behind you in the breed. Each and every breeder will have a different idea of what is bettering the breed and in most cases they can justify it at least to themselves. You cant really define it because it changes depending on what the goal is for the breeding program or the mating. Whats more you cant say someone isnt based on their methods or results. If a breeder breeds 100 puppies a year , and says they breed to better the breed rather than doing what they do to primarily make money you can think what you like but if they say they bred to better the breed proving that their motivation is something else gets very messy indeed. especially when they are able to sell their puppies to pet shops.

Right now especially in some breeds many of the dogs are eliminated from the gene pool based on hip scores in the name of bettering the breed but that in itself may prove to be counterproductive to bettering the breed in years to come. We dont know what genes may or may not be linked to hip scores and we dont know what else may or may not impact yet or if we really are bettering the breed. Is every breeder's goal who eliminates high scores about bettering the breed or about being afraid of being attacked by their peers or sued by their puppy buyers or because they cant register their puppies without them? You can only ever go by what they say because you cant prove that wasnt their motivation. Pedigree dogs exposed,McGreevy etc is all about how we have supposedly buggered it up and guilty of animal cruelty by "bettering the breed" because we have selected for breed standard traits rather than any others in the name of bettering the breed. No doubt some have but they do it with the motivation of what they think will better the breed. Who is to decide and the reality is that the more breeders we have with different ideas of what they need to do to better the breed rather than one group who dictate what can and cant be done the better it is in the long term for the breed. You may be able to prove that the results of a breeding program are not helping the breed but you can never prove what their motivation was for doing it.

The point Im trying to make is that we are sitting ducks .Many believe that unless you have more than average numbers of dogs to choose from in your back yard that you cant better the breed. If I have 6 bitches and one turns up with an issue which means she has to be taken out of the breeding program I still have 5 to breed with and I can select the best of what I have. If I only have one and she turns up at 18 months with something which she needs to come out for Ive got to start again and in 18 months I may find my self in the same spot - starting again or compromising on what really is better for the breed. If a purebred breeder wants a DA for 50 dogs to breed to better the breed so they have more places to go in their breeding program etc should they be beaten black and blue because they apply for a DA ? They have the same numbers that someone who is up front about breeding commercially has and the same husbandry and housing care, socialisation etc issues as any breeder regardless of what breed or cross breed they produce. The purebred breeder can make a better case that they are breeding this way because its what is better for the breed especially if they also show their dogs but hello??????? In some circles breeding purebreds under the heading of for the betterment of the breed is evidence we are cruel and pond scum.

Why does a breeder have a dozen large breed dogs locked up in filth in a spare bedroom.Is it for money, to keep more stock for breeding for the betterment of the breed or because they have a mental illness or because they are crimminals?

Should it matter whether they are purebred or cross bred? Should it matter what their motivation is or what excuses they can verbalise? Of course not.

When you make stupid laws and make life hard for anyone applying for a DA it makes it more likely you wont spot the hoarders, smaller breeders, larger breeders etc regardless of what they say their motivations are.

RSPCA Australia defines a puppy farmer as someone who keeps their breeding dogs intensively in substandard conditions and everyone who attended the roundtable conference agreed with that because we all know it means we will be judged by how we treat and keep our dogs rather than what our motivation for breeding is. When ever - if ever everyone is on the same page and we all know what the hell it is we are fighting for and against when we support Oscars Law or anti puppy farms we may make some progress without the need for being seen to be fanatics, distorting facts, breaking the law and sensationalising

[Steve]

And quote But after Oscar was taken away, Tranter questioned her resolve. “Sitting under that tree, I believed I’d failed. Then I thought, I wish there was some law I could use to get him back. If only I had Oscar’s Law. And that’s how I had the idea for the campaign.”

A law to get back a dog which someone has stolen because they said it was suffering rather than waiting for someone who is charged with making such decisions to take a look and make a decision legally ?

Its just a big joke right?

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

You are joking Steve, right? I for one am sick of reading all these very long posts, denouncing those that are trying to help animals in need. Smoke and mirrors? It's a shame you don't give credit where it's due - do you think that all the people that rally against puppy farms have no brains? How insulting.

I'd like you to have been present today when a lawyer spoke very eloquently about what she is doing to fight against the laws that don't protect animals from unscrupulous people who use them to profit from misery.

And councils DO approve puppy farms, they just don't call them that.

And is there anything wrong with back to back breeding? Of course there is, it is not in the animal's health interests, perhaps you'd like to talk to my vet regarding dogs that were recently rescued from a puppy farmer and treated (all had ear infections, some had skin issues, one had a serious medical issue that required $1000s to treat and they all needed dentals and desexing of course). Their insides were a mess. Some pregnant ones were picked up at the same time (sold by the puppy farmer to members of the public, not by "animal liberationalists"}. The dogs were all sold to people and they were encouraged to breed from them again to sell to petshops, a "nice little earner". The pregnants dogs had their front legs painted so the puppy farmer knew which ones were pregnant. It can be hard to keep track when you have so many. No idea who the father(s) were either as they were all left to run around together when on heat ....

You are right that Deb shouldn't have had to BUY Oscar back, very right. He should never have been returned to the puppy farmer - did you read about the condition he was in? What he was suffering? Completely inadequate and inept laws saw him returned to the cruel situation he'd have to survive for another 18 months. Dogs don't live that long and they certainly don't deserve to spend their lives reproducing and suffering medical issues that aren't treated. Is it OK for a dog to have a Grade 4 dental?

•Grade 4—Severe tartar, periodontal disease, and oral pain are present. With grade 4 patients, tooth loss is imminent. OSSVH recommends dental X-rays to fully evaluate bone loss and tooth health.

What about ear infections? Being matted with their own faeces and urine in their coats.

ANYONE who breeds from dogs left in these conditions really needs to be stopped. I simply don't care if it is puppy farmers, back yard breeders or registered breeders - they are all guilty of cruelty and neglect.

A dog is a companion animal - it isn't for farming. Full stop.

[Steve]

You are joking Steve, right? I for one am sick of reading all these very long posts, denouncing those that are trying to help animals in need. Smoke and mirrors? It's a shame you don't give credit where it's due - do you think that all the people that rally against puppy farms have no brains? How insulting.

I'd like you to have been present today when a lawyer spoke very eloquently about what she is doing to fight against the laws that don't protect animals from unscrupulous people who use them to profit from misery.

And councils DO approve puppy farms, they just don't call them that.

And is there anything wrong with back to back breeding? Of course there is, it is not in the animal's health interests, perhaps you'd like to talk to my vet regarding dogs that were recently rescued from a puppy farmer and treated (all had ear infections, some had skin issues, one had a serious medical issue that required $1000s to treat and they all needed dentals and desexing of course). Their insides were a mess. Some pregnant ones were picked up at the same time (sold by the puppy farmer to members of the public, not by "animal liberationalists"}. The dogs were all sold to people and they were encouraged to breed from them again to sell to petshops, a "nice little earner". The pregnants dogs had their front legs painted so the puppy farmer knew which ones were pregnant. It can be hard to keep track when you have so many. No idea who the father(s) were either as they were all left to run around together when on heat ....

You are right that Deb shouldn't have had to BUY Oscar back, very right. He should never have been returned to the puppy farmer - did you read about the condition he was in? What he was suffering? Completely inadequate and inept laws saw him returned to the cruel situation he'd have to survive for another 18 months. Dogs don't live that long and they certainly don't deserve to spend their lives reproducing and suffering medical issues that aren't treated. Is it OK for a dog to have a Grade 4 dental?

•Grade 4—Severe tartar, periodontal disease, and oral pain are present. With grade 4 patients, tooth loss is imminent. OSSVH recommends dental X-rays to fully evaluate bone loss and tooth health.

What about ear infections? Being matted with their own faeces and urine in their coats.

ANYONE who breeds from dogs left in these conditions really needs to be stopped. I simply don't care if it is puppy farmers, back yard breeders or registered breeders - they are all guilty of cruelty and neglect.

A dog is a companion animal - it isn't for farming. Full stop.

Dog mad . I do give credit where it is due and I am as much against puppy farms as you are. I agree with you 100 % that people who keep dogs like this and who are guilty of this kind of thing are in need of being arrested and charged as crimminals. If there are so many guilty of these things then why havent they been charged and found guilty ?

Councils do not approve puppy farms as defined by the majority of groups who are working against puppy farms and that is the major issue and will forever be the problem. We cant agree on what is a puppy farmer and what needs to be stopped so the people who are rallying are not all rallying for the same thing. People who are rallying all have great intentions but there are other issues at stake and whilst Im more than happy to rally against puppy farmers Im not happy to rally for something - a law which Ive no idea of what that is and Im not going to rally against a breeder because of their motivations rather than their deeds.

Its one thing to want to have changes made and quite another to tell fibs, and sensatonalise in order to get everyone feelling as passionate as you are.If its an epidemic of breeders who do this then why is there a need to beat it up?

Its not O.K. to break the law and no one even knows what it is they are asking for. What is Oscars law - surely its not a law where you get to keep a dog after you have broken into someone's property and stolen it ? Where can we read what this law is we are supposed to be asking for?

The good news is that you can decide to follow this in the belief that it will bring an end to dogs suffering and if I dont agree that this is the best method of doing something about it and I think it un does much of the good work being done which I think will bring a better result Im allowed to say so. If I dont choose to see someone who breaks the law as a hero - thats no evidence I condone puppy farming .

What is it exactly thats wrong with back to back breeding - the science and not the emotion says it is in the animals health interests . No point coming after me for that - I didnt make it up. If those dog's insides were really a mess it wasnt having puppies that did that.

[ellies mum]

You are joking Steve, right? I for one am sick of reading all these very long posts, denouncing those that are trying to help animals in need. Smoke and mirrors? It's a shame you don't give credit where it's due - do you think that all the people that rally against puppy farms have no brains? How insulting.

I'd like you to have been present today when a lawyer spoke very eloquently about what she is doing to fight against the laws that don't protect animals from unscrupulous people who use them to profit from misery.

And councils DO approve puppy farms, they just don't call them that.

And is there anything wrong with back to back breeding? Of course there is, it is not in the animal's health interests, perhaps you'd like to talk to my vet regarding dogs that were recently rescued from a puppy farmer and treated (all had ear infections, some had skin issues, one had a serious medical issue that required $1000s to treat and they all needed dentals and desexing of course). Their insides were a mess. Some pregnant ones were picked up at the same time (sold by the puppy farmer to members of the public, not by "animal liberationalists"}. The dogs were all sold to people and they were encouraged to breed from them again to sell to petshops, a "nice little earner". The pregnants dogs had their front legs painted so the puppy farmer knew which ones were pregnant. It can be hard to keep track when you have so many. No idea who the father(s) were either as they were all left to run around together when on heat ....

You are right that Deb shouldn't have had to BUY Oscar back, very right. He should never have been returned to the puppy farmer - did you read about the condition he was in? What he was suffering? Completely inadequate and inept laws saw him returned to the cruel situation he'd have to survive for another 18 months. Dogs don't live that long and they certainly don't deserve to spend their lives reproducing and suffering medical issues that aren't treated. Is it OK for a dog to have a Grade 4 dental?

•Grade 4—Severe tartar, periodontal disease, and oral pain are present. With grade 4 patients, tooth loss is imminent. OSSVH recommends dental X-rays to fully evaluate bone loss and tooth health.

What about ear infections? Being matted with their own faeces and urine in their coats.

ANYONE who breeds from dogs left in these conditions really needs to be stopped. I simply don't care if it is puppy farmers, back yard breeders or registered breeders - they are all guilty of cruelty and neglect.

A dog is a companion animal - it isn't for farming. Full stop.

Well said Dogmad...we just got a lovely little pug in who had lived in a cage all her life bred and bred ...then disgarded on a popular site and she had her Uterus and vagina hanging out....through prolaps......I was appauled......and this person breeds for profit in a backyard situation....discusting...

She has now been desexed and has a wonderful new home.....

Oscars Laws should be approved as a Law.....to protect the voiceless ones who cant defend themselves...

[juice]

Dogmad

If it stops dogs like oscar being treated like that it has to be worth it, he is one of many.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Steve, who is making up fibs? I say again, I have seen the evidence with my own eyes.

You say there is no problem with back yard breeding and breeding back to back litters? You say that "if the insides were really a mess it wasn't due to the breeding?".

Are you a fully qualified vet? It was a fully qualified vet that determined that years of "back to back" breeding had wrecked these animals uteruses.

The rally today was against all cruelty to animals being used in breeding.

What do you do with your dogs when they are no longer able to breed? Do you get them euthanased or do you rehome them? Are all the dogs in your care free from health issues?

What do you think puppy farmers and bybs do when a dog needs a caesarean? Do they even know when it is giving birth? Is there anything wrong with not really giving a crap about whether the bitch dies with a puppy in utero?

Is it OK to courier puppies of 5 weeks of age to new owners, before they are even weaned? Then to tell new owners, when they enquired, to feed the puppy on "whatever you eat"?? I wonder how many of these tiny puppies actually survive? Bought on the Trading Post and other similar sites - sent off to God knows who ... perhaps for more breeding?