Interesting Read..

[mita]

sounds wonderful you've even got me sold, i feel like going out and meeting your breeder too :D sounds like my kind of person.

we probably sound like nutters, but my parents are grandma and grand dad and im mother, so you'll get my dad saying "go and see your mother" pointing to me and when i drop them off (like kids) its so you've come to visit your grandma and granddad. oh boy. you can see my parents are itching actually to be grandparents of human kids but have to be satisfied with dogs because it aint gona be happening anytime soon with the 2 legged variety im afraid.

I think you'd only need to look in the mirror to meet a breeder like that, toy dog. You sound like my kind of breeder! Frankly, in my limited experience, I've met far more decent registered breeders than awful ones. My wish is that responsible pet owners find their ways to breeders like that.

And if calling yourself your dog's mother....birth or adoptive....is what nutters do. Then I'm a nut job, too. At least we and our dog are happy.

[Steve]

I shouldn't have to point this out but to me it's obvious, why should a dog spend it's whole life being pregnant, feeding puppies and waiting for it's next season to be useful? And then agree that it's OK to get rid of them once their breeding is over, and I don't mean rehome. Yes, it's a breeder's prerogative to euthanase a dog that is past it's useful life (if that is the only value you place on a dog), ie breeding again and again but I'm sure that many people would just see that as totally callous behaviour.

My dogs all come from a registered breeder who believes that as soon as her girls have done their bit in the Show-ring & got their titles.....& have had one or two litters....they deserve to be in a good pet home for the rest of their days, if possible.

She doesn't have a lot of dogs, so all are known to her by name and personality.....& they have access to the house. She's part of a national & international network of breeders of her breed. Where health matters are taken seriously, with an International Working Party & tested dogs listed. She makes a conscious effort to continually socialise her dogs & puppies, with access to children and some doing pet therapy. She follows up with support, for life, any of her pups or dogs that've been placed in homes. And, because she knows their personalities so well, is able to make good matches.

No wonder, the dogs that I've got from her have been brilliantly socialised to be close companion dogs. And scientific research would back the worth and necessity of what she's doing in that respect. Interestingly, the word 'socialisation' is absent from most support of commercial puppy breeding.

Of course, she'd sell her puppies for money.... & they're worth it, in terms of the expert knowledge put into their breeding & raising. I doubt if she'd describe herself as a 'commercial' breeder, which implies making a living....and maybe supporting employees as well. And I doubt if commercial breeders could do what she does, given there'd have to be larger numbers of dogs & more emphasis on number of litters produced.

Which is why I support her 'hobby', 'breed-centred', approach as the source for any puppy or dog I'd get. And I'd like to see registered breeders like her, get the acknowledgement and consideration they've earned. The critical issue that needs to be looked into is supply of puppies and dogs, given that such an 'expert hobby model' does not produce puppies in great numbers. Like, is there any benefits in the model frequently used in the Scandanavian country from which one of my dogs originally came. Some of a registered breeder's dogs may be placed in 'hub' homes, from which they go on with their show career, but in which they benefit from the up -close care and socialisation.

Yes, the ability for a breeder to decide how many is good for them to be able to live with and cope with dependent on breed and their lifestyle.

When one of your breeders's was under the gun there were all manner of crazy accusations made about her .One of which was that she kept her dogs in kennels in her back yard and never had any interaction with them As you know nothing could be further from the truth . From the other side she was beaten up because she didnt have kennels and didnt keep them according to mandatory codes. She was accused of having too many or being cruel and of not caring about them and rehoming them when she no longer needed them..of course because she had so many and had them in her home she had their voices lowered and accused of doing so in order for her to be able to hide the fact she had so many. Her home was filmed and her ordeal went on and on and it is something she will probably never get over. Imagine what that would have been like for her if rather than someone turning up with a search warrant it was someone who was skulking around and plastering accusations all over websites and national TV prior to the people who have authority to do that arrived.

The numbers she owned are way over what I could cope with and do as good a job of it as she does - the size of my home, my breeds, and the numbers of humans who live here wouldnt be able to cope with having that many under foot etc either.

One of her dogs was PTS with the reason being given it was under socialised and had a rotten temperament and was suffering so badly because of what she did - based on what we know of how she lives with her dogs its difficult to understand how that could ever be possible.

If we are to protect her right to live her life without fear that someone will dob her in for some terrible thing which they have been doing for 30 years or so even to the point of distributing illegally gotten documents which are over 20 years old and that people will break the law to try to prove it we have to work to protect all . If we say its O.K. for one breeder to stand accused or if someone just wants to check in case so its O.K. to come in and trespass and stalk them there are few people in the dog world who wouldnt have someone prepared to take a poke.

In a perfect world for me no one would breed commercially, no one would sell their puppies to pet shops, no one would see their dogs as farmers see their beef cattle and only predictible puppies would be bred from well socialised happy and healthy Mums and Dads - other's are saying in their perfect world there would be no show ring , no purebred dogs no one breeding for a breed standard, no one breeding at all, no puppies in loungerooms etc.

But we cant just follow on blindly without questioning the propoganda and the un intended consequences for all dogs. We cant just decide one group has more rights or is somehow more special than another because we are in a different group. Everything that has been strategically planned by a group of people who attended the round table conferences to address the issues such as lack of socialisation etc is bought undone and it wont stop dogs suffering ,I mean really suffering.

You also cant expect to educate breeders but hold back some bits which you think they may abuse or which animal rights has decided is different to what it really is.

You cannot justify breaking the law treating people who breed dogs as if they are somehow exempt from having rights in case they are treating their dogs poorly and not see how that erodes the very essence of our society.

We have to go in and advocate for changes in order to stop dogs suffering and if we are seen to be in bed with a bunch of redneck people who are prepared to break the law and beat up issues with sensationalism and

emotionalism we are lost before we begin. We have to show we are a moderate group capable of seeing all aspects of the issue and not use illegal methods or non provable accustaions to back us up. If we dont when one thing is shown to be assumed and crap and we can be shown to be wrong or beating it up - its lost. Prime example of this was the whole pet shop thing - Where the reasons given for change were so easily proven to be in correct.

RSPCA Australia tell me in writing they are not against sales of live animals in pet shops and they are not against commercial breeding and that is something that is underestimated inthe big schem of things too.

[Steve]

sounds wonderful you've even got me sold, i feel like going out and meeting your breeder too :D sounds like my kind of person.

we probably sound like nutters, but my parents are grandma and grand dad and im mother, so you'll get my dad saying "go and see your mother" pointing to me and when i drop them off (like kids) its so you've come to visit your grandma and granddad. oh boy. you can see my parents are itching actually to be grandparents of human kids but have to be satisfied with dogs because it aint gona be happening anytime soon with the 2 legged variety im afraid.

I think you'd only need to look in the mirror to meet a breeder like that, toy dog. You sound like my kind of breeder! Frankly, in my limited experience, I've met far more decent registered breeders than awful ones. My wish is that responsible pet owners find their ways to breeders like that.

And if calling yourself your dog's mother....birth or adoptive....is what nutters do. Then I'm a nut job, too. At least we and our dog are happy.

In my experience I too have met more great breeders than scabby ones

[toy*dog]

sounds wonderful you've even got me sold, i feel like going out and meeting your breeder too :D sounds like my kind of person.

we probably sound like nutters, but my parents are grandma and grand dad and im mother, so you'll get my dad saying "go and see your mother" pointing to me and when i drop them off (like kids) its so you've come to visit your grandma and granddad. oh boy. you can see my parents are itching actually to be grandparents of human kids but have to be satisfied with dogs because it aint gona be happening anytime soon with the 2 legged variety im afraid.

I think you'd only need to look in the mirror to meet a breeder like that, toy dog. You sound like my kind of breeder! Frankly, in my limited experience, I've met far more decent registered breeders than awful ones. My wish is that responsible pet owners find their ways to breeders like that.

And if calling yourself your dog's mother....birth or adoptive....is what nutters do. Then I'm a nut job, too. At least we and our dog are happy.

In my experience I too have met more great breeders than scabby ones

yep me too. my mentor has been in my breed for over 45 years. she's like a walking talking book she's there to pick me up when i am down and have a million questions and i am so grateful for her. she tells me she wants to retire, and i told her she is not allowed to! these are the people who remind us of where we've been, what it was like many years ago and how its changed so much in recent years. very sad.

[toy*dog]

sounds wonderful you've even got me sold, i feel like going out and meeting your breeder too :D sounds like my kind of person.

we probably sound like nutters, but my parents are grandma and grand dad and im mother, so you'll get my dad saying "go and see your mother" pointing to me and when i drop them off (like kids) its so you've come to visit your grandma and granddad. oh boy. you can see my parents are itching actually to be grandparents of human kids but have to be satisfied with dogs because it aint gona be happening anytime soon with the 2 legged variety im afraid.

I think you'd only need to look in the mirror to meet a breeder like that, toy dog. You sound like my kind of breeder! Frankly, in my limited experience, I've met far more decent registered breeders than awful ones. My wish is that responsible pet owners find their ways to breeders like that.

And if calling yourself your dog's mother....birth or adoptive....is what nutters do. Then I'm a nut job, too. At least we and our dog are happy.

thank you thats nice. i'd rather have dogs than kids actually. any day of the week. dogs to me are much better.

[toy*dog]

I shouldn't have to point this out but to me it's obvious, why should a dog spend it's whole life being pregnant, feeding puppies and waiting for it's next season to be useful? And then agree that it's OK to get rid of them once their breeding is over, and I don't mean rehome. Yes, it's a breeder's prerogative to euthanase a dog that is past it's useful life (if that is the only value you place on a dog), ie breeding again and again but I'm sure that many people would just see that as totally callous behaviour.

My dogs all come from a registered breeder who believes that as soon as her girls have done their bit in the Show-ring & got their titles.....& have had one or two litters....they deserve to be in a good pet home for the rest of their days, if possible.

She doesn't have a lot of dogs, so all are known to her by name and personality.....& they have access to the house. She's part of a national & international network of breeders of her breed. Where health matters are taken seriously, with an International Working Party & tested dogs listed. She makes a conscious effort to continually socialise her dogs & puppies, with access to children and some doing pet therapy. She follows up with support, for life, any of her pups or dogs that've been placed in homes. And, because she knows their personalities so well, is able to make good matches.

No wonder, the dogs that I've got from her have been brilliantly socialised to be close companion dogs. And scientific research would back the worth and necessity of what she's doing in that respect. Interestingly, the word 'socialisation' is absent from most support of commercial puppy breeding.

Of course, she'd sell her puppies for money.... & they're worth it, in terms of the expert knowledge put into their breeding & raising. I doubt if she'd describe herself as a 'commercial' breeder, which implies making a living....and maybe supporting employees as well. And I doubt if commercial breeders could do what she does, given there'd have to be larger numbers of dogs & more emphasis on number of litters produced.

Which is why I support her 'hobby', 'breed-centred', approach as the source for any puppy or dog I'd get. And I'd like to see registered breeders like her, get the acknowledgement and consideration they've earned. The critical issue that needs to be looked into is supply of puppies and dogs, given that such an 'expert hobby model' does not produce puppies in great numbers. Like, is there any benefits in the model frequently used in the Scandanavian country from which one of my dogs originally came. Some of a registered breeder's dogs may be placed in 'hub' homes, from which they go on with their show career, but in which they benefit from the up -close care and socialisation.

Yes, the ability for a breeder to decide how many is good for them to be able to live with and cope with dependent on breed and their lifestyle.

When one of your breeders's was under the gun there were all manner of crazy accusations made about her .One of which was that she kept her dogs in kennels in her back yard and never had any interaction with them As you know nothing could be further from the truth . From the other side she was beaten up because she didnt have kennels and didnt keep them according to mandatory codes. She was accused of having too many or being cruel and of not caring about them and rehoming them when she no longer needed them..of course because she had so many and had them in her home she had their voices lowered and accused of doing so in order for her to be able to hide the fact she had so many. Her home was filmed and her ordeal went on and on and it is something she will probably never get over. Imagine what that would have been like for her if rather than someone turning up with a search warrant it was someone who was skulking around and plastering accusations all over websites and national TV prior to the people who have authority to do that arrived.

The numbers she owned are way over what I could cope with and do as good a job of it as she does - the size of my home, my breeds, and the numbers of humans who live here wouldnt be able to cope with having that many under foot etc either.

One of her dogs was PTS with the reason being given it was under socialised and had a rotten temperament and was suffering so badly because of what she did - based on what we know of how she lives with her dogs its difficult to understand how that could ever be possible.

If we are to protect her right to live her life without fear that someone will dob her in for some terrible thing which they have been doing for 30 years or so even to the point of distributing illegally gotten documents which are over 20 years old and that people will break the law to try to prove it we have to work to protect all . If we say its O.K. for one breeder to stand accused or if someone just wants to check in case so its O.K. to come in and trespass and stalk them there are few people in the dog world who wouldnt have someone prepared to take a poke.

In a perfect world for me no one would breed commercially, no one would sell their puppies to pet shops, no one would see their dogs as farmers see their beef cattle and only predictible puppies would be bred from well socialised happy and healthy Mums and Dads - other's are saying in their perfect world there would be no show ring , no purebred dogs no one breeding for a breed standard, no one breeding at all, no puppies in loungerooms etc.

But we cant just follow on blindly without questioning the propoganda and the un intended consequences for all dogs. We cant just decide one group has more rights or is somehow more special than another because we are in a different group. Everything that has been strategically planned by a group of people who attended the round table conferences to address the issues such as lack of socialisation etc is bought undone and it wont stop dogs suffering ,I mean really suffering.

You also cant expect to educate breeders but hold back some bits which you think they may abuse or which animal rights has decided is different to what it really is.

You cannot justify breaking the law treating people who breed dogs as if they are somehow exempt from having rights in case they are treating their dogs poorly and not see how that erodes the very essence of our society.

We have to go in and advocate for changes in order to stop dogs suffering and if we are seen to be in bed with a bunch of redneck people who are prepared to break the law and beat up issues with sensationalism and

emotionalism we are lost before we begin. We have to show we are a moderate group capable of seeing all aspects of the issue and not use illegal methods or non provable accustaions to back us up. If we dont when one thing is shown to be assumed and crap and we can be shown to be wrong or beating it up - its lost. Prime example of this was the whole pet shop thing - Where the reasons given for change were so easily proven to be in correct.

RSPCA Australia tell me in writing they are not against sales of live animals in pet shops and they are not against commercial breeding and that is something that is underestimated inthe big schem of things too.

yes it certainly makes you think about all this to me it is extremely extremely interesting. cant' get enough of this subject. good post.

eta: you know what mita, im sure i know the breeder you speak about i've actually talked to her known her for years isnt that a funny thing. although haven't ever sat down with her and had a good talk though. too many people for that at the showring. judging on what steve has said, i think i do could be wrong though. the one im thinking off is a very nice lady indeed always say hi anyway. she'd know my face as i've been ringside for years since a kid but i don't think she'd know my name though.

Edited September 21, 2011 by toy*dog

[sandgrubber]

Until Oscar's Law is defined and its practical implications clarified and discussed, I don't see how anyone can support it.

On the other hand, the RSPCA has a lengthy discussion paper out on Puppy Farms, including case examples and better definitions.

www.rspca.org.au/assets/.../RSPCAPuppyFarmDiscussionPaperJan2010.pdf

It might be more fruitful to discuss this than voice distrust of the relatively rowdy Oscar's Law.

Here's the RSPCA definition of 'puppy farm'. Would people be comfortable with this definition (emphasis on the bolded part)?

What is a puppy farm?

Puppy breeding establishments take many forms and can be seen to be on a continuum from extremely bad (puppy farms, exploitative hoarders) through to excellent (dog enthusiasts who put the animal’s health and welfare as the first priority). This paper focuses on the problems associated with the lower end of this continuum: puppy farms.

Puppy farming is the indiscriminate breeding of dogs on a large scale for the purposes of sale. Puppy farms are essentially commercial operations with an emphasis on production and profit with little or no consideration given to the welfare of the animals1,2. Puppy farms are intensive systems with breeding animals and their puppies kept in facilities that fail to meet the animals’ psychological, behavioural, social or physiological needs. As a result many of these animals have a very poor quality of life.

While most puppy farms lack any structured facility plan or design and provide husbandry on an ad hoc basis only, others are purpose-built and are specifically designed to house and breed large numbers of dogs for the purpose of sale. Both types of facilities can fail to meet the animals’ behavioural, psychological, social and physiological needs.

Edited September 21, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

Until Oscar's Law is defined and its practical implications clarified and discussed, I don't see how anyone can support it.

On the other hand, the RSPCA has a lengthy discussion paper out on Puppy Farms, including case examples and better definitions.

www.rspca.org.au/assets/.../RSPCAPuppyFarmDiscussionPaperJan2010.pdf

It might be more fruitful to discuss this than voice distrust of the relatively rowdy Oscar's Law.

Here's the RSPCA definition of 'puppy farm'. Would people be comfortable with this definition (emphasis on the bolded part)?

What is a puppy farm?

Puppy breeding establishments take many forms and can be seen to be on a continuum from extremely bad (puppy farms, exploitative hoarders) through to excellent (dog enthusiasts who put the animal's health and welfare as the first priority). This paper focuses on the problems associated with the lower end of this continuum: puppy farms.

Puppy farming is the indiscriminate breeding of dogs on a large scale for the purposes of sale. Puppy farms are essentially commercial operations with an emphasis on production and profit with little or no consideration given to the welfare of the animals1,2. Puppy farms are intensive systems with breeding animals and their puppies kept in facilities that fail to meet the animals' psychological, behavioural, social or physiological needs. As a result many of these animals have a very poor quality of life.

While most puppy farms lack any structured facility plan or design and provide husbandry on an ad hoc basis only, others are purpose-built and are specifically designed to house and breed large numbers of dogs for the purpose of sale. Both types of facilities can fail to meet the animals' behavioural, psychological, social and physiological needs.

Sandgrubber the discussion papers was put out prior to the round table meeting which discussed the discussion paper and the definition was changed.

The RSPCA and everyone of the groups who attended agreed on a definition and we all thought that was that and we were all working toward doing something about that.

On the 22nd of August via email distributed to those who attended the round table meeting and other interested people including Oscars Law again RSPCA Australia clarified what definition we are using to define puppy farms.

Quote

Thanks for your further feedback.

The RSPCA defines a Puppy farm as:

A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as: an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

[schnauzer]

The RSPCA defines a Puppy farm as:

A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as: an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

Then good ethical registered breeders have nothing to fear.

By the way, the worst rescue I have ever done was from a registered breeder. Malnutrition, shocking ear and dental infections and skin infections. The traumatised bitch that I kept took months of constant vet care to get her healthy again. The dogs lived on a concrete slab in cages.

[Steve]

The RSPCA defines a Puppy farm as:

A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as: an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs' behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

Then good ethical registered breeders have nothing to fear.

By the way, the worst rescue I have ever done was from a registered breeder. Malnutrition, shocking ear and dental infections and skin infections. The traumatised bitch that I kept took months of constant vet care to get her healthy again. The dogs lived on a concrete slab in cages.

Yes I agree good ethical breeders have nothing to fear whether they are registered with ANKC or not - if that is the definition we all use - the problem is it isnt. If it were i wouldnt be yelling about it because some of the definitions are doomed to failure.

By the way the worst Ive ever seen was a registered breeder too.

[sandgrubber]

Until Oscar's Law is defined and its practical implications clarified and discussed, I don't see how anyone can support it.

On the other hand, the RSPCA has a lengthy discussion paper out on Puppy Farms, including case examples and better definitions.

www.rspca.org.au/assets/.../RSPCAPuppyFarmDiscussionPaper Jan2010.pdf

It might be more fruitful to discuss this than voice distrust of the relatively rowdy Oscar's Law.

Here's the RSPCA definition of 'puppy farm'. Would people be comfortable with this definition (emphasis on the bolded part)?

What is a puppy farm?

Puppy breeding establishments take many forms and can be seen to be on a continuum from extremely bad (puppy farms, exploitative hoarders) through to excellent (dog enthusiasts who put the animal's health and welfare as the first priority). This paper focuses on the problems associated with the lower end of this continuum: puppy farms.

Puppy farming is the indiscriminate breeding of dogs on a large scale for the purposes of sale. Puppy farms are essentially commercial operations with an emphasis on production and profit with little or no consideration given to the welfare of the animals1,2. Puppy farms are intensive systems with breeding animals and their puppies kept in facilities that fail to meet the animals' psychological, behavioural, social or physiological needs. As a result many of these animals have a very poor quality of life.

While most puppy farms lack any structured facility plan or design and provide husbandry on an ad hoc basis only, others are purpose-built and are specifically designed to house and breed large numbers of dogs for the purpose of sale. Both types of facilities can fail to meet the animals' behavioural, psychological, social and physiological needs.

Sandgrubber the discussion papers was put out prior to the round table meeting which discussed the discussion paper and the definition was changed.

The RSPCA and everyone of the groups who attended agreed on a definition and we all thought that was that and we were all working toward doing something about that.

On the 22nd of August via email distributed to those who attended the round table meeting and other interested people including Oscars Law again RSPCA Australia clarified what definition we are using to define puppy farms.

Quote

Thanks for your further feedback.

The RSPCA defines a Puppy farm as:

A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as: an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs' behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

Hey Steve

Thanks for the update. I like the definition as it's both terse and conceptually broad, but doesn't cut out people who raise puppies in the house, or in a barn, or don't meet some fastidious hygene standard. Interesting that it doesn't say anything about veterinary care, record keeping, or health testing.

Can you please post some link to the full document produced by the round table . . . or re-post if you have already done so (and keep re-posting it each time you refer to it). Most of us don't read all posts, and forget much of what we read. )

[Steve]

the only copy I have was delivered via email though Im sure its on a website by now somewhere and at first we were asked to keep it all to ourselves - there is much I could say about the whole round table thing and what came out of it and why the MDBA has recently withdrawn support but thats not really stuff that I can say on a public forum.

Im sure if you search for the RSPC'S Way forward plan you will turn it up. If not send me an email and Ill send it to you.

[toy*dog]

the only copy I have was delivered via email though Im sure its on a website by now somewhere and at first we were asked to keep it all to ourselves - there is much I could say about the whole round table thing and what came out of it and why the MDBA has recently withdrawn support but thats not really stuff that I can say on a public forum.

Im sure if you search for the RSPC'S Way forward plan you will turn it up. If not send me an email and Ill send it to you.

hey guys is this it?

puppy farming the way forward

[Steve]

Thats it.

[sandgrubber]

hey guys is this it?

puppy farming the way forward

Interesting document . . . much better basis for a sane discussion that what we've been working with. Too bad there's no way to make it NEWS in a new thread and start a fresh round of discussion.

[toy*dog]

hey guys is this it?

puppy farming the way forward

Interesting document . . . much better basis for a sane discussion that what we've been working with. Too bad there's no way to make it NEWS in a new thread and start a fresh round of discussion.

do you want me to see if i can cut and paste the document and put it on here? for discussion? am i allowed to do that? might be copyrighted i'll have to take a look, i'll probably have to go into source code or something though. i'll see.

[Nic.B]

I accept that there are differences, though I don't believe they are that far apart.

How many experienced staff do large commercial kennels have to care for 1000 dogs? And they need to be great staff who are committed to the welfare of the animals in their care. How on earth would you be able to socialise and exercise all 1000 dogs daily? They need feeding, puppies and mothers three times a day, that takes forever alone with 1000 dogs.

Dogs also need treatments and their individual needs met through breed type, age, condition etc. I personally find it impossible to comprehend responsibly meeting 1000 dogs needs daily, just though my own experiences.

A captive workforce is also used to describe disadvantaged groups of people who are forced to work or do something without a choice. (eg people with disabilities) I have experienced this as well and it is very sad. People forced to work, free of charge for a service to profit.

Steve you have said that you use private detectives to check out breeders you are concerned about which is great.

I do not mean to offend though how is that any different to what Debra Tranter is doing? Perhaps welfare orgs are best paying a private detective if they share the same concerns? Would that be more acceptable?

I agree it is a messy and contentious issue and there are a broad range of issues to address. I hope and pray one day soon there will be some huge leaps forward for companion animals.

I dont have a clue how anyone can or does look after 1000 dogs but Im not prepared to make judgements on whether they are or are not cruel to their animals based on emotional argument which is not conducive to science or on another case which has been sensationalised. If dogs are suffering there is a system in place for the places to be inspected and action taken, council, police, and RSPCA are charged with this - there is no need to go in under cover of darkness because the same dogs and the same conditions are there in daylight and when you come through the front gate.

Of course what we do is different to what Debra Tranter does. Firstly nothing we do is illegal and the breeder gets a fair chance to defend themselves.

They already have given us permission to investigate any compliants against them and they are advised when these complaints are lodged.

So far we havent received a complaint against any of our members that they keep their animals in poor conditions but if we do Ill be there with two others personally and I wont need a private investigator or to break in at night to do so. I'll knock on the front door and ask to take a look.

Our use of a PI so far has been when our members have been accused of fraud and not providing necessary infomation etc as we didnt have the skills and resources required to do it ourselves but the breeders knew we were investigating it and so far have been cleared.

Geez things move quickly on DOL LOL (sorry had no internet access)

I guess many people look at things differently (as I do) I love animals of all kinds, it is very upsetting for me personally to see animals suffer in any way shape or form. I know you would feel the same, as with many others on DOL.

I think it is very important to tell the story of animals who may suffer from abuse, neglect or inhumane treatment. Even if it is passive neglect.

I am not just referring to companion animals. I believe it is important to see footage of all animals being slaughtered or treated appallingly. It is the animals rights groups who get in there to expose cruelty and neglect and I am grateful for their hard work and dedication.

Yes they upset people, because those with a vested interest or breaking the law, or a non existant moral code do not want us to know. Personally I find that more scary.

I am not saying that everyone must be perfect. We all have bad days, though if you came to my home (even on a bad day) you would be greeted by 7 very happy, healthy dogs who are loving their lives, our cat and our horses, not to mention the kids!

Puppy farmers don’t care, they truly don’t. Too many animals are dying in pounds and shelters, over 250,000 a year. It has got to stop.

I agree there are a lot of separate issues to address, and separate groups of people with different concerns. Nothing is being done to address the issues and as my prime concern is animal welfare, I embrace Oscars Law and commend them for raising awareness for companion animals suffering at the hands of puppy farmers.

[Steve]

But Nic - Rare cases are used to make it look like it is more prevalent and its become a situation where some kennels which are being accused are being inspected are given a tick and they are not found to be guilty of having their dogs suffering.

As the head of the RSPCA Victoria said last night - the problem is one group has some idea of what is suffering and thats not necessarily suffering . The stuff that is being circulated and being used to brand a breeder in some cases is way over the top and most people can see this .

[Nic.B]

Thanks Steve, I understand what you are saying. It really is a nightmare...

I guess from where I sit, and where others in A/W sit it has got to the point where enough is enough.

It is important all things need to be considered, it's just that there is no real action in addressing the issues.

Not to long ago I stumbled upon a puppy farm in the US I think (internet) It is said to be state of the art (which is why I am using it as an example) but god it was a shocking life for those dogs. I will try to find it for you.

ETA Found it; http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7187712&page=2

Sadly the part where he puts the dog in a running wheel (like a mouse) wont work for me.

What are other peoples thoughts on this? Is this acceptable? Is this considered state of the art for you? Do you belive the dogs have good quality of life in a set up like this? Really interested in your thoughts and opinions.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Nic.B

[LizT]

I have been following much of the recent comments here and I think the issue is tied up in the term "Puppy Farmer".

We have a tendency to attribute all of the mistreatment of dogs breed 'en mass' to :Puppy Farmers".

Certainly I don't believe dogs are an animal that can sucessfully be kept and bred in large numbers and herein lies some of the problem...but as stated and seen many times before breeders, registered or not registered breeding even a small number of dogs have been guilty of the most horrendous neglect by not taking care of the simplest of needs of their charges.

Certainly it is not just about whether or not a bitch has been bred too many times.

I too have seen a maiden horse prolapse on her first foal. Sadly these things can happen for a number of reasons, not just because the animal has been bred a large number of times.

That said however, when one sees an animal that is undernourished, infested with parasites, has dull, matted fur that is soiled with faeces and urine stains, infected ears, decayed and missing teeth. These are all things the layman can evaluate in moments. There is cerainly no splitting of hairs here about whether the animal is being cared for adequately or not.

So perhaps instead of using a collective description such as "Puppy Farmer" or "Puppy Miller" both the public, media and those who ultimaltely will be making the decisions regarding the future of dog breeding should refer to these cases as "Neglegent Dog Breeders".

A very interesting comment was made earlier in this thread about "Registered Breeders" and the need for Breeding Records kept by bodies such as the ANKC to keep records of the death of animals as well as births. Thus helping to evaluate the success of the breeding program.

This would be a very useful tool in dog breeding but unfortunately almost impossible to keep records such as these as the onus would fall on the purchaser of the dog to stay in contact with the breeder for the lifetime of the animal OR to contact the registering body themselves to report the death of their pet. Not something most people could be bothered doing. Even the most enthusiastic of puppy buyers tend to fall off with their corresprondence as the years go by.

Also accidents leading to death happen alot to dogs, cars, snakes, injuries, and even theft. This would not give an accurate picture of the improvment of longevity in the breeders program.

Edited September 23, 2011 by LizT