Transparency

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Posted this in general to get responses from both breeders and rescuers.

Would you be in favour of a system where the canine controls took reports from clubs and from rescue and published a list each year of:

- the numbers of rescues in each breed;

- the breeding of each of these rescues (eg, kennel prefix or "unregistered");

- who took responsibility for the rescue (eg, club rescue, breeder, public rescue); and,

- whether the dog was rehomed, taken back by the breeder or euthanased.

Let's presume for the sake of discussion that the list is supported by the submission of documentary evidence (pound listings, microchip details, papers etc).

[Staranais]

I think that would be really interesting data.

Wouldn't it be hard to organise though? I'm especially thinking that most dogs coming through rescue wouldn't have rego papers any more, even if they started out life with them, so it may be hard to track down their breeder or prove they're even purebred?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I think that would be really interesting data.

Wouldn't it be hard to organise though? I'm especially thinking that most dogs coming through rescue wouldn't have rego papers any more, even if they started out life with them, so it may be hard to track down their breeder or prove they're even purebred?

If the current requirement for a dog to be microchipped before sale was extended to include a record of the breeder I think that would make it doable.

[Staranais]

I think that would be really interesting data.

Wouldn't it be hard to organise though? I'm especially thinking that most dogs coming through rescue wouldn't have rego papers any more, even if they started out life with them, so it may be hard to track down their breeder or prove they're even purebred?

If the current requirement for a dog to be microchipped before sale was extended to include a record of the breeder I think that would make it doable.

Yup, that would work. You could even extend it to BYB/non-registered breeders of certain breed types and crosses, then, which would also be interesting.

[WreckitWhippet]

I think that would be really interesting data.

Wouldn't it be hard to organise though? I'm especially thinking that most dogs coming through rescue wouldn't have rego papers any more, even if they started out life with them, so it may be hard to track down their breeder or prove they're even purebred?

If the current requirement for a dog to be microchipped before sale was extended to include a record of the breeder I think that would make it doable.

I've got no worries with that and would welcome such a move.

I'd like it to go one step further and that every "breeder" be recorded on the chip papers of every puppy bred. I'd like to see a break down of "ANKC" registered, "working dog " registered, BYBer and other breeders, each year.

I think on the whole, the ANKC registered breeders and the associated breed rescues are very good at cleaning up after their own.

[Rebanne]

Sounds good but I would like a distinction made between the race bred and the show bred greyhounds. No show bred grey has ever been in the pound that I know of while the race bred are there every day.

[oakway]

And what good whould that do.

Lets say I sold a dog to a lovely couple and the dog had a great home.

Now if they were killed in a car accident and family were not interested in the dog and disposed of to another party and they inturn got sick of the dog and passed it on also, then it ended up in the pound.

Why should my Prefix be published. That would make me look like I had placed the dog in poor circumstances, when indeed I had placed the dog in a loving home.

Edited September 25, 2011 by oakway

[raineth]

I think its a great idea SSM

Oakway,

It is more about the broader picture, or pattern, that such statistics would present.

Even if you as an ethical breeder had some bad luck, such as the scenario you put forward, the majority of the time your ethical practices would keep your dogs out of the pound system. Overall the statistics would show the correct picture

[oakway]

I think its a great idea SSM

Oakway,

It is more about the broader picture, or pattern, that such statistics would present.

Even if you as an ethical breeder had some bad luck, such as the scenario you put forward, the majority of the time your ethical practices would keep your dogs out of the pound system. Overall the statistics would show the correct picture

Yes, and I agree with you.

But......If you are an ANKC registered breeder you will know how some breeders can attack and if some of those Prefix's named run (when it is no faulf of of their ethics in placing the dog) we may just lose them.

At the moment in the dog world we need bums on seats.

I also believe that there is nowhere the ammount of ANKC registered dog in the pounds as we are led to believe.

Great discussion topic S S M.

[WreckitWhippet]

I'd love to see breeder details recorded on the chip and remain there forever. It would also increase the chances of getting a dog back that you've bred, if it did end up in a pound/shelter and not be claimed by the owner.

The best we can do at the moment is chip our dogs with the kennel prefix infront of the name and hope that someone doesn't change the name along the way.

ETA: I can see more than one benefit from this idea, not just to establish a more accurate picture of where dogs are coming from.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pav Lova

[Guest DBT]

I think that would be really interesting data.

Wouldn't it be hard to organise though? I'm especially thinking that most dogs coming through rescue wouldn't have rego papers any more, even if they started out life with them, so it may be hard to track down their breeder or prove they're even purebred?

If the current requirement for a dog to be microchipped before sale was extended to include a record of the breeder I think that would make it doable.

There needs to be uniform requirement for microchipping first. SA does not require microchip before sale.

[Staranais]

I also believe that there is nowhere the ammount of ANKC registered dog in the pounds as we are led to believe.

If that's true, then this idea might help the ANKC prove it.

ETA - it would also be really interesting if the chip had to state not just who bred the dog, but also who sold the dog, i.e. would let us know how many rescues were initially bought from petshops as opposed to registered breeders or non-commercial BYB.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Staranais

[oakway]

I also believe that there is nowhere the ammount of ANKC registered dog in the pounds as we are led to believe.

If that's true, then this idea might help the ANKC prove it.

ETA - it would also be really interesting if the chip had to state not just who bred the dog, but also who sold the dog, i.e. would let us know how many rescues were initially bought from petshops as opposed to registered breeders or non-commercial BYB.

Fair enough.

I think who sold the dog is maybe more important than who bred the dog.

Don't forget that so much is being heaped on us as breeders that we tend to get a bit defensive.

Don't forget that the majority of us sell dogs to whom we believe to be excelleant owners/homes and it can all backfire.

Edited September 26, 2011 by oakway

[sas]

Sure, I already do this for Great Dane Rescue NSW, it's interesting to say the least.

[mita]

Why should my Prefix be published. That would make me look like I had placed the dog in poor circumstances, when indeed I had placed the dog in a loving home.

That's a good point. Cold data wouldn't differentiate the circumstances. Yet it's actual circumstances for how various dogs finish up in a pound, that would provide the information about the various risk factors for it happening. Qualitative data as well as quantitative data is needed for that.

Rather than publishing the prefix, maybe it could be used by the pound to simply advise the original breeder of the dog's situation. But, even then, I wonder if privacy legislation would prevent that being done.

Edited September 26, 2011 by mita

[Quickasyoucan]

If it's a surrender why can't the person just give a reason for surrender. That covers the problem of say someone who is an excellent owner dying in a car crash.

It could also be fed into responsible owner education.

ETA: I know it doesn't cover strays, but if every dog was chipped AND registered there wouldn't be any strays would there!

Edited September 26, 2011 by Quickasyoucan

[Alyosha]

Also if dogs are chipped prior to ANKC registration the number can be matched back through the state body even if that dog turns up in pound/rescue without it's ANKC rego papers.

So a system like this could actually help breeders be reunited with their own stock in such circumstances. The publishing thing I think would be ok, because the end result would go hand in hand with the report. So, for example, if you had two dogs turn up in rescue one year - and they had lost their owners etc, or otherwise turned up for a legitimate reason, it would also show that the breeder took them back in, and/or provided for them whether with permanent care or rehoming etc.

So the record could be another good thing for breeders, showing publicly that they do indeed accept responsibility for their bred dogs down the track, instead of just giving lip service.

I would rather see a breeder that has had dogs returned, accepted and dealt with it ethically as a part of breeding and life than see one who has just sold them willy nilly and ignored them later on - or pretended they were someone elses'...

[oakway]

Also if dogs are chipped prior to ANKC registration the number can be matched back through the state body even if that dog turns up in pound/rescue without it's ANKC rego papers.

So a system like this could actually help breeders be reunited with their own stock in such circumstances. The publishing thing I think would be ok, because the end result would go hand in hand with the report. So, for example, if you had two dogs turn up in rescue one year - and they had lost their owners etc, or otherwise turned up for a legitimate reason, it would also show that the breeder took them back in, and/or provided for them whether with permanent care or rehoming etc.

So the record could be another good thing for breeders, showing publicly that they do indeed accept responsibility for their bred dogs down the track, instead of just giving lip service.

I would rather see a breeder that has had dogs returned, accepted and dealt with it ethically as a part of breeding and life than see one who has just sold them willy nilly and ignored them later on - or pretended they were someone elses'...

We also have to bare in mind....what if the breeders circumstances have changes and can not take the dogs back.

Would that not give a false impression that the breeder did not care ?.

[Alyosha]

Not necessarily, as it may include a field like - rescued and re-adopted, with breeder co-operation and assistance.

There are also breed specific rescues that may take in a purebred and already have a suitable home on their waiting list - they might let the original breeder know who is happy to have them rehome that dog. So again, with co-operation and/or assistance. But at least the breeder would know. I'd like to know.

A breeder may be able to suggest a foster placement, or provide vet care etc.

[oakway]

Not necessarily, as it may include a field like - rescued and re-adopted, with breeder co-operation and assistance.

There are also breed specific rescues that may take in a purebred and already have a suitable home on their waiting list - they might let the original breeder know who is happy to have them rehome that dog. So again, with co-operation and/or assistance. But at least the breeder would know. I'd like to know.

A breeder may be able to suggest a foster placement, or provide vet care etc.

Thats fair.