What Can Be Done About Unethical Registered Breeders?

[redangel]

I must say that the fact people who can run a profitable puppy farm (like that in qld) can do so with what it seems an implied tolerance form governing dog bodies who collect fees is disappointing. Does that mean code of ethics is there as a guideline and not a rule? Surely if such a blatant disregard for such rules goes unnoticed then how relevant is the governing body in seeing those rules are adhered to? I am in favor of governing dog bodies for dog breeders but I would like to think that such questionable breeders would be at best removed from membership/investigated. I think it is sad currently it seems that there is no follow up on such things, what hope have the public got in working out a reputable breeder if they claim membership to a governing dog body? Perhaps a new system needs to be established in which red flags would signal something is not right & warrants some investigation. A form of feedback,export review & public feedback.

[Steve]

My own experiences with registered breeders has been confined to a couple of breeds. In those cases, I've wished there was the opposite available. I'd have liked a means of registering my satisfaction and admiration for the work and attitude of those breeders.

This is a great idea, perhaps we should be pushing the state associations to allow for puppy buyers to provide feedback - The association could send out forms much like car manufacturers do when you get a car - asking for feedback as to the standard of the car dealer as well as for servicing. Even offering the first year free membership of the association to the new puppy buyer as an incentive, thus perhaps increasing membership for the future.

Nowdays as membership has to have photo id means that unethical breeders would not be able to put in false forms to stack this system.

Feedback ratings could then be given to breeders by the association - general comments from these then because available for the public to view.

This would create a positive approach to breeders and Associations can then make recommendations to public - rather than trying to highlight the negatives.

Sounds good - except that when you begin to gather good feedback for a breeder if they have been around long enough someone thinks they are unethical and want to complain because someone else thinks they are ethical and feel there should be no positive feedback because they have had a negative experience.

When something goes wrong people are emotional and they don't always see things in a logical way - they have assumptions and expectations which they feel are not being fulfilled so they usually make a bigger racket about it when they feel the breeder is responsible for or hasn't shown enough caring when they tell them they have a problem.

One example - a breeder sells a person a dog and all has been well. The breeder has been in reasonable contact which has lessened over the years but they are confident the buyer is happy with them and all is well with the dog.

8 years later the dog develops an eye condition which the vet says may be heritable.the buyer goes back to the breeder and the breeder feels they say all of the right things and without even asking for vet reports or evidence they pay back into the owners bank account half of what the original purchase price was. When the money has been paid back a complaint is lodged. The buyer believed that by the breeder only paying back half of the purchase price that the breeder clearly showed she didn't care. When the buyer was lodging the complaint she was treated with compassion and an understanding that her dog's condition and her sadness at that was impacting on how she was feeling and reacting So she was asked to tender written vet reports to ensure that the breeder really had bred a dog with a heritable genetic condition and what the vet felt was the consequences of that. Rather than coming back to tender these documents when she went back to the vet - the vet had told her she had misunderstood and that he had said the condition may have been heritable but there were known other causes and if there was no sign of it in the relatives of the dog it may have been caused by injury or nutritional impacts - and she had no supporting documents.Rather than apologise or say she had been mistaken she got mad at the vet and still expected we should judge the breeder because it may have been heritable and all of the things she had research told her this was true. The buyer still blamed the breeder because she "didn't care enough even if she didnt cause it " and there was nothing which could be said to make her see the breeder had paid her back money she didn't need to and that the breeder did care. Years later the fact that the breeder bred a dog with an eye condition which may be heritable and which the breeder did care about is still on the internet as evidence that she is unethical,bred a dog with a heritable condition and didn't care when her puppy buyer told her. This for most people reading it wipes out anything good the breeder may have done over decades and positive feedback from her other puppy buyers. Other breeders and the general public reading the accusations judge the breeder as being unethical and no one consider that the way it is reported is not all there is to be told and as far as the breeder knows it is the only dog they ever bred which developed the eye condition. This dog was bred in 2002 and the breeder is still being spoken of and judged for this and no amount of positive feedback from her other puppy buyers is adequate for people to stop calling for her not to recognised for anything good they say about her.

Another example - A breeder scores her parent dogs and only breeds dogs with very low hip scores, eliminates anything from her breeding program which may cause a problem for future generations - over some 20 odd years she breeds almost 200 dogs and many of her puppy buyers provide positive feedback and in writing give her a pretty good rap - there is evidence she has good relationships with many of her puppy buyers even up to 13 years after the puppies went home.One sees this positive feedback and is mad because she has a dog the breeder bred and she also feels the breeder didn't care enough. So she threatens that unless the positive feedback is not removed she will go to the media to tell everyone the system of accepting positive feedback is a scam.

Another a breeder does everything they can to find good homes for their puppies and has regular contact with the puppy buyer and they are confident that the dog is happy , the owners are happy and all is well. This is the second dog these people have had from the breeder with the first being 2 years old , they know the breed and they have been a good home and have a good relationship with the breeder.They have an agreement with the breeder that if ever they cant keep the dog they will return the dog to the breeder. Then the breeder is told the dog has been handed into rescue.the breeder asks why the rescue or the owner didn't contact them first and they are told the owner had said they had attempted to contact the breeder , left a message which was't answered .The breeder never received any such message and if they had would have gone to pick up the dog.The breeder asks for the dog to be returned to them but they are told the rescue already have a good home lined up and all is well. The breeder offers a donation but is told the dog is desexed , came in free of charge and they will take a purchase price ,no donation is necessary .the breeder still offers a donation and requests bank details which are never provided .The breeder asks that their contact details are provided to the new owner so that is there is a problem in the future the new owner can contact the breeder for support.

Weeks later the breeder hears the dog didn't go to a new home and is still with the rescue person. the breeder requests that the dog is returned to them and they are told its not an issue that often dogs take a while to be placed and all is well - the rescue will not return the dog to the breeder - so the breeder advertises the rescue and the dog and they are concerned the dog is a burden for the rescue and the dog finding a new home

Someone hears about the breeder's dog being in rescue so they decide to tell thousands of people via a face book page that the breeder has no care for where or how they place their puppies and don't care when their dogs come into rescue. No amount of feedback about how the breeder tries to screen their buyers or how many wonderful homes have been found over the years counteracts that - they are unethical. If anyone says good things about the breeder those who have judged them unethical because of what is written or they have heard will feel the breeder has no right to have anything good said about them.

One breeder A has a system which works for them which is a little different to how another breeder B does things. Breeder B reports breeder A to the CC and if the breeder is found to not be guilty breeder b will still think breeder A is and they will tell all that the CC is useless because they know the breeder to be unethical.

There are a couple of issues here - If a breeder makes a mistake , learns from it and tries not to make the same mistake again - how long should they pay for it? How long should they be judged unethical?

Who is to judge what is and is not ethical and should the CC judgement be considered to be the final word based on what they are able to determine?

How do you determine whether a breeder is working toward what they think is best for the breed if it is perceived to be a different method than someone else who thinks their way and their goal is best?

How do you judge which really is best for the breed and the dogs they own?

Should one poor report card wipe out the good ones?

Should a breeder have to give up their privacy if they feel vulnerable or simply don't want strangers looking at their kennel "loungeroom" to prove they keep their house clean and look after their dogs?

I have never ever, seen a flea on my dogs,my puppies are checked by a vet before they go home and the vet has never ever seen any sign of a flea. My dogs are checked bi annually by a vet - daily by me and never a flea. I live in an area which is not prone to fleas,I use natural preventatives and its simply not something Ive ever had to be concerned about . I sent a 16 week old puppy to Kalgoorlie and it had to stay over night in kennels mid way to pick up the adjoining flight . Im told when the puppy arrived home all is well and a follow up a week later the pup was great.

2 weeks after the pup arrives home I get an email telling me that they thought I should know the pup had fleas when it arrived.I went over every dog in my yard and there was no sign whatever of fleas and the new owner believed me and agreed the pup probably picked up a flea on the way home or since it got home but they could have just as easily not believed me and told people what a mongrel I am because I sold a dog with fleas. i've no doubt some people who would delight in making me out to be unethical would have used the fact that a pup I sent home had fleas to show I was unethical. Since then I've used a spot on for every dog as it is leaving my property even though I know I don't need to so if the pup gets fleas its long enough after it gets home for me to be off the hook.

Is someone unethical because they decide to have a vet debark their dog rather than have to find it a new home or is someone unethical if they could have a vet debark their dog but choose to hand it over to rescue?

Who will decide?

There is usually 2 sides to every story.

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

[Leema]

What should the ANKC bodies be doing to ensure that their code of ethics is being upheld?[/b]

In this case, I am using the term 'unethical' to refer to breeders who have agreed to abide by the code of ethics - but aren't. Of course, unethical has different contexts in different situations, and so perhaps it is more useful to just say breeders who are violating the code of conduct.

I guess we have to ask, can we report violations of the code of conduct? And what will be done about these reports?

I agree, Janba, that some of the ANKC's (and their bodies) code of conducts are vague at best. However, I'd argue that either they have to a) make it more specific or b) take them out, in order to have an enforceable code of conduct.

If we allow ANKC breeders to breed violate the code of conduct, then being ANKC registered means nothing. If ANKC are not willing to uphold some aspects of their code of conduct, then who is? And why have a code of conduct? Is ANKC only a fun club and registry or should it stand for something more?

[Dracdog]

My own experiences with registered breeders has been confined to a couple of breeds. In those cases, I've wished there was the opposite available. I'd have liked a means of registering my satisfaction and admiration for the work and attitude of those breeders.

This is a great idea, perhaps we should be pushing the state associations to allow for puppy buyers to provide feedback - The association could send out forms much like car manufacturers do when you get a car - asking for feedback as to the standard of the car dealer as well as for servicing. Even offering the first year free membership of the association to the new puppy buyer as an incentive, thus perhaps increasing membership for the future.

Nowdays as membership has to have photo id means that unethical breeders would not be able to put in false forms to stack this system.

Feedback ratings could then be given to breeders by the association - general comments from these then because available for the public to view.

This would create a positive approach to breeders and Associations can then make recommendations to public - rather than trying to highlight the negatives.

They already do this in Qld

[~Anne~]

Personally, I am over hearing the term ethical bandied about. It is far to subjective and means diddly squat.

[Leema]

1) There are a couple of issues here - If a breeder makes a mistake , learns from it and tries not to make the same mistake again - how long should they pay for it? How long should they be judged unethical?

2) Who is to judge what is and is not ethical and should the CC judgement be considered to be the final word based on what they are able to determine?

3) How do you determine whether a breeder is working toward what they think is best for the breed if it is perceived to be a different method than someone else who thinks their way and their goal is best?

4) How do you judge which really is best for the breed and the dogs they own?

5) Should one poor report card wipe out the good ones?

6) Should a breeder have to give up their privacy if they feel vulnerable or simply don't want strangers looking at their kennel "loungeroom" to prove they keep their house clean and look after their dogs?

(Numbers added to quote for ease.)

1) For a breeder to 'make a mistake' would be difficult, considering the code of conduct is pretty clear. Sure, you may have an accidental mating, or have an accidental flea on a puppy you sell. But you can't be like, "Oops, I didn't realise I was supposed to be breeding to eliminate hereditary diseases." The punishment must fit the crime, and the length of punishment must also be fitting. I would say about 5-8 years would be okay for heinous misconduct, but it depends what kind of punishment we're talking. That's a long time to ban a person from breeding, but it's not a long time to 'red flag' a breeder.

2) For the purposes of this topic, I am only interested in the ANKC registered breeders. "Unethical" practices is failure to comply with the code of conduct. I don't know who should come up with the code of conduct, but perhaps a bodies of members can be established to decide if the code of conduct is appropriate (i.e. if changes should be made)... And perhaps a body of members can also be used in determining violations of said code.

3/4) The code of conduct ask for breeders to improve the quality of the breed. Yes, this is subjective and probably immeasurable. Should it even be in the code of conduct? Should titles (conformation or otherwise) count for quality? Should vet certificates count for quality?

5) By report card, I think you are referring to a feedback like system that was suggested. To me, I am not sure if public vilification or otherwise of breeders is necessary. I think that private management within ANKC bodies is probably sufficient.

6) I think that external examination of private areas may be necessary to ensure the code of conduct is being adhered to by breeders. If breeders are unwilling to do as such, perhaps they will need to reconsider which registration bodies they ascribe to.

[Leema]

Personally, I am over hearing the term ethical bandied about. It is far to subjective and means diddly squat.

I edited the first post with this:

***FOR THE SAKE OF THIS THREAD: Lets use the term 'ethical' to mean 'conforms to code of conduct'.***

[Guest lavendergirl]

My own experiences with registered breeders has been confined to a couple of breeds. In those cases, I've wished there was the opposite available. I'd have liked a means of registering my satisfaction and admiration for the work and attitude of those breeders.

This is a great idea, perhaps we should be pushing the state associations to allow for puppy buyers to provide feedback - The association could send out forms much like car manufacturers do when you get a car - asking for feedback as to the standard of the car dealer as well as for servicing. Even offering the first year free membership of the association to the new puppy buyer as an incentive, thus perhaps increasing membership for the future.

Nowdays as membership has to have photo id means that unethical breeders would not be able to put in false forms to stack this system.

Feedback ratings could then be given to breeders by the association - general comments from these then because available for the public to view.

This would create a positive approach to breeders and Associations can then make recommendations to public - rather than trying to highlight the negatives.

They already do this in Qld

Do they? Is the information available to the public?

[dog_fan]

1) For a breeder to 'make a mistake' would be difficult, considering the code of conduct is pretty clear. Sure, you may have an accidental mating, or have an accidental flea on a puppy you sell. But you can't be like, "Oops, I didn't realise I was supposed to be breeding to eliminate hereditary diseases." The punishment must fit the crime, and the length of punishment must also be fitting. I would say about 5-8 years would be okay for heinous misconduct, but it depends what kind of punishment we're talking. That's a long time to ban a person from breeding, but it's not a long time to 'red flag' a breeder.

Paedophiles and murderers sometimes don't get this much of a punishment

[Steve]

What should the ANKC bodies be doing to ensure that their code of ethics is being upheld?[/b]

In this case, I am using the term 'unethical' to refer to breeders who have agreed to abide by the code of ethics - but aren't. Of course, unethical has different contexts in different situations, and so perhaps it is more useful to just say breeders who are violating the code of conduct.

I guess we have to ask, can we report violations of the code of conduct? And what will be done about these reports?

I agree, Janba, that some of the ANKC's (and their bodies) code of conducts are vague at best. However, I'd argue that either they have to a) make it more specific or b) take them out, in order to have an enforceable code of conduct.

If we allow ANKC breeders to breed violate the code of conduct, then being ANKC registered means nothing. If ANKC are not willing to uphold some aspects of their code of conduct, then who is? And why have a code of conduct? Is ANKC only a fun club and registry or should it stand for something more?

Surely sooner or later we have to agree that those charged with investigating accusations against a breeder and are able to assess all of the variables and information need to be trusted and have the final say. I think that the CCs o the whole do a pretty good job especially as anyone can get in and are assumed to be doing it all right until a complaint is lodged and in at least two states some will join in order to get exemptions and have no intention of playing by the rules.

How does anyone know if a breeder is or is not breeding for the betterment of the breed when this may mean different things to different people .perhaps the breeder is striving to eliminate a whelping problem and the quality of a couple of litters goes down while they do it - maybe its a breed with few options if they are targeting one thing or another etc.Maybe many things - who should be the judge?

However, when you get breeders who only vaccinate one male and one female per litter and photo copy that certificate for the rest as if they have all been vaccinated that's a different matter - hopefully if the vet ads the chip number to the certificate that will slow it down. If someone sends a pup home with out a certificate or its forged its pretty easy to prove as was the case in Queensland a few months ago when a breeder sent a litter home with forged vaccinations certificates and the vet who's signature they used exposed them for fraud. Many of these type of things are covered by state legislation and not just a code of ethics.

[BJean]

Personally, I am over hearing the term ethical bandied about. It is far to subjective and means diddly squat.

oh my goodnesses!

Anne how could you

but yes Anne, exactly :)

[sandgrubber]

Particular clauses from the code of ethics that are regularly violated are:

*Breeding "only" to improve the quality of the breed

*Striving to eliminate hereditary diseases

*Providing a vaccination certificate to new puppy owners (i.e. some breeders do not vaccinate prior to rehoming puppies)

*Selling dogs or puppies that are not in good health (e.g. selling dogs with parasites)

*Not providing documentation regarding dietary and other requirements for the breed

***FOR THE SAKE OF THIS THREAD: Lets use the term 'ethical' to mean 'conforms to code of conduct'.***

The various codes of conduct are subject to many interpretations. I can see policing welfare. I think it would be a big mistake to police 'improving the breed', and caution is required on 'striving to eliminate hereditary diseases'.

One person may feel they are improving the breed by using a Gr Ch stud or line breeding on a particular dog. Another person may believe that the popular sire syndrome, and breeding for extreme conformation, are major causes of health decline in breed health/work performance. As for eliminating hereditary disease, one person may insist on testing for heterozygosity in the MHC/DLA, another may insist on MRI, another annual CERF . . . we'll be seeing many more options for genetic testing, some of which will be largely irrelevant for some breeds.

[Leema]

Personally, I am over hearing the term ethical bandied about. It is far to subjective and means diddly squat.

oh my goodnesses!

Anne how could you

but yes Anne, exactly :)

As I said to Anne, I have inserted this exert to the first post:

***FOR THE SAKE OF THIS THREAD: Lets use the term 'ethical' to mean 'conforms to code of conduct'.***

I don't want to get caught up on terminology. I want to know what can be done about registered breeders breaking the code of conduct.

[Leema]

Surely sooner or later we have to agree that those charged with investigating accusations against a breeder and are able to assess all of the variables and information need to be trusted and have the final say.

I don't know what you mean.

I think that the CCs o the whole do a pretty good job especially as anyone can get in and are assumed to be doing it all right until a complaint is lodged and in at least two states some will join in order to get exemptions and have no intention of playing by the rules.

So do all states have the ability to have complaints lodged? Do all states have a similar process? (What is the process?)

I don't know what you mean by "in at least two states some [who?] will join in order to get exemptions [to what?] and have no intention of playing by the rules [the code of conduct?]".

How does anyone know if a breeder is or is not breeding for the betterment of the breed when this may mean different things to different people .perhaps the breeder is striving to eliminate a whelping problem and the quality of a couple of litters goes down while they do it - maybe its a breed with few options if they are targeting one thing or another etc.Maybe many things - who should be the judge?

I agree this is a subjective area. Perhaps the subjectivity means that it should not be included in the code of conduct, as it is unenforceable. Surely the controlling bodies would be the judge of any violations to the code of conduct, or should have a process in place for judging these violations.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Leema

[WExtremeG]

A system like eBay could work.

Edited March 5, 2012 by F11

[WExtremeG]

My own experiences with registered breeders has been confined to a couple of breeds. In those cases, I've wished there was the opposite available. I'd have liked a means of registering my satisfaction and admiration for the work and attitude of those breeders.

This is a great idea, perhaps we should be pushing the state associations to allow for puppy buyers to provide feedback - The association could send out forms much like car manufacturers do when you get a car - asking for feedback as to the standard of the car dealer as well as for servicing. Even offering the first year free membership of the association to the new puppy buyer as an incentive, thus perhaps increasing membership for the future.

Nowdays as membership has to have photo id means that unethical breeders would not be able to put in false forms to stack this system.

Feedback ratings could then be given to breeders by the association - general comments from these then because available for the public to view.

This would create a positive approach to breeders and Associations can then make recommendations to public - rather than trying to highlight the negatives.

They already do this in Qld

Do they? Is the information available to the public?

I'd like to know this too...

[Steve]

Surely sooner or later we have to agree that those charged with investigating accusations against a breeder and are able to assess all of the variables and information need to be trusted and have the final say.

I don't know what you mean.

I mean if its is the state CCs code then we need to trust that they will accept the complaint and make an informed judgement and take appropriate action

I think that the CCs o the whole do a pretty good job especially as anyone can get in and are assumed to be doing it all right until a complaint is lodged and in at least two states some will join in order to get exemptions and have no intention of playing by the rules.

So do all states have the ability to have complaints lodged? Do all states have a similar process? (What is the process?)

All states have a code of ethics and regulations and a complaints procedure

I don't know what you mean by "in at least two states some [who?] will join in order to get exemptions [to what?] and have no intention of playing by the rules [the code of conduct?]".

In NSW , Vic and in some parts of Queensland ANKC members are given discounts and exemptions - in some places if you are not ANKC you cant own an entire dog. Recent new laws in Victoria where ANKC members are able to have 10 fertile dogs with out a permit has seen many breeders who are not breeding ANKC registered dogs applying for membership.It is not a requirement that you own a purebred dog to have a refix.

How does anyone know if a breeder is or is not breeding for the betterment of the breed when this may mean different things to different people .perhaps the breeder is striving to eliminate a whelping problem and the quality of a couple of litters goes down while they do it - maybe its a breed with few options if they are targeting one thing or another etc.Maybe many things - who should be the judge?

I agree this is a subjective area. Perhaps the subjectivity means that it should not be included in the code of conduct, as it is unenforceable. Surely the controlling bodies would be the judge of any violations to the code of conduct, or should have a process in place for judging these violations.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Steve

[Alkhe]

Surely sooner or later we have to agree that those charged with investigating accusations against a breeder and are able to assess all of the variables and information need to be trusted and have the final say.

I don't know what you mean.

I mean if its is the state CCs code then we need to trust that they will accept the complaint and make an informed judgement and take appropriate action

It seems like quite an opaque process, from what I have read in this thread. If people don't have confidence in something, or understand how it works, they can't be expected to trust it.

[Steve]

I think if you have a look at the complaints processes its reasonably easy to understand and on the whole I would say they do a pretty fair job. Whether people accept the judgement is more the issue but its difficult to see an alternative because only those responsible for enforcing it and addressing breaches are able to make informed decisions. Traditionally people usually only make complaints when they think there is reason to find the person guilty but when the person appears to be off the hook they no longer feel the CC should make the judgement . Those who get an outcome they agree with trust the system those who dont feel they cant trust it - thats pretty much the way of the world.

[Mystiqview]

There is another breeder whom a number of us put in stat decs for. THey were suspended from CCCQ from others already putting in stat decs. The problem then is, the CCCQ cannot act on the new round of stat decs as the person is not a member...

Anything then like this... CCCQ say it is a "civil matter" and do not have any part of it.

They can't act if the person is no longer a member as its not illegal to breed dogs.

I realise this. Unbeknown to the second group of people who put in the stat decs for serious breaches, (of which I was one) the breeder had already just been suspended indefinitely by the Canine body and they could not do anything further until they lifted their suspension and/or member rejoined (if suspension lasted the financial period of membership).

In a nutshell, it was for incorrectly registering a litter to a dam who was not the dam of the litter. The real dam was a bitch in co-own whom the co-owner had not approved the litter. So the person used another bitch in their yard "of similar bloodlines" and registered the litter on that bitch instead. There were requests to have the progeny parent tested. There were also some other claims of animals not being returned after lease periods were up. Effectively stolen.