What Can Be Done About Unethical Registered Breeders?

[Dracdog]

They already do this in Qld

Do they? Is the information available to the public?

Not sure all I know is when you buy a new pup from ont of their breeders they send you out a questionaire

Edited March 6, 2012 by Dracdog

[Steve]

Thats right I remember being told this some months ago now

I wonder what they do with the feedback?

[Janba]

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.

I thought this was who you were referring to. The non return of animals could be a police matter - there was one case here recently with the police being involved in the non return of a dog (not an ANKC lease).

[WExtremeG]

Ah yes! I remember filling out one of those forms and sending it in to CCCQ.

Don't know if the general public can access it though?

[Mystiqview]

Janba,

I thought you would know having connections to someone who was duddled by them. :D

That case aside.I know of other cases where people have taken what you would have thought cut and dry cases to the CC only to have them bury their heads in the sand or take the other side who is the offending party.

It makes you wonder sometimes what we pay membership for.

[Topoftheheap]

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

I agree that is a long time, you can go to jail for less time for murdering and rape.

And it greatly depends on how the hereditary disease has raised it's head, and what sort. Some diseases out there don't have reliable DNA profiling available, and when dealing with complete out-crosses you are at least taking a leap of faith. In some breeds, like mine, the majority of dogs around have all filtered down from a very SMALL pool of original imports, and it is reported that some of the distant relatives threw carriers of a hereditary diseases. Especially with autosomal genes that would mean that an affected dog could, in theory, pop up at any time in anyone's lines, should the breeder then get punished for that for 8 years?

I think the issue that you have brought up is huge, but it's made up of smaller components. The whole code of conduct covers so much, that to break it down into every what if is hard. I think maybe the whole problem is enforcement. All the ANKC rules regarding breeding and even showing doesn't really seem like they enforce them. They probably don't have the legal ability or the staff. Im could be wrong though.

[Jed]

Leema

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

How do you know those breaches are taking place? Are these personal experiences, or anecdotal evidence? If anecdotal, from whom (ie, sister, friend etc) and how ofte? Are you talking your own state or every state?

That description is rather broad, sounds as if every registered breeder in Aust is dodgy, so some clarification wouldn't go astray

[Jed]

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

eema

I am still awaiting a reply from you.

I am waiting for you to provide more information on your assertions above. Thank you

[mita]

Seems you'll be waiting a long time, for any answers, Jed. If they come at all.

Thank goodness someone has stood up and questioned the exaggerated assertions & statements being made about registered breeders (as a group).

[Mystiqview]

Define only to "improve the breed" (How, what, when and then define "improve")

Quantify "eliminate hereditary diseases". In some cases, this can take generations to complete with each generation consisting of how many years? Is there a DNA test for EACH and EVERY disease in the breed. If not, then how can you GUARANTEE you are "eliminating hereditary diseases". If you are breeding say for an example in my breed of CEA carrier/affected to CEA Carrier/affected, then obviously no you are not. However you if are breeding CEA Carrier to CEA Clear (an acceptable mating by breed club/ANKC) - then good chance you are trying to eliminate the instances of affected puppies as statistically only 50% will be carrier while still maintaining a diverse gene pool.

A lot of hereditary diseases do not have a DNA test and you still do not know if the animal carries the defective gene/s.

Vaccination/Microchipping: I agree with Jed - Is it only a few breeders, the majority and is it your state or all states. Accusations like this need actual proof. I know on some free websites, some ads do not include "microchipped", but unless you buy a puppy from them and they are in fact not chipped, then there is the "proof".

The last two: As someone else in this thread stated, how do you know the "parasite" was not picked up at the new owner's house, on the way there or the breeder.

Dietary requirements of the breed: How often in here someone is Barf all the way and the next person is dry food all the way. Who is right? REALLY???? Some breeders don't like giving puppy food for any longer than the pup is 12 weeks, others like it to continue until the pup is 12 months. Who is right. The person taking your puppy does not like your brand of dog food and chooses another. Who is wrong? I know from my own personal experience, I give a bag of premium food with each puppy I sell along with what the dog has been fed since birth. Once that is used up, they ignore the advice given and go to what ever brand suits them.

It is very easy for people now to go "I was not told that" when they were. People are too easy to point the finger elsewhere and not take responsibility for their own actions.

[Souff]

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

eema

I am still awaiting a reply from you.

I am waiting for you to provide more information on your assertions above. Thank you

Come on Leema, dont keep Jed waiting any longer.

Put up the names and addresses so that we can organise a midnight raid, drag them out of bed and set them to work in all the shelters on poo patrol for 6 months at a stretch.

Who needs to wait around for the justice system ... way to slow ... the animal liberationists are experts at doing midnight raids with bolt cutters, so we could ask them to lend a hand I s'pose.

Souff

[~Anne~]

Let's not forget that once they find someone to target they create false accusations and plaster these all over the web.

Long live the activists and the crazies out there who want to crucify breeders for simply living.

Edited March 7, 2012 by ~Anne~

[sandgrubber]

To answer the question: If you think someone is breeding unethically, how about approaching them personally and finding out what they do and why they do it? Maybe you can teach them something . . . or maybe there's a reason for what they're doing, and they can teach you something.

Backstabbing and policework are not effective tools for behaviour modification. Honest, non-judgemental communication does sometimes work.

[Souff]

To answer the question: If you think someone is breeding unethically, how about approaching them personally and finding out what they do and why they do it? Maybe you can teach them something . . . or maybe there's a reason for what they're doing, and they can teach you something.

Backstabbing and policework are not effective tools for behaviour modification. Honest, non-judgemental communication does sometimes work.

Education holds the key.

Why cannot the powers-that-be hit the television screens and sides-of-buses with a campaign to educate buyers?

The RSPCA had plenty to spend on advertising and plenty to say when they wanted to ban the docking the tails of pups.

Why not use the same tactics to make sure that the general public are not getting ripped off when they buy a puppy.

A role for ASIC, or the Dept of Fair Trading maybe?

Souff

[Jed]

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

eema

I am still awaiting a reply from you.

I am waiting for you to provide more information on your assertions above. Thank you

Come on Leema, dont keep Jed waiting any longer.

Put up the names and addresses so that we can organise a midnight raid, drag them out of bed and set them to work in all the shelters on poo patrol for 6 months at a stretch.

Who needs to wait around for the justice system ... way to slow ... the animal liberationists are experts at doing midnight raids with bolt cutters, so we could ask them to lend a hand I s'pose.

Souff

Belittle if you must Souff. I don't care much. However, I don't think anyone should be making all sweeping statements about things without some sort of explanation or evidence. Whilst I might think some of those sins could bother some one, I find it difficult to believe that someone knows about all them.

I am patiently waiting for Leema to respond.

And of course, ~Anne~ is correct to say

Let's not forget that once they find someone to target they create false accusations and plaster these all over the web.

Absolutely correct.

So, lets give Leema time to respond. Perhaps complaints to the state CCs might be in order

[~Anne~]

:laugh: and then the gullible, vindictive or simply naive post those websites on dog forums as evidence of 'bad' breeders.

Edited March 7, 2012 by ~Anne~

[Jed]

:laugh: and then the gullible, vindictive or simply naive post those websites on dog forums as evidence of 'bad' breeders.

If a website address was posted, there would be some chance of reply. Without any reference, the implication is that ALL breeders do what Leema complained about.

[Souff]

Belittle if you must Souff. I don't care much. However, I don't think anyone should be making all sweeping statements about things without some sort of explanation or evidence. Whilst I might think some of those sins could bother some one, I find it difficult to believe that someone knows about all them.

I am patiently waiting for Leema to respond.

And of course, ~Anne~ is correct to say

Let's not forget that once they find someone to target they create false accusations and plaster these all over the web.

Absolutely correct.

So, lets give Leema time to respond. Perhaps complaints to the state CCs might be in order

Oi, there is no belittling from Souff! Sorry if it came across that way.

Part of it was tongue-in-cheek, but yes,I too would like to see Leema return and respond.

cheers!

Souff

Edited March 7, 2012 by Souff

[Leema]

Wow, guys, if someone had PMed me I would've come back sooner. I prefer to let threads develop and stay on topic, and so tend to actively encourage (on topic) discussion to start with. Though, with this thread, I just forgot about it.

I thought Jed's question was a bit off topic. I was asking what should be done about code-of-ethics violations, and am not really wanting to discuss code of ethics violations specifically. Indeed, I can't really do so specifically in a name and shame kind of spectical. Sure, I can respond to the questions, and I will, but that doesn't get us closer in resolving these ethical violations.

How do you know those breaches are taking place? Are these personal experiences' date=' or anecdotal evidence? If anecdotal, from whom (ie, sister, friend etc) and how ofte? Are you talking your own state or every state?[/quote']

Here are my responses (and I'm mostly talking about my state):

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

As many have noted, this is a vague clause from the code of ethics. It would benefit if it were to specify what 'improvement' was. As Steve noted, improvement can include things like free-er whelpers and temperament, which may mean that structure or other aspects diminish as these elements are addressed.

For me, 'improving' the breed can take a number of forms - however, I would suggest that if a) there are no titles (working or conformation) on the dogs ancestry for several generations, and b) there has been no collusion between breeders over several generations, this would suggest limited improvement, if any. I would be particularly concerned on individuals who are breeding many puppies over a short period while also fulfilling this criteria.

How do I know these breaches are taking place? Because I've seen pedigrees of dogs that show one breeder breeding their dogs to their dogs over generations, with no collusion with others, and no titles on their dogs. They are only breaching my definition of improvement and, as previously stated, the vagueness of 'improve' is problematic in the code of conduct.

Striving to eliminate hereditary diseases

Again, this clause is perhaps problematic. "Eliminating" disease is pretty hard - how about it's reducing or diminishing the prevalence?

Any breeders who are breeding from carriers of genetic conditions are not eliminating hereditary disease, and so are breaking the code of conduct. (Personally, I don't have a problem with carriers being bred - and I think this clause should be change to reflect less prohibitive breeding practices.

How do I know these breaches are taking place? I have seen dogs, listed as carriers for conditions, parent offspring.

Providing a vaccination certificate to new puppy owners

I am not going to name and shame, but there are plenty of breeders that sell puppies and believe that vaccinations are harmful and choose not to vaccinate puppies before sale. I think this should be their prerogative, but they are currently breaking the code of ethics as it stands.

How do I know these breaches are taking place? I've spoken to puppy buyers who have purchased puppies, from registered breeders bound by the code of conduct, who have not received vaccination certificates.

Selling dogs or puppies that are not in good health

Not providing documentation regarding dietary and other requirements for the breed

The evidence I have for these causes are anecdotal at best. From various people - other breeders, pet shop owners, friends, new DOL members ;).

How do I know these breaches are taking place? I don't 'know', but the degree of anecdotal evidence is so great that I am inclined to believe that it is the case.

So, instead of posting about me not responding to questions, can we get back on topic. Which has kind of evolved to:

Is the code of ethics a suitable document?

and

How should violations of the code of ethics be dealt with?

[Jed]

Thanks Leema. So, really a holistic comment?

Breeding to improve the breed -- this is a new requirement which came in some years ago, direct from America, where it was invented by animal rights to curb the number of pups being bred.

Just a bit of pointless history.

Most breeders see what they are doing as improving the breed ....eg - someone may breed many grand champions, and see that as improving the breed, someone else may eliminate a problem in the breed, someone else may breed a line of healthy dogs of good nerve which make excellent pets.

Which one is doing "more to improve the breed". I have no idea.

I don't think there is any way to tighten this up, and allow people to continue to breed. Could be wrong though.

And it is a hobby. Probably it should be up to each breeder.

I think it is reasonable for breeders to use carriers - this fits with 'striving to improve the breed' - it is probably better to use a carrier on a clear dog to try to eliminate some other problem, or improve type. Carrier pups sold on non-breeding contracts, clears either kept for breeding or sold ditto. There is a carrier in one breed who sires excellent pups - and if your bitch needs x or y, he will give you that, and of course, you simply test the pups. Carriers don't suffer.

What Mystiqueview said is very relevant too.

As far as non-titled dogs are concerned ---- depends I guess. Too many answers. and again, I know what you mean. The state CCs know too.

Other more specific breaches. I think that everyone and everyone who has a problem with something someone is doing should complain to the state CC. IN some states, you need to pay to complain, but I would write a letter anyhow.

I do know what you are saying. Simply complain and keep complaining.

Thanks for answering. I didn't think the question was off topic. But perhaps it was

Edited to say

Personally - the last mating I did was to an imported champion, who will go Gr Ch, but was a champion with some good specialty wins when the mating was done.

The mating before that (different girl) was to a dog which had never been shown, because I thought he would add a few things to the mix.

The pups weren't better from one mating or the other, either.

The rule is the better the dogs, the better the pups, and that probably means champions, but some dogs don't do well in the show ring. One would hope that a breeder could tell whether the dog was any good or not without it needing to be titled. There are grand champion dogs that some breeders wouldn't go near ... and not because they are mean with money!!

Edited March 10, 2012 by Jed