Pet Industry Setting The Rules For Puppy Farms

[dog_fan]

I am puzzled about how you ascertain that people who breed for colour are puppy farmers?? I fail to see what is wrong with that - as LONG as the rest is good ... it's the same as ... hmmm, breeding a palamino. You stay within your breeding plan and aim for good to great conformation, BUT, you KNOW that the colour you'll be getting is golden. Aren't people who breed dogs allowed to do that??

I need to point out that right at this point in time, I do NOT share my life with a dog, a puppy, a cat or even a goldfish!

I don't think they are puppy farmers, I think they are unethical ANKC breeders who do not breed for the betterment of the breed they breed purely for colour as their priority, which makes them unethical.

Edited March 6, 2012 by dog_fan

[Salukifan]

I look forward to the day when "caring" for a dog is considered to involve more than providing food, shelter and cleaning up after it.

But while tens of thousands of dog owners think that's enough, pet shops and the places that supply them will continue to flourish.

[dog_fan]

"""" Dogs and puppies sold in our stores will only be from PIAA-approved breeders who care for their dogs," Mr Perkins said."""

Yet again the PIAA expose themselves as supporters of puppy farming....PIAA approved puppy farms. Whether a puppy farm/factory is 'approved' or not, it is still large scale intensive breeding of companion animals for profit

Regardless of what people call them, if the animals are being cared for according to legal standards then they are not a puppy farm.

So as long as the dozens or hundreds of dogs are well fed & watered in their nice clean little cages, that's ok? And what the heck else can large scale intensive commercial breeding of companion animals be called , if not a puppy farm/factory?

Unfortunately yes that appears to be perfectly legal...but for the PIAA to support, maybe even encourage the practice , well that makes me livid.

It is a sad day when the companion canine is reduced to this

A couple of years ago I had the dubious pleasure of debating this in person with Mr.Perkins. I would be banned if I wrote here what that conversation left me feeling.

The word legal is important here. Laws are around that determine what is legal in respect to breeding dogs. If establishments meet that criteria they are behaving appropriately.

If you don't like the law then attempt to have it changed but according to the law they are not puppy farmers.

Edited March 6, 2012 by dog_fan

[Jed]

Of course the PIAA support it, PIAA members make huge amounts of money out of puppies, money talks.

yep, that about sums it up

Absolutely. Without puppy sales, a lot of pet shops would be financially struggling. Particularly those franchised shops belonging to one large chain.

Dog fan - could you please explain what exactly is unethical if an ANKC breeder breeds for colour and keeps the dogs in excellent conditions, as well loved pets, and why is is unethical?

[mita]

Thanks Mita. Could be experience with "properly raised pups" - as opposed to the puppy farm dogs I have purchased and have rehomed? There is a large difference, which equates with the UQ findings.

Yes, you are the only person who continues to refer to the UQ findings.

I think you have a good point that some different language should be used to refer to socialisation. The word just sounds like jargon.....

We need ways to accurately describing the best way to raise puppies in everyday words as the good breeders do it. 'Properly raised puppies' is a good start.

[OzzieLioness]

I am puzzled about how you ascertain that people who breed for colour are puppy farmers?? I fail to see what is wrong with that - as LONG as the rest is good ... it's the same as ... hmmm, breeding a palamino. You stay within your breeding plan and aim for good to great conformation, BUT, you KNOW that the colour you'll be getting is golden. Aren't people who breed dogs allowed to do that??

I need to point out that right at this point in time, I do NOT share my life with a dog, a puppy, a cat or even a goldfish!

I don't think they are puppy farmers, I think they are unethical ANKC breeders who do not breed for the betterment of the breed they breed purely for colour as their priority, which makes them unethical.

I disagree - quite vehemently too! I do NOT see that people who are breeding for a specific colour are necessarily unethical. You are making wayyyy too many assumptions there.

So they aim for a particular colour? SO WHAT? I bet they also look out for bad genetic traits and do their level best to exclude those too - and you can't say they don't - you do not know.

Don't ever put your hand up for Jury service!!

[Salukifan]

I disagree - quite vehemently too! I do NOT see that people who are breeding for a specific colour are necessarily unethical. You are making wayyyy too many assumptions there.

So they aim for a particular colour? SO WHAT? I bet they also look out for bad genetic traits and do their level best to exclude those too - and you can't say they don't - you do not know.

Don't ever put your hand up for Jury service!!

And when the colour has genetic health issues linked to it, what then?

How do you feel about folk who'd do an Overo to Overo mating to breed paint horses?

If you've never heard of dilute colour alopecia, now would be a good time to look it up before you dig yourself in any deeper.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Telida Whippets

[dog_fan]

Dog fan - could you please explain what exactly is unethical if an ANKC breeder breeds for colour and keeps the dogs in excellent conditions, as well loved pets, and why is is unethical?

To focus on just one thing at the expense of all others is not breeding to better the breed.

It is also breeding dogs that are not true to the ANKC standard as blue SBT's cannot have a black nose, again not bettering the breed.

I thought these issues would have been well known to anyone who has been around dogs for any length of time

[dog_fan]

I am puzzled about how you ascertain that people who breed for colour are puppy farmers?? I fail to see what is wrong with that - as LONG as the rest is good ... it's the same as ... hmmm, breeding a palamino. You stay within your breeding plan and aim for good to great conformation, BUT, you KNOW that the colour you'll be getting is golden. Aren't people who breed dogs allowed to do that??

I need to point out that right at this point in time, I do NOT share my life with a dog, a puppy, a cat or even a goldfish!

I don't think they are puppy farmers, I think they are unethical ANKC breeders who do not breed for the betterment of the breed they breed purely for colour as their priority, which makes them unethical.

I disagree - quite vehemently too! I do NOT see that people who are breeding for a specific colour are necessarily unethical. You are making wayyyy too many assumptions there.

So they aim for a particular colour? SO WHAT? I bet they also look out for bad genetic traits and do their level best to exclude those too - and you can't say they don't - you do not know.

Don't ever put your hand up for Jury service!!

And you accuse me of making assumptions

[OzzieLioness]

I disagree - quite vehemently too! I do NOT see that people who are breeding for a specific colour are necessarily unethical. You are making wayyyy too many assumptions there.

So they aim for a particular colour? SO WHAT? I bet they also look out for bad genetic traits and do their level best to exclude those too - and you can't say they don't - you do not know.

Don't ever put your hand up for Jury service!!

And when the colour has genetic health issues linked to it, what then?

How do you feel about folk who'd do an Overo to Overo mating to breed paint horses?

If you've never heard of dilute colour alopecia, now would be a good time to look it up before you dig yourself in any deeper.

What I said was - and you must have missed it - "I bet they also look out for bad genetic traits and do their level best to exclude those too...."

I am not here to argue or seek out negativity.

Argue on with others - and this will delight you! I am obviously wrong - all people who breed for colour are obviously going to DELIBERATELY ensure that they throw colour dilution alopecia into the mix and our furry friends will be scratching and going bald and crazy - and I do not want it to be me that has caused this by my ignorant assertion that breeding for a specific colour does not necessarily equate to being unethical.

You have a wonderful day!

[Jed]

I am puzzled about how you ascertain that people who breed for colour are puppy farmers?? I fail to see what is wrong with that - as LONG as the rest is good ... it's the same as ... hmmm, breeding a palamino. You stay within your breeding plan and aim for good to great conformation, BUT, you KNOW that the colour you'll be getting is golden. Aren't people who breed dogs allowed to do that??

I need to point out that right at this point in time, I do NOT share my life with a dog, a puppy, a cat or even a goldfish!

I don't think they are puppy farmers, I think they are unethical ANKC breeders who do not breed for the betterment of the breed they breed purely for colour as their priority, which makes them unethical.

So what do your comments have to do with puppy farms, which are the topic of this thread?

As far as I can see, you are using this thread to slash and burn registered ANKC breeders. This is supposed to be a PURE BRED forum.

And as one of the huge majority of ethical ANKC breeders, I take umbridge with your comments re breeding for colour. If you don't like it, you complain to your state cc. Don't bring it into a thread about puppy farming. Don't use it as a stool to baste registered purebred breeders.

[Salukifan]

What I said was - and you must have missed it - "I bet they also look out for bad genetic traits and do their level best to exclude those too...."

I am not here to argue or seek out negativity.

Argue on with others - and this will delight you! I am obviously wrong - all people who breed for colour are obviously going to DELIBERATELY ensure that they throw colour dilution alopecia into the mix and our furry friends will be scratching and going bald and crazy - and I do not want it to be me that has caused this by my ignorant assertion that breeding for a specific colour does not necessarily equate to being unethical.

You have a wonderful day!

Nice back pedal.

You CAN'T breed for some colours (notably blue) and eliminate all bad genetic traits (ie dilute colour alopecia). Level best or not, the two are genetically linked. So if you deliberately breed for blue, you are dicing with DCA.

So you asked for the "so what" in aiming for a particular colour and I've provided one. You tell me if it's unethical to breed for pups with a one in four chance of the condition?

Sorry for the negativity. ;)

Edited March 6, 2012 by Telida Whippets

[~Anne~]

All anyone needs to do is to look at the puppies for sale on the other part of this site to see some suspect breeders and yet they are allowed to advertise here simply because they have an ANKC prefix.

Suspect breeders are easy to spot. You simply read bogus websites claiming all manner of terrible deeds don't you? ....least that is what some people do. SOme people believe they can crucify breeders just by reading things on the web.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Let's not forget that ANKC registered breeders can sell puppies to pet shops without any problems as the ANKC allows this to be acceptable behaviour.

And at least with one breed in Sydney, this is already happening. Much to my disgust. I've already rescued 1 unwanted purebred puppy, 3 months after purchase.

As for the PIAA, as a rescuer I think I can smell it from here.

[Souff]

Let's not forget that ANKC registered breeders can sell puppies to pet shops without any problems as the ANKC allows this to be acceptable behaviour.

There's a Trade Practices Act which would not allow an association such as the ANKC to enforce a ban. So it's not a case of the ANKC 'allowing' registered breeders to sell puppies in a pet shop or not.

But it does not contravene that Act to have recommended guidelines on homing puppies & dogs, in terms of screening for suitability, providing follow-up advice & support etc. As many registered breeders, who provide appropriate care for their puppies & dogs, do.

And, as far as I know, such a relationship between breeder & potential puppy owner is urged, ethically.

So that makes it OK? Registered ANKC breeders selling to pet shops and the public are supposed to think that ANKC breeders are ethical and operating under an ethical system? I think not.

Who said anything about ethical?

"Ethical" is a word that is not used in legislation these days and it is from laws that a society takes its lead.

There are both ethical and unethical people using the ANKC system and the same will happen under any system.

The ANKC let the dog boat drift away years ago and self-interested, inward-thinking people within the breeds led that direction and they were very busy protecting their patch and not wanting to see the bigger picture, so the drift away continued to escalate and they probably didn't see it. Forward-thinking inclusive old timers like Danny Scott would be rolling in their graves if they could see the damage that has been done.

Now the pet shop people have got the smarts and have got themselves a much bigger boat and it is all legal.

Ethical breeders should be proud of being ethical ..... but they are not automatically ethical just because they are an ANKC registered breeder, or any other kind of breeder.

Souff

edited to straighten up a few bits.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Souff

[sandgrubber]

I am puzzled about how you ascertain that people who breed for colour are puppy farmers?? I fail to see what is wrong with that - as LONG as the rest is good ... it's the same as ... hmmm, breeding a palamino. You stay within your breeding plan and aim for good to great conformation, BUT, you KNOW that the colour you'll be getting is golden. Aren't people who breed dogs allowed to do that??

I need to point out that right at this point in time, I do NOT share my life with a dog, a puppy, a cat or even a goldfish!

Agreed! The flatcoat and golden retriever would be one and the same breed but for people breeding for colour. . . . and black Labs would far outnumber yellows.

[mita]

And at least with one breed in Sydney, this is already happening. Much to my disgust. I've already rescued 1 unwanted purebred puppy, 3 months after purchase.

As for the PIAA, as a rescuer I think I can smell it from here.

A genuine question, dogmad. I'm interested in what information puppy buyers are given or can get... when buying from a petshop.

How did you, or the person who surrendered the purebred puppy, know that it was indeed originally from a particular registered breeder?

It's just that I know of people who've been simply told, in pet stores, that a puppy is 'purebred'.....but no written documentation is shown or given. And certainly not the name of the breeder.

I've wondered if it would be impossible for a buyer to know, with certainty, if the puppy was from a registered breeder... or from a backyard unregistered breeder (we have one of those nearby, 'producing' a small breed).

I'm not disputing that some registered breeders sell to petshops (there is no legal barrier).

It's just that the UQ research dug out quite a number of the backyard unregistered breeders.

I've met someone who enquired about a 'purebred' puppy, directly, from one of those. And was shown a home-typed piece of paper with the mother & father's names on it. And was also shown the pedigree papers for the father.

Edited March 7, 2012 by mita

[sandgrubber]

A century ago, the kitchen was a sort of little factory . . . you couldn't buy ready made . . . many people made their own bread, canned fruits and veg, etc. The food industry expanded and took over a large share of the household tasks associated with food prep. Our food is probably more sanitary for this change, but I think it plays a major part in the syndrome of eating too much processed stuff, too little fresh food, and getting fat. That's progress for you.

Gotta watch 'em, or the pet industry will push through the same sort of progress in dog breeding: Taking the job out of the home, insisting on sanitation and portraying the industry as an improvement; making home-bred dogs seem inferior, inconvenient.

[Souff]

And at least with one breed in Sydney, this is already happening. Much to my disgust. I've already rescued 1 unwanted purebred puppy, 3 months after purchase.

As for the PIAA, as a rescuer I think I can smell it from here.

A genuine question, dogmad. I'm interested in what information puppy buyers are given or can get... when buying from a petshop.

How did you, or the person who surrendered the purebred puppy, know that it was indeed originally from a particular registered breeder?

It's just that I know of people who've been simply told, in pet stores, that a puppy is 'purebred'.....but no written documentation is shown or given. And certainly not the name of the breeder.

I've wondered if it would be impossible for a buyer to know, with certainty, if the puppy was from a registered breeder... or from a backyard unregistered breeder (we have one of those nearby, 'producing' a small breed).

I'm not disputing that some registered breeders sell to petshops (there is no legal barrier).

It's just that the UQ research dug out quite a number of the backyard unregistered breeders.

I've met someone who enquired about a 'purebred' puppy, directly, from one of those. And was shown a home-typed piece of paper with the mother & father's names on it. And was also shown the pedigree papers for the father.

Perhaps buyers need educating to know that they are entitled to get proper pedigree papers with a registered pup.

The microchip (if the puppy was microchipped) will lead to identification of the owner at the time of microchipping. Under the law that should be the breeder, but that wont always be the case.

Souff

[mita]

Perhaps buyers need educating to know that they are entitled to get proper pedigree papers with a registered pup.

The microchip (if the puppy was microchipped) will lead to identification of the owner at the time of microchipping. Under the law that should be the breeder, but that wont always be the case.

Souff

Something has to be done to regulate use of labels in pet stores (& by backyard breeders, too). If they tell customers a puppy is 'purebred', that should only be permitted under Truth in Advertising, if proper pedigree papers are also provided.

But the pet stores here have made a real thing about not identifying the breeder... And it appears those selling to pet stores (registered or not), tend not to want their details passed on.

And you're right, there needs to be education about what 'papers' are, so the backyard breeders can't just type something on a piece of paper.

The UK law says that a breeder's identity must go on a means of ID that follows the puppy (each puppy is given a 'breeding' number). I don't know, if since then, that's been combined with the microchip. But it'd be a darn good thing.