Another Puppy Farmer Charged

[Steve]

[

No one complaining they got a pup from them and it was no good or under socilaised.

So therefore what ever it was they were doing appears to have been caring well for them.

I wonder if their definition of well cared for equals mine though.

Do we have any data on how the puppies were sold?

Or any data, long-term, on what happened with puppies that had been sold? Behaviour is incremental... so problems emerging after being masked by puppy stage would probably not even be thought of as relating to shaky base.

This kind of operation fails in the face of what research knowledge would suggest as optimal. Frankly, the sooner there's consumer law that reflects this, the better for both the dogs and potential owners. As part of that law... every puppy would carry an identifying number that listed their original breeder (using the microchip), to allow for life-long tracking.

Ive been aware of them for a fair while and they often simply advertise via local papers - they may sell some via pet shops.

The whole socialisation and impact of what happens before they leave the breeder is a minefield.

In order to try to attempt to sort out whether any behaviours were associated with what occurred pre sale all of the other stuff about nature versus nurture and

what happens after the pup goes home comes into play .Any laws pertaining to this would be impossible to monitor or police.

Current laws do address the need for stimulation and socialisation and in several states including Victoria the pup is identified by a chip which can identify the breeder .They cant even advertise them without a chip - especially if they don't have the permits. Only those who have permits can advertise without fear of prosecution without chip numbers.

And - there is no evidence here to prove that these dogs were being neglected or poorly cared for or that they did not have their social and welfare needs met.