WExtremeG Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) I think there is room in society for all sorts of dogs, pure or crossed... but I'd love to see "breeders" of the latter regulated a little better. We have laws in place to ensure certain aspects of animal welfare, and others that require all animals in most states be microchipped and age appropriately vaccinated before sale - but what we don't see much of is those tasked with enforcing the current laws doing anything real to stamp out the illegal practices of BYB's or puppy farmers. I was thinking about this last night, and thought wouldn't it be wonderful if, at a bare minimum that byb's had to health test the parent dogs for genetic diseases. - would stop a lot dead in their tracks :laugh: They should have something in place for byb'rs - even if it were to follow up ads to see if they had permits to breed(not sure about all councils- but certainly my council you must- but people ignore it...). What would stop them in their tracks is being pulled up and fined under the current laws requiring microchipping and vaccination of pups - not to mention selling them aged under 8 weeks. Not hard to find them - they are advertised all over places like Gumtree - get the rangers out there and fine them. The cost of vaccinating and microchipping an entire litter isn't cheap, and if hit by fines for not doing it, that will hit the hip pocket too. T. Being fined would- if they would track them down and do it- (it's not happening as far as I'm aware) My state (QLD) calls for "should be" at least 8 weeks before sale in the dpi for pets code so is open to interpretation. I also don't think they have to be vaccinated before sale but they do need to be micro chipped at 8 weeks when being offered for sale or giveaway...this is how many are getting around it- selling at 6-7 weeks because "should be" is not "must be" Edited January 24, 2013 by WExtremeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I've owned rescue mutts and purebred rehomed ex breeding dogs and my present designer bulldog is the first with major problems. I am average person on the street who believes if you're prepared to recycle a dog you should and wouldn't buy a puppy although I wouldn't have negative feelings to those who did. For me everytime I read anything promoting the benefits of buying purebred it always seems to be phrased in terms if purebred versus crossbred and since I've owned lovely crossbreds I always feel like my own dogs are being criticized. Since I really do believe we should adopt the surplus dogs before making more and that's just a core belief that I have as I try recycle a lot of other things as well, I think it would be more helpful if discussions didnt try to make a case for one being better than the other since that's immediately going to separate out a lot of mutt owners but rather tried to make a case for controlled breeding as a way of reducing the flow of dogs into pounds. I think this is a valuable discussion. It is idiotic to say 'Let's stop breeding until we rehome all the dogs that need to be recycled' (as if they're plastic, good grief ... ) because what you end up with is no dogs at all. Ethical pedigree dog breeders already 'control' the number of dogs they breed so there is no need to come here and give pedigree people a lecture. Go ring up BYB and puppyfarmers on Gumtree. Yep, saying that the breeding of purebred pedigree dogs should be controlled more because there are unwanted dogs i n pounds is like saying to a child that they should eat all their veggies because kids are starving in Africa. Sounds righteous but doesn't make a blind bit of difference in truth. All it will do is drive the minority breeds to extinction in this country, and the pounds will still be full because the convenient scapegoat wasn't the real source of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Yep, saying that the breeding of purebred pedigree dogs should be controlled more because there are unwanted dogs i n pounds is like saying to a child that they should eat all their veggies because kids are starving in Africa. Sounds righteous but doesn't make a blind bit of difference in truth. All it will do is drive the minority breeds to extinction in this country, and the pounds will still be full because the convenient scapegoat wasn't the real source of the problem. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I think there is room in society for all sorts of dogs, pure or crossed... but I'd love to see "breeders" of the latter regulated a little better. We have laws in place to ensure certain aspects of animal welfare, and others that require all animals in most states be microchipped and age appropriately vaccinated before sale - but what we don't see much of is those tasked with enforcing the current laws doing anything real to stamp out the illegal practices of BYB's or puppy farmers. I was thinking about this last night, and thought wouldn't it be wonderful if, at a bare minimum that byb's had to health test the parent dogs for genetic diseases. - would stop a lot dead in their tracks :laugh: They should have something in place for byb'rs - even if it were to follow up ads to see if they had permits to breed(not sure about all councils- but certainly my council you must- but people ignore it...). Well before you can make laws to make cross bred breeders do that you also have to have laws to make purebred breeders do that . The same laws apply to BYB that they do for purebred breeders and in most cases the state laws are much harder than the CC codes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Yep, saying that the breeding of purebred pedigree dogs should be controlled more because there are unwanted dogs i n pounds is like saying to a child that they should eat all their veggies because kids are starving in Africa. Sounds righteous but doesn't make a blind bit of difference in truth. All it will do is drive the minority breeds to extinction in this country, and the pounds will still be full because the convenient scapegoat wasn't the real source of the problem. :thumbsup: I'll second that! T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I think there is room in society for all sorts of dogs, pure or crossed... but I'd love to see "breeders" of the latter regulated a little better. We have laws in place to ensure certain aspects of animal welfare, and others that require all animals in most states be microchipped and age appropriately vaccinated before sale - but what we don't see much of is those tasked with enforcing the current laws doing anything real to stamp out the illegal practices of BYB's or puppy farmers. I was thinking about this last night, and thought wouldn't it be wonderful if, at a bare minimum that byb's had to health test the parent dogs for genetic diseases. - would stop a lot dead in their tracks :laugh: They should have something in place for byb'rs - even if it were to follow up ads to see if they had permits to breed(not sure about all councils- but certainly my council you must- but people ignore it...). What would stop them in their tracks is being pulled up and fined under the current laws requiring microchipping and vaccination of pups - not to mention selling them aged under 8 weeks. Not hard to find them - they are advertised all over places like Gumtree - get the rangers out there and fine them. The cost of vaccinating and microchipping an entire litter isn't cheap, and if hit by fines for not doing it, that will hit the hip pocket too. T. Yep agree 100 % all they need to do is police current laws. Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 yep agree 100 % all they need to do is police current laws. Easy. how do we go about it to make them act? and how do we police those who bypass their state's laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 yep agree 100 % all they need to do is police current laws. Easy. how do we go about it to make them act? and how do we police those who bypass their state's laws? And therein lies the rub... if the peple who are supposed to be policing the laws can't be arsed to do it, what recourse do we have? T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 yep agree 100 % all they need to do is police current laws. Easy. how do we go about it to make them act? and how do we police those who bypass their state's laws? And therein lies the rub... if the peple who are supposed to be policing the laws can't be arsed to do it, what recourse do we have? T. Because as with BSL, they can say there is a law because bringing in laws fixes everything to do with dogs. #sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 But there ARE already plenty of laws regarding pretty much every aspect of dog ownership... so if the powers that be can find the resources to enforce new laws, then why can't they find them NOW to enforce the CURRENT laws? T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now