Is There An Answer?

[Steve]

O.K. It appears to be obvious that some breeders are going to keep more than a handful of dogs.

In some states there are pretty explicit requirements on how these dogs should be housed and kept but its horrible.

Minimum pen sizes are tiny and dogs only have to get 20 mins a day out of them - which is also impossible to police.

Remember while we are looking at this that these aren't dogs which turn over a lot such as in boarding or shelter situations .In many cases they live their whole lives like this or at least their whole breeding lives. New dogs come in rarely and dogs on the property are not ever exposed to visiting outside dogs.

Also there is no current difference in how someone can keep 10 breeding dogs in difference to someone who keep a couple of hundred.

Do we just accept that if we breed dogs we have no choice but to have to house them knowing its not good for them or do we have a chance at finding some thing that really does focus on what is best for the dogs?

All chatter and suggestions welcome - There is no wrong or stupid input.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Steve

[mixeduppup]

I see kennels as a place to keep dogs when you absolutely need to, not a place to live. I think the law should stipulate that if you are keeping your dogs in kennels as breeding animals they must have at least 3-4 hours a day outside of their kennels and exercise (walking, running etc) at least twice a week, more for breeds that require more. They need to be part of a family and have socialisation outside of their own pack. It's the same with working dogs, they are kenneled a lot of the day if they're not working but every afternoon you let them out hop on your bike and run them 10 or so ks to wear off that built up energy. It should be no different for any other kenneled dogs (taking in breed and energy requirements).

[korbin13]

So the laws are only stating the minimum? Breeders can go above the minimum standards required?

[persephone]

kennelling is a neccessary evil .. and I often think of designs which might make life more interesting ..

Has there been (I guess there has) examples other than wire rectangular pens ..kennels/sheds/grassed quadrangles ...?

[WreckitWhippet]

Do we just accept that if we breed dogs we have no choice but to have to house them knowing its not good for them or do we have a chance at finding some thing that really does focus on what is best for the dogs?

All chatter and suggestions welcome - There is no wrong or stupid input.

At the moment I'm looking at setting up enough kennels to meet all requirements. At the moment I have kennels but not enough.

I torn between flying under the radar or building a whole lot of infrastructure that I will not use. I don't believe that it's in the best interests of my dog to live in kennels and certainly don't believe any litters I breed, should be raised anywhere other than in the house and under foot.

I can accept and respect that some "breeders" keep their dogs and raise them successfully in kennels and they meet and surpass the dogs needs in terms of physical and mental stimulation.

I don't believe that the current "commercial" breeding practices and the guidelines for breeding dogs meet a dogs mental and physical needs but what do we do ? It's a case of one in all in , when it comes to rules and regs.

What shits me, is that as an ANKC breeder I'm highly visible, everything that I do can be tracked and traced through the ANKC. At the press of a button the powers that be can identify how many dogs I have in my name , how many litters I breed etc. I can see more rules and regs heading our way but it's not going to impact on those doing the wrong thing, just those who choose to whelp and raise their litters in their house and have their dogs living inside with them.

I can't see how Dogs NSW can ask for any exemptions, when the fact there is there are oodle breeding, puppy farming members, who have and do subject their dogs to less than ideal conditions and down right cruelty. We can't claim to be better than anyone else.

I get very frustrated that the focus is always on the breeder and those with more than x amount of dogs. I look around my neighbourhood and it's not me with the problems dogs, it's not me with the dogs that are living unfulfilled lives in a suburban back yard, it's not me pumping out litter after litter and raising them in substandard conditions ( although if you follow the law to the letter, it would be me who doesn't meet the kennel requirements)I'm sick of being punished because I own more than a couple of dogs and I breed.

I keep coming back to the same point, let's start with policing the legislation that we already have. To be honest I think if Government and Local Council actually chucked some resources and man power at policing existing legislation, the dogs of this state would be a whole lot better off. Hell, they'd even rake some dollars in if they started to police chipping and registration and fined those who are not complying.

[Steve]

If the new laws pass in NSW then assuming everyone follows the law every person who breeds a litter of puppies will be on the radar more than Dogs NSW breeders are now.

Unlike Queensland the number of dogs you have registered with Dogs NSW can never be used to determine how many dogs you have on your property as the onus for the transfer is on the new owner and very very few of them ever transfer them.

But with a licencing system or even without a licencing system if those policing laws are able to match up microchip details and council registrations they will know how many anyone has and how many anyone breeds, how many bitches anyone owns and how often she is having a litter. In other words one way or another sooner or later the only way anyone can be under the radar is not to chip their puppies and not to register their dogs - something like many of them do now. My prediction is that many more wont register their breeding dogs and many more wont chip their puppies - therefore more people will be outside of the required standards imposed ,less will allow visitors to view Mum and Dad and some of these will be because they dont believe keeping dogs should entail housing them in purpose built kenneling.

[Steve]

By the way my fear with getting exemptions for any group is that it creates a situation as we have seen in Victoria where membership numbers go through the roof but a vast majority of them dont own a purebred dog , dont breed purebred dogs and do breed cross bred mutts. The MDBA would get the same exemptions in NSW as any Dogs NSW get as we have equal status under state government laws and we have a much tougher screening process for anyone to get in but I dont want exemptions if the cost is people wanting to join just to get the exemptions. I dont believe that if it gets in there will be any exemptions - one of the reasons why I think it wont get in.

[Steve]

So the laws are only stating the minimum? Breeders can go above the minimum standards required?

Yes but its all cost prohibitive too. A breeder who owns 300 dogs isnt going to go any bigger than they have to as it all costs per metre.

The more dogs they own the less likely they are to take it up size so more dogs suffer at the hands of less people.

[WoofnHoof]

I've always liked the idea of a kind of mentor ship program where breeding dogs are placed as per a normal pet home but the home can have the option of allowing their dog to be used for breeding under the guidance of the breeder who owns the prefix. That way numerous dogs can be bred by the one breeder and with the benefit of the breeders experience and know how without the dogs having to be permanently housed and owners by the one breeder, negating many of the issues with housing tens or hundreds of breeding dogs on the one property.

I realise this is something that many breeders already engage in with co ownership etc but if it were embraced and promoted at an organisational level it might also be used to grow the network of breeders and owners who are happy to work together with those aims and reduce the need to house large numbers of dogs on single properties.

[Steve]

I've always liked the idea of a kind of mentor ship program where breeding dogs are placed as per a normal pet home but the home can have the option of allowing their dog to be used for breeding under the guidance of the breeder who owns the prefix. That way numerous dogs can be bred by the one breeder and with the benefit of the breeders experience and know how without the dogs having to be permanently housed and owners by the one breeder, negating many of the issues with housing tens or hundreds of breeding dogs on the one property.

I realise this is something that many breeders already engage in with co ownership etc but if it were embraced and promoted at an organisational level it might also be used to grow the network of breeders and owners who are happy to work together with those aims and reduce the need to house large numbers of dogs on single properties.

Yes some breeders do have a guardianship program - that's not for me. I dont want a maternity hospital where dogs come and go to have puppies I want to live with them and love them and have them part of my life. Allowing them to remain in the guardian home while they whelp would put all of those owners in the same position any breeder is in too. I think it would be hell to manage if there were large numbers out all over the place though I believe there is a very large puppy farmer in NSW who puts them out as pets and brings them back for two litters on his property. Another big one in Victoria did the same. They still ended up in pet shops.

[WreckitWhippet]

By the way my fear with getting exemptions for any group is that it creates a situation as we have seen in Victoria where membership numbers go through the roof but a vast majority of them dont own a purebred dog , dont breed purebred dogs and do breed cross bred mutts. The MDBA would get the same exemptions in NSW as any Dogs NSW get as we have equal status under state government laws and we have a much tougher screening process for anyone to get in but I dont want exemptions if the cost is people wanting to join just to get the exemptions. I dont believe that if it gets in there will be any exemptions - one of the reasons why I think it wont get in.

I don't want people joining either, just so they can gain exemptions.

Although I am being a hypocrite as I do not currently have any race dogs but felt that my GRA licence and the prior screening processes will certainly come in useful down the track.

[WreckitWhippet]

I've always liked the idea of a kind of mentor ship program where breeding dogs are placed as per a normal pet home but the home can have the option of allowing their dog to be used for breeding under the guidance of the breeder who owns the prefix. That way numerous dogs can be bred by the one breeder and with the benefit of the breeders experience and know how without the dogs having to be permanently housed and owners by the one breeder, negating many of the issues with housing tens or hundreds of breeding dogs on the one property.

I realise this is something that many breeders already engage in with co ownership etc but if it were embraced and promoted at an organisational level it might also be used to grow the network of breeders and owners who are happy to work together with those aims and reduce the need to house large numbers of dogs on single properties.

Puppy farmers have already worked this one out, have you not seen the ads calling for "family homes" to help them ?

[inez]

If the new laws pass in NSW then assuming everyone follows the law every person who breeds a litter of puppies will be on the radar more than Dogs NSW breeders are now.

Unlike Queensland the number of dogs you have registered with Dogs NSW can never be used to determine how many dogs you have on your property as the onus for the transfer is on the new owner and very very few of them ever transfer them.

But with a licencing system or even without a licencing system if those policing laws are able to match up microchip details and council registrations they will know how many anyone has and how many anyone breeds, how many bitches anyone owns and how often she is having a litter. In other words one way or another sooner or later the only way anyone can be under the radar is not to chip their puppies and not to register their dogs - something like many of them do now. My prediction is that many more wont register their breeding dogs and many more wont chip their puppies - therefore more people will be outside of the required standards imposed ,less will allow visitors to view Mum and Dad and some of these will be because they dont believe keeping dogs should entail housing them in purpose built kenneling.

As it is already supposed to be illegal to sell an unmicrochippped, unvaccinated pup, under 8 weeks old pup.

Please someone tell me who such sellers can be reported too.

My friends boyfriend bought just such a pup, apparently it came from a litter of 12. It ended up very sick and at the vets needing a drip for dyhadration within 24 hours of purchase.

From the figures I found before, the welfare's across australia were I think, quoting seeing something like 160,000 dogs through their books australia wide, yet the pedigree breeders produced 60,000 in the same year. so on a conservative estimate and every registered pup ended up in a pound, which is a pretty impossible scenario, thats still 100,000 that came from where?

I greatly doubt the breeder of that boyfriends pup will ever be vaccinating or chipping their puppies. since by law last I saw all pitbulls are supposed to be desexed. Thanks to the already existing laws there are a great deal of people intending to stay very much off the radar. Repression seems historically to not stop but send those who it is meant to affect to go underground if not further underground instead.

Its sad a puppy gets sent out into the world far too young and easy prey to killer disease because its breeder wants to stay off the radar and sell by word of mouth alone because they chose to keep a breed that's now subject to BSL.

Add the wish to avoid a licensing fee for all breeds makes me wonder how many other people decide to do the same to avoid detection?

Wonder what the best case scenario might be?

I know I believe nobody should be able to sell an unvaccinated, unchipped, underaged puppy (regardless of breed) ... BUT... there has to be someone to report the seller too.

Otherwise why make or say its illegal?

Would I be correct in suspecting the only 'breeder' that could be reprimanded as it currently stands is a registered ankc breeder?

Edited April 7, 2013 by inez

[Steve]

Yes it is already law that you have to register your dogs and chip your puppies at point of sale - has been since 1997

So now like numb nuts they think the only thing they have to do is follow up those who own a chipped pup because the breeder has done the right thing and make them register their dogs. No other method is used to police laws which have been mandatory and havent been used by the majority of people breeding dogs for 15 years ! If there was no penalty for doing that and they dont do that why would they get a licence and start doing it now ?

[WoofnHoof]

Ah yes of course, thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting in your threads, I'd forgotten for a while there.

[Steve]

Ah yes of course, thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting in your threads, I'd forgotten for a while there.

Geez Im sorry if Ive said anything to offend you that wasnt my intention and I certainly dont want you to feel you shouldnt have any input.

Your suggestion obviously does suit some people as they do it and obviously if they have 100 out all over the place its less they have on their property but its not something that I would consider - I just see my dogs and feel about my dogs differently and I dont think that Im alone in that.I love them and want them to be with me all the time.

Please accept my apology if you took anything I said as any form of disrespect for you.

[Steve]

I know I believe nobody should be able to sell an unvaccinated, unchipped, underaged puppy (regardless of breed) ... BUT... there has to be someone to report the seller too.

Otherwise why make or say its illegal?

Would I be correct in suspecting the only 'breeder' that could be reprimanded as it currently stands is a registered ankc breeder?

The RSPCA and AWL are charged with policing the NSW companion animals act and the Prevention of cruelty to animals act .Vaccinating and chipping and underage are all covered in that. So that's a good place to start to report them or you can report them to the council.

[WreckitWhippet]

I know I believe nobody should be able to sell an unvaccinated, unchipped, underaged puppy (regardless of breed) ... BUT... there has to be someone to report the seller too.

Otherwise why make or say its illegal?

Would I be correct in suspecting the only 'breeder' that could be reprimanded as it currently stands is a registered ankc breeder?

The RSPCA and AWL are charged with policing the NSW companion animals act and the Prevention of cruelty to animals act .Vaccinating and chipping and underage are all covered in that. So that's a good place to start to report them or you can report them to the council.

That's all well and good but no one wants to police it and we've come full circle again and back the Governments solution of additional legislation.

[angelsun]

There are valid points for putting dogs out in loving homes on contracts. Not all are bad situations or with dodgy owners. I kept about four or five dogs in my home, and yet owned or co owned as many or more, living elsewhere. These arrangements were done with honesty and fairness for BOTH sides, unlike many breeders who demand a lot of their outside homes and ask the care givers to give up a lot for the sake of a litter. Very one sided and makes a very bad name for breeders because naturally we only hear the horror stories, not the many many successes that happen out there.

Housing dogs is always an arguement. Many simply feel that any sort of segregation be it crates inside or kennel runs outside is not acceptable. I believe it depends on the breed firstly. There are plenty of dogs that handle being outside in large yards and in groups quite well without mental breakdown from either dog or human.

I feel that just because some unknown face makes a rule and states a set size of acceptable housing, doesn't mean they are right. Many don't own dogs, never have and never will. In the same vein, just because the rule is there, doesn't mean people follow it either. (on the positive or the negative side) because we know that many farming dogs are tucked away and hidden, doing business and providing the pet stores with stock.

I was taught many years ago, that you don't HAVE to have a houseful of dogs to be successful with a breeding program. Primarily because we need to sit back and really think about what that word means to us. What level of success do you want? How can you get it? Why do you want it? (that's the key one with me)

If you boil things down and are willing to rehome retired breeding dogs, you can find a happy number that can be housed comfortably for all concerned. (and abide by the ever growing council restrictions)

Often we believe that more is better. In breeding, I don't think that's correct. Sure, we may not progress as quickly as someone with twice the dogs...but it isn't a race, it's a goal. (read tortoise and the hare)

If we always keep focused on the goal, and not how long it might take, we will find that the need for tens and tens of dogs becomes unneeded. We see things clearer and do not breed because we 'want to give this pair a go'. We have limited resources and tend to take more time and thought before committing to the mating. In many cases, the results are far better.

I have two bitches and a dog. The two girls have different lines, the dog is my breeding with some common threads between the girls. I have two males frozen. If I can't use my head, breed with thought for the future, then I shouldn't be breeding. It's not a race to get to the end first....in fact I don't know if I EVER will get to the end....but I will enjoy the journey, keeping peace in the home and handling my dogs with care.

[WreckitWhippet]

So now we come back to let's put restrictions on numbers ?