Is There An Answer?

[WreckitWhippet]

Assumption one: the dogs are kennelled because there are too many to be kept as house dogs or under similar conditions to the average pet dog?

Something which doesn't fit us, for example. We have athletic breeds and we live rurally and we both work full time.

It is safer for the dogs and surrounding livestock if they are kennelled while we are at work rather than been cooped up inside where they can't toilet or running loose getting into trouble. When we are home, they have freedom to wander around the fenced house paddock which would be somewhere between 2-3 acres or to plop themselves on the couches. They are probably kennelled about 35-40 hours a week and never overnight.

The tricky thing is that breeds vary, circumstances vary, and what is being created with the NSW proposals is a once size fits all approach that just fits the large dog farmers. While I agree with WIW that they'd be better off just enforcing the laws they have, I know that is neither cheap nor an easy announceable - unlike passing yet more legislation. So I think what needs fixing in the proposals is the requirement to kennel dogs just because you breed. Perhaps they need two standards - one for home rearing and one for kennel rearing and you declare when being "licensed" which you are.

I really like that thought, although I suspect that any "home rearing" proposal would come with a very strict and limited number of dogs you could own and litters you could breed.

[Steve]

Assumption one: the dogs are kennelled because there are too many to be kept as house dogs or under similar conditions to the average pet dog?

Based on the above assumption - why is it necessary to have 'too many' dogs?

For argument sake, let's say that 'too many' for large to medium breeds = 6+; and small breeds 8+

Why is it necessary is open to debate but reality is some people have many more than that and sometimes I think that's justified - sometimes I don't. Some of the best breeders of purebred dogs in history owned many more than 6 to 8 very few chi breeders would only own 8 but in the real world there are breeders who own too many dogs to be able to have free run of the place as every day pet dogs but there are also breeders who only own a few which could be kept in a back yard as pet dogs which have to house their 6 or 8 in conditions they would prefer they didnt.

Most commercial breeders Ive spoken to have told me they would prefer to use their acreages as simulated back yards rather than have to construct traditional kennel buildings. Though what do they do with 25 or so plus litters at one time - cant see them being housed in simulated back yards while they whelp ??????

You didn't answer the question though. Why is it necessary to have 'too many' dogs. What is the benefit?

If the dogs are being kept kennelled because there are 'too many' dogs to keep any other way, what is the justification for having 'too many' dogs. If there is no relevant justification then limiting the number of dogs is part way to resolving the issue isn't it?

No government agency is ever going to limit numbers - breeding dogs for profit is seen as a legitimate business and is recognised by the ATO .The answer is always going to be introducing more laws and more regs to control what can and cant be done - but the problem is there is no distinction within these laws and regs which determines the difference between someone who has 2 dogs and someone who has 100 dogs.

Answering why do they need or want 'too many ' is impossible due to the variables and at the end of the day you may be able to restrict too many on some properties but you will never be able to stop anyone having 'too many' to be able to live as pets especially when its not the breeder who gets to determine how many is 'too many' to live that way. Your assumption that this is necessary if the breeder has too many isnt the case its what is required for breeding dogs regardless of if there is too many for them to be treated and live like pets or not.

[Steve]

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?

I just wouldn't keep a large volume of dogs in a kennel because I don't think it is good for them. They aren't cows. So I would prefer to see this practice stopped rather then finding ways to make it ok.

Yes but it clearly isn't going to stop. Large scale commercial kennels are becoming more common rather than less and small hobby breeders are being made to keep even what I consider relatively small numbers like this when they prefer not to.

The facts are that if you breed a dog on your property you are seen to be operating a business from home - same with rescue by the way - even one rescue dog and its the same thing and it has no consequence whether you are after a profit. That means a DA is required to get approval to breed dogs on your property and this plus the companion animals act and prevention of cruelty to animals acts will be taken into account if we have to be licensed. In NSW in at least some council areas - its an inability to house more than 2 dogs within 15 metres of a dwelling as well.

We have seen recently breeders who have only a few dogs who have an exemption for a permit in Victoria who still have to have money spent on kenneling, quarantining and whelping areas.

One in Queensland had 8 dogs on 100 acres and has had them living in her home and sleeping on the bed - whelping them in the laundry for over 10 years.She is told when she applied for a licence to breed that she had to have 35000 worth of kennels built in order to breed them.

Nowhere in any codes does it say you get out of it if you only have one dog - same applies to everyone.

This has already been discussed at length. I was under the impression this was a different topic. And you said all views were welcome. Incorrect obviously. Keep this up and soon you are going to to talking to yourself.

The intent of the topic was to try and find ways to have alternatives for housing dogs in concreted kennel blocks - it wasnt to try to find ways to make it O.K. or to re enforce why it should be stopped but hopefully very different. I understand now that when I said all comments welcome it wasn't expected I would discuss the comments. Your view happens to be my view but that doesn't help to find a solution at all because they are still going to need ways to house dogs. They are still going to have small breeders regulated the same as large breeders.

[mita]

The tricky thing is that breeds vary, circumstances vary, and what is being created with the NSW proposals is a once size fits all approach that just fits the large dog farmers.

Large dog farmers should be under scrutiny, not people on a small scale who often use a combination of kenneled environments, fenced property runs and the house & its surroundings. These smaller scale people are less likely to keep their dogs in a kennel setting for the majority of their time. Your example of how you use kenneling is in a minority of your dogs' time.

The big problem is that large scale dog breeding is not suitable for producing or keeping companion dogs. It's a fraudulent business, if puppies (or mature dogs) are sold to be pets from places that operate in this way.

Frankly, it's as much a consumer issue as it is a welfare issue. And it's not 'touchy-feely' stuff, it's a matter of neurological development.

I'd like to see consumer pressure question those large scale operations & head in the direction of dogs/puppies raised in ways that promote socialisation in its full context.

Trying to fit dog breeding 'rules' in with large scale breeding, which shouldn't exist, is transferring problems onto those who breed in ways that should exist.

The starting point should be a set of reasonable criteria for keeping & raising dogs. And so long as a breeder can tick off that his/her situation allows for them (& be available for checking by the authorities).... then all is fine.

Edited April 7, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

The starting point should be a set of reasonable criteria for keeping & raising dogs. And so long as a breeder can tick off that his/her situation allows for them (& be available for checking by the authorities).... then all is fine.

[mita]

But, Steve, those bloody large scale commercial operations would find it impossible to tick off the criteria I'd set out. So would the minority of breeders with maybe lesser numbers of dogs, but who've lost the plot... or never found it.

Frankly, I'd bet that the majority of registered breeders would do fine .... operating the way they already are.

SSM's example shows how one breeder manages her dogs for their best interest in her situation & with her breed.

As she pointed out .... it shouldn't be a case of one size fits all. It's how a breeder sorts things so that essential criteria for care can be ticked off. And people might differ ... like WH suggesting another option of outsourcing to 'pet type' homes.

Edited April 7, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

But, Steve, those bloody large scale commercial operations would find it impossible to tick off the criteria I'd set out. So would the minority of breeders with maybe lesser numbers of dogs, but who've lost the plot... or never found it.

Frankly, I'd bet that the majority of registered breeders would do fine .... operating the way they already are.

SSM's example shows how one breeder manages her dogs for their best interest in her situation & with her breed.

As she pointed out .... it shouldn't be a case of one size fits all. It's how a breeder sorts things so that essential criteria for care can be ticked off. And people might differ ... like WH suggesting another option of outsourcing to 'pet type' homes.

Yep agreed but this week Ive spoken with a couple of large scale commercial breeders - one of the biggest in the country breeding purebred as well as cross bred dogs and is telling me that given the chance they could also tick all the boxes.She is in Victoria and is fully licensed and inspected and has little choices if she wants to keep as many dogs as she does

In her case why does she have too many to keep as pets - because she breeds dogs solely for money

Im not saying I believe her but it does make you think and thats a lot of dogs not getting any real quality of life and all the humans who observe it knowing it but still passing it because it fits the legal requirements is a major concern.

[mita]

agreed but this week Ive spoken with a couple of large scale commercial breeders - one of the biggest in the country breeding purebred as well as cross bred dogs and is telling me that given the chance they could also tick all the boxes.

I'lll guarantee they would not be able to tick the boxes in the criteria that I'd set out, for how companion dogs need to be kept, bred & raised. And the items would not be my opinion ... they'd be based on evidence from studies.

[Steve]

agreed but this week Ive spoken with a couple of large scale commercial breeders - one of the biggest in the country breeding purebred as well as cross bred dogs and is telling me that given the chance they could also tick all the boxes.

I'lll guarantee they would not be able to tick the boxes in the criteria that I'd set out, for how companion dogs need to be kept, bred & raised. And the items would not be my opinion ... they'd be based on evidence from studies.

Ill send you a link to look at

[~Anne~]

Assumption one: the dogs are kennelled because there are too many to be kept as house dogs or under similar conditions to the average pet dog?

Based on the above assumption - why is it necessary to have 'too many' dogs?

For argument sake, let's say that 'too many' for large to medium breeds = 6+; and small breeds 8+

Why is it necessary is open to debate but reality is some people have many more than that and sometimes I think that's justified - sometimes I don't. Some of the best breeders of purebred dogs in history owned many more than 6 to 8 very few chi breeders would only own 8 but in the real world there are breeders who own too many dogs to be able to have free run of the place as every day pet dogs but there are also breeders who only own a few which could be kept in a back yard as pet dogs which have to house their 6 or 8 in conditions they would prefer they didnt.

Most commercial breeders Ive spoken to have told me they would prefer to use their acreages as simulated back yards rather than have to construct traditional kennel buildings. Though what do they do with 25 or so plus litters at one time - cant see them being housed in simulated back yards while they whelp ??????

You didn't answer the question though. Why is it necessary to have 'too many' dogs. What is the benefit?

If the dogs are being kept kennelled because there are 'too many' dogs to keep any other way, what is the justification for having 'too many' dogs. If there is no relevant justification then limiting the number of dogs is part way to resolving the issue isn't it?

No government agency is ever going to limit numbers - breeding dogs for profit is seen as a legitimate business and is recognised by the ATO .The answer is always going to be introducing more laws and more regs to control what can and cant be done - but the problem is there is no distinction within these laws and regs which determines the difference between someone who has 2 dogs and someone who has 100 dogs.

Answering why do they need or want 'too many ' is impossible due to the variables and at the end of the day you may be able to restrict too many on some properties but you will never be able to stop anyone having 'too many' to be able to live as pets especially when its not the breeder who gets to determine how many is 'too many' to live that way. Your assumption that this is necessary if the breeder has too many isnt the case its what is required for breeding dogs regardless of if there is too many for them to be treated and live like pets or not.

Correct me if I am wrong.

You're saying that the taxation system in this country recognises that commercial breeding of canines is acceptable and this will not change and therefore you are asking what is acceptable housing for dogs being farmed?

In my view nothing is acceptable because I don't accept canines as being animals that should be farmed. If 'breeders' are farming, they're not breeders they're farmers.

Farming animals for food to sustain life is one thing. Farming animals purely for pleasure of humans is another.

So, we have two different subjects in my view. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Farming and breeding purebred dogs to me is like apples and oranges.

Edited April 7, 2013 by ~Anne~

[Crisovar]

I don't think dogs should live in kennels. If I wanted to breed and had to keep them in kennels to do so, I just wouldn't go ahead with it.

I'm curious, Can you define what you mean by "live in kennels".

SSM described her situation which is a very common one for multiple dog households. IMO dogs in this situation do not live in kennels.

Some single dog families have a dog that lives its life locked in a backyard while its humans rarely venture out there, or spend entire days crated, or locked in a bathroom or laundry. But to many this is acceptable.

For many people and this includes Breeders there is a necessity to be able to secure or isolate a dog or multiple dogs at times. A secure kennel run or building is often the most viable solution. I certainly could not imagine not having secure facilities available if they are needed.

A secure kennel run is IMO preferable to leaving an animal locked in a room or crate. Kennel runs/complexes do not need to be ammonia ridden prison cells.

They can be secure but airy, comfortable pleasant places for dogs to spend some time. Have such facilities does not necessarily equate to the animals living in them 24/7.

[~Anne~]

Cute. :laugh: c'mon, you know I understand that there are breeders who are more farmers than breeders.

Why don't we call it farming then? Why confuse commercial farming and breeding to produce a dog that meets a set specific criteria?

Why not clarify in your first post you are talking about farming (as opposed to breeding as we consider it to be here on this purebred dog forum).

In my view, and these are long held views, breeders do not need to own excessive numbers. I recognise the difficulties - attachment means you are hesitant to move them on, peer and public views consider you cold or cruel if you do, but all that aside I am not sure there are any valid reasons for breeders to have large numbers of dogs.

Edited to add:

:confused: what happened to your post Steve?

Edited April 7, 2013 by ~Anne~

[Steve]

Cute. :laugh: c'mon, you know I understand that there are breeders who are more farmers than breeders.

Why don't we call it farming then? Why confuse commercial farming and breeding to produce a dog that meets a set specific criteria?

Why not clarify in your first post you are talking about farming (as opposed to breeding as we consider it to be here on this purebred dog forum).

In my view, and these are long held views, breeders do not need to own excessive numbers. I recognise the difficulties - attachment means you are hesitant to move them on, peer and public views consider you cold or cruel if you do, but all that aside I am not sure there are any valid reasons for breeders to have large numbers of dogs.

Edited to add:

:confused: what happened to your post Steve?

You miss the point - as a consequence this has to be about those who breed commercially or who "farm" but many breeders who are not farmers who simply want to breed dogs. This isn't about puppy farmers it about how dogs used for breeding - any dogs in any numbers are expected to be housed via regs and codes and laws.

Lets try it this way. lets say a breeder has say 10 medium breed dogs and she has had this many for a long time and breeds them . One day the RSPCA and council turn up and tell her she has to have kennels - Is there a way she can do this without it costing a heap and laying down concrete etc.

lets say Im a breeder who wants to comply with potential new laws which are on the table in order to be able to qualify for a licence to breed. Is the only answer lots of money and kennels which I dont believe I need because I dont have "too many"

Ive no need to clarify Im talking about farming because Im not. The fact that farmers have to keep their dogs this way however is part of it as at law /codes etc there is no distinction between them and us. Im talking about any housing which is required to kennel dogs which traditionally isnt in my opinion that good that we dont need to brain storm a bit and see if we can come up with something different.

[mita]

SSM described her situation which is a very common one for multiple dog households. IMO dogs in this situation do not live in kennels.

Agree. I even worked out the proportion of hours she said her dogs were actually in their kennels. It's a minority of their time.

I thought her example illustrated how many of the registered breeders combine the use of kennels, yards for open running & play, and the house itself. Fine ... as it covers well the aspects of a companion dog's life & is in line with a breed's needs.

Edited April 7, 2013 by mita

[Jed]

Those who are interested may want to get a legal opinion from solicitors who deal in civil matters, because AFAIK, this has not been tested in court. Permission to build a dwelling on a residential block carries implicit permission to keep pets.

No one needs a permit. Councils decided they wanted people to obtain permits.

That is the way I would be going if I had a problem.

[mixeduppup]

Not saying I agree with farming at all but I've been to a few farms/large scale breeding operations before and one I went to was really really well run. The dogs (at least 100) were all happy and social, the premises were clean and well kept, the kennels were large and well kept. Everyone was vaccinated, flea treated, wormed and exercised daily. This particular farm had employees give stimulation and socialisation to dogs on a daily basis. I was in awe that somewhere with so many dogs could be so clean, happy and well kept. It was amazing that there was hardly any smell and all the dogs were clean. But sadly this is not the norm and the majority are horrible places.

[~Anne~]

Sorry for going off track.. I *think* I am getting what the crux of the discussion is meant to be about.

Are you seeking discussion on what the actual physical environment should be in kennels and the conditions the animals should exist under when they are kept in kennels for breeding purposes?

Ive just read another thread discussion so I I think I can see where this sprang from. We're talking grass vs concrete vs any other material types that may suit the purpose and socialisation etc - is that more on the mark?

[Steve]

Sorry for going off track.. I *think* I am getting what the crux of the discussion is meant to be about.

Are you seeking discussion on what the actual physical environment should be in kennels and the conditions the animals should exist under when they are kept in kennels for breeding purposes?

Ive just read another thread discussion so I I think I can see where this sprang from. We're talking grass vs concrete vs any other material types that may suit the purpose and socialisation etc - is that more on the mark?

Yes - there has been several instances over the past months where small hobby breeders have been made to comply with directions given to them to erect kennels and have them fitted with concrete flooring and there are new laws on the table which may not ever eventuate but it has bought the issue into focus. If they pass it means all people who ever want to have a litter of puppies have to pass inspection of their premises first. Laws and codes dont discriminate and small breeders have to comply with the same codes and regs as any large scale breeder.

To date these conditions have been set as if we are housing dogs in a boarding kennel or shelter where they only stay temporarily but breeders dont have the same set of issues to deal with and they don't have the same risk factors re disease management etc.

either.

[LizT]

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.

This is done more often than you think. I know of many breeders who have left an option open for an undesexed bitch in a Pet home to come back and have a litter if the new owner wishes. Some even show dogs that live full time in family homes, in my opinion there isn't much difference between a well cared for house dog and a Show dog. At least I believe there shouldn't be. :)

[Rosetta]

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.

This is done more often than you think. I know of many breeders who have left an option open for an undesexed bitch in a Pet home to come back and have a litter if the new owner wishes. Some even show dogs that live full time in family homes, in my opinion there isn't much difference between a well cared for house dog and a Show dog. At least I believe there shouldn't be. :)

I am curious as to why a pet owner would agree to keep a dog under these conditions - is it very common? On the surface it would appear that it only benefits the breeder - what benefit to the pet owner. Unless they are getting the dog for free and the breeder is picking up all vet expenses etc its hard to understand why anyone would do it?