Hows This For A Puppy Farm

[disintegratus]

To be fair, it looks a whole lot better than anything I have seen or imagined as a "puppy farm" and I must admit that if I was in QLD I'd certainly look into it, if it was viable I'd buy it and run as a rescue (first of all rehoming all the poor breeders there.)

The other thing that must be taken into account is that of course the house doesn't look lived in, it's on the market. Last time we leased out our house we moved half our stuff out of it because it looked "cluttered" (read: like people live in it) it was horrible to live like that for a few weeks, but we got a higher rental price than we would have otherwise.

It's also entirely possible they just laid fresh turf in the yards for the sale to make it look more saleable.

On a side note, under the new laws, would it be possible to build a "facility" adhering to council regs, then modify it so people could live there as well? Two birds, one stone :p

[Little Gifts]

I'm looking at this differently. I would LOVE to have the money to buy this place and the dogs and do the right thing by the poor animals. I'd also use the inside information obtained from the current owner to make an impact against puppy farming to the businesses currently buying from this place. Not sure how I would do it exactly but maybe a media story, opening up the place to public scrutiny. Then if the property truly was suitable I'd love to run it as some kind of overflow shelter so more dogs could be saved and cared for while they did quarantine or foster carers were sorted out. I certainly wouldn't want dogs living there until a home turned up but it could be a useful transitionary environment that could be used by multiple rescues. Anyway that's my dream idea if I ever win lotto and could offer that service free of charge (or for minimal charge) to rescue groups.

When I look at that house and what the lady in the pics is wearing I'd say there are employees living on site in that house and not the owners. Few adults/couples sleep in single beds but employees/caretakers might not be given the same luxuries. That's truly the kind of inside info that could be obtained and shared. Those owners look rather pleased to share their success with the world but how they are going about it might not be such a pretty story. Imagine only a couple of people living there and 'caring' (using the term very loosely) for 80 dogs. And what about when the mums start giving birth? I bet no-one is sitting with them monitoring things.

The very best thing that could happen is that anyone other than another puppy farmer bought this property.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Little Gifts

[Andisa]

Yes - how good would it be to get the pet shop client lists....considering they say they don't buy their "stock" from puppy farms..

Edited May 18, 2013 by Andisa

[mita]

The tragedy is that these places are within the law, as it currently stands. Incidentally, another sentence stood out:

Currently holding 80 breeders and sires with council approval and infrastructure to expand to 150

No matter how 'clean' places like this are ... & how much 'physical' care is given ... they are puppy farms, breeding dogs for sale as companion dogs, as if they were livestock.

The socialisation needs of puppies .... & of the parent dogs.... cannot be met with this large-scale 'livestock' farming of dogs. And under-socialised puppies develop with higher risk of aggression & timidity problems because of fear & anxiety around the unfamiliar.

Closer ties with humans & their lifestyles are needed for socialisation. Which is why dogs do better in more homestyle breeding/raising/managing settings. The Australian Veterinary Association, in their paper on dog aggression, points to research that dogs are far less likely to show problems like biting when they come from 'homestyle' places. And it's not only necessary for the puppies to be well socialised by people in the critical early weeks of life... but the degree of domestication of the mother dog is also associated with sound development.

These 'puppy farms' of such size do not & can not provide those conditions. So they produce puppies less likely to develop into sound companion dogs. Neglect of socialisation should be regarded the same as neglect of physical care, under the law.

Edited May 18, 2013 by mita

[felix]

Indeed. And that's not even the worst of it all.

The worst is that this is being pushed as a role model that all dog breeders should follow. That is scary.

[mita]

Indeed. And that's not even the worst of it all.

The worst is that this is being pushed as a role model that all dog breeders should follow. That is scary.

You're right, felix. Both the proposed frameworks for dog breeding in New South Wales & Victoria, either ignore socialisation or get it wrong. Yet, there's clear research on the matter & its importance for producing sound companion dogs. It's not obscure rocket science.

It seems that a 'business' model is being supported where large-scale commercial puppy farms are the only financially viable way of doing things.

But this is not only failing the welfare of dogs.... it's pushing puppies out into the community who lack the foundation for being well socialised companion dogs.

RSPCA Qld said years ago, following their many experiences with rescuing dogs from puppy farms.... the hardest thing to 'heal' was the 'scarring' from being unsocialised. Many cases it's impossible.

Edited May 18, 2013 by mita

[Rosetta]

Indeed. And that's not even the worst of it all.

The worst is that this is being pushed as a role model that all dog breeders should follow. That is scary.

You're right, felix. Both the proposed frameworks for dog breeding in New South Wales & Victoria, either ignore socialisation or get it wrong. Yet, there's clear research on the matter & its importance for producing sound companion dogs. It's not obscure rocket science.

It seems that a 'business' model is being supported where large-scale commercial puppy farms are the only financially viable way of doing things.

But this is not only failing the welfare of dogs.... it's pushing puppies out into the community who lack the foundation for being well socialised companion dogs.

RSPCA Qld said years ago, following their many experiences with rescuing dogs from puppy farms.... the hardest thing to 'heal' was the 'scarring' from being unsocialised. Many cases it's impossible.

Yes and when they fail they are killed. Still the cycle continues regardless.

[Tralee]

If anyone takes the time to make more that a precursory look, the facilities are barely adequate for the size of the operation.

They fall way sort of being 'state of the art' facilities, irrespective of the State (Q) they are in.

Out of the NSW regulations for breeding cats and dogs:

6.1.2.2 All facilities should have an adequate water supply and should be sewered or on a septic system, in accordance with the requirements of the local government authority, the relevant government department or other authorities; or have some other adequate and acceptable method for disposal of faeces and other liquid wastes.

[Pollywaffle]

this just reflects everything bad about our greedy, consumer driven society..makes me so angry.

[Steve]

Well if you are going to talk about the property in difference to their morality for breeding the numbers they do in the big scheme of things it looks like a pretty good place to me to be housing breeding dogs and rearing puppies. It beats the hell out of factory type situations which many breeders and rescue keep their dogs in.

Clearly not all of the place is photographed - no whelping rooms,where are the 80 dogs etc and to assess from these photos that they dont have enough facilities, that they dont have a water supply or sewer ,that they have no way of getting rid of their wastes ,that they dont socialise their puppies well enough etc are assumptions.

This is Queensland and not NSW Tralee. There are water tanks and there has to be a sewerage system or they wouldn't have the buildings , there is natural water and a dam, probably dont have town water but thats not a requirement in any state they have council approval and the place is clean and well maintained. They could have numerous methods of dealing with wastes which is council approved and must have considering they have council approval to do what they do . All high and dry if there is a flood and easy to clean. It would take more work and more staff to operate as there is more walking than there is when they are all stacked on top of each other in a kennel block .

None of us like the idea that someone should own 80 breeding dogs but clearly the powers that be dont see it that way and in every state there is legislation which is either in place or on the table to give them a bigger tick at law and making it easier for these massive enterprises to continue than it is for someone who breeds a couple of litters a year.

There isnt a chance in hell that this will be stopped - its seen as a legitimate business activity and after some of the places Ive been in where breeders own less than this Id rather see this type of set up with puppies running on grass with no stench and acting like dogs than any Ive seen based on what I can see in the photos.

[Pjrt]

Well if you are going to talk about the property in difference to their morality for breeding the numbers they do in the big scheme of things it looks like a pretty good place to me to be housing breeding dogs and rearing puppies. It beats the hell out of factory type situations which many breeders and rescue keep their dogs in.

Clearly not all of the place is photographed - no whelping rooms,where are the 80 dogs etc and to assess from these photos that they dont have enough facilities, that they dont have a water supply or sewer ,that they have no way of getting rid of their wastes ,that they dont socialise their puppies well enough etc are assumptions.

This is Queensland and not NSW Tralee. There are water tanks and there has to be a sewerage system or they wouldn't have the buildings , there is natural water and a dam, probably dont have town water but thats not a requirement in any state they have council approval and the place is clean and well maintained. They could have numerous methods of dealing with wastes which is council approved and must have considering they have council approval to do what they do . All high and dry if there is a flood and easy to clean. It would take more work and more staff to operate as there is more walking than there is when they are all stacked on top of each other in a kennel block .

None of us like the idea that someone should own 80 breeding dogs but clearly the powers that be dont see it that way and in every state there is legislation which is either in place or on the table to give them a bigger tick at law and making it easier for these massive enterprises to continue than it is for someone who breeds a couple of litters a year.

There isnt a chance in hell that this will be stopped - its seen as a legitimate business activity and after some of the places Ive been in where breeders own less than this Id rather see this type of set up with puppies running on grass with no stench and acting like dogs than any Ive seen based on what I can see in the photos.

In an ideal world I'd rather see neither, but i'm pretty sure the hounds from hound hell would have thought this place was heaven, eh!

[Jed]

Totally wrong way to raise puppies --- or keep bitches. Poor little souls Dogs are not agricultural animals, and those raised as such suffer.

The laws should be changed, but as the politicians have nfi and are being advised by animal rights, any changes will disadvantage registered breeders. They seems unable to make legislation against this type of hell.

The main reason owners dump adolescent dogs is because they are difficult to train and difficult to live with. If pups have little socialisation until 8 weeks, they are going to develop these problems and be dumped.

Ths is just so wrong on so many levels.

Steve

after some of the places Ive been in where breeders own less than this Id rather see this type of set up with puppies running on grass with no stench and acting like dogs than any Ive seen based on what I can see in the photos.

That makes neither the places you have seen nor this place correct. We all need to lift our standards so we can see that this is wrong

And he would be selling to various Pets Purgatory stores, and the large puppy barns (forgotten their names) which advertise in the Courier Mail .... one at Everton Park, one at Stafford, one at Underwood.

[hilaryo]

Totally wrong way to raise puppies --- or keep bitches. Poor little souls Dogs are not agricultural animals, and those raised as such suffer.

The laws should be changed, but as the politicians have nfi and are being advised by animal rights, any changes will disadvantage registered breeders. They seems unable to make legislation against this type of hell.

The main reason owners dump adolescent dogs is because they are difficult to train and difficult to live with. If pups have little socialisation until 8 weeks, they are going to develop these problems and be dumped.

Ths is just so wrong on so many levels.

Steve

after some of the places Ive been in where breeders own less than this Id rather see this type of set up with puppies running on grass with no stench and acting like dogs than any Ive seen based on what I can see in the photos.

Totally agree Jed!

That makes neither the places you have seen nor this place correct. We all need to lift our standards so we can see that this is wrong

And he would be selling to various Pets Purgatory stores, and the large puppy barns (forgotten their names) which advertise in the Courier Mail .... one at Everton Park, one at Stafford, one at Underwood.

Totally agree Jed!

Edited May 19, 2013 by hilaryo

[puddles]

And the RSPCA are onto no kill shelters and not these puppy farmers? Same on RSPCA

[Rosetta]

Totally wrong way to raise puppies --- or keep bitches. Poor little souls Dogs are not agricultural animals, and those raised as such suffer.

The laws should be changed, but as the politicians have nfi and are being advised by animal rights, any changes will disadvantage registered breeders. They seems unable to make legislation against this type of hell.

The main reason owners dump adolescent dogs is because they are difficult to train and difficult to live with. If pups have little socialisation until 8 weeks, they are going to develop these problems and be dumped.

Ths is just so wrong on so many levels.

Steve

after some of the places Ive been in where breeders own less than this Id rather see this type of set up with puppies running on grass with no stench and acting like dogs than any Ive seen based on what I can see in the photos.

That makes neither the places you have seen nor this place correct. We all need to lift our standards so we can see that this is wrong

And he would be selling to various Pets Purgatory stores, and the large puppy barns (forgotten their names) which advertise in the Courier Mail .... one at Everton Park, one at Stafford, one at Underwood.

I have been to the one at Underwood some time back. Puppies were 6 weeks of age. Place owned by a vet. When I asked a staff member if the vet had a practice he replied "no, this is his business". He said the vet travelled around to "their breeders" to make sure the pups did not come from puppy farms. Huh!

What is sad is that all those little dogs are essentially companion breeds - so particularly bred for human contact

[Pailin]

And the RSPCA are onto no kill shelters and not these puppy farmers? Same on RSPCA

My first thought on seeing these pictures was Puppy farm, EWWW! My second thought was- The facilities look 100% better than the Moorook pictures....

[mita]

Well if you are going to talk about the property in difference to their morality for breeding the numbers they do in the big scheme of things it looks like a pretty good place to me to be housing breeding dogs and rearing puppies. It beats the hell out of factory type situations which many breeders and rescue keep their dogs in.

Clearly not all of the place is photographed - no whelping rooms,where are the 80 dogs etc and to assess from these photos that they dont have enough facilities, that they dont have a water supply or sewer ,that they have no way of getting rid of their wastes ,that they dont socialise their puppies well enough etc are assumptions.

There's evidence, not assumptions, that commercial places which supply petshops, do not tend to socialise their puppies well. The evidence that such puppies are less well socialised is quoted in the AVA paper I referred to.

And how many times do I have to point out there's also research showing that the puppies' socialisation is linked with the degree of same of the mother dog. Amazingly, the paper demonstrating that research is quoted among the References in the Victorian Draft document. But, equally amazingly, whoever wrote the paper doesn't appear to have read it.... or understood it.

The evidence points clearly to the fact that neglect of socialisation is equally a welfare problem as neglect of physical care & surrounds. Which means that even if physical care & surroundings are in order.... but socialisation is not .... then those 'farms' are releasing puppies of higher risk into the community.

And, again, the evidence is clear that puppies bred & raised in more 'homestyle' settings tend to be better socialised & hence tend to have less problems (AVA paper quoted that). Think about what a 'homestyle' setting would be.... & there's no comparison with a 'farm' that runs 80 dogs (could be 150). You wouldn't have to look far for examples of such settings. Research at UQ found that registered breeders (who are largely hobby, not commercial breeders) tend to do socialisation well.

Seems we have 'farmed-style' bred/raised puppies & 'home-style' bred/raised puppies. And evidence from studies points to the latter as tending to develop into better socialised companion dogs.

Edited May 19, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

Yes Mita Im aware of all of that but that's exactly what I mean when I say there is two separate issues - one is the facility the other is the fact that they breed large scale for profit.Do they ensure their puppies are highly socilaised so they arent the same as their peers who breed dogs in factory like conditions,who dont socialise them ? No idea but nor does anyone else . Just as Ive no doubt that there are some small breeders who don't socialise their puppies efffectively Im sure there must at least one large scale breeder who might. This set up is more conducive to socialisation than being locked in small stalls until they are due to go off to a pet shop.

Given that we cant and wont ever stop large scale commercial breeding of dogs and that we cant expect that someone will keep 80 plus adult dogs and their litters in their loungerooms then in my opinion this is a better situation for the dogs to be living in over and above concrete cells. The concept that we can completely shut down an entire industry which has a tick from all state governments and the ATO is crazy whether we like it or not.

[mita]

Yes Mita Im aware of all of that but that's exactly what I mean when I say there is two separate issues - one is the facility the other is the fact that they breed large scale for profit.Do they ensure their puppies are highly socilaised so they arent the same as their peers who breed dogs in factory like conditions,who dont socialise them ?

You may be 'aware of all that'.... but you don't grasp it.

You need to think about what socialisation entails. What is enabled in home-style settings, allows for it (the evidence is in), but those factors are not present in large-scale commercial settings to allow for it (the evidence is in).

I follow the evidence. End of story.

Except for consumer action. The pet buying public needs to be made aware of the evidence.... which isn't rocket science. And vote with their feet. It's as much a consumer issue as a welfare problem

Presently, the large scale commercial puppy farms are seen as 'all business is good'.... & some state governments' legislation is working on that financial benefits model.

But, amazingly, at the same time, they're wrestling with the high costs associated with the dumping of dogs in pounds/shelters .... as well as trying to make the community safer from dog bites/attacks.

It needs to be pointed out to them that they can save in both areas, if they track back to associated causes.

Again, the evidence is in....lack of socialisation of puppies is associated with later dog 'problems' that lead to dumping. So, down the track, any 'business' financial benefits from 'farming' dogs gets translated into local government & community costs.

Edited May 19, 2013 by mita

[Little Gifts]

Either way I'd prefer to leave the breeding to good registered breeders myself as there are enough mixed (and purebred) dogs out there already facing death if they can't find a home. For me it is simply a matter of over supply whether they come from a BYB or PF. Accidental litters should totally be a non-event - either be a responsible owner and do what is necessary to avoid impregnation or get your pet desexed.

If you went to the dump and saw thousands of handbags being turned into landfill because no-one wanted them there are people who would be horrified by the waste. If the same happened with prescription glasses someone would be shouting out for them to be sent to third world countries in need. Yet we still live in a society where it is ok to kill surplus healthy living creatures? Not ok with me that possessions have more value than living companion animals.

On a side note, I just sold a couple of dog kennels for Peiradise. The first person proudly told me he had a puppy Beaglier while the other had two Moodles. They probably paid quite handsomely for their bitsas too!