Puppy Farms

[mornaw]

News at this link

http://www.smh.com.au/queensland/labor-announces-puppy-farm-crackdown-20141214-126u7x.html

[Boronia]

Here it is here on 7News if you aren't a link-clicker

AAP

December 14, 2014, 2:16 pm

Qld Labor announces puppy farm crack down

Queensland's illegal puppy farms will be stamped out under tougher registration requirements, the opposition says.

The Labor party says it will introduce legislation for a mandated registration plan for breeders who own more than 20 dogs.

Owners would be charged a $30 fee and breeding farms would be monitored to ensure standards were met.

The RSPCA estimates there were at least 100 illegal puppy farms operating across Queensland, Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk said.

"In the lead up to Christmas, we want Queensland residents and families to know that you should be looking at registered breeders," she told reporters at the Dogs Queensland Showground, in Brisbane's west.

"What we have seen over the last few years is a heightened trade in illegal puppy farms.

"Labor will end this cruel practice."

Dog lovers were often caught up in the trade without realising their new pet could come with a raft of medical issues, the RSPCA Queensland's Mandy Paterson said.

"They don't get any veterinary care or any general care," she said.

"They're usually riddled with worms and fleas. They often have eye and ear infections."

A crackdown on puppy farms in Victoria could see illegal breeders pushed into Queensland, she said.

"We will need to control them up here."

Potential buyers should look out for warning signs, including if the owners asked to meet them outside their own property or denied access to the mother, Ms Paterson said.

The main purpose of Labor's scheme was traceability, Stafford MP Anthony Lynham said.

Breeders would be charged the $30 when they registered through organisations like Dogs Queensland or local councils.

"It's not an onerous fee, but it's a fee that will ensure that these puppy farms are found, and the people who run these puppy farms will be prosecuted," Dr Lynham said.

[Christina]

It would make much more sense for them to ban anyone from owning or keeping more than 20 dogs at all. That is a big enough number to satisfy & meet anyones breeding needs & would help to stamp out breeding for commercial purposes only.

It won't stop commercial puppy farms or neglect or medical issues but it may help.

[mita]

I'd like to see more detail about Labor's plan. A news report is a bit sketchy... like where does that $30 additional fee fit in & how will it help 'traceability'?

I also hope they'll include lack of socialisation of both parent dogs & puppies as being as much a feature of 'puppy farming' as anything else.

As soon as they move into commercially viable numbers, the critical socialization which is supported by research for appropriate development, goes out the window.

Edited December 14, 2014 by mita

[Cody]

While they're at it, ban pet shops from selling animals.

[Pjrt]

Whoopdedoo. The average puppy buyer is duped by the words 'registered breeder'. Just one example is PIAA member pet stores source their puppies from commercial dog breeders (ie: puppy farms) but trick the public when they say they only source their puppies from registered breeders. What they fail to explain is that the sort of registered breeders they are talking about are commercial dog breeding operations which are certified and registered in their local council/shire. And their puppies come with 'papers' ...you know, puppy information papers and veterinarian papers.

While I support any move to reduce the viability of commercial dog breeders, I think what ANKC breeders need to do is find a better way of explaining themselves to the general public. I really think the average man in the street thinks pedigree breeders are snobbish, hard to approach, expensive, exclusive etc. How do we blow the myths apart and get the news out there in a simple and informative way?

Edited December 14, 2014 by GrufLife

[YOLO]

Whoopdedoo. The average puppy buyer is duped by the words 'registered breeder'. Just one example is PIAA member pet stores source their puppies from commercial dog breeders (ie: puppy farms) but trick the public when they say they only source their puppies from registered breeders. What they fail to explain is that the sort of registered breeders they are talking about are commercial dog breeding operations which are certified and registered in their local council/shire. And their puppies come with 'papers' ...you know, puppy information papers and veterinarian papers.

While I support any move to reduce the viability of commercial dog breeders, I think what ANKC breeders need to do is find a better way of explaining themselves to the general public. I really think the average man in the street thinks pedigree breeders are snobbish, hard to approach, expensive, exclusive etc. How do we blow the myths apart and get the news out there in a simple and informative way?

Unfortunately its not a myth.

What people won't accept (and just watch the flak I cop for posting this) is that Puppy Mills exist to feed demand. You've got "Registered Breeders" who produce a litter every two years, subject prospective owners to inquisitions and onerous conditions, then bemoan that people buy fluffy crossbreeds from pets stores. At the end of the day, breeders can be as selective and exclusive as they want, but if the annual demand for puppies is X, and reputable breeders only produce Y, then X-Y must come from other sources.

Of course you can sit back and say that puppy buyers should be better educated, and that half of them probably shouldn't be buying puppies, but the reality is what it is.

Government regulation will only work if it is broad enough, and well resourced enough, to capture everybody.

Conceptually its simple. ANYBODY that wants to breed puppies for sale, must be registered and regulated, and subject to a code of practice and monitoring. It wouldn't eliminate all undesirable practices, but proper veterinary care could be enforced, and overbreeding reduced. Requiring brood bitches to be registered and vet certified could also help.

The problem, as always with any dog legislation, is WHO is responsible for enforcing it, and who will PAY for it.

[moosmum]

Whoopdedoo. The average puppy buyer is duped by the words 'registered breeder'. Just one example is PIAA member pet stores source their puppies from commercial dog breeders (ie: puppy farms) but trick the public when they say they only source their puppies from registered breeders. What they fail to explain is that the sort of registered breeders they are talking about are commercial dog breeding operations which are certified and registered in their local council/shire. And their puppies come with 'papers' ...you know, puppy information papers and veterinarian papers.

While I support any move to reduce the viability of commercial dog breeders, I think what ANKC breeders need to do is find a better way of explaining themselves to the general public. I really think the average man in the street thinks pedigree breeders are snobbish, hard to approach, expensive, exclusive etc. How do we blow the myths apart and get the news out there in a simple and informative way?

Unfortunately its not a myth.

What people won't accept (and just watch the flak I cop for posting this) is that Puppy Mills exist to feed demand. You've got "Registered Breeders" who produce a litter every two years, subject prospective owners to inquisitions and onerous conditions, then bemoan that people buy fluffy crossbreeds from pets stores. At the end of the day, breeders can be as selective and exclusive as they want, but if the annual demand for puppies is X, and reputable breeders only produce Y, then X-Y must come from other sources.

Of course you can sit back and say that puppy buyers should be better educated, and that half of them probably shouldn't be buying puppies, but the reality is what it is.

Government regulation will only work if it is broad enough, and well resourced enough, to capture everybody.

Conceptually its simple. ANYBODY that wants to breed puppies for sale, must be registered and regulated, and subject to a code of practice and monitoring. It wouldn't eliminate all undesirable practices, but proper veterinary care could be enforced, and overbreeding reduced. Requiring brood bitches to be registered and vet certified could also help.

The problem, as always with any dog legislation, is WHO is responsible for enforcing it, and who will PAY for it.

No flack from me. Any one who genuinely cares for dogs and their welfare can see that there are major problems- trouble is there are so many groups pushing for solutions that suit their own agendas.

Most of the problems seem to come back to the divisions between dog interest groups all pushing for solutions to symptoms, not causes,so as not to disadvantage themselves.

A single body that speaks for all, while promoting purpose and care in the breeding and ownership of dogs is needed, not more legislation brought about by pressure from single interest groups who have no trouble finding ammunition from a society that is not taught to value dogs.

The more legislation is seen as the solution, the more likely it is all we will be left with IS commercial breeders.Lots of revenue for govt. creating jobs. Supply meets demand,strict regulation and licencing to over come problems that do show up..... And no more worries of peeps doing the job of dog breeding with out being "qualified".

If thats where we end up, dog WILL have become just another commodity.But thats what we seem to be pushing towards.

Any solutions need to take an wholistic view and not just single issues. No one group has answers that address the root problems.( May be Peta, just get rid of domestic dogs, problem solved)

Dogs must be bred and held in care "by the people, for the people" Not single interest groups with agendas irrelevent to the rest of the population. We need to find a way to do that and that takes a society TAUGHT to value the whole species and all their broad potential. The willingness is there, or we wouldn't have so many pushing for change.

Lumbering people into groups according to their practices, then trying to eliminate the whole group, only serves to push us all closer to commercial only breeders.Promote practices and care, not groups.

Edited December 15, 2014 by moosmum

[Stitch]

This announcement is not new....it has been around for some time now!

What I strongly object to is the politicising of dogs.

Politicians don't care about dogs...they only care about getting their faces on TV.

As with most things, I am sure that most local governments already have the power to control puppy farmers if they choose to!

[Sandra777]

Whoopdedoo. The average puppy buyer is duped by the words 'registered breeder'. Just one example is PIAA member pet stores source their puppies from commercial dog breeders (ie: puppy farms) but trick the public when they say they only source their puppies from registered breeders. What they fail to explain is that the sort of registered breeders they are talking about are commercial dog breeding operations which are certified and registered in their local council/shire. And their puppies come with 'papers' ...you know, puppy information papers and veterinarian papers.

While I support any move to reduce the viability of commercial dog breeders, I think what ANKC breeders need to do is find a better way of explaining themselves to the general public. I really think the average man in the street thinks pedigree breeders are snobbish, hard to approach, expensive, exclusive etc. How do we blow the myths apart and get the news out there in a simple and informative way?

Unfortunately its not a myth.

What people won't accept (and just watch the flak I cop for posting this) is that Puppy Mills exist to feed demand. You've got "Registered Breeders" who produce a litter every two years, subject prospective owners to inquisitions and onerous conditions, then bemoan that people buy fluffy crossbreeds from pets stores. At the end of the day, breeders can be as selective and exclusive as they want, but if the annual demand for puppies is X, and reputable breeders only produce Y, then X-Y must come from other sources.

Of course you can sit back and say that puppy buyers should be better educated, and that half of them probably shouldn't be buying puppies, but the reality is what it is.

Government regulation will only work if it is broad enough, and well resourced enough, to capture everybody.

Conceptually its simple. ANYBODY that wants to breed puppies for sale, must be registered and regulated, and subject to a code of practice and monitoring. It wouldn't eliminate all undesirable practices, but proper veterinary care could be enforced, and overbreeding reduced. Requiring brood bitches to be registered and vet certified could also help.

The problem, as always with any dog legislation, is WHO is responsible for enforcing it, and who will PAY for it.

Agree with everything you say but the half that shouldn't be buying a puppy wouldn't be getting one off me (or any other ethical breeder I know of) so they don't count in the equation of X-Y (:))

At lot of responsible ethical breeders have been scared in to breeding less for fear of being labelled as farmers.

Honestly, I'd rather the ethical ones bred 50 more litters a year and the BYB/PF bred 150 less.

The AR crazies have done far more damage to the responsible breeding of dogs than many will see.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Sandra777

[Seren]

I have been trying to read up about this but there seems to be nothing said about how they will actually shut down the puppy farms, methods of reporting puppy farmers and deterrents etc.

Animal cruelty laws need to be looked into in a huge way I think.. Just my thoughts.. I don't know if they are relevant

(I am referring to the blatant farming where it is very obvious that the dogs are not being given Vet care and there are a number of mixed 'popular' breeds)

Edited December 15, 2014 by Seren

[Christina]

I have been trying to read up about this but there seems to be nothing said about how they will actually shut down the puppy farms, methods of reporting puppy farmers and deterrents etc.

Animal cruelty laws need to be looked into in a huge way I think.. Just my thoughts.. I don't know if they are relevant

(I am referring to the blatant farming where it is very obvious that the dogs are not being given Vet care and there are a number of mixed 'popular' breeds)

There is nothing said because there are no plans to shut down puppy farms.

They will be allowed to flourish under any government & sell to pet shops to meet demand as long as they adhere to the current codes of practise that governments decree. Licensed by councils, registered as a business & kept in approved size cages as long as they obey the "rules" in theory they will be permitted.

The animal cruelty laws do cover everything already, they are just either not caught out or the laws are not used or applied correctly.

The deterrent is probably the $30 fee per dog which will not affect volume farming of dogs.

[Seren]

I have been trying to read up about this but there seems to be nothing said about how they will actually shut down the puppy farms, methods of reporting puppy farmers and deterrents etc.

Animal cruelty laws need to be looked into in a huge way I think.. Just my thoughts.. I don't know if they are relevant

(I am referring to the blatant farming where it is very obvious that the dogs are not being given Vet care and there are a number of mixed 'popular' breeds)

There is nothing said because there are no plans to shut down puppy farms.

They will be allowed to flourish under any government & sell to pet shops to meet demand as long as they adhere to the current codes of practise that governments decree. Licensed by councils, registered as a business & kept in approved size cages as long as they obey the "rules" in theory they will be permitted.

The animal cruelty laws do cover everything already, they are just either not caught out or the laws are not used or applied correctly.

The deterrent is probably the $30 fee per dog which will not affect volume farming of dogs.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Seren

[Rosetta]

I have been trying to read up about this but there seems to be nothing said about how they will actually shut down the puppy farms, methods of reporting puppy farmers and deterrents etc.

Animal cruelty laws need to be looked into in a huge way I think.. Just my thoughts.. I don't know if they are relevant

(I am referring to the blatant farming where it is very obvious that the dogs are not being given Vet care and there are a number of mixed 'popular' breeds)

There is nothing said because there are no plans to shut down puppy farms.

They will be allowed to flourish under any government & sell to pet shops to meet demand as long as they adhere to the current codes of practise that governments decree. Licensed by councils, registered as a business & kept in approved size cages as long as they obey the "rules" in theory they will be permitted.

The animal cruelty laws do cover everything already, they are just either not caught out or the laws are not used or applied correctly.

The deterrent is probably the $30 fee per dog which will not affect volume farming of dogs.

Some deterrent! Another grandoise statement aimed at attracting a few votes. The devil is in the (lack of) detail. The key is policing any laws and unless that part is legislated its all a waste of time and grandstanding. Though Labor at least makes some noise about animal welfare issues - I suspect many in the LNP belong to the "its only animals" brigade.

[Seren]

I'm afraid I know very little of the Govt side of animal welfare issues. But surely any Laws that do exist that are not used to their full extent cannot be classed as "Laws".

I have followed a few cases where the dog owner has been convicted but gets a woefully inadequate sentence, no proper follow-up checks are done and they are back in business with new dogs (if the original ones are lucky enough to be removed) within weeks/days of their court appearance.

The very same happens with horse owners in abuse cases.

RSPCA have their hands tied in many cases that are reported because of loopholes found the ithe existing Laws.

I know that the Laws that are being discussed don't necesarily refer to animal abuse cases, but at the end of the day that is the part I find so distressing.

[Mystiqview]

Not new. Labour government a few years ago tried with the RSPCA to bring in tougher laws. They succeed on bringing in the Animal Management Act 2008. It has gone through some minor revisions since then. Such as allowing microchipping to happen before 12 weeks (an animal only needs to be over one kilogram)

The initial draft plan wanted compulsory desexing and other stricter controls. There was a backlash and they relented on some of the contents. Since then, Victoria has brought in some tougher laws which QLD is looking at following (my personal view based on comparison what is there and what is proposed).

The problem is: "what is the true definition of a puppy farm?" Is it only the large establishments with multiple breeds pumping out litters anywhere between clean and disgusting conditions with dogs locked in pens or does it also include ANY breeder (ANKC registered or not) with anywhere from one bitch to multiple constantly breeding and pumping out litters?

My personal opinion, is they are the same. The only difference is the SCALE of the operation. The large battery farm style (if I can use this description) of the commercial puppy farms are regulated. It is much harder to hide a large shed housing many animals than it is a few constantly producing bitches on a back yard. The commercial operations are also subject to harsher conditions depending on the local council they operate it. (Whether they play by those rules is completely different and a separate debate all together).

Many of us look around the free classifieds around the net. Many of us can most probably agree that there has been an increase in the amount of litters and puppies now available through the internet, local puppy stores etc. Even a look on our humble DOL puppy advertisements, I can easily say which breeders in my breed have a puppy listing 365 days a year advertising a current litter or litters and also upcoming litters for next month/months. Registered breeders pumping out puppies. What happens to all those they don't sell?

I know with one breeder - many of the dogs are stashed in pet homes waiting to come back for breeding and then returned to the pet owner after the litter has been weaned/sold. Why? They cannot keep numbers on the property.

I do not count the "hobby registered breeder who breeds a few litters a year or two to be BYB" To me, a BYB is one who pumps out litters after litters. Breeding back to back their bitches, spell one season (as for ANKC) then back to back again. Sell off the bitch after the allotted litters are achieved or the bitch is no longer a good producer and repeat the process.

Before I ceased being an animal control officer, I had seen the rise of smaller BYB syndicates. I even know BYB now who are in syndicate with each other to share stud dogs and constantly breeding their bitches. Possibly due to bad publicity, the "puppy farm" of large scale battery farms have moved to the back yard. Much easier and less overheads to hide a few dogs here and a few dogs there. Sell from the net. People think the pups are now well loved and cared for as being locked in a concrete box in a shed.

To police this requires a lot of resource and man power. Council officers need to go door to door, searching a door knocking. Unless a complaint has been lodged, the "authorities" may not know about what is happening behind closed doors or on hobby farms (1-5 acres) in a semi rural area. When we do knock on dog/cat registration surveys, we have a certain amount of powers, and in some cases, unless we have a warrant at the time, we may be thwarted at the front door. By the time we go back, they have moved the "evidence" for unlicensed animals and breeding and/or unclean amenities.

Keep legislating. All the Government is really doing is driving it more underground. The more it gets driven underground, the more resource hungry it becomes to manage and control. Many councils now, do not have suitable resources to tackle the problem. It is left to the councils through legislation and bi-laws to police and regulate. RSPCA may only come in if there is suspected cruelty or because it will show them in a positive light in the media.

Fees: how many more fees do we need to pay? And how is another registry going to help? Registered breeders pay ANKC Membership, Prefix maintenance, depending on which council you live a breeders permit and registration for each animal.

For example for me: ANKC membership and prefix is about $180/year, Council breeder permit $100/year and dog registration is $30/dog x 4 dogs. Surely through either my ANKC registration or my council breeder registration, this should be enough.

The BYB depending on the council, require to pay the breeder permit. For example, in Moreton Bay Regional Council. ALL breeders whether they are ANKC or BYB, and whether they breed one litter or more require to have a breeders permit. Whereas Brisbane City Council, to obtain a breeders permit, you need to be a breeder with DOGS QLD. (BCC renewal permit is about $155/year. $254 to apply the first year ). If a person does not have a breeders permit (it used to be only dogs Qld breeders were permitted breeders permits, but looks to have changed) Now without the breeders permit, entire animal yearly registration is $129/dog.

So, in my experience, many BYB never registered to either a) be a registered breeder in council and b) did not register their animals. So effectively flying under the authority radar. Less expense/overheads = more profit. Pups, don't sell, dump them or dump them at the pound.

Also in recent years, gone are the Heinz special variety mutt. Often given away as a true oops litter. Registered breeders charge $1000 or more for their pups. Again going by my breed, a chocolate/white or Merle pup is $1500 on the limit register by some of those breeding colour. On Gumtree, if they can get away with claiming to be a registered (registered May be with PIAA or local council) they are able to charge over $500. A chocolate or merle pup on Gumtree by a BYB Is about $800. Pet Shops charge between $800-$1200 for coloured BC pups.

The problem goes far deeper than the commercial puppy farm and not just registered breeders. Yet we are the ones held accountable to the new laws.

As far as Dogs Qld goes I have no faith in their ability to control their members who are in effect a registered puppy farm. They do nothing now to control those who are breeding exceedingly high volumes. Money in their coffers. They even wanted to force everyone to put everything on main registration so Qld had more registered breeders.

More registered breeders breeding healthy happy pets I have no problem with. Registered breeders pumping litters as a commercial business or breeders not breeding healthy pets I do have big problems with.

[YOLO]

Maybe, at the end of the day, we need to be paying MORE for our puppies???

I too have a big problem with increased legislation/regulation that only captures legitimate reputable law-abiding people.

Maybe we simply need a law that it is illegal to breed or sell puppies without a license, also make it illegal to accept adverts from unlicensed breeders, and ensure that pet stores can only buy from licensed breeders.

Then if it costs $X,000 to properly breed, care for, and sell a puppy maybe that's what we should all be paying. (or if it COSTS $X,000, we should be paying ~$X,500?)

Licensing fees should be paid per puppy bred.

Apart from the primary goal of ensuring all breeders operate in the correct manner, higher prices would reduce margins for pet-stores, discourage poorly considered purchases, and encourage more people to consider rescues.

[Little Gifts]

This is what bugs me about new laws. It shouldn't matter how many dogs an individual owns. If they are on land zoned as suitable for that many dogs, if the dogs have suitable housing and fencing, adequate vet care, appropriate food and stimulation then who am I to say they can't have more than 20 dogs (because we've had this discussion before and clearly some people do have valid reasons for having that many dogs)? Laws already exist to protect them against neglect and abuse and instead of moaning about the plight of puppy farm dogs I would prefer the RSPCA (and state governments) doing more to police and prosecute. Hit back yard breeders and hoarders and dodgy rescues and pet shops and yes, puppy farms in their back pocket so that it is no longer viable to own and breed dogs. Honestly, if you and I can search online and find a backyard breeder and puppy farm then why can't the RSPCA? Why do conditions need to be so deplorable that some of those animals have to be pts when they are 'saved' before they do anything?

The only thing this newly proposed legislation will do is make some more money for the government. The people who operate under the radar or who lie or find loopholes will continue to do so. Those who do the right thing (and who always do the right thing) are not the people causing the overall problem.

It makes no sense to me that they want to identify more potential wrong doers when they are not even stopping the ones they already know about.

[YOLO]

This is what bugs me about new laws. It shouldn't matter how many dogs an individual owns. If they are on land zoned as suitable for that many dogs, if the dogs have suitable housing and fencing, adequate vet care, appropriate food and stimulation then who am I to say they can't have more than 20 dogs (because we've had this discussion before and clearly some people do have valid reasons for having that many dogs)? Laws already exist to protect them against neglect and abuse and instead of moaning about the plight of puppy farm dogs I would prefer the RSPCA (and state governments) doing more to police and prosecute. Hit back yard breeders and hoarders and dodgy rescues and pet shops and yes, puppy farms in their back pocket so that it is no longer viable to own and breed dogs. Honestly, if you and I can search online and find a backyard breeder and puppy farm then why can't the RSPCA? Why do conditions need to be so deplorable that some of those animals have to be pts when they are 'saved' before they do anything?

The only thing this newly proposed legislation will do is make some more money for the government. The people who operate under the radar or who lie or find loopholes will continue to do so. Those who do the right thing (and who always do the right thing) are not the people causing the overall problem.

It makes no sense to me that they want to identify more potential wrong doers when they are not even stopping the ones they already know about.

Agreed, that is always the problem with dog laws. There's not enough resources to adequately police the laws we have, so more laws only burden law-abiding dog owners. Unless legislation is adequately resourced to allow it to be enforced on EVERYONE it is pointless.

Also agree about arbitrary numbers. A BYB with 10 bitches being bred to death in appalling conditions is a far bigger menace than a legitimate breeder with 20 dogs.

Furthermore many breeders operate kennels and take in boarders and re-homes. If that takes them over some 20 dog limit how do authorities distinguish?

[Mystiqview]

It does not matter really if it is one bitch in a back yard situation or 100 bitches in a commercial operation being bred to death. If the one person is over breeding that one bitch, then it is still puppy farming. It is just on a much smaller scale to commercial operations doing the same with 100 bitches. If 100 houses in a local area all have one bitch they are over breeding, it is still not and should not be acceptable practice.