Puppy Farms

[moosmum]

I still say we need a single body to speak for all. The divisions caused by the current situation mean there can be no consensus on practical, inexpensive, enforcable legislation. So it provokes ill considered knee jerk legislation that is complicated by exemptions and riders for different groups who deny any responsibility. And while all this goes on, and on, nothing is solved because the root problem is lack of value and purpose for dogs in modern society.

And all parties denying any responsibility.

The commercial breeders can say they have the most stringent conditions to be met, the pedigree breeders that they have the best out comes and long established protocols and fewest numbers of dogs bred, the backyard ( intentional) breeders that they have the right to decide what they want in their own backyards with that choice being hijacked by other groups.

Yet each one of these groups have numerous members who have little concern for the dogs and are in the business for money, or prestige, or simply are simply inept for one reason or another. The only dialogue on what practices we all agree on aren't discussed- only whats unacceptable is discussed and usualy in context of showing another group is better. This just keeps highlighting the problems to legislate away. What value does society get from dogs in all this? There are only headaches and we are legislating the DOGS away.

You will not legislate a value and responibility for dogs.It must be taught, by example. No one is holding their hand up.They would not need to if it were recognised that its a shared responsibility.

Its no ones problem so becomes a political issue. If these various groups can't work together to form a common consensus on just what best practice means,they are unable to promote best practice at all. They will only be able to draw attention to the poorest practices, to look good by comparison.

New registries form to address shortfalls in the system. To gain credibility, they try their best to have the most strict of rules and protocols.So they too, can deny responsibility. The list of problems grows, because the public is not shown how to appreciate the benefits.

Another, all encompasing registry is NEEDED if society wants to keep dogs, in any meaningful way.

Or, The K.Cs could allow their membership to breed dogs that will not be elligible for pedigree registration, if they don't want to pay double fees, to allow a natural evolution of the species with a focus on knowledge and practice, written ernestly into their constition.

This focus on negatives promoted by various groups in competion for their ethics only de-values dogs further and confuse the public as to what a good breeder is and what their own responsibilities are.

Edited December 17, 2014 by moosmum

[Christina]

I still say we need a single body to speak for all. The divisions caused by the current situation mean there can be no consensus on practical, inexpensive, enforcable legislation.

You will not legislate a value and responibility for dogs.

Another, all encompasing registry is NEEDED if society wants to keep dogs, in any meaningful way.

This focus on negatives promoted by various groups in competion for their ethics only de-values dogs further and confuse the public as to what a good breeder is and what their own responsibilities are.

There cannot be a single body that suits all. There is no one fits all answer.

You also cannot legislate value & responsibility as you have stated because everyones opinion including experts, legislators, welfare groups, pet owners is different

There is focus on the negatives between groups & as far as I am concerned it is negative to breed dogs in cages on a large scale & this practise should not be legislated or permitted at all but its going to be & if it must be there is no possible way to legislate it in the same way (for example) as someone having 5 pedigree, breed specific health tested dogs that live in the house as family pets as well as for breed/show.

Its not a competition its different circumstances & ethics.

[moosmum]

There can be a single body, Ifs its purpose is not to regulate or restrict members, but to support and share learning.

The Legislation we have now is mostly all thats needed.

Its goal should be to promote value and purpose for dogs, to work towards greatest success for the species, in partnership with man. If you value some thing enough, your actions to hold on to it will reflect that.You appreciate it and take pride in it. Purpose provides benefits that add to that value, and give a return to the environment the subject thrives in.

The differences you see as insurmountable are environmental demands. Accepting there IS a broader environment to be considered allows for adaptaion in response to changing environmental demands. In choosing to breed dogs, you can choose to breed for a successful species, with purpose that ensures value to its environment so that its success is assisted, or for other goals.

The physics of biology.

Edited December 17, 2014 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

Thanks moosmum. You always make such sense to me. All for dogs, for all dogs.

[moosmum]

Thanks moosmum. You always make such sense to me. All for dogs, for all dogs.

Thanks GL.

I am still learning how to express this and never sure if its understandable.

All for dogs, For all dogs. :D

Christina, I don't think "puppy farms" should exsist at all either. But while we accept that only restrictions can lead to improvement, that we can legislate our problems away, ( With a big stick,how about a bit of positive training? )

commercial puppy farms ARE inevitable.

They don't have to be.

[Steve]

There can be a single body, Ifs its purpose is not to regulate or restrict members, but to support and share learning.

The Legislation we have now is mostly all thats needed.

Its goal should be to promote value and purpose for dogs, to work towards greatest success for the species, in partnership with man. If you value some thing enough, your actions to hold on to it will reflect that.You appreciate it and take pride in it. Purpose provides benefits that add to that value, and give a return to the environment the subject thrives in.

The differences you see as insurmountable are environmental demands. Accepting there IS a broader environment to be considered allows for adaptaion in response to changing environmental demands. In choosing to breed dogs, you can choose to breed for a successful species, with purpose that ensures value to its environment so that its success is assisted, or for other goals.

The physics of biology.

For any single body to work and to be successful all other bodies would need to cease to exist . Why would purebred breeders want a majority of people who dont understand purebred breeding to represent them? My belief is that we should all join together and focus on what is best for the species however I do not believe that what is best for the species is to breed puppies which are not predictable .My group offers education and unity to all dog owners - no one needs to be a member to complete courses or join in discussions etc ,rescue members do not need to only help purebreds and there is no restriction on how many dogs a person can own or breed however, our breeder members agree with us that purebred dogs are what is best for the species we also have a great relationship with other groups who are different in base philosophies including the puppy farmers group - and we regularly have loads of input into current issues pertaining to dog ownership, rescue and breeding. Im not saying breeding cross bred dogs without the aim of developing a breed is wrong but its not what we do and I personally would not want a group of people who was made up of people who didnt have this view to represent me or my needs as a purebred dog breeder.

[Steve]

Thanks moosmum. You always make such sense to me. All for dogs, for all dogs.

Thanks GL.

I am still learning how to express this and never sure if its understandable.

All for dogs, For all dogs. :D

Christina, I don't think "puppy farms" should exsist at all either. But while we accept that only restrictions can lead to improvement, that we can legislate our problems away, ( With a big stick,how about a bit of positive training? )

commercial puppy farms ARE inevitable.

They don't have to be.

I agree with this but while ever you have animal rights and animal welfare educating breeders on how to breed dogs and having the legislators introduce regs which are not based on science - and some purebred groups going with the flow so they dont look bad and just giving in to it - no hope.

Regs on kennel housing are fashioned on how to house boarding dogs or pound dogs not breeding dogs - all of the husbandry and management are based on crap and not science so before you can have your group being one dot effective you have to work out how to shut up the loud noise which plays a political game and hold the power.

[moosmum]

Thanks moosmum. You always make such sense to me. All for dogs, for all dogs.

Thanks GL.

I am still learning how to express this and never sure if its understandable.

All for dogs, For all dogs. :D

Christina, I don't think "puppy farms" should exsist at all either. But while we accept that only restrictions can lead to improvement, that we can legislate our problems away, ( With a big stick,how about a bit of positive training? )

commercial puppy farms ARE inevitable.

They don't have to be.

I agree with this but while ever you have animal rights and animal welfare educating breeders on how to breed dogs and having the legislators introduce regs which are not based on science - and some purebred groups going with the flow so they dont look bad and just giving in to it - no hope.

Regs on kennel housing are fashioned on how to house boarding dogs or pound dogs not breeding dogs - all of the husbandry and management are based on crap and not science so before you can have your group being one dot effective you have to work out how to shut up the loud noise which plays a political game and hold the power.

I would think thats the purpose in having a united body- To have a voice that speaks from a position of strength, knowledge and the goal to encourage its use so that people make their own informed choices and take responsibility for them. Owners and breeders alike.

If animal rights and animal welfare are the ones educating breeders/owners, why is that?

[Jed]

The RSPCA has been having dialogue with the Labour party on this legislation. I have been having dialogue with the RSPCA.

I don't think they have much idea either, and like most legislation enacted in Aus in the past few years, this will impact severely on registered breeders. There are hardly any remaining, and external forces are driving more and more away ... this will be yet another nail in the coffin.

RSPCA cannot answer my "difficult" questions, which is rather sad.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Jed

[moosmum]

There can be a single body, Ifs its purpose is not to regulate or restrict members, but to support and share learning.

The Legislation we have now is mostly all thats needed.

Its goal should be to promote value and purpose for dogs, to work towards greatest success for the species, in partnership with man. If you value some thing enough, your actions to hold on to it will reflect that.You appreciate it and take pride in it. Purpose provides benefits that add to that value, and give a return to the environment the subject thrives in.

The differences you see as insurmountable are environmental demands. Accepting there IS a broader environment to be considered allows for adaptaion in response to changing environmental demands. In choosing to breed dogs, you can choose to breed for a successful species, with purpose that ensures value to its environment so that its success is assisted, or for other goals.

The physics of biology.

For any single body to work and to be successful all other bodies would need to cease to exist . Why would purebred breeders want a majority of people who dont understand purebred breeding to represent them? My belief is that we should all join together and focus on what is best for the species however I do not believe that what is best for the species is to breed puppies which are not predictable .My group offers education and unity to all dog owners - no one needs to be a member to complete courses or join in discussions etc ,rescue members do not need to only help purebreds and there is no restriction on how many dogs a person can own or breed however, our breeder members agree with us that purebred dogs are what is best for the species we also have a great relationship with other groups who are different in base philosophies including the puppy farmers group - and we regularly have loads of input into current issues pertaining to dog ownership, rescue and breeding. Im not saying breeding cross bred dogs without the aim of developing a breed is wrong but its not what we do and I personally would not want a group of people who was made up of people who didnt have this view to represent me or my needs as a purebred dog breeder.

Why would all other bodies cease to exsist ? The idea is to promote purpose in breeding and share knowledge of ALL aspects of breeding and ownership, to promote responsibility in those undertaking them.

You would represent your own needs, much as happens now, but maybe with better support.

Edited December 20, 2014 by moosmum

[Steve]

There can be a single body, Ifs its purpose is not to regulate or restrict members, but to support and share learning.

The Legislation we have now is mostly all thats needed.

Its goal should be to promote value and purpose for dogs, to work towards greatest success for the species, in partnership with man. If you value some thing enough, your actions to hold on to it will reflect that.You appreciate it and take pride in it. Purpose provides benefits that add to that value, and give a return to the environment the subject thrives in.

The differences you see as insurmountable are environmental demands. Accepting there IS a broader environment to be considered allows for adaptaion in response to changing environmental demands. In choosing to breed dogs, you can choose to breed for a successful species, with purpose that ensures value to its environment so that its success is assisted, or for other goals.

The physics of biology.

For any single body to work and to be successful all other bodies would need to cease to exist . Why would purebred breeders want a majority of people who dont understand purebred breeding to represent them? My belief is that we should all join together and focus on what is best for the species however I do not believe that what is best for the species is to breed puppies which are not predictable .My group offers education and unity to all dog owners - no one needs to be a member to complete courses or join in discussions etc ,rescue members do not need to only help purebreds and there is no restriction on how many dogs a person can own or breed however, our breeder members agree with us that purebred dogs are what is best for the species we also have a great relationship with other groups who are different in base philosophies including the puppy farmers group - and we regularly have loads of input into current issues pertaining to dog ownership, rescue and breeding. Im not saying breeding cross bred dogs without the aim of developing a breed is wrong but its not what we do and I personally would not want a group of people who was made up of people who didnt have this view to represent me or my needs as a purebred dog breeder.

Why would all other bodies cease to exsist ? The idea is to promote purpose in breeding and share knowledge of ALL aspects of breeding and ownership, to promote responsibility in those undertaking them.

You would represent your own needs, much as happens now, but maybe with better support.

Clearly I dont have any concept of what it is you mean .There are already many groups who feel they are promoting purpose in breeding and sharing all aspects of breeding and ownership with an intent to promote responsibility in those undertaking them.

[H@wkeye!]

Problem is simple. Demand will create supply. While people want dogs (even those ignorant people who 'think' they want a dog - but don't want the responsibility they come with) there will be people breeding them. As someone said, responsible breeders produce only so many dogs, far less than the demand. And so there will always be irresponsible breeders filling the demand. Just making it illegal won't change anything. Think of drugs. They are illegal, yet they will always be a problem due to the demand. Clamp down on irresponsible breeders, demand remains the same - and the price goes up, more incentive for irresponsible breeders commence breeding.

Solution, in my opinion, is education (not at easy thing by half!). Show people what a pappy farm is, tell them why they are bad, perhaps make it illegal for shop owners to procure dogs from puppy farms, with stiff penalties, and perhaps encourage good practices (no idea how though). Stick and carrot approach.

Just making puppy farms illegal will change nothing.

[WoofnHoof]

The RSPCA has been having dialogue with the Labour party on this legislation. I have been having dialogue with the RSPCA.

I don't think they have much idea either, and like most legislation enacted in Aus in the past few years, this will impact severely on registered breeders. There are hardly any remaining, and external forces are driving more and more away ... this will be yet another nail in the coffin.

RSPCA cannot answer my "difficult" questions, which is rather sad.

Thank you for trying Jed :) I think it's important for good breeders to be part of the dialogue, even if the powers that be don't want to listen, keep on being the squeaky wheel.

I think it is critical to have science based research supporting regulatory bodies, sadly at the moment science is just not a priority for this government, or the people it apparently represents.

[Linda K]

whay are animal rights and animal welfare people the ones making the input to gov - because they are the ones that have fundraised from members of the public in order to have snazzy media campaigns, and employ campaign managers, and have the pollies ears, and since the pollies are convinced this is what the public wants, they do it. Look what happened in Victoria. I know we in our cat group have been trying just to get the ear of local councils, local members, and the giv in general, and get hit with brick walls every time - they do not give a damn about hobby breeders and how this is all reducing numbers of breeders as they give up as it becomes all too hard to keep jumping through hoops

[YOLO]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

[moosmum]

whay are animal rights and animal welfare people the ones making the input to gov - because they are the ones that have fundraised from members of the public in order to have snazzy media campaigns, and employ campaign managers, and have the pollies ears, and since the pollies are convinced this is what the public wants, they do it. Look what happened in Victoria. I know we in our cat group have been trying just to get the ear of local councils, local members, and the giv in general, and get hit with brick walls every time - they do not give a damn about hobby breeders and how this is all reducing numbers of breeders as they give up as it becomes all too hard to keep jumping through hoops

So these people are giving the public a say in how dogs are bred, but its all one sided. People are so out of touch with anyone who actualy breeds and takes pride in a job well done, they are easy to influence.Theres no influence to counter.

Edited December 22, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

All those reasons. And thats why I believe allowing K.C members to breed dogs that will be in-eligible for registration would would work.

An all encompassing Org. Would not be needed. The general public would have a K.C influence, and a stake in understanding the realities and responsibilities of breeding.

An understanding that joe average could support.

Edited December 22, 2014 by moosmum

[Steve]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

All those reasons. And thats why I believe allowing K.C members to breed dogs that will be in-eligible for registration would would work.

An all encompassing Org. Would not be needed. The general public would have a K.C influence, and a stake in understanding the realities and responsibilities of breeding.

An understanding that joe average could support.

And the minute you do that everyone who is now a member because they only want to be seen to be associated with purebred dogs leave.

Purebred registered breeders have been promoted as superior , their dogs have been promoted as superior - the management, the group the membership dont want to educate or support those who they believe are not doing the right thing. Hell they dont even like some of the breeders who do breed registered purebred dogs and would like to see them chucked out.

Anyone can breed dogs and most can give some justification as why they do what they do but being able to breed predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs capable of breeding predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs generation after generation takes a philosophy and belief system which takes on the job of doing so as an honour, a life's work almost like a religion as well as skills, knowledge experience and education. These breeders use the registry and the pedigree system to profile their pedigrees, gain knowledge of other dogs and the health and temperament in their ancestry they put everything they have into selecting and managing their dogs for optimum health for generations to come. When this is the general aim of purebred dog registries/KCs why on earth would they say its O.K. for their members to be doing exactly the opposite and breed dogs which are ineligible for registration?

[Christina]

Well answered Steve I couldn't find the response to that.

The aim for registered canine associated breeders is to breed healthy dogs that have a predictable outcome in looks, health & temperament & even with pedigrees & much shared knowledge its not always a perfect outcome because living things aren't always perfect. We still have so much more to learn.

So I wonder when I see these mongrels that are deliberately & unpredictably bred & often look like various parts of dog breeds put together in an odd way how they can be considered hardier & healthier when they usually have over/undershot mouths, elbows that are out & crooked legs, roached backs, heads ,legs & bodies that are oddly proportioned & absolutely no records or history of health problems or issues that may be in the background, none of the available genetic testing done, that are often raised in appalling conditions & mass produced with profit being the sole aim why the hell do people want this & think it is all ok ?

Mongrels & cross breeds used to be a few oops litters when peoples dogs were got to by accident. Now it is big business it makes it more difficult for small hobby pedigree breeders as we all get lumped in the same boat, more or less, when it comes to legislation.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Christina

[YOLO]

I have the utmost respect for the Registered Breeders of Pedigreed dogs. ALL my Flatties have been Pedigrees. (Can never be 100% sure about Jasper. If "Goofball" was a breed, then I'd think he was a cross.)

Nor do I want to turn this into an RB bashing thread. It's just that they can have quite specific foci, and whilst the ANKC may be the best body to represent them, it cannot (almost by definition) represent the majority of dog owners (or "breeders.")

I'm not sure, but I suspect that therein lies another problem? I suspect that RB's and the ANKC want the term "Registered Breeder" to apply exclusively to breeders of Pedigreed dogs, registered with the ANKC and its affiliates? The last thing they want to see is pet stores claiming that all their puppies "come from registered breeders." However without some form of registration and regulation, we can't hope to control the puppy farms and BYBs.