Puppy Farms

[Steve]

Moosmum - I agree there is no us and them but based on what your posts say you believe there is an us and them as much as they do. \

i dont see you or those who think like you as the opposition and while I have no control over the CCs the MDBA doesn't have - " That rule" .

While ever you feel excluded by them and focus on that rule and how it might be changed to include you and those who want to have the type of freedom - within reason - you seek, in my opinion, you may as well try to walk on water . The CCs have evolved from simply keeping stud registries to a place where they have enjoyed a monopoly and power .They no longer have the monopoly and their numbers and power is falling. Focus on what you can do rather than what you cant do and convert that into doing what YOU think is best for dogs even if that excludes you form a group you dont agree with.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Steve

[Steve]

So back on topic - in regard to puppy farms - still its now 2015 and we all have a slightly or large difference of opinion on what is a puppy farm .

But for a legislative and regulatory situation the reality is that breeders - regardless of what they breed, how often they breed, how many litters they have whether they are CC members or not have been dictated to and in recent history been educated on what is needed by people who have no idea of what it is that dogs in a breeding home or establishment need to be healthy, happy, clean and well socialised. On this level we do all need to work together but breeders have been belted into keeping their camp fires low and staying off the trail and their CCs haven't stood up for them but rather they have just been led along by the nose to the detriment of the dogs.

[WreckitWhippet]

Of course there is an us and them.

There are those who breed pedigree dogs and breed with type, temperament, structure and soundness in mind. They love and are dedicated to their breed and preserving the breed and it's history. These for the most part are the ANKC breeders.

and then there's the "them", the one's who back yard breed, cross breed, rape the pedigree gene pool, produce the latest designer fad

There will always be an "us" and a "them" and I'd rather be one of the us's any day and proudly own the "us" dogs.

[YOLO]

I'll be honest, that I don't follow a lot of the technical arguments, over charters, regulations, and such. But IMHO there is most definitely an "us and them." For better of for worse the ANKC and their affiliates are dedicated to the interests of those who breed and show pedigreed dogs.

I'm neither a breeder nor shower (although most of my dogs have been pedigreed) so I have no real opinion on how well they do that.

However the vast majority of dogs are bred outside that system, and that's never going to change without a drastic change in laws.

I am firmly of the view that there needs to be some recognition of that, and some attempt to bring many of those dogs within a regulated system.

To be honest, I feel that some of the problem stems from the narrow mindedness of some. Nobody wants to see dogs coming from puppy mills, being destroyed because they didn't sell in the pets store, or being bred for profit in squalid low-budget conditions. However the simple fact is that even if we discouraged poorly considered purchases, Pedigreed breeders cannot supply the demand for dogs.

And yes, there is some disagreement over what constitutes a "Puppy Farm."

And heres the issue. There was a much besmirched breeder in Perth, and one of the criticisms was that "they always have puppies advertised." Ignoring other issues for sake or argument, why is that a problem? A responsible breeder with several bitches could responsibly produce 2 or 3 litters a year.

Personally, I don't like the idea of dogs living in kennel runs, but that doesn't mean the breeder isn't taking the best medical care of their dogs.

On the other hand, you have some yokal who gets their hands on a couple of bitzers, locks then in the old chook run, and lets them churn out litter after litter. Which are then flogged through gumtree at low cost without any veterinary involvement. Hardly a "Puppy Mill," but certainly not a good thing.

[Mystiqview]

The thing here in Qld - there are already enough rules and regulations and registrations. Both legislation and local council by-laws governing the ownership, breeding and care of dogs and cats.

There is the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs). Regulation 2009, The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs). Regulation 2009 Then under that the local council bi-laws. Depending on the council will depend on the further tightening of breeding, care and permits etc.

Under this act - all dogs and cats MUST be microchipped prior to sale. This includes a puppy or now an older dog - even if a "give away". Many back yard breeders advertising through Gumtree etc do not microchip their animals. Some will cite "not able to do before 12 weeks". When the act first came out in 2008 - this was the case. However it was soon amended in 2009 that an animal now only needs to be one kilogram in weight to be microchipped. Certainly this should be the case for 99% of animals sold around 6-8 weeks (with the exception maybe of some kittens and toy dogs. Forget for the minute here the requirement that ANKC breeders cannot sell before 8 weeks. Fact is many BYB animals are offloaded around 5-6 weeks. Some of the better ones will not part with puppies until 8 weeks and do microchip, vaccinate and worm their animals as a minimum.

There does not need to be any further laws nor any further registrations for breeders. Registered Puppy Farms already operate under a variety of laws, rules and regulations governing their practice in both public health and animal management. While I do not agree with them and their need - there are already suitable laws governing their existance.

The laws on keeping, breeding and caring for dogs are covered under the Act, Regulation and local council bi-laws. Minimum standards are already listed there. Anyone operating outside those laws are breaking the law. This includes the Registered breeder, the back yard breeder and the larger kennel or puppy farm.

The problem is Enforcing the existing laws. It is up to local council officers to detect, regulate and control those operating outside the existing laws. Councils are not given adequate budgets or the physical man power to do this. Some councils do door knocking survey programs on a periodical/regular basis to detect unregistered animals (both cats and dogs) and breeding activities without permits. From personal experience, it can be hard to detect some activities if there are no complaints from neighbours for smell, numbers or noise complaints and some people can hide their activities quite well in back rooms/yards so it is not easy to detect from a simple door knocking activity.

RSPCA generally only will get involved if there are concerns on animal welfare or cruelty. Not for general illegal breeding activities - especially if the animals are being cared for.

Currently there is Dogs Queensland Register, The working groups and greyhounds also have a register. Then there is registers kept with local councils for dog registration and permits (Pet stores, kennel, cattery, breeders and excess dog permits).

For example: If I am inspected, I am able to show/prove I am a registered breeder with Dogs Qld, my local council as a breeder and my dogs are all microchipped, and registered and comply with the conditions and numbers attributed with my permit. In SE Qld at least - all dogs must be registered with their local council. This includes working farm dogs and assistance dogs.

As any law is controlled by the local council body - there does not need to be any further registrations. The dog/animal should already be registered with the local council. If not there are already processes/penalties/fines etc to obtain compliance in this area. Many councils also offer discounted registration from 3 months of age for puppies/kittens for the first year and will only charge the full amount if a desexing certificate is not produced the following year. This allows the majority of owners to desex their dog in that first 12 months if they wish to receive the discounted registration. Some councils still offer Dogs Qld discount or even obedience trained discounts -(over and above any pension discount).

[moosmum]

I agree Mystiqview.

Steve, I think I see where where we are getting each other wrong.

1st, I'm not breeding and I'm not looking for a group to belong to.

2nd, If you don't have 'that rule' and after another look at your site with this purose in mind, Yes, It does look like the MDBA is just what I was wishing for.

The problem for me is that while this-

Of course there is an us and them.

There are those who breed pedigree dogs and breed with type, temperament, structure and soundness in mind. They love and are dedicated to their breed and preserving the breed and it's history. These for the most part are the ANKC breeders.

and then there's the "them", the one's who back yard breed, cross breed, rape the pedigree gene pool, produce the latest designer fad

There will always be an "us" and a "them".

attitude can be seen as a credit to any accepted registry, then WreckitWhippets statements are like a self filling prophesy.

How can 'they' be otherwise, if 'they' are deemed to be unacceptable no matter what they do?

Where are examples and incentive to improve practices going to come from? If any who try for better are shot down as unacceptable before any one even knows just WHAT they ARE doing, or their motives?

So for myself, its not Only about viability of breeds and organisations, its about allowing better/improved practices some recognition, and improving welfare out comes for the people/animals who are most represented in pet owner stats.

Its about not denying better practice, or improvement to those who don't come under a K.C charter.

I will P.M you next few days.

Edited January 3, 2015 by moosmum

[Steve]

But the CCs dont prevent anyone other than their members from doing anything .Yes in some states CC members have some exemptions but that's caused by state laws where everyone who as an interest in breeding dog is supposed to have a voice. CCs have been impacted by the crap state laws as anyone and their members have been limited in their ability to freely make decisions on what is the best choices for them and their dogs as anyone. In some states and with a push for more to follow and for it to be the same in all states the craziest things are legislated for the keeping of breeding dogs which are actually detrimental to the health and welfare of dogs.

Puppy farms have come about in this country over the last decade or so because

1.

A gardener got upset with the CCs with good reason and really launched a huge marketing campaign for designer dogs which went up in price - so for the first time people in Australia saw the possibility of making money out of breeding dogs .20 years ago the idea that anyone could sell a first cross dog rather than it go out as free to good home or that anyone would actually deliberately mate 2 dogs of a different breed to get money was never on the table.

It set up the demand and people gave them the supply.

2. These a lot of the story in the middle and loads of water under the bridge but now we have a situation where breeders - regardless of what they breed are being educated by people who know nothing about breeding dogs and if they do want to breed above average numbers for any purpose they are made to keep them as boarding animals are kept in factory type situations that cost stacks of money - so they have to breed more to cover the costs of the infa structure which isnt what is best for the species. Even small rural towns now have laws which prevent people from having a litter or two in their backyard.

The more you discourage small breeders and make it so stressful and difficult for them to breed a few litters the more sales there are for someone who breeds lots of dogs and you cant breed lots of dogs by law unless you have a set up which is not good for the dogs which live in a BREEDING environment.

All people who own and love dogs and all of those who breed them - regardless of what they breed need to stand and say what you are making us do is what is causing the problem so in that regard they need to come together but dont ever expect that they will agree with how they should be selectively bred,how to select dogs for their breeding program because they have different goals. The CCs do play a role in this and recent history shows them backing down and making their own members play the game animal rights dictate as if that somehow makes their members look better - and its marketed that way and they get exemptions

Is it better for them ? yes to a point - it lets them say look at us we do everything the ratbags tell us we should do. Everyone who goes to buy a purebred registered pedigreed dog feels there is an implied warranty that their dogs will be healthier and their breeders do everything by the book to make a perfect pet. Is it better for their dogs - Not a chance.

The more you try to over legislate this the worse it gets for the small breeder and the dogs in general especially when the legislation is being led and pushed by people who know nothing about living with and breeding breeding dogs.

I dont think whether you breed purebreds or crossbreds is relevant in legislating for trying to stop people who keep their animals in substandard conditions

Edited January 3, 2015 by Steve

[Steve]

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.

So is that 20 Chi's or 20 Great Danes ?

[Mystiqview]

Moose mum,

There will always be an "us" and "them". Creating a state or even national registration is not going to stop that. Even now, there is just about every avenue for a person to become registered, do the right thing by their dogs and their breed. People CHOOSE to do these things.

There are rules and regulations already in place whereby people should adhere. They CHOOSE to do this or not.

If people are going to take short cuts, breed or keep animals in a sub standard way, they will. Making something compulsory is not going to fix this either. If they cannot adhere to the existing rules, then why would they adhere to further rules?

Now there is money to be made in breeding dogs. Both for the back yard breeder, hobby registered breeder and large establishments. Grab a couple of dogs and bitches and breed them in your back yard time and again, there is money to be made. Especially if the breeder is catering to a fad. Start to cut corners such as limiting the health testing, only using your own dogs (save on stud fee/transport) and not bringing in quality stock, not joining a membership (such as CC's or paying local council breeder permits and dog registration) you save further money. Not adhering to the CC's limit of 4 litters on a bitch, and no more than two litters within an eighteen month period. One Qld registered breeder freely admitted on a Facebook group they had seven litters with one of their bitches. Another has been reported to earn over $75000/year in puppy sales. The second only breeds, does not compete or do anything with their dogs.

There are bad apples in all the barrels. Not just the back yard breeder. Sadly, there are some back yard breeders who take more care of their dogs than some registered breeders. Belonging to CC' s and paying prefix membership and normal membership is expensive for what you really get in return - a magazine once a month. Maybe a seminar once or twice a year. Yes, you are eligible to show or compete in their events and they may do SOME work behind the scenes in talking to Government.

The gardener is not the wholly and sole blame for where we are today with designer crossbreds. He certainly contributed to where it has lead to today. I am certainly old enough and was involved in dog sports when his shows were airing when he had his hissy fit with CC's. At the same time as his show, you also had the likes of Guide Dogs developing the good old Labrodoodle for assistance dogs. There were crosses on his show of a variety of species from chooks to livestock. The humble lowman brown chook was developed for high leg laying without being over the top in skittyness for first the battery egg farms and also the hobby back yard. Miniature horses, miniature pigs to name a few more.

His show was about what was popular at the time. Not just animals, but plants.

The "invention" of the Labrodoodle is more to blame for where we are today with oodle crosses. The notion of hypo-allogenic dogs with non shedding fur is as largely to blame as that show.

"Toby the Wonderdog" is as much to blame for the increased fad for chocolate border collies. Everyone wanted a dog just like Toby.

Social media in the last few years and to a greater extent the internet and it's cheap, widespread advertising has made more people aware. John citizen sees pedigree dogs going anywhere from $1000 upwards and wonder why they cost so much - and want to cash in on what they perceive is the money train.

Then you have the higher than mighty breeder who has little conception on basic customer service. They are rude, overbearing and may or may not get back to puppy enquiries. If they do, they appear to look down their nose at the humble puppy buyer. The breeder may have been duped before and looks to every enquiry in the future to do the same thing, even if "this" genuine pet buyer is new and may ask some stupid questions or poorly phrased email done through ignorance.

Just look through some other threads here on DOL to see not just breeders by hang ons who want to jump down a newbies neck as soon as they post a thread on certain topics. No wonder some puppy people turn to the back yard breeder when met with that kind of attitude. I am not saying to forego any checks on their suitability, but at least appear to be friendly. Hopefully at least educate them enough with the information they may need to make an informed decision on their own about breed traits and health etc - they may even go to someone else and relieve you of having to deal with them. Hopefully at least another registered breeder rather than a Back Yard or puppy shop. Even if you would not sell them a pup for what ever reason, make it friendly.

I know I will not get anywhere with this argument on this forum re the gardener. Some People here want to lay the sole blame for the whole thing on his doorstep. It is a lot more indepth than that and a lot more other factors. JMHO.

[Steve]

Sorry - I wasnt meaning to lay all the blame on his doorstep and a hell of a lot of what he said was true anyway. It wouldn't have been able to take off as well as it did if it were not already started and he certainly wasnt good enough to be able to wear too much of it on his own but it was around about that time that it became a good idea for people to breed dogs to make money cross bred and pure bred and that led to a whole bunch of people who wanted to profit from it not just the breeders. I agree that there were many variables involved to get us to here we are but this whole idea that all of the ills perceived can be snuffed out with legislation that is not able to be policed is crazy.

[moosmum]

Moose mum,

There will always be an "us" and "them". Creating a state or even national registration is not going to stop that. Even now, there is just about every avenue for a person to become registered, do the right thing by their dogs and their breed. People CHOOSE to do these things.

There are rules and regulations already in place whereby people should adhere. They CHOOSE to do this or not.

If people are going to take short cuts, breed or keep animals in a sub standard way, they will. Making something compulsory is not going to fix this either. If they cannot adhere to the existing rules, then why would they adhere to further rules?

Mystiqview,

I agree with pretty much every thing you wrote. I'm not after more rules or regs either. I agree with Steve that pure or cross shouldn't come into legislation.

I have been trying to say that a specific rule of the K.Cs was made out side of their charter.

This means it will now affect both the org,and what lies outside of that orgs boundaries if you can accept the physics of biology. The eccology of "Dog breeders", no matter which group they choose to align themselves with has been thrown out of a natural balance through restriction of environmental influence.Because that ruling can ONLY ever restrict,we are locked into a cycle of restriction to deal with the imballance.

This rule ensures further legislation.

Its deletion would not affect what pedigree breeders do in any way unless of their own choice.It does not require further legislation, or for any one to align themselves with any group.

It does allow for the environment or eccology of dog breeders to regain a healthy balance and to concentrate on whats required, whats possible and whats expected, rather than whats unacceptable.

Goals.Not restriction.

This is straight out physics of biology applied to human populations and I'm sure could be verified. It certainly seems to be supported by all the evidence.

Its social engineering to bring about a positive, healthy breeder eccology and removes the cause of the majority of issues being faced by ANY breeder that prevent better out comes.

Most of the issues being brought up can be shown to relate to the exsistence of this rule within K.Cs.

People don't seem to get how the physics of biology come into play when writing any document to support a group or community united under that document, or how the physics of biology can affect the outcomes. You are writing a biological plueprint for a population and how it interacts with its environment. Ruling out your environment gradualy undermines every thing you stand on.

Edited January 4, 2015 by moosmum

[Steve]

But Moosmum you over look the desire for protection of the breeds - and its the parent clubs of the breeds that have ultimate say on whether a stud book is opened and what criteria is required for registration and admittance into the gene pool -what will and will not be admitted and this is done because it is what is believed to be the best way to protect the breeds. There is nothing natural about it - purebreds result from un - natural selection.people always have the ability to choose to breed papered or unpapered dogs, or to cross breed dogs or not. Given that purebred CC registered breeders only breed about 9% of the puppies bred in this country per annum it seems to me there are a hell of a lot breeding dogs who have the freedom to decide what dogs they breed without the CC restriction.

How does a rule for members of a group about what stud animals can or cannot be used ensure further legislation for puppy farmers?

[WoofnHoof]

As Mystiqview says the issue is enforcement more so than any real need for more laws.

The fundamental problem though is that we don't have a dedicated animal welfare regulatory body that is publicly funded and publicly owned. Government will not set one up if they can possibly avoid it, they are happy to "outsource" the job to the rspca who are not set up effectively for the task, nor should they be. they are a private entity and have numerous conflicts of interest within their dual roles as charity and regulator.

The public currently are largely unaware of the need for a more substantial government role in animal welfare regulation, it is simply not a priority and by and large for some reason they believe the rspca is doing the job.

Personally I feel that great advancements in the area of animal welfare (be it companion, production, or working animals) would be made if a welfare division within the public system were to be implemented.

[moosmum]

But Moosmum you over look the desire for protection of the breeds - and its the parent clubs of the breeds that have ultimate say on whether a stud book is opened and what criteria is required for registration and admittance into the gene pool -what will and will not be admitted and this is done because it is what is believed to be the best way to protect the breeds. There is nothing natural about it - purebreds result from un - natural selection.people always have the ability to choose to breed papered or unpapered dogs, or to cross breed dogs or not. Given that purebred CC registered breeders only breed about 9% of the puppies bred in this country per annum it seems to me there are a hell of a lot breeding dogs who have the freedom to decide what dogs they breed without the CC restriction.

How does a rule for members of a group about what stud animals can or cannot be used ensure further legislation for puppy farmers?

We go in circles here. I bow out after this, because it seems to be true.... K.C breeders are unable to recognize their own environment. This means comunication between the environment and the breeders who operate with in it are lost.

I have not over looked the desire to protect the breeds. The ruling has nothing to do with protection of breeds.It only says that what occurs OUT SIDE of the registry is unacceptable.So its not worthy of improvement. Nothing to discuss, begone. It does not just ensure further legislation for puppy farmers, but all affairs in our dealings with dogs.

A practice or thing is deemed unacceptable, full stop. K.C breeders can truthfully say "this is a bad thing, Its not what WE stand for" and because of that, they refuse to take any responsibility for "it". So, the experts on dogs refuse to communicate with their environment on the issues, and how they can be avoided.They don't teach the value in what they do.

Lets say an environment and the species that thrive in it communicate.

1st method by impulse. This is provided by the genetic blue print.In dog speak, its what "drives" the species. The goals. The purpose. In humans, we add to our purpose and goals as a species when we unite under a common cause. (document, constitution, religon or purpose) That affects the impulses that drive us. Goals GIVE purpose.

Our actions in satisfying those drives affect the environment.

2) is response. How we respond to our environment. If our environment throws up problems in achieving those goals, how do we respond?

Response- ability. ie: Spey and neuter are responses to over breeding. If we take responsibility, to respond to the problem.

If the species (or population, breeders in this case) does not recognise its own environment, its unable to respond to problems. It can not take responsibility. So it attacks the environment instead, to get rid of the problem. The environment becomes an antagonist, not some thing you work with, and respond to, but some thing to be eliminated.

The environment for breeders of dogs, regardless off their affiliations, is a community that supports and can value dogs. Pedigree breeders will always be a small part of that environment. They are not "IT". And if they do not take responsibility and recognise that, It will continue to be erroded from under them, and every one else too. That rule denies any value to dogs out side of the K.Cs. It stands in the way of promotion of values out side the K.Cs,simply because breeding out side of the K.Cs own self imposed boundaries is unacceptable to their members. They have cut communication and don't teach/show a value to the environment.

Dogs attacking? Not within the K.Cs! Unacceptable. Eliminate the problem dogs.

Puppies raised in squalid conditions? Not any more, that was unacceptable and has been out lawed.Hoseable concrete from now on.

Unsocialised pups in pet shops? Ban shops selling pups.

Instead of teaching the value of socialisation. or choosing a type of dog you have the ability and expertise to control.Or the health requirments for dogs. Because now all that is not a K.C problem. Not their responsibility. They are the experts, but will not communicate or teach values out side of their own boundaries.

Goals are a positive. They set direction. A negative ruling can ONLY place limmits on that direction and the K.cs direction is now all inwards.

Successful or better breeding practices are denied out side the K.Cs.because no matter how good or responsible, its unacceptable in that it occurs out side the K.Cs own protocols and boundaries.

Those boundaries and protocols will now require further restriction to KEEP those practices or problems outside.

The expectations that come from the environment can't be met.

Edited January 7, 2015 by moosmum

[Mystiqview]

Moose mum

I really do not get your point here. The original topic was about the labor party's intention to bring in tougher laws for puppy farmers. It does not have anything to do with KC breeders and BYB although both groups will be affected by any new laws.

Some councils now offer a permit for breeding to non registered breeders. It is basically an undertaking that they will do the right thing, provide minimum standards and obey public health and safety. Yes, it is money to council. Something even registered breeders are supposed to pay as well.

According to DOL, it says you are in NSW and may not know what there is in laws for QLD. That's ok.

Illegal puppy farms, and those doing the wrong thing could be stopped or reduced now of the existing laws were enforced. The problem is no government authority likes negative publicity. Enforcement of laws whether it be parking fines, fare evasion and failure to comply with other state/local laws where a penalty applies (as in this case by fines) generates negative publicity with people going to the media and pleading hard done by the state or council. Too much negative publicity can cause a customer service approach or repealing of monetary fines.

It does not matter that the person was doing the wrong thing. Whether this be parking, fare evasion etc. The media loves to throw one at government.

The truth is, there are not enough resources allocated to enforce the existing laws. If resources were allocated to this, it would see an improvement. Examples need to be made. Government needs to grow the balls and stick to their guns - especially if the decision is done legally, correctly and no mistakes made in getting the evidence. Money will return to coffers via the fines which in turn provides financial resource to the people on the ground enforcing the laws.

If the Labor government wins the next election at the end of the month, they seek to toughen up the laws already in place. It is fine to legislate. But if resources and a plan is not also put in place to enforce the laws - existing or proposed. Then what is the point? A little warm and fuzzy moment in the media.

Nothing will improve. Those operating now under the law radar will continue to do so, knowing there is no resource set aside to catch them. Those who are naturally law abiding will try to accommodate or stop breeding, so there is less ethical registered breeders and more back yard breeders under the radar.

If the existing laws were enforced, this will catch and penalise all who are breaking the law. Whether they be puppy farmer, large puppy farm, registered breeder and back yard breeder alike.

Governments interstate as well are seeking tougher legislation. I believe QLD is looking to follow what has happened in Victoria.

Kennel clubs would love more breeders. More breeders equates or more registered puppies, this means more memberships, more prefix maintenance fees and more revenue through litter registration.

I think this is part of the reason they have no real concern in investigating and/or controlling those with prolific breeding programs. Providing those breeders are registering all their puppies, this equates to decent revenue to the Canine Clubs.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Mystiqview