New Dog And Cat Laws In South Australia

[Steve]

Is there a possibility of mandating that pets that are non-breeding (ie not on the main register) are sold with a voucher for desexing and that this must be done by a certain age (eg 18 months for dogs)?

I'd think that there would have to be a lot of things very carefully sorted out before this happened, like:

* a standardised (and regulated) vet fee for desexing - so that the breeder could buy a voucher that is sold with the animal

* a way of registering breeders and mandating that any animal sales must be through a registered breeder

* an 'out clause' that allows a registered vet to certify that the timeframe for desexing needs to be extended for a particular animal for an particular time for reasons that are related to the animal's health and/or needs (not those of the human owners).

What do you think?

What have I missed or got wrong?

But you see what is the aim of this? Lets talk dogs only because that's what I know more about -

If the aim is to cut down on unwanted litters - How many dog owners don't desex their pets and allow them to have litters which they don't take responsibility for ? Is this really such a big part of the perceived problem that would see every dog owner's right to make decisions on the care of their pets removed? In places where mandatory desexing has been introduced there is no evidence that this has made even a slight difference - see the ACT for example. Owning an entire dog doesn't equal the action of being irresponsible with it . How many puppies form these unwanted litters dont find homes? Rescue groups fight over pregnant dogs and they know puppies find home easier than adult dogs. So in order to try to stop someone else from being irresponsible then those who would prefer to make their own choices for their own animals must have the right removed to make their own decisions in conjunction with their vets as to what is best for their animals? This isn't what is best for the dogs - there are loads of reported potential health risks for a dog - its what is perceived to be best for the community and before we do that we had better be sure we really do know the size of the problem and whether we can really expect that it will make a difference. desex all dogs in case someone else is an idiot doesn't sit well at all.

[Steve]

Is there a possibility of mandating that pets that are non-breeding (ie not on the main register) are sold with a voucher for desexing and that this must be done by a certain age (eg 18 months for dogs)?

I'd think that there would have to be a lot of things very carefully sorted out before this happened, like:

* a standardised (and regulated) vet fee for desexing - so that the breeder could buy a voucher that is sold with the animal

* a way of registering breeders and mandating that any animal sales must be through a registered breeder

* an 'out clause' that allows a registered vet to certify that the timeframe for desexing needs to be extended for a particular animal for an particular time for reasons that are related to the animal's health and/or needs (not those of the human owners).

What do you think?

What have I missed or got wrong?

Define registered breeder?

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Number 2 thing - no puppy to be separated from its litter and mother ie rehomed without them - until at least 8 weeks old unless a good reason in writing from a vet. Ie the mother died. Why?

Why - because if the dog is rehomed or separated from its litter at 6 weeks it never learns good dog to dog manners. They're the ones that barge up to unknown dogs at off lead parks and jump on them.

http://thedogsnobs.com/2013/07/30/your-dog-isnt-being-friendly-hes-an-asshole-and-so-are-you/

rehoming sick puppies.

There are already such things in place covered under cruelty and consumer laws- no need for new regs

Not in SA there aren't. Or the ones they have are unenforceable - too vague. There are definitely some genetic problems that can be prevented with current tech eg PRA - if the breeders are not testing for those - in my opinion - they should not be breeding. It's true there is some grey in how far you go with putting the onus for healthy puppy on the breeder but some breeders are outrageous.

Any fines should cover the cost of enforcement for council and RSPCA or they won't have the resources to do it and they won't bother.

You have to get them to enforce them first

Yeah but if it costs them more than they get back by doing it - there is no incentive. It's like if you had to pay to go to work somewhere instead of company paying you to work. And usually the first two weeks - you don't get paid - so you do spend some money up front but you get it back at the end of your pay period. But if the cost of going to work exceeded what you could make - you'd either be a "volunteer" or you would not work there.

The current pattern with "selling puppies" here is if the breeder hasn't sold them by the time they're 14 weeks old - they give them to a pet shop, if the pet shop doesn't sell them - they dump them with rescue like AWL or RSPCA - at 5 months old roughly. And then they're really hard to home.

If it was true that all puppies got sold to responsible owners... there'd be no puppies or dogs 6 to 12 months old at Rescues and Shelters.

"Registered" under this proposed legislation means with Government or local council. Not ANKC or MDBA or PIA

[Steve]

Number 2 thing - no puppy to be separated from its litter and mother ie rehomed without them - until at least 8 weeks old unless a good reason in writing from a vet. Ie the mother died. Why?

Why - because if the dog is rehomed or separated from its litter at 6 weeks it never learns good dog to dog manners. They're the ones that barge up to unknown dogs at off lead parks and jump on them.

http://thedogsnobs.c...and-so-are-you/

rehoming sick puppies.

There are already such things in place covered under cruelty and consumer laws- no need for new regs

Not in SA there aren't. Or the ones they have are unenforceable - too vague. There are definitely some genetic problems that can be prevented with current tech eg PRA - if the breeders are not testing for those - in my opinion - they should not be breeding. It's true there is some grey in how far you go with putting the onus for healthy puppy on the breeder but some breeders are outrageous.

Any fines should cover the cost of enforcement for council and RSPCA or they won't have the resources to do it and they won't bother.

You have to get them to enforce them first

Yeah but if it costs them more than they get back by doing it - there is no incentive. It's like if you had to pay to go to work somewhere instead of company paying you to work. And usually the first two weeks - you don't get paid - so you do spend some money up front but you get it back at the end of your pay period. But if the cost of going to work exceeded what you could make - you'd either be a "volunteer" or you would not work there.

The current pattern with "selling puppies" here is if the breeder hasn't sold them by the time they're 14 weeks old - they give them to a pet shop, if the pet shop doesn't sell them - they dump them with rescue like AWL or RSPCA - at 5 months old roughly. And then they're really hard to home.

If it was true that all puppies got sold to responsible owners... there'd be no puppies or dogs 6 to 12 months old at Rescues and Shelters.

"Registered" under this proposed legislation means with Government or local council. Not ANKC or MDBA or PIA

Nup Im not buying that if you take a pup from its litter at 6 weeks that it automatically becomes a dog that doesn't know how to have good manners around other dogs and just because a breeder cant place a puppy in a new home until its 8 weeks old doesn't mean it will get to be with its litter mates and its Mum for that long anyway. Its the period between 7 and 8 weeks where the pup needs to be exposed to humans and there is a fair argument for them being advantaged by being easier to train and fit into the routine of a new home and for the bonding with and by their humans to be easier. Puppies were placed in their new homes once when I first started breeding at 6 weeks, then the old vaccines came in and they took ten to 14 days to be activated so CC rules were introduced to keep them until the vaccine had time to cut in at 8 weeks. New vaccines only need 3 to 5 days. My Maremma pups are kept on my property until they are 8 weeks because of regs but by 6 weeks they are not with their Mum or litter mates - they are with chickens or sheep. If I could I would place them in new homes for them to start bonding with the new family and the species they are working with at 6 weeks .Placing a blanket reg on everyone who breeds a puppy to keep it for at least 8 weeks doesn't take into account the variables of the breed and the home it will go into and there isn't enough science to back up that dogs who dont stay with their breeder until they are 8 weeks old are the ones most likely to do what your article discusses. Most breeders want to do what is best for the puppies and the new families based on the variables of the breed and other things at the time .its stupid arguing about it anyway as it wont ever be re considered and whether it is better for the pups and the new family or not none of us get a choice - I would prefer breeders be left to make the decision.

When you talk about breeders being responsible for years into the future for genetic disorders that cant be a blanket decision either .Its reliant on what diseases are known to be in the breed or the ancestry . If its a known genetic disorder in the dogs heritage that has a DNA test for it then of course it should be tested for but there are hundreds of tests available now and a breeder cant test for every test .Not all genetic diseases are able to be tested for and the hardest ones are polygenic not recessive. Example - right now based on our research and recent health surveys we have done one breed has a pretty high incidence of carrier and affected degenerative Myelopathy which is a horrible disease - causes lots of suffering as it gets hold - recessive that doesn't show up until the dog is around 8 years old .Based on what we see in the results of the dogs that are being tested its hard to believe that as time goes on that many many dogs of this breed already born wont begin to show symptoms and every day there must be some which are being born which are affected because few are being tested for it and the breed club wants to do other research before they believe it and DNA testing isn't mandatory - then there is another one which we see a bit in another breed where one gene test lab actually states that they believe that it doesnt occur in this breed enough to warrant screening. So if I bred a dog of the first breed tomorrow without testing knowing what I know and they turned out to be affected because both parents were carriers then in my opinion I should have the book thrown at me even though its going to take 6 to 8 years for me to be caught out but how do you hold the breeders responsible when they are being told its no big deal and they dont need to test for it? How do you hold the breeders responsible who have bred puppies which will develop this problem who had no clue it existed and when there was no test for it when they bred the dogs. I agree that some are shockers but again its about a blanket rule which isn't as easy as it sounds. When such laws were put in via Victoria where it became against the law to breed carriers there was no way to introduce mandatory testing - how many breeders have been prosecuted for it? Some who were testing stopped testing

SA has the same federal consumer laws as every state in Australia and prevention of cruelty to animals Laws are in place in SA to cover the rest.

The data and stats dont exist to back up what you say is the state of affairs re selling puppies. Right now no one can say whether dogs which are 6 months old are not represented more because it's around about when the new families work out that they dont want it anymore. Its not in a pet shop's best interest to do routinely do what you say enough to be a huge reason for numbers in pounds and regulations for pet shops could address that better than going at the breeders. We need more research so we know what we are making decisions on is the real state of affairs and justifies taking away dog owners rights. At the end of the day its about the person who is responsible for the dog being responsible whether that be a pet shop or owner. Im not saying that some puppies are not bred which cant find homes but there is a high demand for puppies and while ever we don't look at that then the supply will be filled. Lower the demand - you lower the supply.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Steve

[Pjrt]

In all the political bs tied up with animal welfare over the years in a veiled attempt to control things better, the actual animals seem to have been forgotten. As long as it looks good on paper and ticks some of the boxes of the propaganda that folks have had shoved down their necks, then it must be good, yes.

For me the biggest problem is we always seem to be mopping up at the wrong end of the system. If as much energy, passion, money was put into helping people make good choices about pet ownership, as was put into rescue, shelters, re homing, we might get somewhere. We always hear about shelters trying to get their kill rate down. How about they try to get their admission rate down. If that means not taking surrenders and making people realise that once they have a pet, they can't just drop it off at the shelter when it jumps their Three foot fence, wrecks their back door or pees on the carpet. I think shelters should be for unclaimed strays and genuine welfare and cruelty cases. Not for every man and his dog to use as a rubbish bin.

I was born in 1971 and grew up in Adelaide. As a kid sometimes we would visit the pet shelter at AWL. When I got my first dog as a kid, we went to the RSPCA. That all sounds nice and fluffy, but in reality, it taught me to know somewhere deep inside, that if I ever had issues with a pet, there was somewhere I could take them to free myself of the issue. Wow, that sounds dreadful, but it is the truth I grew up with, and I'm sure much of the general population do.

We need a massive societal change. We need people to get pets for the right reasons. We need people to get the right pet. We need people to seriously question if they should have a pet.

Should we take away pet owners rights? Yes, I think we should. But not take away the right to have them entire, or to pick them up from the breeder at 6 or 7 weeks old. I have been around working with dogs long enough to know those things have little consequence on the outcome of the adult dog. It's the right to own a pet at all that needs to be looked at. Take an axe to the pointy end of the sale. We need to know if people have the time, resources, attitude to own the pet properly and responsibly, before it becomes a welfare issue.

We don't need less pets for sale, we need less pets ending up in shelters. We need to take a serious look at why that happens.

[moosmum]

Agree.

We don't need need new rules and regs as much as we need to teach a value owning pets, and a value of the good practices that make pets the best they can be.

Edited June 28, 2015 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

Perhaps one of the hugest problems for domestic animal welfare is that there isn't actually a system.

[moosmum]

Perhaps one of the hugest problems for domestic animal welfare is that there isn't actually a system.

Or too many systems and no community.Continuous rules and regs just shrinks the environment in which pets can be owned.

It will end with us all needing a phd,lots of money, govt. fees and licences to keep pets. And no value recognised but privilige.

Surely it should be about a desire to do the best you can for your situation, to ensure your actions bring value to dog/pet ownership.That takes a community.It gives one too.

Edited June 28, 2015 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

Perhaps one of the hugest problems for domestic animal welfare is that there isn't actually a system.

Or too many systems and no community.

Yes I guess that is a better way of saying it. Several systems of registering and tracking domestic animals but they are parallel to each other. No cohesion.

[Steve]

In all the political bs tied up with animal welfare over the years in a veiled attempt to control things better, the actual animals seem to have been forgotten. As long as it looks good on paper and ticks some of the boxes of the propaganda that folks have had shoved down their necks, then it must be good, yes.

For me the biggest problem is we always seem to be mopping up at the wrong end of the system. If as much energy, passion, money was put into helping people make good choices about pet ownership, as was put into rescue, shelters, re homing, we might get somewhere. We always hear about shelters trying to get their kill rate down. How about they try to get their admission rate down. If that means not taking surrenders and making people realise that once they have a pet, they can't just drop it off at the shelter when it jumps their Three foot fence, wrecks their back door or pees on the carpet. I think shelters should be for unclaimed strays and genuine welfare and cruelty cases. Not for every man and his dog to use as a rubbish bin.

I was born in 1971 and grew up in Adelaide. As a kid sometimes we would visit the pet shelter at AWL. When I got my first dog as a kid, we went to the RSPCA. That all sounds nice and fluffy, but in reality, it taught me to know somewhere deep inside, that if I ever had issues with a pet, there was somewhere I could take them to free myself of the issue. Wow, that sounds dreadful, but it is the truth I grew up with, and I'm sure much of the general population do.

We need a massive societal change. We need people to get pets for the right reasons. We need people to get the right pet. We need people to seriously question if they should have a pet.

Should we take away pet owners rights? Yes, I think we should. But not take away the right to have them entire, or to pick them up from the breeder at 6 or 7 weeks old. I have been around working with dogs long enough to know those things have little consequence on the outcome of the adult dog. It's the right to own a pet at all that needs to be looked at. Take an axe to the pointy end of the sale. We need to know if people have the time, resources, attitude to own the pet properly and responsibly, before it becomes a welfare issue.

We don't need less pets for sale, we need less pets ending up in shelters. We need to take a serious look at why that happens.

[Steve]

There are many problems associated with welfare of dogs and specifically breeding dogs but one underlying fault is that we have been shouted down by zealots and do gooders who have no experience with owning or breeding dogs which a used for breeding.

No person who loves dogs and who wants what is best for them wants to put their dogs in concrete cells and keep them as dogs which are kept short term in boarding kennels and pounds /shelters .Reputable breeder's dogs dont have the same risk factors or requirements that other dogs have and the more regulation and crap that is put on the more the welfare of the dogs is lessened.

The reason someone can sneak into a commercial kennel in the middle of the night in Victoria and take photos and complain about dogs kept in factory type situations is because of the over regulation and the desire to manage breeders and their dogs based on the opinion of people who shouldn't have a say.

Every year in this country there are approx 20,000 people who breed a litter of puppies - a handful of them are mentally ill, hoarders and criminals - just as there are in any pastime or industry - so just in case all breeders are uneducated nutters we have to be pushed around by activists and zealots , and those who assume they know all the answers. And the answers dont stop dogs from suffering and if anything make it worse not better for dogs in general.

These things have little hope of being enforced and simply become scoff laws as those likely to be doing the wrong thing are not known to overnight step in line. Breaches of regulations are simply fines unless its a criminal case of cruelty and someone who is found guilty of breaching mandatory codes gets a smack - time to fix it and continue on until they are caught next time - but those yelling seem to think they can loose their dogs and be prevented from being able to continue on. Other businesses get fines and warnings every day of the week fix the problem , pay the fine and continue on as long as they havent committed a criminal offence but there is an expectation that breeders are different.

Spend the money and resources on ensuring pet owners register their dogs, keep them responsibly and promote the positive behaviours that go on in the community. Bloody hell councils cant even get people to register their dogs and microchipping in NSW has been mandatory in NSW since the early 90's and still dogs come into pounds with no chips.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

It's clear to me that we have puppy farms in South Australia - two that I don't like are actually registered with ANKC. And they do things I think are inappropriate for the breeds they have. And there's plenty more who sell sick puppies out of their car boots.

And people buy those puppies.

People who can walk into a pet shop and impulse buy - don't always think about the consequences of their actions. Don't see too many of them here because they get hounded for mentioning "designer cross breed" names and buying from pet shop. Another forum I hang out at - we get about three or four of these puppy owners seeking help a week. And it's not a very active forum. Another forum I hang out on - tech based - has an off topic section that also gets people asking for help, they bought a puppy with no idea about the impact it would have on their lifestyle. They should have bought a gold fish.

Saying that they should not be allowed to take their puppy to a shelter and "dump it" is only going to increase the number PTS at the vet (which is horrible for the vet), or the ones mistreated and neglected at home. It's like saying no more divorce allowed because that increases the divorce rate. Well hello - people who feel they are trapped in their miserable marriage are also more likely to suffer abuse of various sorts.

I would just like laws that provide easy to measure and prove conditions to good dog breeding practice. It's all very well to say we have animal welfare laws - but they are difficult to measure and enforce.

As for the health testing of parent dogs - I think if there is some measurable expense added to the cost of breeding - that it will be done less by those with two whole dogs looking to make a quick buck out of their pets. Not if they have to microchip every puppy and keep them until they're 8 weeks not to mention - do the DNA tests. And maybe hip scores on breeds prone to problems - tho the research is still inconclusive as far as I know to how well a good hip score in the parents means good hips more likely in the puppies. You can still get a puppy with dodgy hips.

But I did say the limit on the cost should be for the first year (or other time limit) and to the cost of the puppy. And if things go wrong - the money should go to the treating vet not the owners (unless the puppy dies of the breeder caused problem).

What I would like the legislation to do - is to take the profit out of dodgy breeding practices.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[Pjrt]

I'm saying people shouldn't be able to surrender their pet to a shelter because I believe firstly that less people would need to if their was far better pro active education and support pre and post purchase, and that a privately owned pet should be re homed privately if it is a normal well adjusted animal that can be rehomed, or yes, PTS privately if it isnt a rehoming prospect for health or temperament reasons. The animals that should end up at shelters should be unclaimed strays, and genuine cases of welfare issues such as deceased estate animals that have no options, and cases such as where the owner has had a medical situation leaving them unanble to properly care for the pet, and genuine neglect, abandonment and cruelty cases. Pounds and shelters have become a convenience in our throw away society. It needs to stop. I'm not saying that halting surrenders to shelters will solve everything, but it will make people realise that there is not an easy bin to dump their pet in when it becomes a mild inconvenience for whatever reason.

I know it sounds radical but I really think it's worth consideration as part of a radical shake up of animal welfare outcomes.

Another thing that I find incredible is that we probably know more statistically about a sheep from paddock to plate, or a native Hopping Mouse from sale to death, than we know about the dogs and cats in our own home.

[Pjrt]

Yes one point I strongly agree on is looking at ways to reduce profit incentives for wholesale dog breeding.

But then while we have places like the PIAA encouraging their member stores to only supply puppies from big shiny registered properly regulated wholesale dog breeding facilities.......

ETA..... and it's all the nice new regulations that have infact allowed such big shiny registered properly regulated wholesale dog breeding facilities to flourish

Edited June 28, 2015 by blinkblink

[Pjrt]

Further to my above post.....

I am even willing to concede that stopping private surrenders to pounds and shelters may have a pretty shitty outcome for the current generation of pets, possibly even the next. I don't want to see pets needlessly abandoned, surrendered or PTS. No one does. But we need a radical change to the shelter mindset. A generational change. A change that will one day see people looking back with alarm at 'how it used to be'.

We won't get major generational change of mindset while we tiptoe around big issues and pitterpatter about changing and adding existing laws that are proving generations over that they are next to useless in obtaining better animal welfare outcomes..... and all the while, regulating 'the good guys' (the old fashioned back yard registered breeder with quality animals and the incentive to keep creating quality animals).... out of existence.

Edited June 28, 2015 by blinkblink

[Steve]

Nothing is as it seems and there are always other issues to consider and potential unintended consequences. Breeding dogs in Australia is not illegal - therefore making money from breeding dogs is not illegal. I agree that when someone breeds with only making a profit as their goal the risks are increased but its unrealistic to consider stopping legitimate businesses - recognised by the ATO from being able to produce and sell their products as long as they comply with regs and laws - and there is a fair argument that some professional breeders are getting it right more than an occasional breeder. If a person has invested time, energy money into breeding dogs and is getting it right its going to be pretty difficult to make a case that they shouldnt be allowed to do it. Dog breeding would be the only activity that I know of where those who do it more often and for longer are not seen to be experts but rather assumed to e potential criminals and animal abusers. Until you address the demand and the attitude of disposability if it doesnt work out its all going no where

Responsible dog ownership starts before someone starts looking for a dog. Its currently politically correct to blame the breeder and there is no doubt that sometimes we should but focusing only on assumed remedies following on behind those who have already had a go at it and not solved the problem doesn't stop any dog from suffering - as long as we continue to keep looking in the same places led by zealots we will always get the same results and its time we looked at the problem and start to try to prove or disprove assumptions.

[Steve]

You also cant have it both ways - we no longer consider people who buy dogs pet owners - they are consumers. They are encouraged to blame everyone else for their hard luck rather than being educated that what they are taking on is a living being that may get sick, that will need to be trained, contained, fed, exercised and loved. That there are consequences for not choosing a pup that will fit your lifestyle and that throwing it out of home is the absolute last resort if life makes it impossible for you to keep it. If you make the pet owner understand that they are responsible for the ills that befall their animals then those who breed their animals have to do more to get it right because the buyer becomes more choosy about the source or they cant compete with those who do. Nothing a breeder does can absolutely positively guarantee that any pup that goes to a new home will be the perfect fit , will not get sick etc. The expectations on a breeder to be able to be accountable after the dog goes home is unrealistic , the expectation that they can get their money back, get compensated for issues, dump them etc just perpetuates the view that someone buying a dog is a consumer and not a puppy buyer. So if they are a consumer and its broken or there's a newer model, if its breaking down too often, escaping, barking, jumping, doesnt match the new furniture just get rid of it and try again. then they can blame breeders for being responsible for unwanted dogs and too many dogs being PTS. If someone buys a puppy from a market full of fleas and worms rather than dobbing them in for doing it then its not just the breeder you have to blame and its time we looked at the big picture rather than float along with what is fashionable and targeted by animal rights and zealots

[Pjrt]

Steve I agree with you on that first paragraph, with the exception that it has become quite legal to breed, dogs especially, wholesale volume style. Everything is fine and legal with it, but we still have the dogs living in a wharehoused environment and i dont think that can ever be justified.

And your right. We seem to live in an age of breeder bashing. I also think health and welfare outcomes for the adult dog are rarely wholly or partially stemming from breeder practices.

For me the paramount area of concern is not as much the supply, but the responsibility of pet ownership, by the actual owners.

[Steve]

Steve I agree with you on that first paragraph, with the exception that it has become quite legal to breed, dogs especially, wholesale volume style. Everything is fine and legal with it, but we still have the dogs living in a wharehoused environment and i dont think that can ever be justified.

And your right. We seem to live in an age of breeder bashing. I also think health and welfare outcomes for the adult dog are rarely wholly or partially stemming from breeder practices.

For me the paramount area of concern is not as much the supply, but the responsibility of pet ownership, by the actual owners.

Correct except that regs and by laws push breeders to keep them in such conditions. Give breeders the choice and there isn't anyone who I know that would choose to have kennels more suited to pound dogs in their back yard. We have had members who own half a dozen small breed dogs which have always lived inside with puppies whelped in the spare bedroom who have been forced to build kennels and go into debt in order to breed dogs from their properties to comply with codes. Spend more on infrastructure to comply and you need to breed more puppies to get back your money. make small breeders have to be inspected and licenced so they cant breed their dogs in their home without all the crap more suited to a massive commercial breeder and all we will do is run out those who we want to encourage.

[Pjrt]

Steve I agree with you on that first paragraph, with the exception that it has become quite legal to breed, dogs especially, wholesale volume style. Everything is fine and legal with it, but we still have the dogs living in a wharehoused environment and i dont think that can ever be justified.

And your right. We seem to live in an age of breeder bashing. I also think health and welfare outcomes for the adult dog are rarely wholly or partially stemming from breeder practices.

For me the paramount area of concern is not as much the supply, but the responsibility of pet ownership, by the actual owners.

Correct except that regs and by laws push breeders to keep them in such conditions. Give breeders the choice and there isn't anyone who I know that would choose to have kennels more suited to pound dogs in their back yard. We have had members who own half a dozen small breed dogs which have always lived inside with puppies whelped in the spare bedroom who have been forced to build kennels and go into debt in order to breed dogs from their properties to comply with codes. Spend more on infrastructure to comply and you need to breed more puppies to get back your money. make small breeders have to be inspected and licenced so they cant breed their dogs in their home without all the crap more suited to a massive commercial breeder and all we will do is run out those who we want to encourage.

yes, that is exactly it, what I was trying to say!