Malamute Breeders Fined $22K Over Genetic Illness

[HollyMilo]

There have been topics about these breeders on here before.

http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/puppy-breeders-fined-22k/2778922/

When Christie Merry and Michael Goodhew made the devastating decision to have their beloved alaskan malamute Malla put down, it broke their hearts.

So when the Rockhampton couple found out other pet owners were suffering through the same situation due to the negligence of Sandown Alaskan Malamutes in Chatsworth (near Gympie) who sold them their adored but genetically flawed pet, they knew action had to be taken.

Ms Merry said her and partner Michael bought Malla at eight weeks old for $1000 from Sandown Alaskan Malamutes' dog breeders Peter and Faith Dykstra with the promise Malla was one of the best alaskan malamutes in Australia.

But Ms Merry said things soon took a turn for the worse.

"The first problem we had was that Malla's testicles didn't drop so he had to have a difficult procedure for them to be removed," Ms Merry said.

"We called Peter (Dykstra) and he offered to replace Malla with another dog. That's when alarm bells started going off for us. What kind of person would just swap their pet for another one that easily?

"Then at four months old, Malla started to have problems with his hips. The vets didn't want to diagnose him with anything too early because he was still growing, so it wasn't until he was eight months old that he was diagnosed with a genetic condition called hip dysplasia.

"He had to have two total hip replacements, which is the worst outcome for hip dysplasia. He was in extreme pain and would dislocate his hips walking or even rolling over.

"Then six weeks after that he was diagnosed with a rare algae infection called protothecosis. He was only the 18th dog in Australia to get it.

"As treatment, he had to have injections of one litre of fluid, three times a week. But eventually we realised he wasn't getting any better. He went blind and started having seizures so we made the decision to put him down at just 17 months old. It was so devastating.

"We had to get loans out to cover Malla's vet bills which were well over $23,000."

Ms Merry said when contacting the breeders about the heartbreaking situation, she and Michael were allegedly subjected to verbal abuse and blamed for Malla's death.

Ms Merry said she and Michael then came across a Facebook group dedicated to over 50 alaskan malamutes from the Sandown breeders who suffered the same or similar fate as Malla, and for the past 19 months, have been involved in a major campaign and court case against Gympie dog breeders Peter and Faith Dykstra involving up to 36 dogs.

The two Gympie dog breeders were on Wednesday ordered to pay $22,143.35 collectively in fines and compensation by the Gympie Magistrates Court after being charged by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for making false and misleading claims about their dogs.

Mr Dykstra, 79, and Mrs Dykstra, 72, were each found guilty on seven counts and pleaded guilty to a further two counts of engaging in misleading conduct in connection with the sale of goods, an offence under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The sale of pets is captured under the ACL which means businesses must not make false claims about their characteristics.

The court heard that between October 2011 and December 2013, Mr and Mrs Dykstra sold alaskan malamute dogs to consumers, several of whom later complained to the OFT after the dogs developed symptoms of the genetic condition hip dysplasia.

The OFT investigation found Mr and Mrs Dykstra misled the consumers by claiming the condition was not genetic. They instead blamed the consumers for causing any ill health conditions by providing an incorrect diet.

In January 2014, the pair advertised in a local newspaper claiming their breeding program was "15 years free of genetic defects", despite being informed of numerous instances of dogs purchased from them having hip dysplasia.

The court heard the malamute puppies were sold to consumers for between $800 and $1000 and the defendants did not test their breeding stock for genetic conditions.

Several scientific studies confirm hip dysplasia has a genetic component and Mr and Mrs Dykstra were provided this information in July 2011 by an alaskan malamute club in Victoria, several months prior to their first offence.

The Gympie breeders are also not registered with any alaskan malamute breeders clubs.

In sentencing, the court considered Mr and Mrs Dykstra's motive in justifying selling dogs with genetic defects as having a wilful disregard for scientific facts and lack of responsibility when making representations to the community.

Mr Dykstra was fined $14,000 and ordered to pay $1143.35 in compensation to a consumer affected by their offending, while Mrs Dykstra was fined $7000 for the same offences under parity principals.

The court also ordered Mr and Mrs Dykstra to issue a public apology and provide written notice to prospective buyers, at least 48 hours prior to sale, stating their breeding stock was not screened for hip dysplasia.

Ms Merry was extremely happy with the outcome and said Malla could finally rest in peace.

"We're so happy. It's awesome that they finally have to admit to and pay for what they did," she said.

Edited September 18, 2015 by HollyMilo

[Rebanne]

I am really pleased these people have been called to account but a bit annoyed that HD is being promoted as genetic only and can be easily tested for. HD can come from fully tested lines and can be caused by diet and upbringing. And can often just happened. Of course the chances of just happening are lessened by testing but sh!t does still happen. Not condoning these people at all but feel a bit sorry for the good breeders who sometimes throw a HD dog.

[Little Gifts]

What a horrible experience for a puppy owner to go through. I don't think the fines were harsh enough (they should also never own or breed a dog again) but I guess that reflects the limitations of the law.

Rebanne it sounds like their litters threw more than just one or two HD dogs (which makes more of a case for it being genetic) and of course they lied saying their stock was 15 years free when instances of HD had already arisen. They also kept breeding from the same stock without caring about the heightened risk factor or doing any testing. At lots of points along the road things could've changed for the better. I think their ongoing negligence for pups bred under their care puts them poles apart from a good breeder and hopefully most sensible people will see that. I don't think you can fully guarantee the health of any living thing despite the care you put into creating it but to do nothing when faced with the truth is wrong.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Little Gifts

[Two Best Dogs!]

It's not saying HD is genetic only? It says HD has a genetic component.

And good, I'm glad those people were fined. To continuously breed and sell animals of poor health > : (

[sandgrubber]

Poor puppy . .. poor owners. The sadder story is that (quoting from the article):

Ms Merry said she and Michael then came across a Facebook group dedicated to over 50 alaskan malamutes from the Sandown breeders who suffered the same or similar fate as Malla, and for the past 19 months, have been involved in a major campaign and court case against Gympie dog breeders Peter and Faith Dykstra involving up to 36 dogs.

It's weak journalism that the author didn't verify this source or follow it up. But there are 50 other pups suffering from the same or similar fate, someone should be asking about who the sires and dams were, and whether or not they were hip scored. I hope the major campaign and court case is less scatter-shot than this article.

[Little Gifts]

Poor puppy . .. poor owners. The sadder story is that (quoting from the article):

Ms Merry said she and Michael then came across a Facebook group dedicated to over 50 alaskan malamutes from the Sandown breeders who suffered the same or similar fate as Malla, and for the past 19 months, have been involved in a major campaign and court case against Gympie dog breeders Peter and Faith Dykstra involving up to 36 dogs.

It's weak journalism that the author didn't verify this source or follow it up. But there are 50 other pups suffering from the same or similar fate, someone should be asking about who the sires and dams were, and whether or not they were hip scored. I hope the major campaign and court case is less scatter-shot than this article.

Why does the journalist need to verify this as a source? As I read it the discovery of the FB page by the Merry's was what lead them (not the journalist) to start a major campaign to bring the Sandown breeders to justice. Their campaign was successful, they had enough evidence to have charges laid and the breeders have now been convicted. There is also no info in the story regarding whether the prosecuting legal team used any evidence from other disgruntled owners on the FB page but you would assume so based on quotes re the court case. It would be stupid if they didn't. They have also said 36 breeding dogs were involved so I would also assume the courts and any owners involved in the court case would now know who the sires and dams were if suitable records of matings were kept. As for hip scoring, if it wasn't done then this would also be important for the court case. If it was done then again it would be shared with any owners who were party to the court matter.

This is a media story on the outcomes of the court case, not a full court report and not an expose on the breeders by the journo.

[_PL_]

I remember now! The name is so familiar. :mad

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/257529-breeder-cleared-of-puppy-farm-allegations/page__p__6493525__hl__dykstra__fromsearch__1#entry6493525

[espinay2]

The points to take away IMO are the following:

They claimed their dogs were healthy and free of genetic disease but did not hip score their dogs. They also claimed despite evidence to the contrary that HD is purely environmental. It was these claims which were proven as false and misleading in court that primarily had them in trouble. And why part of the court decision included them making clear statements in any future advertising.

If they had hip scored, took account of the scores in their breeding program, advised owners of the scores, and had told them that HD was polygenetic and also influenced by environment, a pup developing HD would likely not have been an issue for them legally (as it sometimes happens at the best of times).

Info from the fair trading site: https://www.qld.gov.au/law/laws-regulated-industries-and-accountability/queensland-laws-and-regulations/fair-trading-services-programs-and-resources/fair-trading-latest-news/media-statements/gympie-breeder-gone-to-the-dogs/

Edited September 21, 2015 by espinay2

[ellejaytee]

Having an Alaskan malamute myself, I have heard about these breeders. Far too many of their pups have devastating conditions for it to be non- genetic.

I have heard that a lot of the time, they weren't even sure who the sire was, so the hip scores (if they even had them) would be irrelevant. The issue is that had these people been ethical breeders, they wouldn't allow dogs to be bred that shouldn't be. Litters would be planned. A lot of the ethical, registered breeders don't breed very often. These breeders were pretty much a puppy farm, but with the registered breeder title, and it's beyond disgusting that they were able to devastate so many people and dogs. So many people would have thought that they were doing the right thing by going through a registered breeder.

The undescended testicle is not so much of a big deal compared to the other issues, our boy was cryptorchid too. Yes, it was a bigger, more expensive surgery. We told our breeder but didn't expect anything out of it other than to let them know. It can happen, no ill feelings about that at all.

I do think the penalties are not harsh enough. I'd like to see all the owners of affected puppies reimbursed for their expenses. Nothing would compensate for their loss, but it sucks that they are left repaying a loan for a dog that is no longer with them.

[Steve]

its about the fact that they promoted their dogs just the same way that most registered breeders do as being something they cant be. The fines were given for misleading conduct - not their breeding practices.

HD is a whole new subject but no matter what a breeder does to try to avoid it its still possible to see it turn up and it may turn up in clusters as it has in this case which can make it look like it has a greater genetic component ,

Could have been impacted by numerous things the breeder might be unaware of and never be able to identify. Might even be impacted by the nutrition of the mother , grandmother or the puppies, a chemical used on in or near the bitch when she was pregnant etc.

Every registered breeder should take special notice of what I am about to say.

1. When people come to buy a pup from a registered breeder often they believe this will guarantee that their puppy will not ever have a problem. Marketing of what registered breeders do and information that is distributed about why buying from a registered breeders is better and less risky is distributed at every opportunity

which reinforces for the puppy buyer that purchasing from a registered breeder is a less risky experience and they walk away with a baby in their arms they fall in love with that they had no idea could have developed health issues because it is a living creature.

Even if the breeder never makes an assertion that the dog will never have a problem and does not give a guarantee the fact is that the buyer has come to the registered breeder and in their mind there is an implied warranty.

The breeder has to be careful to remove that implied warranty and explain there can be no guarantee past being able to guarantee a pup wont develop a genetic disorder which both parents have been cleared of via DNA testing.

If they dont then puppy buyers who are emotional because their baby is suffering and uneducated on the ins and outs of what causes such things want to be comforted and compensated.

2. The only two things as a breeder you can guarantee is that the dog wont develop a recessive disorder excluded by DNA and that at the time of sale the dog is fit and healthy - unless you notify them of a fault which you are aware at time of sale.

As a breeder you have to remove any idea the buyer may have in their mind - or the implied warranty - and you should do that in writing

As a breeder you have to be careful that you make no verbal or written statements that would in anyway be able to be considered to be misleading. Obviously You cant say you are 15 years HD free if you have been advised that some dogs you bred are affected

Part of the deal the court ordered them to do is to notify puppy buyers 48 hours before taking money that they don't hip score - This implies that this is something the puppy buyers would expect them to do as a matter of course even though this is not mandatory for this breed.

But what if tomorrow they start to hip score - how would that prevent them from using dogs with high scores, or any puppy buyer being able to be more assured that their puppy wont get HD even if they only use dogs with low scores? They still have to notify the buyer that there is no warranty - implied or other wise that their puppies wont develop hip problems.

It is telling that the retained testicle which is evident at time of sale, that the breeder should have a vet certificate on and should have notified the buyer about with consequences for the dog and owner before they took the pup is shrugged off but the HD which the breeder couldnt have known about at time of sale and which is impacted by so many other things that the breeder has no control over is treated and viewed as a terrible sin.

Why would the breeder be being held responsible for a dog that died so long after it left their care from exposure to a rare Algae?

Edited October 16, 2015 by Steve