Filthy, Hungry And Cramped: Alleged Puppy Factory Raided Read More: H

[_PL_]

2 or 120. Those conditions aren't good enough.

I'm constantly mystified at the actions of RSPCA and councils. A showie lady with some debarked dogs gets crucified and meanwhile nothing is done about these dogs for years because they have food, shelter and water.

[Little Gifts]

Is it right to expect higher standards of a breeder who is secretary of her club and who has successfully shown? I think it is because she has probably been using that status to sell her pups. Of course it will be up to the courts to determine what is and isn't true but there are certainly some concerning factors. Even having dead dogs on your property concerns me. Most normal people would dispose of them appropriately (even burying so they can't be dug up by predators) and immediately simply for hygiene and emotional reasons.

Steve can I ask a legitimate question please and your personal opinion based on your experiences. It is an offshoot from this particular issue. Having spent some time with a couple of award winning breeders and having one who has been a good friend for quite some time (all different medium and large breeds) I can see the work that goes into creating a quality litter. All these breeders have other jobs and two have partners to share the work load with. They focus on only one breed. The maximum number of litters they might whelp in a year might be 6. The number of breeding aged dogs they keep might vary each year depending on their breeding goals. Lets say they might have no more than 10 adult dogs at any one time. Based on this, any time I see someone with more than say 30 adult dogs plus puppies I get suspicious about why they need that many and how they adequately house and care for them. When they are breeding and selling over 100 puppies a year I am suspicious how they have the capacity to do it well. And if I hear they breed several types of dogs at the same time that makes me even more suspicious it is just about making money rather than bettering the breed. It starts smelling puppy farm to me regardless of who they are registered with as I just don't think the majority of good breeders can achieve all of this. They'd need to be employing a crew of people to do everything necessary and any corners they cut will not be in favour of the dogs.

Based on your knowledge and experiences though is my thinking wrong? It is possible to be breeding quality pure bred dogs in bulk? Are my thoughts about numbers too low?

[Pjrt]

Is it right to expect higher standards of a breeder who is secretary of her club and who has successfully shown? I think it is because she has probably been using that status to sell her pups. Of course it will be up to the courts to determine what is and isn't true but there are certainly some concerning factors. Even having dead dogs on your property concerns me. Most normal people would dispose of them appropriately (even burying so they can't be dug up by predators) and immediately simply for hygiene and emotional reasons.

Steve can I ask a legitimate question please and your personal opinion based on your experiences. It is an offshoot from this particular issue. Having spent some time with a couple of award winning breeders and having one who has been a good friend for quite some time (all different medium and large breeds) I can see the work that goes into creating a quality litter. All these breeders have other jobs and two have partners to share the work load with. They focus on only one breed. The maximum number of litters they might whelp in a year might be 6. The number of breeding aged dogs they keep might vary each year depending on their breeding goals. Lets say they might have no more than 10 adult dogs at any one time. Based on this, any time I see someone with more than say 30 adult dogs plus puppies I get suspicious about why they need that many and how they adequately house and care for them. When they are breeding and selling over 100 puppies a year I am suspicious how they have the capacity to do it well. And if I hear they breed several types of dogs at the same time that makes me even more suspicious it is just about making money rather than bettering the breed. It starts smelling puppy farm to me regardless of who they are registered with as I just don't think the majority of good breeders can achieve all of this. They'd need to be employing a crew of people to do everything necessary and any corners they cut will not be in favour of the dogs.

Based on your knowledge and experiences though is my thinking wrong? It is possible to be breeding quality pure bred dogs in bulk? Are my thoughts about numbers too low?

I'll put my two cents worth in.

I don't think it's right to expect higher standards from successful show breeders or people who contribute via judging, stewarding, club work etc.......I think everyone should be held to the same standards.

The 2 private show breeders I worked for both had several paid staff. Both had multiple breeds and bred multiple litters. They both had plenty of money behind them too. There was no scraping and scrimping when it came to every aspect of the dogs care. One was a well known antique collector, philanthropist etc and the other a professor of genetics. They both bred dogs of exceptional quality and have left a legacy of quality that still tricles down in their chosen breeds.

So I say yes most certainly volume breeders can breed excellent dogs.

On the other hand, I have seen with my own eyes the premises of probably a dozen or so known breeders/exhibitors where conditions were barely adequate, certainly not what I'd call ideal. That's a real eye opener.

Also I have seen other breeder premises where everything was terrific and even if sometimes not to my personal standard , was certainly nothing of concern

I think what often happens in these cases is numbers build and things spiral out of control. That's a reason, not an excuse. There is really no excuse for no reaching out for help, accepting offered help, or facing the reality and getting numbers down. Hoarding is strongly aligned with mental health issues so it's a complex thing to unravel.

Edited June 10, 2016 by blinkblink

[Steph M]

Well, there obviously weren't enough people caring for them!

I can't believe anyone aligned with good practice in dog breeding, regardless of registry or even absence of registry , can speak words even approximating some sort of defence of this situation. Or try to come up with a legitimate reason why multiple dead dogs are on a private property.

I get that there may be details not disclosed, I get that details may be enriched by the media and AR groups and general internet hysteria etc.......

But here we are a bunch of people who I'd hope would try to set the bar as high as possible, and we have people speaking in defence of breeders operating at what any idiot can see is bare minimum, probably way below minimum standards.

Are these seriously the sort of standards you'd defend amongst members of mdba?

Yep.

[*kirty*]

Have DogsVic said anything yet??

[Steve]

Is it right to expect higher standards of a breeder who is secretary of her club and who has successfully shown? I think it is because she has probably been using that status to sell her pups. Of course it will be up to the courts to determine what is and isn't true but there are certainly some concerning factors. Even having dead dogs on your property concerns me. Most normal people would dispose of them appropriately (even burying so they can't be dug up by predators) and immediately simply for hygiene and emotional reasons.

Steve can I ask a legitimate question please and your personal opinion based on your experiences. It is an offshoot from this particular issue. Having spent some time with a couple of award winning breeders and having one who has been a good friend for quite some time (all different medium and large breeds) I can see the work that goes into creating a quality litter. All these breeders have other jobs and two have partners to share the work load with. They focus on only one breed. The maximum number of litters they might whelp in a year might be 6. The number of breeding aged dogs they keep might vary each year depending on their breeding goals. Lets say they might have no more than 10 adult dogs at any one time. Based on this, any time I see someone with more than say 30 adult dogs plus puppies I get suspicious about why they need that many and how they adequately house and care for them. When they are breeding and selling over 100 puppies a year I am suspicious how they have the capacity to do it well. And if I hear they breed several types of dogs at the same time that makes me even more suspicious it is just about making money rather than bettering the breed. It starts smelling puppy farm to me regardless of who they are registered with as I just don't think the majority of good breeders can achieve all of this. They'd need to be employing a crew of people to do everything necessary and any corners they cut will not be in favour of the dogs.

Based on your knowledge and experiences though is my thinking wrong? It is possible to be breeding quality pure bred dogs in bulk? Are my thoughts about numbers too low?

Good question but its going to take an essay to address all of the issues and variables

I've got a meeting tonight but will come back.

[Sheridan]

Have DogsVic said anything yet??

Yes, unfortunately. It's pretty bad.

[*kirty*]

Found their statement. Very wishy washy.

"DOGS Victoria and its members are horrified by the recent reports of 100 plus dogs seized by the RSPCA. On Tuesday June 7, the RSPCA advised that warrants were being executed simultaneously on two residences in Longwood Victoria.

Upon receiving the report, DOGS Victoria afforded the RSPCA every resource available to the Association, including the newly appointed Field Officer. The Associations primary concern is the welfare of these dogs, consequently Dogs Victoria continues to make available the Associations resources.

DOGS Victoria as do the RSPCA and local council, rely heavily on concerned members and the public reporting circumstances in which dogs are kept in unacceptable conditions in order to take remedial action.

DOGS Victoria does not condone this activity in any way and any member found in breach of the Association Codes of Practice will be subject to disciplinary action."

[Steph M]

Disciplinary action sounds like a slap on the wrist.

[Salukifan]

Disciplinary action sounds like a slap on the wrist.

It can include deregistraton. For a body that has no legal powers, that's as bad as they can make it.

[Steph M]

Disciplinary action sounds like a slap on the wrist.

It can include deregistraton. For a body that has no legal powers, that's as bad as they can make it.

I know that but the wording sounds pretty weak. Also the public don't know that either. Maybe leading with the promise of deregistration and full cooperation with the aim of legal prosecution might have been stronger.

[*kirty*]

Disciplinary action sounds like a slap on the wrist.

It can include deregistraton. For a body that has no legal powers, that's as bad as they can make it.

I know that but the wording sounds pretty weak. Also the public don't know that either. Maybe leading with the promise of deregistration and full cooperation with the aim of legal prosecution might have been stronger.

Exactly.

[Salukifan]

Disciplinary action sounds like a slap on the wrist.

It can include deregistraton. For a body that has no legal powers, that's as bad as they can make it.

I know that but the wording sounds pretty weak. Also the public don't know that either. Maybe leading with the promise of deregistration and full cooperation with the aim of legal prosecution might have been stronger.

Judging by the comments I've been reading, the public's understanding of how the pedigree dog world operates and its lack of enforcement powers is low.

[Steph M]

That I absolutely agree on. Still, I don't believe that's all the fault of the public either.

The purebred dog world needs some excellent PR work.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Steph M

[valbitz]

Another article about the raid. My link I didn't realise it was two breeders next door to each other.

RSPCA Victoria has slammed the state’s peak dog-breeding authority for its lax control on animal ownership, after four dead and almost 120 sick dogs were rescued this week.

The lashing comes as a Dogs Victoria whistleblower, who was given the task of investigating one of the raided Longwood breeders, was told to scrutinise the complaints over the phone instead of ­visiting the property.

RSPCA inspectors and police raided the homes of two dog breeders in the northern Victoria town on Tuesday, in one of the biggest operations of its kind.

A total of 50 dogs were surrendered, 69 seized and 13 ­notices to comply issued between the two properties. But the breeders have defended their care of their animals.

One of the breeders, prized dog show breeder Heather Healey, was suspended for five years by Dogs Victoria in 2010 after a video emerged of her dogs sitting in faeces-­covered cots. But her suspension was reduced on appeal.

Ms Healey said she had served her punishment and did not want people to judge her on that past incident “I just plead everyone sees the other side and find out the facts before jumping to conclusions,” she said.

Ms Healey’s next-door neighbour, Diane, who had 30 dogs taken, said she didn’t know four dead dogs were on her property.

“They are all well fed and are in good nick,” she said. “My dogs are like my babies.”

RSPCA chief executive Dr Liz Walker hoped the investigation would be a “wake-up call” for Dogs Victoria.

“They have some privileges under the current legislation that allows members some latitude,” Dr Walker said. “That’s on the basis that they are professional dog breeders and that Dogs Victoria are regulating them.

“The intensive look we are having into puppy factories (and kitten factories) is really going to hold these people to account. The industry is well and truly on notice.”

It’s understood Dogs Victoria members can register up to 10 female dogs for breeding, which surpasses the limit issued by some local councils.

Former Dogs Victoria investigations officer John Lott said the organisation should take more responsibility.

“When Dogs Victoria get a complaint, a case is drawn up and the investigating officer investigates,” he said.

“When I was assigned (Ms Healey’s 2010 case) by Dogs Victoria, I asked if I should go out and see her property. They said it wasn’t really necessary so I interviewed her by telephone.”

Dogs Victoria chief executive Lyndall Black said both breeders would face disciplinary action.

[Two Best Dogs!]

Wow.

[Steve]

Is it right to expect higher standards of a breeder who is secretary of her club and who has successfully shown? I think it is because she has probably been using that status to sell her pups. Of course it will be up to the courts to determine what is and isn't true but there are certainly some concerning factors. Even having dead dogs on your property concerns me. Most normal people would dispose of them appropriately (even burying so they can't be dug up by predators) and immediately simply for hygiene and emotional reasons.

Steve can I ask a legitimate question please and your personal opinion based on your experiences. It is an offshoot from this particular issue. Having spent some time with a couple of award winning breeders and having one who has been a good friend for quite some time (all different medium and large breeds) I can see the work that goes into creating a quality litter. All these breeders have other jobs and two have partners to share the work load with. They focus on only one breed. The maximum number of litters they might whelp in a year might be 6. The number of breeding aged dogs they keep might vary each year depending on their breeding goals. Lets say they might have no more than 10 adult dogs at any one time. Based on this, any time I see someone with more than say 30 adult dogs plus puppies I get suspicious about why they need that many and how they adequately house and care for them. When they are breeding and selling over 100 puppies a year I am suspicious how they have the capacity to do it well. And if I hear they breed several types of dogs at the same time that makes me even more suspicious it is just about making money rather than bettering the breed. It starts smelling puppy farm to me regardless of who they are registered with as I just don't think the majority of good breeders can achieve all of this. They'd need to be employing a crew of people to do everything necessary and any corners they cut will not be in favour of the dogs.

Based on your knowledge and experiences though is my thinking wrong? It is possible to be breeding quality pure bred dogs in bulk? Are my thoughts about numbers too low?

1. No I definitely don’t think it is right to expect a higher standard of such a breeder. I expect high standards from everyone who owns dogs and who breed them.

2. There are many variables in this one. You can’t compare a couple who both work to one that does not work. You can’t compare a fit healthy breeder with one that has mobility or health issues. You can’t compare someone who owns 20 Great Danes to one who owns 20 Chi’s. You can’t compare one that has virtually no resources or adequate infra structure to someone who has state of the art whelping boxes and heated / air-conditioned whelping rooms, good fencing, large play areas etc. You can’t compare a breeder who is well informed, well educated in canine husbandry and someone who doesn’t have a clue. I have seen breeders who own less than 5 dogs who treat them appallingly neglecting diet and vetting and rarely handling them while I’ve seen some who have up to 100 and cover it all well, ensuring the dogs get the best of everything and they are well socialised.

3. If I’m being honest I have to say if you tell me you had 30 breeding dogs I would be curious to know more info about you and what you do and how you do it. So I suppose with that number I’m not judging you [yet] but like you I’m a bit suspicious.

4. Part of the problem is that the term bettering the breed means different things to different people. I can’t for the life of me see how bettering the breed equals seeing dogs which can’t breathe, can’t walk cant reproduce etc being produced generation after generation. Yet there is a higher regard placed on breeders whose main goal is to breed a champion over those who strive to eliminate health problems. I don’t understand why we don’t /can’t implement breeding programs to eliminate problems or why there seems to be a lack of sensitivity to what is best for the welfare of the dogs we own. So to me bettering the breed is about producing dogs which contribute more to the health and longevity and temperament of the breed and ensuring the dogs I own have a high quality of life even when I think no one is watching others will see the need to breed dogs which are winning in the show ring.

5. Yes it’s possible to breed quality healthy happy purebred dogs in bulk but it takes using a system of set up and operation, setting goals, identifying risks to the dogs and the breed by how you proceed and manage them and it takes people with a base philosophy that no matter what even if it means bankruptcy that the welfare of the dogs and what is best for the dogs they own and breed from a welfare perspective is placed over what is best for the profit margin, the ribbons, the acclaim or any other goal. The politics and the crap that goes on in the dog world where a good breeder is judged by their involvement in showing dogs to “better the breed” does not nurture that base philosophy.

6. Believe it or not there are lots of people involved in activities with dogs that don’t seem to like them very much and who don’t view them with a level of concern for their welfare .You see this in all areas not just breeding. They use them to get to what they want but never seem to bond with them or see them as “family”

As you know I’ve got 8 kids and over the years I’ve been their Mum there have been days when I felt like crap but no matter what, no matter how sick I was or how rotten the weather was or how poor I was, how much I didn’t want to do what they needed me to do. I did everything to ensure that they were fed and supervised and looked after. If I needed to, as much as I hated it, I asked for help because their welfare always took priority. Because I had more than most I had to manage them differently, follow routines and be a bit regimented but their welfare was never compromised. For me breeders should be people who feel that way about their dogs. When you get that in a person everything else follows because they will put the needs for the welfare of the dogs above everything else. They won’t have more numbers than they can manage without compromising. It’s actually got little to do with what criteria has been used traditionally to select breeder material.

7. So MDBA focus in our breeder and rescue member selection is looking for those base philosophies over anything else - you dont get in without us having a good feel for who you are and how you feel about your dogs and your breed. Our courses and our support are about teaching them and helping them identify what is needed to get it right, the importance of integrity, doing what is best and right even when no one is watching and building in precautions and solutions and understanding the potential positive and negative consequences of the decisions they make for the welfare of their dogs and their breeds.

[Willem]

...the problem these days is that people swapped the-journey-is-the-reward attitude for the-end-justifies-the-means attitude - not only regarding dog breeding, but also wrt other realms.

[Steve]

...the problem these days is that people swapped the-journey-is-the-reward attitude for the-end-justifies-the-means attitude - not only regarding dog breeding, but also wrt other realms.

There is some of that but its also a bit about catch up. Go back 30 years and no one would have ever considered breeding dogs for money the way they do now. Especially not cross bred dogs.

But there are many things that have contributed to the evolution of dog breeders including purebred dog breeders.

We could say that there was a massive promotion of cross bred dogs with cute names which instigated some of the change - true to a degree but people would not have been able to do that if there was not the demand for that.

When the demand for cross bred dogs which people were eager to pay relatively huge prices for increased the demand for purebred dogs did not decrease nor did the prices people were prepared to pay for them.

Take a good look at the figures for purebred dog breeders in this country and even though the demand for puppies has increased to keep up with increase in population. In 2014 only 6400 people bred a purebred litter of puppies Australia wide. Only 79 of those 6400 breeders Australia wide had more than 10 litters. My link

So a quick look at the breed that is involved in this thread- Chi's and we see that in 1986, 4037 Chi's were registered with the ANKC australia wide [ remember there would have been many more because back then you didn't need to register all puppies bred in most states. But when we get to 2015 where ALL puppies born to a registered breeder must be registered there were only 1334 registered Australia wide. Only around 10% of them would go back into the gene pool with most going out with a limited register.The membership of the ANKC has dropped by 20 thousand since 1995 and there are a lot more people now who are members who are there for the activities other than breeding.

So if a Chi breeder decided in 2016 that they wanted to make money out of breeding chi's they can be pretty sure that there is a high demand for their puppies and even higher demand if part of how they promote themselves is by being successful in the conformation show ring and being involved in the breed. After all that's part of the marketing - take a good look here and see how people who want to buy a puppy are directed to those who show and those who are involved in their breed's related activities.

People who are shopping for a Chi might prefer to purchase one from such a breeder but even if the breeder has 120 litters a year its no where near enough to fill the orders so people who don't want the overheads and the papers also have a huge market.

When you do everything you can to keep out small registered purebred breeders via rules and regs, protecting bloodlines, limited register, council restrictions etc and couple that with changing lifestyles where less people are able to have a litter or two a year and marketing which even the participants and beneficiaries of that marketing start to believe their own bullshit and you get high volume breeders - some of whom put other things over and above the welfare of their dogs.

And thats just one piece of the puzzle.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

Wow.

She didnt know there were 4 dead dogs on her property - Id love to know what reason she comes up with to get out of that one.