Victoria Trying To Limit Breeding Dog Numbers

[Steve]

My link

Proposals to limit the number of animals allowed to be kept by breeders.

The Master Dog Breeders and Associates is very much against a proposal to limit the number of animals kept by breeders.

Our main objections to this approach are:

Health and Welfare considerations.

1. Limiting numbers will not stop some people who breed dogs treating them badly.

The MDBA is appalled that there are some dog breeders who keep their dogs in substandard conditions but in all activities or industries there are some who break the rules and cause suffering. In dog breeding these are a vast minority. No amount of number restriction will prevent a person who is capable of such things from operating. A person is just as capable of mistreating 10 dogs as they are any number. Every dog should be treated well regardless of how many the breeder keeps.

2. Limiting numbers does not take into account the variables in breeder circumstances which affect the welfare of their dogs.

There is considerable variance in a breeder’s capability to manage and own breeding dogs efficiently and effectively. The breeder who devotes their entire focus on their breeding dogs, who does not work in another occupation, who is fit and healthy, has family members who can help out or who employs kennel hands cannot be compared to someone who goes out to work in another employment field and who can only devote a short period each day to the care of their dogs, or someone who has no assistance, or someone who is not in good health.

3. Number limits do not take into account the vast differences in breed requirements and management issues.

Some breeds require little or no grooming whilst others require much more time, care, energy and resources. Large dogs require much more resources and time to manage than small toy breeds especially in the areas of exercise and cleaning management.

4. Number limits do not take into account the benefits for the dogs, the breed and the community of having more, rather than less dogs, to choose from in a breeding program.

Reputable breeders typically test their dogs in either all or some of the following: the show ring, obedience trials, agility, scenting, and breed appropriate tests and trials. They perform health tests and screens to ensure their bloodline and resultant puppies are healthy. This results in breeders often having intact males and females that are not being bred and may never be bred. Many fertile dogs they have in their care at any given time may be removed from the breeding program if they fail health or temperament criteria. Many diseases cannot be tested for until the animal is older, for example joint X rays and heart screening. Some recommendations in some breeds are that an animal not be bred until it is over 5 years of age to be able to eliminate the possibility of breeding a dog which will develop such diseases - for example Mitral Heart Disease. Limiting the numbers a breeder can keep effectively limits their choices for selecting only the healthiest and best dogs to include in their breeding programs and impacts on health and quality of puppies bred and negatively impact the gene pool of a breed.

In order to breed for improvement, a breeder must have more than a couple females to breed and should be breeding with the intention of keeping pups for themselves, for their breeding program. As a result a breeder will have more females, in order to be breeding scientifically and or, towards goals. Some breeders are also working on different lines, for assistance dogs, police, armed forces, search and rescue, scenting etc. or colours that do not carry health issues. This means that some breeders need to own more dogs than someone working on just one line, a different goal or colour. Responsible breeders are breeding to better the breed and their lines, by keeping puppies out of their breeding to select the best they can to constantly improve on the next generation.

5. Limitations in numbers will not reduce the numbers of animals entering and dying in shelters.

Proponents claim number restrictions are necessary to stem the tide of animals entering and dying in shelters. However, in our experience, puppies produced by responsible breeders rarely enter shelters and when they do, they are generally reclaimed by the owners or by the breeders themselves. We assert that there is not an oversupply of puppies. If the demand for puppies was not there then the sale price of puppies would drop, reputable breeders would not have waiting lists for puppy sales two years in advance and breeders who breed in volume solely for profit would stop breeding them.

There’s no question that too many animals die in shelters and pounds each year. However, there is no connection between the breeding of a healthy litter of well temperamented, healthy puppies and the death of a stray dog in a shelter.

Responsible dog breeders sell their puppies to new homes, take back puppies that buyers cannot keep, are available to answer questions and help new owners train their puppies, and protect the health and well-being of their breeds. They are part of the solution to community dog troubles and should not be treated as if they are the problem.

If puppy buyers have fewer options for finding well-bred healthy puppies of a breed of their choice in NSW they will purchase puppies from: interstate; internationally; off the internet and from breeders who keep their animals in sub-standard conditions. Puppy buyers who purchase from less reputable sources will have less education and training from breeders and this will contribute to increasing the number of dogs in shelters when puppy buyers reach the limit of their experiences with dogs

6. Limiting numbers will increase the numbers of breeding dogs having to be removed from a person’s care.

A limit law on breeders would penalize a responsible breeder with more than 10 dogs who is not a nuisance or threat to neighbours, who keeps their dogs in perfect health and conditions, who places puppies responsibly and is a support system for their puppy buyers, facing the loss of one or more of their companions.

Most people who breed dogs see their animals as part of their family and the emotional cost to the breeder and the risk of homelessness for the dogs should not be underestimated.

7. Limiting numbers will not prevent animal hoarding

Hoarding cases involve the psychological well-being of the animal owner as well as the animals themselves, but more and more they are being used as an excuse to impose a limit on the number of dogs a breeder can keep. Due the complexity of this problem we simply say that this should not be linked in an attempt to further regulate dog breeders.

8. Smaller scale breeding operations are no guarantee of improved welfare conditions

In testimony to the Select Committee in SA the AWL stated that many of the animals that end up in their shelter come from unscrupulous breeders - people who “set up a couple of dogs or cats in their backyard and breed for money, without any proper consideration for animal welfare.”

Across the board our rescue members agree with these comments.

9. Limiting the numbers a breeder can care for will not prevent breeders from keeping more than they are legally able to.

A number limit is difficult, almost impossible to enforce without increased presence of animal control or policing agencies and will lead to a decrease in micro chipping and council registration, vetting etc. to prevent cross-referencing. Many breeders will keep and say some of the animals are ordinarily in guardian homes and bring the dog in to have her puppies, dogs are able to visit, be looked after for a friend for short periods, come and go for outings, exercise, stud services etc. At any given time numbers can fluctuate and enforcing over limit numbers is a very difficult task. Some dogs will be hidden; some litter sizes will magically increase as the breeder combines two litters to make it seem there is only one bitch etc. . Any dogs over the number which would now see a vet over the number allowed may not see a vet etc. for fear of being exposed to having over the maximum number. Breeders who have welcomed puppy buyers to their property will be more reluctant to do so if they fear being caught for more than the 10 dogs they are able to have.

Commercial Considerations.

1. Inequitable production and trading circumstances.

Commercially there is a major difference regarding potential profits between someone [for example] who owns 10 Great Danes and 10 Chihuahuas. The Great Dane Breeder can legally potentially produce up to 120 puppies per year, with current average price per puppy, this enables this breeder to legally turnover approx. $300,000 per year in puppy sales whilst the Chihuahua breeder can legally potentially produce 30 puppies per year, with current average price per puppy this breeder can only legally turn over approx. $40,000 per year. There are three serious problems with this

• Limiting numbers will give a commercial advantage to some breeders based solely on breed type or litter sizes a breed can produce.

• The toy breed breeder who can produce fewer puppies has less choice of puppies to include in their breeding program. Number limits do not take into account these types of breed specific variables.

• Limiting numbers will see breeding decisions made on breeding dogs for litter sizes and market value rather than dogs most suited to families in order to be able make a viable profit on less breeding dogs.

2. A limit law would change current development application approvals with breeders entitled to seek compensation.

Those breeders who have development application approvals to breed dogs [more than ten] on their property; who have increased the re-sale value of their property by making improvements to keep more than ten dogs in high welfare conditions; who legitimately earn a living from the sale of their puppies as a small business would be restricted and prevented from using their properties as they have done will be disadvantaged. This will cause a loss of earnings and the devaluation of the breeder’s property.

There will be claims against the state for compensation for the breeders who have spent considerable sums of money on preparing their properties for a legal activity and who now are restricted in their ability to trade. It is worthwhile noting that these claims for compensation would include any potential decrease of property value due to having complying infrastructure that can no longer be used for the purpose it was built and, post number limits, is less valuable and for loss of future earnings from their business.

3. Limiting numbers will impact negatively on regional and state revenue.

If breeders in Victoria are restricted in the number of dogs they can have this will reduce the supply and not the demand for puppies which will have negative consequences on the State.

People will purchase puppies bred outside of Victoria decreasing the sales of Victorian bred puppies which will have consequences for the Victorian economy, for instance: a reduction in the sales of dog food for breeding dogs (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State); a reduction in the services required from veterinarians (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State); a reduction in the purchase of accessories, i.e. whelping supplies and puppy supplies (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State).

This negative impact on the Victorian economy will especially hit rural areas. If this proposed Legislation is implemented by the Victorian Government they will effectively be giving breeders from other states and other countries an advantage over Victorian breeders’ trade.

Federal Legislation Considerations

1. Number restrictions impinge on the rights of people to pursue their legal interests and to have free enjoyment of their property and this may breach Australian laws where people have a right to trade in lawful activities.

2. As Australian consumers under federal law consumers [puppy buyers] have a right to be able to have unrestricted access to the product of their choice and by limiting numbers Victorian breeders can keep, this increases the demand for puppies bred ,increasing prices without the buyer having the same options.

3. Leaving puppy buyers with fewer options for finding locally well-bred healthy pet puppies of their choice which have been bred in Victoria will see them purchase puppies from interstate, internationally, off the net and from those who keep their animals in sub-standard conditions Most who want a puppy of a particular age and breed or cross breed will not purchase rescue dogs regardless of how much easier or cheaper it is to access them. This gives massive advantage to Victorian breeder’s competitors and restrict the ability for to grow their businesses and have equal trade opportunities as breeders who live in other places.

Enforcement of Laws

1. Difficulties of enforcement.

A number limit will be difficult, almost impossible, to enforce without increasing presence of animal control or policing agencies to enforce those laws. It will encourage more people to break the law potentially by not micro chipping their dogs and not registering them with their local council. They may do this to prevent the cross-referencing of their dogs across agencies.

At any given time the numbers of dogs on a breeding property can legitimately fluctuate for the following reasons: some breeders may have their dogs in guardian home off the property but will bring the dog onto the property to have her puppies so they can ensure the health of the puppies and their mother; dogs come to a breeding property with visitors; some breeders look after puppies they have sold when the puppy owners go on holidays; some look after their friends dogs when illness occurs; other dogs come and go for outings, exercise, stud services etc. which makes enforcing over limit numbers a very difficult task.

Some dogs will be hidden; some litter sizes will magically increase as the breeder combines two litters to make it seem there is only one bitch. Any dogs over the number allowed may not see a vet etc. for fear of being exposed to having over the max number.

We do not believe that simply limiting the numbers of breeding dogs will reach the stated goals.

[Steve]

I suppose it could be worse .The grey hound breeders in NSW should simply swap properties with dog breeders in Victoria and both could go on as usual.

[juice]

edited because i cant be bothered .

Edited August 14, 2016 by juice

[Rebanne]

where's the link to the proposed changes?

[Steve]

where's the link to the proposed changes?

Link

[Steve]

When the senate enquiry into the welfare of breeding dogs was being conducted in NSW the MDBA was the only one who stood against the recommendation to licence breeders.

Many of you at the time asked why we would want to stop breeder licenses from coming in. After all what did breeders have to be concerned about if they were all doing the right thing?

Dog breeding is a legal activity however, when a license system is introduced it is then only considered to be a legal activity when you have a license to do so. Lots of you thought this would be a good idea,however, when we agree to a licensing system the government can at any given time change the rules. They can introduce all manner of things which we have to comply with in order to be able to keep the license. This means they really can introduce limits on numbers you can keep, how many litters you can have, what types of dogs you can breed, where you can sell them, where you can advertise them etc.

In most places so far in Australia you don't need a license to breed dogs but it is something that is heavily pushed by animal rights and this is why.

The perfect example of what can happen when breeders are licensed you only have to take a look at Victoria and what is about to happen. Right now in Victoria there are many breeders who did do the right thing and followed every one of the rules and requirements to get and keep a licence to breed dogs. They have invested in kennels they didn't really want and they have done everything that has been required of them. Legally the only people in Victoria who can breed dogs are those who own 3 or less breeding dogs, or who are Vicdogs members and own less than 10 breeding dogs or who are licensed to breed dogs under the current system. Anyone who is outside of this is breeding illegally so it should be a simple matter of when they are caught fining them and shutting them down. Whether they have 4 or 400 dogs they are still breeding illegally so action can be taken to stop them under the current system. Introducing number limits won't stop the bad guys and they will simply continue on as they do now – without a license.

I hear some of you saying that breeders shouldn't need more than 10 dogs but there are numerous reasons why breeders might need to own more than 10 fertile dogs and the removal of anyone's rights without a whimper is of great concern. At any minute the rules can change, they can introduce laws which limit a breeder to less and less dogs,have crazier codes they must comply with and they can take away exemptions. Breeders Have been pushed and have had to spend enormous amounts of money to comply onstate of the art kennels and now that's just money blown. Right now Vicdogs members appear to be sitting in a better position and won't bother withstanding against it as they think it will not affect many of their breeders but surely they can't continue on believing that things will always remain as they are for them when their members have been targeted and there are calls for them having their exemptions removed.

The minister responsible for this is on the record as saying they have consulted with Oscars Law and the RSPCA and that it will only affect about 90 breeders out of approx 10000 breeders in that state but this is not true if affects anyone rights who might want to own more than 10 fertile dogs in Victoria. Chihuahuas or Great Danes .It affects everyone who wants to purchase a puppy of their choice from a source of their choice in that state for ever. But if we dont live in Victoria or if we dont think we will ever want to own more than 10 fertile dogs etc we stay silent . Divide and conquer and we just fall in to line.

The fact is no group can be exempt from poor practice and nogroup can say crap doesn't happen under our watch . We think if one group loses their rights that this will not affect us and stillleave us special and untouched. It enables the noisy crazies to affect government decisions which remove the rights of dog owners bit by bit.

So the MDBA worked hard against licensing and won in NSW. We held off licensing of breeders and we felt pretty good about it at the time and this is why. However, it is on the agenda of Animal rights and Animal welfare and it is very important that we fight against licensing of breeders whenever it is on the table because a license can be revoked or any amount of conditions applied at any time.

Don't simply sit back whilst they chip away at your rights because AR are after leaving you with none.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Steve

[asal]

Exactly.

trouble is, how many are listening, let alone believing.

[Steve]

Its more about the fragmented dog world Its about breeder bodies too keen to jump in and surrender to try and gain exemptions or to show they are the good guys. This is across the board not just with licenses - it seems anything the loonies yell about they simply give in on even though they know its not what is best for the dogs. Our codes push us toward resting our bitches even though it's not good for them because people who never bred a litter shouted about it and to look good we fell in line rather than stand our ground and tell them to bugger off and get educated then once the premium group concedes it becomes law so we are all stuck with it as a law not just a code.

DogsNSW was all for licenses but they wanted exemptions for their breeders so they would be self regulated and do the inspections etc .The pet dog breeders org wanted licenses becauSe most of them are already stuck with them in victoria and they felt this would make them appear as if they had nothing to be afraid of. sounded good to them at the time .The challenge is how to get all breeder groups on the same page and ready to fight as one rather than being so keen to fall in line to make the others look worse than them. Its not about whats best for the dogs its about what is seen to be good PR.

Purebred breeders on this forum and everywhere advocated for licenses - still do .Sucked in by the crap about how we will know who is breeding and where they are etc How they wanted everyone inspected before they could breed a dog because they thought they would be special and somehow any negative consequences would not happen to them into the future. Rather than licensing in NSW what actually got through was an attempt to track who is breeding and where they are via microchip kept the government happy. Some think it still not ideal for the government and RSPCA to be able to do this and the big threat is more than 10 litters and you will be inspected anyway but that is much preferable to a licence where they can change the rules and dictate how many you can own, where you can advertise, where you can sell them what you can breed etc. If they turn up and you havent covered part of the code you get a chance to fix it and at worst its a fine but when a license is in play they can simply refuse to renew it or remove it. Then if you breed a dog its illegal.

Breeders and dog owners must fight licensing because a license makes owning a dog or breeding a dog illegal unless you have a license and at any time they can simply remove your license and change the rules.

We might be worrying about nothing and what is happening in Victoria may not eventuate and the rest of us may never have to worry as they are at the moment but why lie down and allow ourselves to be set up so easily?

Edited August 18, 2016 by Steve

[bridgie_cat]

Is the answer to be able to PROVE to each of these groups (govt, animal rights etc) where the pound dogs are coming from? Can we not just add "breeder contact details" to the microchip information?

I think dog breeding is already heading toward smaller and smaller numbers in each individual kennel, but I see it as a great loss to breeds... and it comes down to what you wrote about needing numbers to allow for adequate selection pressure and improvement. Many breeders would now have 1-4 bitches - and if one of them has a less than ideal nature, average health results, lacks breed type, or has issues breeding and whelping naturally... well - we probably still work with what we have! Because there is little to no fall back with such small numbers.

The kennel of a previous generation had enough dogs that if there were any of the above issues, that bitch could simply be excluded without it being a huge loss to the plans and genetic pool for that breeder. AND there was a larger number of litters and generations all being bred with a single mind and set of goals - where that kennel will develop a "type" and be known for specific qualities/strengths.

[asal]

copied from another forum

"exactly, ONCE 'farmers were highly thought of for their love and care of their stock' but these days there are numerous dodgy characters badly mistreating dogs for $. Big $ too. Could recite numerous incidents of puppy farming I know of, but too depressing...point is, times have changed. This industry needs looking at and legislation of some sort."

reply to the above post.

"Except as it has proven, you can make all the laws you want, restrict how many litters a bitch can have, restrict how many she can have per year, must micorchip all puppies, must vaccinate all puppies, can only have so many dogs, can only breed a max of 10 litters in a 12 month period (mind you that "litter" could be just one pup for a small breed, or 16 for the larger breeds, so a small breed breeder can produce 10 to 20 pups if they get two to a litter , but the larger breeds can mean their breeder has 160 puppies yet they are not a puppy farmer as long as they were from 10 litters. how insane is that?) or you will be inspected, cant breed father to daughter or mother to son or brothers to sisters. UGH how disgusting, how unnatural. yet Ralvon Bethelem a multi, multi champion was son to mother eg Ralvon Pilgrim to his mother Trix Silver. the most famous horse in dubai, dubbed their National Hero, Mindari Aenzac was the result of father to daugher, Ralvon Aeneas to his Daughter Mindari Wingadee. whats disgusting and banned in dogs now, has repeatedly produced some of the best of the best when the genes are sound. but hey who cares about soundness its incest in dogs now but not yet (anyway) in horses.

but guess what?

i found two puppies last week, obviously over 8 weeks old, took them to animal welfare and nope not a chip between them.

a number of years ago I had two puppies stolen from my home, both were microchippped, I saw the car that stole them as it almost ran me down getting off my land. it was a white sedan but too shocked to get the number plate. some weeks later one puppy was found wandering beside a 6 lane highway near liverpool. how she survived has to have been a miracle since she was only 6 weeks old when she was stolen and was now 14 weeks. a kind lady caught her and took her to a lady who bred the same breed who then took her to a local vet and I was phoned and home she came. for months I scanned gumtree and trading post adds as the police said many stolen dogs end up there. finally when she was 6 months old was a photo of her on gumtree, her owner had to move back to japan and couldnt afford the export costs, I rang and arranged to meet but when I got there only her old male was left, my girl had been sold, I had not dared to tell her she was stolen, I had phoned the redfern police who met me and interviewed the lady and she was wonderful, she had the names and address of the people who bought her.. now the interesting bit was she had bought her at campbelltown markets, she had been told the puppies had been an unwanted gift to the wife and had no vaccination papers so she would need to have her vaccinated and microchipped. she had not bothered to have her either vaccinated or microchipped as she assumed as she lived in a high rise flat there was no chance of her getting any disease.

Even in the add I found she had said the puppy has no vaccination papers or microchip, when the police contacted the new owners they were positive their new puppy couldn't be the stolen one after learning she had a microchip number. so agreed to take her to the nearest vet along with a police constable to prove it was not the dog I was looking for. of course they were not happy to find out they did have a stolen dog. so much so that the family and almost a dozen friends went to the police station demanding the return of THEIR dog, the argument being whoever lost her didn't deserve to have her back or she wouldn't have been stolen in the first place!

thing got ugly enough that when i arrived to pick up my puppy, the police had rang me and told me when I arrived to look at no one and ask for sargent ...... and under no circumstance mention I was there about a dog. Did as was told although it was very scary walking past that angry group looking for who was coming to get their pup.

I was taken into an interview and reunited with Fire. but to get me back to my car safely I was taken downstairs to the paddy wagons and given a lift back to where my car was parked.

so an awful lot of people are happy to buy what they believe are unvaccinated unchipped dogs and puppies. even though PERISH THE THOUGHT its BLOODY AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DREAM ON micromanage the law abiding into extinction but you ain't going to stop the underground puppy trade "

[Steve]

copied from another forum

"exactly, ONCE 'farmers were highly thought of for their love and care of their stock' but these days there are numerous dodgy characters badly mistreating dogs for $. Big $ too. Could recite numerous incidents of puppy farming I know of, but too depressing...point is, times have changed. This industry needs looking at and legislation of some sort."

reply to the above post.

"Except as it has proven, you can make all the laws you want, restrict how many litters a bitch can have, restrict how many she can have per year, must micorchip all puppies, must vaccinate all puppies, can only have so many dogs, can only breed a max of 10 litters in a 12 month period (mind you that "litter" could be just one pup for a small breed, or 16 for the larger breeds, so a small breed breeder can produce 10 to 20 pups if they get two to a litter , but the larger breeds can mean their breeder has 160 puppies yet they are not a puppy farmer as long as they were from 10 litters. how insane is that?) or you will be inspected, cant breed father to daughter or mother to son or brothers to sisters. UGH how disgusting, how unnatural. yet Ralvon Bethelem a multi, multi champion was son to mother eg Ralvon Pilgrim to his mother Trix Silver. the most famous horse in dubai, dubbed their National Hero, Mindari Aenzac was the result of father to daugher, Ralvon Aeneas to his Daughter Mindari Wingadee. whats disgusting and banned in dogs now, has repeatedly produced some of the best of the best when the genes are sound. but hey who cares about soundness its incest in dogs now but not yet (anyway) in horses.

but guess what?

i found two puppies last week, obviously over 8 weeks old, took them to animal welfare and nope not a chip between them.

a number of years ago I had two puppies stolen from my home, both were microchippped, I saw the car that stole them as it almost ran me down getting off my land. it was a white sedan but too shocked to get the number plate. some weeks later one puppy was found wandering beside a 6 lane highway near liverpool. how she survived has to have been a miracle since she was only 6 weeks old when she was stolen and was now 14 weeks. a kind lady caught her and took her to a lady who bred the same breed who then took her to a local vet and I was phoned and home she came. for months I scanned gumtree and trading post adds as the police said many stolen dogs end up there. finally when she was 6 months old was a photo of her on gumtree, her owner had to move back to japan and couldnt afford the export costs, I rang and arranged to meet but when I got there only her old male was left, my girl had been sold, I had not dared to tell her she was stolen, I had phoned the redfern police who met me and interviewed the lady and she was wonderful, she had the names and address of the people who bought her.. now the interesting bit was she had bought her at campbelltown markets, she had been told the puppies had been an unwanted gift to the wife and had no vaccination papers so she would need to have her vaccinated and microchipped. she had not bothered to have her either vaccinated or microchipped as she assumed as she lived in a high rise flat there was no chance of her getting any disease.

Even in the add I found she had said the puppy has no vaccination papers or microchip, when the police contacted the new owners they were positive their new puppy couldn't be the stolen one after learning she had a microchip number. so agreed to take her to the nearest vet along with a police constable to prove it was not the dog I was looking for. of course they were not happy to find out they did have a stolen dog. so much so that the family and almost a dozen friends went to the police station demanding the return of THEIR dog, the argument being whoever lost her didn't deserve to have her back or she wouldn't have been stolen in the first place!

thing got ugly enough that when i arrived to pick up my puppy, the police had rang me and told me when I arrived to look at no one and ask for sargent ...... and under no circumstance mention I was there about a dog. Did as was told although it was very scary walking past that angry group looking for who was coming to get their pup.

I was taken into an interview and reunited with Fire. but to get me back to my car safely I was taken downstairs to the paddy wagons and given a lift back to where my car was parked.

so an awful lot of people are happy to buy what they believe are unvaccinated unchipped dogs and puppies. even though PERISH THE THOUGHT its BLOODY AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DREAM ON micromanage the law abiding into extinction but you ain't going to stop the underground puppy trade "

No its not against the law .The breeder is mandated by law to chip the puppy but the buyer can buy a puppy without a chip without a problem for them.

[Steve]

The way it works in the dog breeding world in Australia and most other countries is that the governments come at it all in the belief that the breeders need to be managed and clearly the ones who get busted and make great news stories and those who aren't doing it right do need something to drag them into line or out altogether .

Animal rights have been pretty good at drumming up this belief and animal welfare are hot on their tail coat. But they assume that those of us who are living it , breathing it etc are part of the problem and cant see that we all want the same thing. We all want the rotten stuff to stop but because they lump us in together they take the advice of animal rights and animal welfare first over and above really listening to us and finding real solutions. Our credentials, experience, knowledge accomplishments, references etc are not counted because we are disrespected by them and seen as the bad guys no matter what sub group we belong to and no matter what our base philosophy is. Most of us are too frightened to stand up and have a go at telling our story because that brings in the bullies and the threats and so far no one is listening anyway.

None of the stuff they introduce works - we all know this - they know it - and it doesn't make less dogs suffer it makes more suffer. Its doesnt make more breeders comply it makes them find ways to dodge it.

But because they have no respect for the ability we have to help they simply kick us to the curb and everything they do leaves screaming loopholes and uses more resources on low risk breeders and the ones they really need to control slither off and carry on as usual.

Their tasks forces and advisory boards are full of animal welfare, animal rights, vets etc and then if we are lucky a token representative of a breeder group. This effectively leaves us like a couple of sheep sitting down with a pack of wolves deciding on whats for dinner. It allows them to carry on with their assumptions and ideologies without a balanced view and we go to hell one law at a time.

So this raises a couple of issues

1. Why have we sat back and waited until they identified what goes wrong in the breeding world and not done this ourselves? I mean generically for the health and welfare of our dogs not making it about whether we are purebred or cross bred breeders, not about are we registered,big or small etc.

2.Why haven't we convened our own task forces and advisory boards where we can demonstrate that OUR first priority is about the welfare of our breeding dogs, have more control over who is having input,more fair representation and ensuring its not biased or loaded in any direction except toward the best outcome for the dogs.

3.Why do we allow the situation to continue as it is now set without becoming more pro active rather than re active then nothing will change. Breeders will not be heard and there will be more and more restrictions as each one they implement is shown not to work.

Part of the answer is that breeder groups have become accustomed to making themselves and their dogs look good by making the others look bad . Keeping themselves separate and different - they wont join one group because someone else is in it in case they appear guilty by association of something they do a little differently. Historically one might say that one group now and then has actually been instrumental in thumping the others to try to gain some ground for their members. As I'm writing this I can hear you saying, I'm not getting into bed with the commercial breeder, Im not wanting to sit down with people who sell to pet shops, I'm not getting in bed with cross bred breeders,I'm not interested in working with show breeders,I'm not interested in working with purebred breeders who don't show etc etc.

So are we able to come at this and assume we all want the same thing - the best outcome for the dogs and those who are involved in it , have a go at changing the way its being done and have a go at defending the ability for us to breed dogs without ridiculous restrictions into the future?

So are we capable of joining together and seeing what we have in common rather than what makes us different, only focus on the welfare of the dogs and the community expectations and make some real progress for dog and cat breeders and their animals?

At this point I really don't think we have much to lose by giving it a go but Ive no doubt Ill get a good belting for suggesting it.

[moosmum]

The way it works in the dog breeding world in Australia and most other countries is that the governments come at it all in the belief that the breeders need to be managed and clearly the ones who get busted and make great news stories and those who aren't doing it right do need something to drag them into line or out altogether .

Animal rights have been pretty good at drumming up this belief and animal welfare are hot on their tail coat. But they assume that those of us who are living it , breathing it etc are part of the problem and cant see that we all want the same thing. We all want the rotten stuff to stop but because they lump us in together they take the advice of animal rights and animal welfare first over and above really listening to us and finding real solutions. Our credentials, experience, knowledge accomplishments, references etc are not counted because we are disrespected by them and seen as the bad guys no matter what sub group we belong to and no matter what our base philosophy is. Most of us are too frightened to stand up and have a go at telling our story because that brings in the bullies and the threats and so far no one is listening anyway.

None of the stuff they introduce works - we all know this - they know it - and it doesn't make less dogs suffer it makes more suffer. Its doesnt make more breeders comply it makes them find ways to dodge it.

But because they have no respect for the ability we have to help they simply kick us to the curb and everything they do leaves screaming loopholes and uses more resources on low risk breeders and the ones they really need to control slither off and carry on as usual.

Their tasks forces and advisory boards are full of animal welfare, animal rights, vets etc and then if we are lucky a token representative of a breeder group. This effectively leaves us like a couple of sheep sitting down with a pack of wolves deciding on whats for dinner. It allows them to carry on with their assumptions and ideologies without a balanced view and we go to hell one law at a time.

So this raises a couple of issues

1. Why have we sat back and waited until they identified what goes wrong in the breeding world and not done this ourselves? I mean generically for the health and welfare of our dogs not making it about whether we are purebred or cross bred breeders, not about are we registered,big or small etc.

2.Why haven't we convened our own task forces and advisory boards where we can demonstrate that OUR first priority is about the welfare of our breeding dogs, have more control over who is having input,more fair representation and ensuring its not biased or loaded in any direction except toward the best outcome for the dogs.

3.Why do we allow the situation to continue as it is now set without becoming more pro active rather than re active then nothing will change. Breeders will not be heard and there will be more and more restrictions as each one they implement is shown not to work.

Part of the answer is that breeder groups have become accustomed to making themselves and their dogs look good by making the others look bad . Keeping themselves separate and different - they wont join one group because someone else is in it in case they appear guilty by association of something they do a little differently. Historically one might say that one group now and then has actually been instrumental in thumping the others to try to gain some ground for their members. As I'm writing this I can hear you saying, I'm not getting into bed with the commercial breeder, Im not wanting to sit down with people who sell to pet shops, I'm not getting in bed with cross bred breeders,I'm not interested in working with show breeders,I'm not interested in working with purebred breeders who don't show etc etc.

So are we able to come at this and assume we all want the same thing - the best outcome for the dogs and those who are involved in it , have a go at changing the way its being done and have a go at defending the ability for us to breed dogs without ridiculous restrictions into the future?

So are we capable of joining together and seeing what we have in common rather than what makes us different, only focus on the welfare of the dogs and the community expectations and make some real progress for dog and cat breeders and their animals?

At this point I really don't think we have much to lose by giving it a go but Ive no doubt Ill get a good belting for suggesting it.

Nothing to lose by giving it a go, every thing to lose if we don't.

This 'group identity' thing is our down fall. No one has to divide us, we do that our selves.

policing your own?! Can't work. You expose bad practice in your own group and you are attacking your own identity, because thats what you have accepted- an identity, Contained in the group or environment you work within.

Rules that draw a line, or restrict member activities to standards specific to their group before any other keep it that way.

Standards create the conditions of their environment. To insist no one strays from the environment where those conditions dominate means they can't change. That environment, if contained, forms an identity. Change or difference threatens the identity.

So how to show members the K.Cs will still have the K.Cs and their standards intact, by accepting their identity is as breeders? A K.C members identity as a breeders is NOT contained in the standards of the pedigree? Thats just the environment they have chosen to work in.

Your identity as K.C members can not and does not define you or your purpose for anyone outside of its boundaries.

Your practices do.The benefits they might bring to the community do.

To the community, you are breeders. Nothing special. Nothing deserving of exemption from common expectations. If practices aren't meeting expectations you will pay the price. Not as individuals, but in your identity as pedigree breeders, if you insist you are bound and contained as such.

If members are not contained and bound to the pedigree environment they chose to work in, alone, it will still be there. It can even grow, because it can change and evolve to incorporate responses that that aren't there now, as part of its identity.

'Standards' are environment. Environment is limitation.

'Values' are a response to environment. They over come limitation.

To say your environment is also your identity means you accept its limitations as absolute and no additional response or values are required. They are contained in the standards and limitations of your self identity.

So if they are not, you try to over come that with more exacting standards. Trying to build responses and values into an environment. But all that can do is place more limits on that environment of identity.

It needs response, but its NOT a response once its standardized as a condition of the environment.

Its a LIMITATION of response and values. It changes expectations of what is acceptable. So less and less is acceptable, regardless of any value it could bring as a response to 'other' conditions, in other environments.

There IS no other way to explain this. Its biological physics translated to human communities and organization. It explains the evolution and direction of those human communities and the organizations that affect them.

You reject the community, its purpose and its values while you insist on an identity that is distinct from that community. You leave no choice but to reject your identity in turn because the costs of continued support are not worth any value it gets in return.

Any value in your identity is contained, in its own environment and standards.

For Dogs sake, its physics. Its space and time, its genetic programing of cultural identities.

[asal]

As one who spotted this decades ago and tried to get the ear of some of the committee members of the then Canine council.

One was the remove a sentence in the chi standard to the effect "in case of equal merit the more diminutive preferred". Even in 78 I spotted many judges just didn't worry about the first part just zeroed in on the tiniest in the class. was I wasting their time on something to insignificant? well it was promptly deleted after Pedigree dogs exposed.

the other was the realisation the rspca had too little members who actually were dog breeders to balance their voting and board.

It fell on the deafest ears imaginable.

although when (forget his name) was voted Chairman one year, apparently he had been a member of the rspca for many years, the minute his election was in the papers he received notification his rspca membership had been cancelled. so although AR people can be members those who actually breed and know best management practice are not only not wanted as members as has been seen are hardly given a voice on the boards convened to decide best practice, not even fully qualified reproduction Vets have a presence in these decision making processes?

[asal]

copied from another forum

"exactly, ONCE 'farmers were highly thought of for their love and care of their stock' but these days there are numerous dodgy characters badly mistreating dogs for $. Big $ too. Could recite numerous incidents of puppy farming I know of, but too depressing...point is, times have changed. This industry needs looking at and legislation of some sort."

reply to the above post.

"Except as it has proven, you can make all the laws you want, restrict how many litters a bitch can have, restrict how many she can have per year, must micorchip all puppies, must vaccinate all puppies, can only have so many dogs, can only breed a max of 10 litters in a 12 month period (mind you that "litter" could be just one pup for a small breed, or 16 for the larger breeds, so a small breed breeder can produce 10 to 20 pups if they get two to a litter , but the larger breeds can mean their breeder has 160 puppies yet they are not a puppy farmer as long as they were from 10 litters. how insane is that?) or you will be inspected, cant breed father to daughter or mother to son or brothers to sisters. UGH how disgusting, how unnatural. yet Ralvon Bethelem a multi, multi champion was son to mother eg Ralvon Pilgrim to his mother Trix Silver. the most famous horse in dubai, dubbed their National Hero, Mindari Aenzac was the result of father to daugher, Ralvon Aeneas to his Daughter Mindari Wingadee. whats disgusting and banned in dogs now, has repeatedly produced some of the best of the best when the genes are sound. but hey who cares about soundness its incest in dogs now but not yet (anyway) in horses.

but guess what?

i found two puppies last week, obviously over 8 weeks old, took them to animal welfare and nope not a chip between them.

a number of years ago I had two puppies stolen from my home, both were microchippped, I saw the car that stole them as it almost ran me down getting off my land. it was a white sedan but too shocked to get the number plate. some weeks later one puppy was found wandering beside a 6 lane highway near liverpool. how she survived has to have been a miracle since she was only 6 weeks old when she was stolen and was now 14 weeks. a kind lady caught her and took her to a lady who bred the same breed who then took her to a local vet and I was phoned and home she came. for months I scanned gumtree and trading post adds as the police said many stolen dogs end up there. finally when she was 6 months old was a photo of her on gumtree, her owner had to move back to japan and couldnt afford the export costs, I rang and arranged to meet but when I got there only her old male was left, my girl had been sold, I had not dared to tell her she was stolen, I had phoned the redfern police who met me and interviewed the lady and she was wonderful, she had the names and address of the people who bought her.. now the interesting bit was she had bought her at campbelltown markets, she had been told the puppies had been an unwanted gift to the wife and had no vaccination papers so she would need to have her vaccinated and microchipped. she had not bothered to have her either vaccinated or microchipped as she assumed as she lived in a high rise flat there was no chance of her getting any disease.

Even in the add I found she had said the puppy has no vaccination papers or microchip, when the police contacted the new owners they were positive their new puppy couldn't be the stolen one after learning she had a microchip number. so agreed to take her to the nearest vet along with a police constable to prove it was not the dog I was looking for. of course they were not happy to find out they did have a stolen dog. so much so that the family and almost a dozen friends went to the police station demanding the return of THEIR dog, the argument being whoever lost her didn't deserve to have her back or she wouldn't have been stolen in the first place!

thing got ugly enough that when i arrived to pick up my puppy, the police had rang me and told me when I arrived to look at no one and ask for sargent ...... and under no circumstance mention I was there about a dog. Did as was told although it was very scary walking past that angry group looking for who was coming to get their pup.

I was taken into an interview and reunited with Fire. but to get me back to my car safely I was taken downstairs to the paddy wagons and given a lift back to where my car was parked.

so an awful lot of people are happy to buy what they believe are unvaccinated unchipped dogs and puppies. even though PERISH THE THOUGHT its BLOODY AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DREAM ON micromanage the law abiding into extinction but you ain't going to stop the underground puppy trade "

No its not against the law .The breeder is mandated by law to chip the puppy but the buyer can buy a puppy without a chip without a problem for them.

There is the crux of the problem, until a buyer is mandated to either buy a chipped and vaccinated puppy or is liable for prosecution if found with an unchipped dog then the underground trade can merrily go on its way

[Steve]

copied from another forum

"exactly, ONCE 'farmers were highly thought of for their love and care of their stock' but these days there are numerous dodgy characters badly mistreating dogs for $. Big $ too. Could recite numerous incidents of puppy farming I know of, but too depressing...point is, times have changed. This industry needs looking at and legislation of some sort."

reply to the above post.

"Except as it has proven, you can make all the laws you want, restrict how many litters a bitch can have, restrict how many she can have per year, must micorchip all puppies, must vaccinate all puppies, can only have so many dogs, can only breed a max of 10 litters in a 12 month period (mind you that "litter" could be just one pup for a small breed, or 16 for the larger breeds, so a small breed breeder can produce 10 to 20 pups if they get two to a litter , but the larger breeds can mean their breeder has 160 puppies yet they are not a puppy farmer as long as they were from 10 litters. how insane is that?) or you will be inspected, cant breed father to daughter or mother to son or brothers to sisters. UGH how disgusting, how unnatural. yet Ralvon Bethelem a multi, multi champion was son to mother eg Ralvon Pilgrim to his mother Trix Silver. the most famous horse in dubai, dubbed their National Hero, Mindari Aenzac was the result of father to daugher, Ralvon Aeneas to his Daughter Mindari Wingadee. whats disgusting and banned in dogs now, has repeatedly produced some of the best of the best when the genes are sound. but hey who cares about soundness its incest in dogs now but not yet (anyway) in horses.

but guess what?

i found two puppies last week, obviously over 8 weeks old, took them to animal welfare and nope not a chip between them.

a number of years ago I had two puppies stolen from my home, both were microchippped, I saw the car that stole them as it almost ran me down getting off my land. it was a white sedan but too shocked to get the number plate. some weeks later one puppy was found wandering beside a 6 lane highway near liverpool. how she survived has to have been a miracle since she was only 6 weeks old when she was stolen and was now 14 weeks. a kind lady caught her and took her to a lady who bred the same breed who then took her to a local vet and I was phoned and home she came. for months I scanned gumtree and trading post adds as the police said many stolen dogs end up there. finally when she was 6 months old was a photo of her on gumtree, her owner had to move back to japan and couldnt afford the export costs, I rang and arranged to meet but when I got there only her old male was left, my girl had been sold, I had not dared to tell her she was stolen, I had phoned the redfern police who met me and interviewed the lady and she was wonderful, she had the names and address of the people who bought her.. now the interesting bit was she had bought her at campbelltown markets, she had been told the puppies had been an unwanted gift to the wife and had no vaccination papers so she would need to have her vaccinated and microchipped. she had not bothered to have her either vaccinated or microchipped as she assumed as she lived in a high rise flat there was no chance of her getting any disease.

Even in the add I found she had said the puppy has no vaccination papers or microchip, when the police contacted the new owners they were positive their new puppy couldn't be the stolen one after learning she had a microchip number. so agreed to take her to the nearest vet along with a police constable to prove it was not the dog I was looking for. of course they were not happy to find out they did have a stolen dog. so much so that the family and almost a dozen friends went to the police station demanding the return of THEIR dog, the argument being whoever lost her didn't deserve to have her back or she wouldn't have been stolen in the first place!

thing got ugly enough that when i arrived to pick up my puppy, the police had rang me and told me when I arrived to look at no one and ask for sargent ...... and under no circumstance mention I was there about a dog. Did as was told although it was very scary walking past that angry group looking for who was coming to get their pup.

I was taken into an interview and reunited with Fire. but to get me back to my car safely I was taken downstairs to the paddy wagons and given a lift back to where my car was parked.

so an awful lot of people are happy to buy what they believe are unvaccinated unchipped dogs and puppies. even though PERISH THE THOUGHT its BLOODY AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DREAM ON micromanage the law abiding into extinction but you ain't going to stop the underground puppy trade "

No its not against the law .The breeder is mandated by law to chip the puppy but the buyer can buy a puppy without a chip without a problem for them.

There is the crux of the problem, until a buyer is mandated to either buy a chipped and vaccinated puppy or is liable for prosecution if found with an unchipped dog then the underground trade can merrily go on its way

I dont think its the crux of the problem but its an example of the problem.

[asal]

copied from another forum

"exactly, ONCE 'farmers were highly thought of for their love and care of their stock' but these days there are numerous dodgy characters badly mistreating dogs for $. Big $ too. Could recite numerous incidents of puppy farming I know of, but too depressing...point is, times have changed. This industry needs looking at and legislation of some sort."

reply to the above post.

"Except as it has proven, you can make all the laws you want, restrict how many litters a bitch can have, restrict how many she can have per year, must micorchip all puppies, must vaccinate all puppies, can only have so many dogs, can only breed a max of 10 litters in a 12 month period (mind you that "litter" could be just one pup for a small breed, or 16 for the larger breeds, so a small breed breeder can produce 10 to 20 pups if they get two to a litter , but the larger breeds can mean their breeder has 160 puppies yet they are not a puppy farmer as long as they were from 10 litters. how insane is that?) or you will be inspected, cant breed father to daughter or mother to son or brothers to sisters. UGH how disgusting, how unnatural. yet Ralvon Bethelem a multi, multi champion was son to mother eg Ralvon Pilgrim to his mother Trix Silver. the most famous horse in dubai, dubbed their National Hero, Mindari Aenzac was the result of father to daugher, Ralvon Aeneas to his Daughter Mindari Wingadee. whats disgusting and banned in dogs now, has repeatedly produced some of the best of the best when the genes are sound. but hey who cares about soundness its incest in dogs now but not yet (anyway) in horses.

but guess what?

i found two puppies last week, obviously over 8 weeks old, took them to animal welfare and nope not a chip between them.

a number of years ago I had two puppies stolen from my home, both were microchippped, I saw the car that stole them as it almost ran me down getting off my land. it was a white sedan but too shocked to get the number plate. some weeks later one puppy was found wandering beside a 6 lane highway near liverpool. how she survived has to have been a miracle since she was only 6 weeks old when she was stolen and was now 14 weeks. a kind lady caught her and took her to a lady who bred the same breed who then took her to a local vet and I was phoned and home she came. for months I scanned gumtree and trading post adds as the police said many stolen dogs end up there. finally when she was 6 months old was a photo of her on gumtree, her owner had to move back to japan and couldnt afford the export costs, I rang and arranged to meet but when I got there only her old male was left, my girl had been sold, I had not dared to tell her she was stolen, I had phoned the redfern police who met me and interviewed the lady and she was wonderful, she had the names and address of the people who bought her.. now the interesting bit was she had bought her at campbelltown markets, she had been told the puppies had been an unwanted gift to the wife and had no vaccination papers so she would need to have her vaccinated and microchipped. she had not bothered to have her either vaccinated or microchipped as she assumed as she lived in a high rise flat there was no chance of her getting any disease.

Even in the add I found she had said the puppy has no vaccination papers or microchip, when the police contacted the new owners they were positive their new puppy couldn't be the stolen one after learning she had a microchip number. so agreed to take her to the nearest vet along with a police constable to prove it was not the dog I was looking for. of course they were not happy to find out they did have a stolen dog. so much so that the family and almost a dozen friends went to the police station demanding the return of THEIR dog, the argument being whoever lost her didn't deserve to have her back or she wouldn't have been stolen in the first place!

thing got ugly enough that when i arrived to pick up my puppy, the police had rang me and told me when I arrived to look at no one and ask for sargent ...... and under no circumstance mention I was there about a dog. Did as was told although it was very scary walking past that angry group looking for who was coming to get their pup.

I was taken into an interview and reunited with Fire. but to get me back to my car safely I was taken downstairs to the paddy wagons and given a lift back to where my car was parked.

so an awful lot of people are happy to buy what they believe are unvaccinated unchipped dogs and puppies. even though PERISH THE THOUGHT its BLOODY AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DREAM ON micromanage the law abiding into extinction but you ain't going to stop the underground puppy trade "

No its not against the law .The breeder is mandated by law to chip the puppy but the buyer can buy a puppy without a chip without a problem for them.

There is the crux of the problem, until a buyer is mandated to either buy a chipped and vaccinated puppy or is liable for prosecution if found with an unchipped dog then the underground trade can merrily go on its way

I dont think its the crux of the problem but its an example of the problem.

true, didn't think it through

[Steve]

If we identify that one problem is that not all breeders microchip their puppies prior to sale and people continue to buy them without microchips then there are ways for them to address that which doesn't make life harder for the breeders who are doing the right thing and which wont make any difference to the outcome.

We could introduce a discounted rego fee for anyone who buys a dog or puppy that is already microchipped just as they do for desexed pets. This would help with buyer education and put more pressure on breeders to chip,bring in more revenue for councils. We could also do a yearly door knock to make sure everyone who owns a dog has it chipped and registered. Even if they bought in private contractors for a couple of weeks to do a whip around and issue fines these things plus an education campaign via media for a few weeks would serve a much greater purpose and reach the intended goal much more effectively and quicker than making it a law that breeders must advertise our puppies with a chip number or breeder ID number.

[Steve]

Is the answer to be able to PROVE to each of these groups (govt, animal rights etc) where the pound dogs are coming from? Can we not just add "breeder contact details" to the microchip information?

I think dog breeding is already heading toward smaller and smaller numbers in each individual kennel, but I see it as a great loss to breeds... and it comes down to what you wrote about needing numbers to allow for adequate selection pressure and improvement. Many breeders would now have 1-4 bitches - and if one of them has a less than ideal nature, average health results, lacks breed type, or has issues breeding and whelping naturally... well - we probably still work with what we have! Because there is little to no fall back with such small numbers.

The kennel of a previous generation had enough dogs that if there were any of the above issues, that bitch could simply be excluded without it being a huge loss to the plans and genetic pool for that breeder. AND there was a larger number of litters and generations all being bred with a single mind and set of goals - where that kennel will develop a "type" and be known for specific qualities/strengths.

Well the biggest issue in placing blame on where pound dogs come from is that there is no proof and its unlikely that there will be in the near future. The changes in NSW with the chips is designed [ or supposed to be] to enable them to trace the puppies from birth to death so theoretically they could keep stats which would say who breeds dogs that get dumped. For now because there is no proof they simply say lots of pet shop puppies end up in pounds but if pet shops have been chipping for years how come most that come in are not chipped?

Their assumption is that everyone will follow the law and chip all of their puppies before they sell Them. Mandatory microchipping has been in since the mid nineties and still most dogs in pounds are not chipped when they get there. Unless everyone who isn't chipping now starts chipping its still not going to give much evidence on where they come from . Breeders are telling me that they are less likely to chip and they are using other people's names and addresses when they do, sending family members to the vet for chips etc. Breeder numbers are introduced any minute but a local breeder has never chipped a puppy ,tells me they never will, the vet cant and wont dob them in so in other words the only pups that can be traced so we can prove where they came from are those that are chipped by those who are doing the right thing. An ANKC breeder has told me that she will send her puppies off with family members and her staff so all of her puppies dont show up on the council registry as originating from her .then she can still register all of her puppies with DogsNSW with a chip but she wont be targeted by the RSPCA as breeding large numbers.

Right now its not necessary for a breeder to show ID to get them chipped - any stranger can walk in and say they are Tom Smith and have them chipped in that name. If they do introduce ID checking then its still chipped in the name of the person who arrives with them.

there is about a dozen other ways around it and breeders including registered breeders are working out how to get around the council and RSPCA knowing how many they are breeding.

So getting proof isnt as easy as it sounds.

[Jed]

Is the answer to be able to PROVE to each of these groups (govt, animal rights etc) where the pound dogs are coming from? Can we not just add "breeder contact details" to the microchip information?

I think dog breeding is already heading toward smaller and smaller numbers in each individual kennel, but I see it as a great loss to breeds... and it comes down to what you wrote about needing numbers to allow for adequate selection pressure and improvement. Many breeders would now have 1-4 bitches - and if one of them has a less than ideal nature, average health results, lacks breed type, or has issues breeding and whelping naturally... well - we probably still work with what we have! Because there is little to no fall back with such small numbers.

The kennel of a previous generation had enough dogs that if there were any of the above issues, that bitch could simply be excluded without it being a huge loss to the plans and genetic pool for that breeder. AND there was a larger number of litters and generations all being bred with a single mind and set of goals - where that kennel will develop a "type" and be known for specific qualities/strengths.

As far as I am aware the origin of pound animals has already been proven, via many studies available on the net including those by the RSPCA, UQ etc.

I agree with the remainder of your post.