Backyard breeder makes fortune

[asal]

1 hour ago, ~Anne~ said:

I hate the byb vs pedigree debate. There shouldn’t be a debate because it’s horses for courses. 
 

I liken it to the debate which rages about public schools and private schools. It’s a choice and each to their own. The teachers and curriculum are all the same in both systems. The differences are cultural.
 

Same with breeding dogs. It’s a cultural difference. The genetics are the same.  ALL dogs, byb or pedigree, have genetic issues just like we humans do. There is no such thing as a perfect canine specimen - it’s a feckin’ myth! The cultural difference means one lot is bred to a set of desirable traits - that doesn’t mean the dog is any better than the dog which is not bred for specific traits. 
 

I CHOOSE to buy purebred because I want certain traits in my animals. That’s my choice but my choice is not any better or worse than someone who buys a dog from a non pedigree breeder. If I wanted another dog now, I would likely buy from a pedigree breeder. I hate the stupidity of the statement ‘rescue, don’t buy’. Feck off and don’t tell me what I do and please don’t dare lay a guilt trip on me because I choose to do what is best for me.  
 

The cruelty and abuse debate is a seperate issue and comes with a whole new set of points. 
 

As for rescues - I get where you’re coming from (I can’t see what Powerlegs said as the posts are now gone).  My eyes never roll so hard as they do when I see some of the rubbish on social media. It’s an unregulated industry which means it’s a mess. There’s so many people with their hearts in the right places but their heads are another matter, and running any business purely on emotion isn’t a good idea. 

 

 

at the rate of decline in registered breeders the debate is soon irrelevant ,  australia has a population of over 26 million people, 40% have a pet dog.

 

" Dogs continue to be Australia's most popular pets, with just over 5 million dogs across the nation. Forty per cent of Australian households have at least one dog (largely unchanged since 2016, at 38%). The average number of dogs per dog-owning household has also remained relatively steady at 1.3."

 

Health research has proven over and over again the health benefits of pets of any species.

 

Yet legislation led by the lunatic fringe to eliminate them keeps being drafted and passed?  

 

Why?  Because even pet owners are caught up in the "we have to eliminated puppy farmers" this chant began with PETA, its been implanted in everyone's brains since 1980's when PETA began.

 

no one in the whole almost 40 years now has defined a puppy farmer?  

The similarities to the Salem witch hunts is remarkable and still no one is catching on.

 

People will find their pet, they want one, they need one and if the governments shut down every one that is a tracable breeder, which is the AR nutters ultimate aim.  There are still millions of people with a female with a friend with a male , so they will never be on the radar willing and able to supply friends, family and by word of mouth.   

 

The AR's are creating a black market ultimately.

 

we all know about Prohibition in america.  How long that lasted.

 

The era of the bootleg pets is coming. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by asal

[moosmum]

The problem really comes back to how we define 'Breeder'. The language is what directs the purpose or cause.

In reality, if you breed a dog, you are a breeder. Thats the objective definition. There is no other. The objective is the same. 

 

Any values we  apply to breeding are subjective,  to that purpose. The values we apply to or as breeders dictate the directions and success  of the whole.  That objective body. Not just parts of it.   What we collectively bring to the cause. The objective purpose doesn't exist without the values  and support brought to it.

 

When we start to define  'breeders' by any measure other than  the breeding of Dogs, we are applying an objective where it does not belong. And it is objective. It can't be anything else applied that way. It objects. Its a double negative. It gives opposing values to a single space or objective where none belong, so corrupts the language of the 'whole' purpose into oppositional directions.

 

It implies any value  to dog breeding is inherent to the body, or environment we work in, rather than the values we bring to it, or any support given to practices  delivering value. Both of those are essential to the objectives viability. Loose those, and you loose any purpose dog breeding might have had. 

 

So all breeders are discredited through their own opposition to the environment they share.

Less concerned with delivering values that people want or choose to support subjectively, or to imitate, and more concerned  with discrediting their opposition or 'other' objectives. They are all the same. Every thing else is environment of the objective body. We are throwing it out in pursuit of values that need to be brought in!

 And sever the feedback loop needed between  breeders and their environment for a successful  purpose/goal in trying to dictate where value can found, or its recognition when it is.

We have created a double negative in the language that directs the purpose. Theres no value  in the task, if the environment that allows it must always be cause for its faults.

 

I can't know a 'good' breeder from a bad by whether they breed pets in their back yard, pedigrees to show, dogs to herd sheep or race, in commercial kennels or any other form their breeding takes. Thats subjective of the breeder, and my own needs or values. Not of any other objective I care to assign based on belief. The sooner thats understood, the sooner we can move on to what actually works to foster support instead of censure.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

12 hours ago, ~Anne~ said:

I hate the byb vs pedigree debate. There shouldn’t be a debate because it’s horses for courses. 
 

I liken it to the debate which rages about public schools and private schools. It’s a choice and each to their own. The teachers and curriculum are all the same in both systems. The differences are cultural.
 

Same with breeding dogs. It’s a cultural difference. The genetics are the same.  ALL dogs, byb or pedigree, have genetic issues just like we humans do. There is no such thing as a perfect canine specimen - it’s a feckin’ myth! The cultural difference means one lot is bred to a set of desirable traits - that doesn’t mean the dog is any better than the dog which is not bred for specific traits. 
 

I CHOOSE to buy purebred because I want certain traits in my animals. That’s my choice but my choice is not any better or worse than someone who buys a dog from a non pedigree breeder. If I wanted another dog now, I would likely buy from a pedigree breeder. I hate the stupidity of the statement ‘rescue, don’t buy’. Feck off and don’t tell me what I do and please don’t dare lay a guilt trip on me because I choose to do what is best for me.  
 

The cruelty and abuse debate is a seperate issue and comes with a whole new set of points. 
 

As for rescues - I get where you’re coming from (I can’t see what Powerlegs said as the posts are now gone).  My eyes never roll so hard as they do when I see some of the rubbish on social media. It’s an unregulated industry which means it’s a mess. There’s so many people with their hearts in the right places but their heads are another matter, and running any business purely on emotion isn’t a good idea. 

 My vote for best post I’ve ever read. Thank you. 
 

 

[Pjrt]

Breeders don’t put dogs in shelters, ……buyers do.

 

 

[_PL_]

I'm not up for an argument again so don't shoot the messenger. Just going to leave this here. Make of it what you will.
Pounds and rescues are in crisis whatever people believe the cause is. Even the breeders of the pups and kittens featured are opting out. 

https://www.facebook.com/mscanimalshelter/photos/a.529871863690647/5797472866930494

I'm not responsible for the comments. 

[coneye]

Last sundays paper had a big article in it about the govt here in SOUTH AUST changing the rules for breeders , apparantly they have had submisions in for  breeders premises to allow  up to 300 bitches , and not just one submision either  seems a lot to me  but thats a MASSIVE scale  , also says victorian breeders are moving across the border up Mildura way to get away from the new vic laws ,, don't know how much  is just selling papers made up rubbish or  is actual fact . i just read it .

 

For me though the answer is simple    , you have breeders and you have byb  , but which is which ,  is the old lady who's owned poodles for 35 years and lets her  best bitch have a litter with the show dog she bought  a byb or a breeder , hence is the guy with 20 acres and 30 bitches all in pup to the 5 males he has  a breeder or a byb .

 

I don't really think the byb in the past has been a problem  , if there dogs are no good they don't sell them and then its supply and demand .  Personally i think   once someone  registers  to be a breeder , with clubs , govt agencies whoever or whatever , they are  virtually saying there there too make money , so councils if there worried about puppy farms not breeders , can just simply put a number on dogs  they can have and the amount of pups they can have at any one time ,, and this should be highly policed with regular inspections to make sure its ok , make the RSPCA work for there grants , won't cost them nothing they can send there volunteers  the byb well  they  will not have sites such has this to advertize so they take a chance on being stuck with 6 pups  unless there own dog is such a nice dog there already booked and sold .. I believe the dog industry is one where they need to allow or encourage more breeding to simply reduce the prices ,  and reducing the prices reduces the profits all of a sudden its not profiable to breed if your not making money .. but it still leaves it open for good breeders who have the lines and the papers , trophys  and reputation  to charge more on the basis you get what you pay for , .

 

I know from breeders over the last 45 years i've bought a springer spaniel , a staffy , a shepard , and 2 rottys  and in each case i could'nt give a monkeys   about  showing them or there show potential , i just looked for the biggest , healthiest looking most boisterous pup they had , each time payed a premium but got excatly what i wanted ,  but i also got full papers ,   Thats another argument but me i would NEVER EVER buy a pedigree dog without full papers  , i don't want to breed or show ,, but  if i'm paying a premium  i want  the full papers ,  and sorry but any breeder who refused to give them me  stating   any reason ,  i would look at them disbelieve them and say  they only want to   protect there own income , nothing to do with the dogs ,, , after all if   they breed great dogs , you think they would be happy to have there  line used , especielly if you went back to mate it with one of there other dogs , if there so paranoid about   there line being bred simple answer keep all the pups themselves

[~Anne~]

10 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

I'm not up for an argument again so don't shoot the messenger. Just going to leave this here. Make of it what you will.
Pounds and rescues are in crisis whatever people believe the cause is. Even the breeders of the pups and kittens featured are opting out. 

https://www.facebook.com/mscanimalshelter/photos/a.529871863690647/5797472866930494

I'm not responsible for the comments. 

Sorry Anna, I don’t mean to diminish the work of those trying to help dogs in need. I just think it’s better to try and resolve the problem in a significant way, not pick-up the pieces. At the moment, rescues are left with the burden while governments and policy makers play politics. 
 

What advocates should be pushing for is valid and detailed research and data so that effective solutions can be developed. Instead we have welfare lobbyists, all in good faith, thinking that we need more restrictions on breeding and the introduction of desexing laws because of what could be a false premise. 
 

I’ve been around a long time as you know, I’ve been a vet nurse and worked for the then President of the RSPCA, I’ve ran a rescue, worked in the NSW government department that manages our companion animal laws and take na specific interest in animal welfare all my life. To me it’s pretty obvious that we’re grasping at straws and the dogs in need are not decreasing. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by ~Anne~

[tdierikx]

Microchipping has been mandatory for decades, yet the number of unchipped animals in pounds and shelters is still significant. Desexing is also strongly encouraged, and sweetened by offering cheaper council registrations, but the numbers of undesexed and unregistered animals in pounds and shelters is still significant. None of these issues are properly addressed in current OR proposed legislation... basically where the entire system fails is in the policing of the legislation

 

Many councils have introduced limits on the numbers of various types of animals, yet there are still people who keep more than those numbers - basically, if one doesn't microchip or register their pet, then they can't effectively be traced, can they? The only way to truly get a real idea on the number of pets in any LGA would be to doorknock and insist on seeing/counting all pets... and we know that ain't gonna happen. Again, legislation/policy that can't be effectively policed.

 

The current enforcement model is to sit and wait for a complaint to be called in by a member of the public, then the authority decides whether it's worth their time or effort to follow up on that complaint. Reactive, not proactive, policing is a flawed model that is obviously not working, yet those responsible for drafting animal welfare legislation continue to stick their heads in the sand with regards to even attempting to fix the problem... instead, in order to be seen to be "doing something", they just impose even more draconian rules that only make it harder for those actually doing the right thing, but those who aren't will still operate as normal, flying under the radar.

 

The simple truth is that the current system that relies on a third party charity to cover all policing of legislation is not working. The proposed new NSW legislation offers a paltry sum of money to help fund same, but why throw money at a system that clearly doesn't work? What is actually needed is a complete overhaul of how we police our animal welfare laws... and it should NOT be done by a 3rd party charity organisation, rather it should be done by a truly independent agency that has no stake in the industry it is tasked with policing. Any policing agency should also be fully accountable for any overstepping of powers... say an ombudsman or the like.

 

Introducing more laws that can't or won't be policed is a waste of time, effort, and money. Simple truth.

 

T.

Edited August 30, 2022 by tdierikx

[Amazetl]

I inquired the other day about desexing my mature girl. I couldn’t believe how much it was going to cost. The lower rate of registration I’m not sure is all that low when you take into account the cost of desexing. I’m not blaming the vets at all. These things cost but I don’t think many people factor in all those costs. They think of the initial - food, bed, toys, maybe puppy school, but what about for years and vaccinations and de-wormers and obedience classes and desexing and all the rest. I’m sure a lot of people do consider it but I would be concerned with someone buying from a byb and not really doing those sums first. They generally can’t give the dog back like they can with a proper breeder and if they can’t pass the dog on or sell it (hopefully for a profit some of them) then they take it to a shelter. 

 

Also, I was looking at shelter dogs online in my area and wondered who breeds these mixes. Some of them had so many interesting mixes I don’t understand how they breed them or why, do they really think they’ll make a profit out of selling the heavily mixed pups? I don’t know. Or do they just have a female and a male and don’t desex and end up with pups on their hands? I don’t know much about it really but I don’t think the problem is with breed club breeders who should home their dogs to appropriate homes and take them back if needed. 

 

I don’t know, I’m sure some of the laws have helped a little but there’s still a huge problem and those are falling through the cracks meanwhile some who are good pay the price. And breeds will decline over time. It will be interesting and probably sad to see what happens in the future generations. I think I read somewhere maybe on here about how many breeders aren’t willing to take a chance on a new generation of breeders and mentor them and allow them to carry on their lines. But if they don’t then they’re going to die out. I don’t know exactly how it works and I’m sure there’s a lot of good mentoring happening but it does seem like most adds sell on limited and express seriously about no breeding. 

[asal]

7 hours ago, Amazetl said:

I inquired the other day about desexing my mature girl. I couldn’t believe how much it was going to cost. The lower rate of registration I’m not sure is all that low when you take into account the cost of desexing. I’m not blaming the vets at all. These things cost but I don’t think many people factor in all those costs. They think of the initial - food, bed, toys, maybe puppy school, but what about for years and vaccinations and de-wormers and obedience classes and desexing and all the rest. I’m sure a lot of people do consider it but I would be concerned with someone buying from a byb and not really doing those sums first. They generally can’t give the dog back like they can with a proper breeder and if they can’t pass the dog on or sell it (hopefully for a profit some of them) then they take it to a shelter. 

 

Also, I was looking at shelter dogs online in my area and wondered who breeds these mixes. Some of them had so many interesting mixes I don’t understand how they breed them or why, do they really think they’ll make a profit out of selling the heavily mixed pups? I don’t know. Or do they just have a female and a male and don’t desex and end up with pups on their hands? I don’t know much about it really but I don’t think the problem is with breed club breeders who should home their dogs to appropriate homes and take them back if needed. 

 

I don’t know, I’m sure some of the laws have helped a little but there’s still a huge problem and those are falling through the cracks meanwhile some who are good pay the price. And breeds will decline over time. It will be interesting and probably sad to see what happens in the future generations. I think I read somewhere maybe on here about how many breeders aren’t willing to take a chance on a new generation of breeders and mentor them and allow them to carry on their lines. But if they don’t then they’re going to die out. I don’t know exactly how it works and I’m sure there’s a lot of good mentoring happening but it does seem like most adds sell on limited and express seriously about no breeding. 

 

 

its almost impossible for a newbie to find a registered breeder who will hand over main registration,   the ethical, responsible mantra has been to be a dead end kennel.

 

I have had people crying they have been so traumatised by conversations with previous breeders whose advertisement they had replied too.

 

As tdierikx pointed out, the pounds are full of un microchipped dogs.  every one of them has come from the real backyard invisible breeders.

 

they are the real suppliers of puppies now.

 

everyone else is being systematically eliminated

 

[asal]

On 31/08/2022 at 7:49 AM, tdierikx said:

Microchipping has been mandatory for decades, yet the number of unchipped animals in pounds and shelters is still significant. Desexing is also strongly encouraged, and sweetened by offering cheaper council registrations, but the numbers of undesexed and unregistered animals in pounds and shelters is still significant. None of these issues are properly addressed in current OR proposed legislation... basically where the entire system fails is in the policing of the legislation

 

Many councils have introduced limits on the numbers of various types of animals, yet there are still people who keep more than those numbers - basically, if one doesn't microchip or register their pet, then they can't effectively be traced, can they? The only way to truly get a real idea on the number of pets in any LGA would be to doorknock and insist on seeing/counting all pets... and we know that ain't gonna happen. Again, legislation/policy that can't be effectively policed.

 

The current enforcement model is to sit and wait for a complaint to be called in by a member of the public, then the authority decides whether it's worth their time or effort to follow up on that complaint. Reactive, not proactive, policing is a flawed model that is obviously not working, yet those responsible for drafting animal welfare legislation continue to stick their heads in the sand with regards to even attempting to fix the problem... instead, in order to be seen to be "doing something", they just impose even more draconian rules that only make it harder for those actually doing the right thing, but those who aren't will still operate as normal, flying under the radar.

 

The simple truth is that the current system that relies on a third party charity to cover all policing of legislation is not working. The proposed new NSW legislation offers a paltry sum of money to help fund same, but why throw money at a system that clearly doesn't work? What is actually needed is a complete overhaul of how we police our animal welfare laws... and it should NOT be done by a 3rd party charity organisation, rather it should be done by a truly independent agency that has no stake in the industry it is tasked with policing. Any policing agency should also be fully accountable for any overstepping of powers... say an ombudsman or the like.

 

Introducing more laws that can't or won't be policed is a waste of time, effort, and money. Simple truth.

 

T.

 

 

I just realised as I was replying  to the other thread.

 

The pounds and rescues are providing the evidence that registered  traceable breeders are not the problem.

 

that strangling them is doing nothing to stem the tide of unchipped dogs and kittens filling them

 

Because they are coming from people who do not consider they are a breeder and never obey the law, yet what they created  was born, so it had a mum and a dad.  so technically it was bred, even a cloned puppy is still carried and born to a surrogate mum.

 

BUT since the majority THAT END UP IN POUNDS OR RESCUE dont  have a chip, it actually cannot have come from a "breeder" as by law ALL BREEDERS  must microchip EVERY puppy or kitten before it goes to its new home.

 

its been law for over 30 years last I looked  yet obviously not happening to the majority born to the real people flooding the pounds and rescues, who believe they are "non breeders"??????????????  Therefore the microchipping legislations does not apply to them.

 

an oxymoron if ever there was one

 

Has any?

 

Politician busy drafting laws the invisibles will never comply with, been advised of this well documented,  inescapable fact?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by asal

[~Anne~]

On 30/08/2022 at 8:50 AM, asal said:

 

 

at the rate of decline in registered breeders the debate is soon irrelevant ,  australia has a population of over 26 million people, 40% have a pet dog.

 

" Dogs continue to be Australia's most popular pets, with just over 5 million dogs across the nation. Forty per cent of Australian households have at least one dog (largely unchanged since 2016, at 38%). The average number of dogs per dog-owning household has also remained relatively steady at 1.3."

 

Health research has proven over and over again the health benefits of pets of any species.

 

Yet legislation led by the lunatic fringe to eliminate them keeps being drafted and passed?  

 

Why?  Because even pet owners are caught up in the "we have to eliminated puppy farmers" this chant began with PETA, its been implanted in everyone's brains since 1980's when PETA began.

 

no one in the whole almost 40 years now has defined a puppy farmer?  

The similarities to the Salem witch hunts is remarkable and still no one is catching on.

 

People will find their pet, they want one, they need one and if the governments shut down every one that is a tracable breeder, which is the AR nutters ultimate aim.  There are still millions of people with a female with a friend with a male , so they will never be on the radar willing and able to supply friends, family and by word of mouth.   

 

The AR's are creating a black market ultimately.

 

we all know about Prohibition in america.  How long that lasted.

 

The era of the bootleg pets is coming. 

 Yep!

[~Anne~]

So, so many assumptions are made about why dogs are in pounds and why the numbers go up (or down). The exponential increase in population is a key indicator of the increase in numbers. Hold on rescues - because our population is growing rapidly so the need for your services will not stop growing. 

 

Does that mean all increases are due to the increase in population? No, but it would go towards it as a major factor, and probably the largest key factor, predicting the numbers of dogs in pounds.

 

There are two key areas to look at (and we CAN'T look at them because we don't have them) and these are:

1. Why they end up in a shelter/pound/rescue

2. How many there are in shelters/pounds/rescues

 

We simply do not know the answers to the above. Its astonishing that we keep allowing assumptions to rule the management of the issue of 'unwanted' companion animals. I do not know of ONE. SINGLE. ANIMAL. WELFARE. GROUP who has the nous to throw away all of their assumptions and perceptions, and search for the facts - unbiased facts. Purely objective research. Not research with an agenda.

 

Lets answer the questions above using our heads, not our hearts. We need research and facts if we are ever to provide a resolution to the problem.

 

 

 

 

[Pjrt]

You’re so right Anne. But unfortunately facts often don’t align with what people want to know/hear. 
recently I was commenting on a FB post from our South Australian premier. The post just said ‘we’re going to ban puppy farms’ 

omg the nonsense and dribble in the comments. The generic ‘good, ban byb as well’. ‘I thought they already had’. ‘Adopt don’t shop’.  ‘We rescued our precious fluffy from the pound’ ‘stop breeding mutts’ on and on and on it went. 
First thing I want to know from the broad statement is what exactly will the legislative description of a ‘puppy farm’ actually be. Next I want to know how people will source dogs when all the puppy farms and byb are gone and all we have left is limited closed gene pools held by people who don’t breed many dogs and won’t let anyone else breed from their dogs. 
personally I prefer to see low volume byb over commercial scale factory farming. We also absolutely MUST have mixed breeds and some volume of breeding. 
 

I know it’s pretty radical and I even posted much the same on here several yrs ago. But I’d actually like to see private rescue banned. While ever there is a place to dump dogs, people will dump dogs there. Shelters should be exclusively for unclaimed strays, deceased estate animals, animals seized in neglect cases etc. 

If there are no places to hand over dogs so easily, culture will slowly change. People need to understand they will be responsible for rehoming any dog they call theirs. For 50 yrs or more in this country people have just known they can surrender a dog. Most probably don’t set out with the intention, but they know in the back of their mind it’s an option.  Yes, without surrender situations some people will turn the dogs out on the streets. For Some dogs that will go badly. Most would end up as unclaimed strays and get a place at a shelter for assessment and rehoming. Some might say well, just let them take it to a shelter, it’s probably going there anyway. But my argument is the culture needs to change. People need to step up and rehome their own animals.  

another radical idea I talk about which would imo flatten the whole spectrum of problems with domestic dogs, is to put a cap on the price. Let’s say $2000. No dog anywhere can be sold for more than that. Regardless of whether it’s a pure bred magicalmystiquehound with European imported parents or a oodlywhatsit or anything in between. Certain groups will throw their hands up at that one, yes! Because how can you recover the import costs? Will it limit imported dogs etc etc. those arguments come from a tiny minority of the wider domestic dog fraternity. And capped price puppies won’t make anything illegal. Everyone will still have the choices. Just not the potential financial gains. 
it seems to me so much of what people decry is the profit aspect. The ‘greeders’ 

well, that can be sorted with capped pricing. Controversial? Yes. But we need new thinking thrown at these issues. 

[Pjrt]

Ps. Here’s a link to the SA premiers post about banning puppy farms.  It gives you a really good idea of what the general public understands *face palm* 

https://www.facebook.com/100044312232166/posts/pfbid02Y7V4FwZ9nEtnmGXqM6zbFW1x2DXvnCTuhgpUEZoukaTNaJuUzmFsbZKxmU8RW46gl/?d=n

[tdierikx]

The words "puppy farm" conjure up specific images for the average person... but legislation has been carefully drafted to deliberately NOT define exactly what constitutes a "puppy farm".

 

Legislation in Victoria places a specific number (of intact female dogs) in 5 categories of breeders - one of those categories is "commercial breeder", which is 11 to 50 intact female dogs.

 

Proposed legislation in NSW is only offering TWO categories of breeders... with those owning 3 to 10 intact females being classified as a "companion animal breeding business". It also wants to cap total numbers of intact females to 10 for any breeder. Adding to that population cap, they are proposing to limit the number of litters each female can have in their lifetime to TWO only... and male stud dogs are not to be used once they pass 6 years of age.

 

Hmmm... interesting to note... the original NSW Puppy Farm Inquiry report was 182 pages... the current version available now on Parliament website is only 177 pages... ?? I know of at least one edit that had to be made due to a mistake with referencing a particular submission... have there been more edits??

 

T.

[coneye]

Personally , i feel it could all even itself out fairly quickly with the banning of commercial puppy farms , i wil never believe the  guy who has 20 -30-40-50 bitches  is a breeder , to me a breeder is someone passionate about that breed who wants to keep that breed going and perhaps shows them  because they like the medals , prestige  , or whatever else it is that they get off on ,, a byb  for my way of thinking is  a person who has a dog maybee two  and likes that dog or breed and allows there bitch to mate , sometimes with there  mate who's passionate and shows there dog ,  sometimes with the guy up the streets dog , simply because they love there dog ,  they  want to keep a pup and others are lined up to buy the pups because they know the dogs .

 

But the ones who have a humongous amount of dogs are just puppy farms these should be outlawed ,  , i'll go has far has to say  these are the ones who have driven prices up to a ridiculous level and these should be banned ,, all other breeders  should be regulary inspected ,  found with any amount over what there liscenced for and  all there dogs impounded to cover costs . .

 

Then  the rspca  investigated and  looked into regards the grants they get ,, if recieving there govt grants forced to actually do what they claim , rescue dogs ,  , i don't believe there rescuing dogs when they have 100 kennels 80  filled with expensive  boarders ,   , 10 with the minimum amount of dogs and 10 empty ,, then on the odd occasions the full 20 are full they cry and have advertizing campaigns asking for help and money .

[Pjrt]

3 hours ago, tdierikx said:

The words "puppy farm" conjure up specific images for the average person... but legislation has been carefully drafted to deliberately NOT define exactly what constitutes a "puppy farm".

 

Legislation in Victoria places a specific number (of intact female dogs) in 5 categories of breeders - one of those categories is "commercial breeder", which is 11 to 50 intact female dogs.

 

Proposed legislation in NSW is only offering TWO categories of breeders... with those owning 3 to 10 intact females being classified as a "companion animal breeding business". It also wants to cap total numbers of intact females to 10 for any breeder. Adding to that population cap, they are proposing to limit the number of litters each female can have in their lifetime to TWO only... and male stud dogs are not to be used once they pass 6 years of age.

 

Hmmm... interesting to note... the original NSW Puppy Farm Inquiry report was 182 pages... the current version available now on Parliament website is only 177 pages... ?? I know of at least one edit that had to be made due to a mistake with referencing a particular submission... have there been more edits??

 

T.

The bit I’ve bolded is ridiculous. 
I agree that there should be a cap on numbers for sure. 10 seems fair to me. But seriously, to limit a bitch to 2 litters!! I’d say maybe 5 would be more reasonable, and as for limiting the age of a stud, that’s basically insane!  That is legislative overreach imo. 

[Pjrt]

36 minutes ago, coneye said:

Personally , i feel it could all even itself out fairly quickly with the banning of commercial puppy farms , i wil never believe the  guy who has 20 -30-40-50 bitches  is a breeder , to me a breeder is someone passionate about that breed who wants to keep that breed going and perhaps shows them  because they like the medals , prestige  , or whatever else it is that they get off on ,, a byb  for my way of thinking is  a person who has a dog maybee two  and likes that dog or breed and allows there bitch to mate , sometimes with there  mate who's passionate and shows there dog ,  sometimes with the guy up the streets dog , simply because they love there dog ,  they  want to keep a pup and others are lined up to buy the pups because they know the dogs .

 

But the ones who have a humongous amount of dogs are just puppy farms these should be outlawed ,  , i'll go has far has to say  these are the ones who have driven prices up to a ridiculous level and these should be banned ,, all other breeders  should be regulary inspected ,  found with any amount over what there liscenced for and  all there dogs impounded to cover costs . .

 

Then  the rspca  investigated and  looked into regards the grants they get ,, if recieving there govt grants forced to actually do what they claim , rescue dogs ,  , i don't believe there rescuing dogs when they have 100 kennels 80  filled with expensive  boarders ,   , 10 with the minimum amount of dogs and 10 empty ,, then on the odd occasions the full 20 are full they cry and have advertizing campaigns asking for help and money .

Yep I’m all for limiting numbers to something that 1 person could manage and give that number of dogs a fair life and enough interaction. 10 seems reasonable to me. 
 

In SA pretty much for my entire 50 years or so, we have had limited number on domestic dog ownership. The general rule in suburbia is 2 per unattached dwelling and 1 per attached dwelling. So it’s actually unusual to meet an average jo with more than 2 dogs. It’s really kept a lid on byb here. Yes, plenty of folks still do it, but mostly with only a couple of dogs. Low volume mixed breedings is actually a healthy thing for volume and genetic diversity.

The real problems start with the higher volume of dogs on site. Easy fix there. 
we will never be able to legislate away the hoarder types that will covet what they are doing, until it comes to light somehow. 

[Diva]

7 hours ago, Podgus said:

and as for limiting the age of a stud, that’s basically insane!  That is legislative overreach imo. 

Yep it is perverse to limit the age of the male. In breeds where the common diseases aren’t testable, using older healthy studs is one approach to help safeguard the health of the breed. If the boys make it to a decent age without health issues they are better prospects. And it’s not like breeding them over 6 does them any harm. Making it illegal defies logic.  

Edited September 2, 2022 by Diva