Sorry I wasn't clear . I meant that there is supposed to be a max number of dogs that u can keep.  I thought someone said 6 earlier on.  That would reduce the number of these big breeders

my council have laid it in stone nobody can breed and go over the limit of £1000 income.nothing to do with profit its income.
you can breed 1 or 2 litters per year but breeding income does not exceed £1000.
how you get round that is up to you.
puppies must be given away or sold cheap.
whatever you cannot breed 3 litters either without a license.
if you do you will require a license  with every condition set out in the regulations.no condition is exempt.
doesnt matter pet or whatever....

> my council have laid it in stone ...

Evidence please? I.e. where can we see the said stone - link etc

i havent got a link.they told me on the phone.
i was argueing with them over outside space on the regulations.
thats what my council have told me and thats it.

That is insane though.  It means that responsible breeders who want to continue their lines will be forced to sell puppies off at ridiculously cheap prices just so they get the pup they want to continue their lines with.  Meanwhile registered breeders, breeding poor quality dogs for quantity and raising them in a licensed establishment which only differs from a puppy farm in name, will be selling puppies at top prices....

yep it is insane no more fun shows or breeding my line if dont get license when i apply.
nothing.

If I sell my puppies at £150 or £200, it won't come close to covering the cost of breeding the litter, even if price of stud fees came down. Health testing your bitch will be over £500 for starters.

You end up with the ridiculous situation of the bigger the litter the less you have to sell them for, despite increased costs.

> i havent got a link.they told me on the phone.

Then I would demand a policy statement letter from them in writing.

You want this in writing. As it stands they are all going through training now or shortly so i would wait until sept to see what is what.

>You end up with the ridiculous situation of the bigger the litter the less you have to sell them for, despite increased costs.

Exactly!  This is all insane.

im having a ding dong with them over outside space.the new guidelines for breeders only mention lead walking and  an outside exercise area.no size is given.they must go by the guidline conditions.nothing about huge garden its different to the old conditions as outside space was co mpulsory but now they have to make some leeway for small breeders.the whole thing is a complete headache.no wonder people will breed underground.

> Sadly the News today is all about the bill to Ban 3rd party Sellers of puppies and kittens and what is being said is people will only be able to buy from Registered Breeders and Rescue Centres!

I would guess it says that as its only talking about commercial 3rd party sales. So is then talking about commercial sellers which would be licenced breeders and rescues.
But reading the proposal in the consultation for the law it does not mention licenced breeders only breeders

> <br />You end up with the ridiculous situation of the bigger the litter the less you have to sell them for, despite increased costs.

But as long as your covering your costs to get/raise the litter to break even/small profit what's the problem with not having a set price? In the end it would all add up the same weather one has a large litter or a small. Either that or get a licence and charge what you want with out the worrie.

So say I had two litters and aiming to break even, one had 4 pups one had 8 pups, alot of the costs would be the same except costs relating to each pup (kc reg, feed, microchips, ect) so let's say litter 1 costed a grand total of £1700 and the other £2100. The 4 pups could be sold for £425 each (£567 if im keeping one) and the litter of 8 puppies could be sold for £263 each (£300 if I'm keeping one). While the bigger litter pups are sold for less as there is more the end result is the same both litters break even. So from a breeder finance perspective it works out the same, the only issue could be that the smaller litter may find it harder to sell if puppy buyers decide to shop around, more so in the more common breeds. But if the breed has a problem with commercial breeders those pups will then be costing more as there licenced (so they have no worries about about it) then this may also pull buyers away from them to the unlicensed ones.

> i havent got a link.they told me on the phone.

What council was that?

And you have to admit, someone telling on the phone means very little if that. The person you spoke to could have been completely clueless, and the last thing these councils do is admit they don't know something or accept they might be wrong.

I have had so many experiences of different answers to the same question from councils i do t believe what isn't in writing any more. In fact it seems to be a common problem woth a lot of business ask the same question  more than  once and u get a different answer

You misunderstand I am talking about ensuring that you sell your whole litter for under £1000. (so as not to have the £1000 Trading income allowance used as an example of commercial breeding by some councils).

I certainly can't afford to subsidise my hobby to that extent, it costs me enough as it is. Just the things easy to count mean a litter costs me around £2000 to breed, and that's without extra vet involvement or overseas studs/importing.

> I would guess it says that as its only talking about commercial 3rd party sales. So is then talking about commercial sellers which would be licenced breeders and rescues.

No it's the "soundbite" advice for buyers that is the worry.  I can see people contacting small scale breeders asking to see their licence, and assuming they are illegal if they don't have one.

Of course the KC don't help as their press people are always saying buy only from an ABS breeder.

what gets me is it takes 2 to tango .
so y arnt stud dogs on this breeding license .
no mention of them.

No they would be of interest to HMRC if they don't breed and only have stud dogs.

Don't know if I already mentioned I was researching the background of a Frenchie offered to a client of my dog Walker friend.

On MYKC I found that at under 3 years of age the dog had sired over 50 litters.

On the commercial sites I have seen Frenchie stud fees advertises at £300+

> You misunderstand I am talking about ensuring that you sell your whole litter for under £1000. (so as not to have the £1000 Trading income allowance used as an example of commercial breeding by some councils).

Except this is not the requirement under the new law.

I don't mean anyone in particular (and definitely not you Brainless), but I can't help thinking the following. There are breeders who breed for profit. And some of them were able to fly under the radar when the old law was in place, with 5 litters limit plus couple unregistered going on the side, bet some of them felt comfortable. Now they are panicking. What was working before may no longer work, and the profit they were earning may now disappear. What can they do? They can't come out and say "This new law is no good, it will prevent us from making money!" What they can do instead is blend among genuine hobby breeders, nudging them on and scaremongering, making it look as if the new law is bad for everyone, not just them. And that's how this panic spreads.

Again I don't mean anyone in particular and I know many people are genuine and they simply worry. But I also think there are people such as above, and they don't help. But they can be ignored. Common sense has a lot of weight in the law, and particularly when the law lacks precise definitions such as this business test. And here, if the person engages in an activity neither intending to make a profit from it, nor making this profit, they are not engaging in business. To me that's common sense.

> You misunderstand I am talking about ensuring that you sell your whole litter for under £1000. (so as not to have the £1000 Trading income allowance used as an example of commercial breeding by some councils).

Ah I get you now, yes I misunderstood sorry. I'd guess the councils using that £1000 turnover as a guide to decide business or not will see a big rise in breeders no longer heath testing, kc reg and anything else they could cut back on. I know of a few people saying they will only kc reg what they keep themselves.

Hopefully they don't all follow that amount as they law doesn't give a monetary figure just if your breeding as a buisness, aim to make a profit. The Welsh law also has the same wording that regardless of the litter limit and one in the business of breeding/selling puppies needs a licence the same as the new England one does and they don't apply a money limit that I've ever heard or seen written anywhere. Plenty breeding 2 litters a year and selling for whatever they want here.

and the current rules wording is pretty much the same except it's 5 or more needing a licence, it is all down to whether councils will take a hard line on interpretation.

it is all down to whether councils will take a hard line on interpretation.

I think this is the problem, I have just been looking around at my council and the surrounding ones, mine hasn't event mentioned the new rules and has the 5 or more litters ruling - I will just have to see how they decide to interpret it. However the next council along has taken a really hard line it says

If you wish to breed dogs you need to be licensed by the Council. - seemingly without exception just a flat 'if you wish to breed'.

However when you go to their Application form it then says

BREEDING OF DOGS ACT 1973
The Act provides that no person shall keep a breeding establishment for dogs except
under the authority of a licence granted by the local authority. A “breeding
establishment” means any premises (including a private dwelling) where more than
two bitches are kept for the purpose of breeding for sale.

APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO KEEP BREEDING ESTABLISHMENTS FOR DOGS
Before completing this form read carefully the licensing conditions attached.
I/We the undersigned, hereby apply for a licence to keep a BREEDING ESTABLISHMENT at the
premises hereunder mentioned.


So it obviously has taken into account the new regs because it mentions two or more bitches. (or has it because this says bitches not litters? not sure)

How can you decide which one it is

is it
'All dog breeders '
or is it
'where more than two bitches are kept for the purpose of breeding for sale.'

basically it contradicts itself on its own application form.

I think the next few months are going to be needed to untangle what on earth is going on

Reads as if they have never updated since the 1973 Act to me.

I would take that to mean unspayed bitches regardless of age.

>is it

'All dog breeders '
or is it
'where more than two bitches are kept for the purpose of breeding for sale.'

It is what it says in writing.  Goodness, if I went by what I was told on the phone by our council (on any subject from parking fines to rubbish collection), I don't know where I'd be.  Even once a law exists and has been established, they are often not sure what it is - so I can't imagine random council employees can be reliable about laws which have not yet come into existence yet.

> 'where more than two bitches are kept for the purpose of breeding for sale.'<br />

That 1973 part about number of bitches was changed in 1999 to the number of litters (5 or more) and is now to change to 3 or more, but the rest of the wording is still the same, as both the 1999 and 2018 legislation are amendments to the 1973 Act.

'All dog breeders '
or is it
'where more than two bitches are kept for the purpose of breeding for sale.'

The two different clauses are both written on the council website

'If you wish to breed dogs you need to be licensed by the Council.', this is on the page for animal licenses with no other explanation at all.

and

'where more than two bitches are kept for the purpose of breeding for sale.', this is on the online application form.

Having dealt with the council on various matters I agree that individuals within the council are less than fluent in various regulations!!!

That 1973 part about number of bitches was changed in 1999 to the number of litters (5 or more) and is now to change to 3 or more, but the rest of the wording is still the same, as both the 1999 and 2018 legislation are amendments to the 1973 Act.

I wasn't sure but I thought it sounded wrong, as I knew that it was litters that mattered not bitches (I just thought that this might have been part of the new regulations even though I hadn't seen it when reading them). What faith can we have that they will get this right when some of those in charge of enforcing it are still quoting an act that was modified nearly 20 years ago.

Lol when love your last paragraph. Yep unfortunately  I have found the same .

I've never written on a forum before, but I've just read this thread in total disbelief! Get a grip for goodness sake, why are you all getting your knickers in a twist about something you should be welcoming with open arms, as animal lovers?

The main consensus appears to be it may cost you money... what about the cost to these poor puppies being trafficked by Eastern Europeans, from and in horrendous conditions? It has reached epidemic proportions, and rabies is a time-bomb waiting to happen. Do none of you actually watch these documentaries? Do you close your mind to the heartbreaking reports? Open your eyes!

If this new law puts a halt, or at the very least, a spanner in the works to this tragic, appalling business, and stops the dealers and puppy farmers, I say HOORAY!!!! And so should you.

I am a small scale hobbyist breeder of 30 years experience. And yes, I AM licensed! Why would you not want to be inspected, if you have nothing to hide? If you are completely confident that your dogs are well cared for, well provided for, and you are keeping proper, simple records AS YOU SHOULD BE, and you are not bursting at the seams with puppies, making a fortune under the HMRC radar... what's your problem????

I pay £58 per year for my annual license and local authority inspection, and around £200-£250 for an independent veterinary inspection, which does not have to be every year unless there are any recommendations to improve.  The new law allows for inspectors to issue a 1, 2, or 3 year license, depending if they have any concerns. So, if all is well, we are talking about a very tiny proportion of the cost of ONE puppy.

My household insurance charged me and extra £5 for 'running a business', as it's such a small scale hobby. That's it. Nothing else. So what's your difficulty, if you have nothing to hide? If you really object to this small cost... don't breed! Sorry for the rant, but I actually can't believe this long overdue law isn't being unreservedly welcomed.

The problem is that not all very responsible, thorough breeders can get a licence. I can't as I refuse to over vaccinate my dogs. Some also have a problem with the strict requirements of an isolation unit.

I'm very sorry but that is a nonsense! If you present any disagreeing vet with the actual FACTS, which are a puppy's vaccination primary course should begin at 12 weeks old, followed by the second 4 weeks later at 16 weeks old. This ensures the optimum uptake of vaccine immunity, once MDA (Maternally Derived Antibodies) has waned.

I challenge any vet to dispute the WSAVA on this, and generally before this time, your vet may as well inject water! After which the WSAVA (WORLD Small Animal Veterinary Association) and indeed the vaccine manufacturers themselves, recommend no more often than every 3 years for boosters, and most core vaccines given at the appropriate age, will carry LIFE-TIME uptake.

Therefore, my own regime, is I only ever booster with the gentler approach of homeopathic Nosodes for Leptospirosis, as immunity only has a 6 month efficacy, as it is not a core vaccine. Even so, there are 220 different Lepto serovars, and vaccines cover 2-4, so it's a bit of a lottery, and the best way forward is blood testing for immunity titres... but of course vets prefer to poison our pets to line their pockets.

Stand your ground, arm yourself with knowledge, and do not be afraid to challenge the inspectors, if you know what you are talking about, and have done your homework. That's all you need to demonstrate, that you are responsible, and properly informed.

Regarding an isolation unit, all you need is a room that your dogs are not allowed in (possibly a bedroom you can keep closed), with the facility of a crate kept folded up in there, should the need arise that you have a sick dog that may be infectious. That really shouldn't be too difficult?

I assume you are referring to vaccinations for adult dogs remaining in the home not the pups who are likely to have gone to new owners before vaccination . Is lepto a requirement and are councils accepting nosodes ?  Atm mamy councils won't accept 3 yearly vaccination and  for core or titres for kennels and day care never mind breeding.

Of course. How can councils police or have an opinion on pups that have gone off to their new homes? They will only be concerned with dogs kept on your premises.
And just for the record, for the people who are confused about the term 'Breeding Establishment', if you hobby breed entirely indoors (as I do), then that is simply your home. And to reiterate, you do not pay business rates unless you have a purpose built premises not used residentially.
I'm just stating my own vaccination regime, which may differ greatly from the 'norm' of expecting pups to start vaccinations at 8 weeks old, and boostered annually. This is a completely out dated, incorrect practice!
I cannot comment on kennels, as I have never placed a pet in kennels in my life, although I believe many of them (and insurance), do still demand annual vaccinations. This is ENTIRELY against the highest authority recommendations on current protocol, and should always be challenged. However, they MUST accept relevant up to date immunity titre testing as an alternative, if you wish to refrain from over vaccinating.
If you build a good rapport, and are willing to work with and find acceptable solutions with your inspectors, they will come to respect your knowledge and experience. Lepto cover depends if you are in an at risk location, and is not mandatory.
Nosodes are contentious within the medical and veterinary world (except for homeopathic vets, of course), again... I say do your research, know your argument, and stand your ground! Very few vets will agree with homeopathy, why would they shoot themselves in the foot? But it has not been trusted and used since 1796, if it doesn't work. I'm not suggesting everyone should give up conventional vaccines, but homeopathy ~ which does not carry the risk of vaccine side effects, has a place for using appropriately, alongside.

.obviiusly i wasnt expecting councils to try and police pups once sold but its not unsual for vaccines to be given at 8 weeks and annual boosters promoted
Whilst I totally agree with what u are sayung about vaccine protocols my point was many councils are still using what we see as old protocols the annual booster .and shift they won't
.  As for using homeopathy again I agree it is an option for those who happy with using it . It is not accepted in the main by autboriries regrdless  .I am sure u are aware of the recent push by the rcvs to prevent it's use until all other conventional treatments have been exhausted .
Titres are also a problem for many councils . If your council allows all that u are lucky .many havnt been to date.
I also don't use kennels etc but am very aware of the issues others have with them .
I don't vaccinate my dogs after puppy vaccines and prefer to do those my self at the appropriate time not one done
by the breeder in amy case .

I think u are very lucky if u are able to challenge a council on the criteriaand win if u read what Sherrie mum  is trying to do it's not easy .
I hope when this starts our responsible  hobby breeders will be able to continue.

Unfortunately it looks very much like the small hobby breeder will be hit where the big already licenced l breeders producing  hundreds  of puppies will be able to continue as they always have .
Only time will tell how it will be interpreted and how if affects dog breeding

I think the over riding thing to remember, which must be priority, is hopefully it WILL affect dog breeding, by cutting out the third party dealers, and it is my understanding, put simply, that ANYONE who even breeds one litter of puppies, from their pet bitch, will need a license to sell them, unless they can PROOVE they are not making a profit. That immediately places a halt on trafficking. That MUST take precedence, and is long overdue.

My advice is to work with your inspectors, find middle ground, don't give up, keep trying. I wasn't 'lucky'... it took me nearly 2 years (long ago), to get licensed. If it's something you're passionate about, you can find ways of meeting their criteria, and reaching a compromise. Believe it or not, they will come around once they come to know your sincerity to get it right, and if you don't take umbrage! Remain confident, do your homework... you'll get there. Unless there are real and undeniable reasons to refuse a license, which has GOT to be a good thing.

If you think about all this another way, it can only benefit us small scale hobby breeders in the long term. These cheap, poorly bred imported babies, have driven down the market value of puppies in general (except maybe the specialist breeds), and they have absolutely flooded the classifieds with vastly under priced pups, and many people are too stupid ~ or simply hung up on a bargain, to understand you often DO get what you pay for, and purchase a cheap puppy, which comes with all the health problems and behaviour issues of 'commercial breeding'.

I think once the new laws have settled, and the fog clears, it can only benefit us genuine and sincere breeders, and we will stand the test of time... and the bandits will fall away, given time. Wear a tin hat, keep your head down, and wait! When it's settled down, we can go back to charging what our lovingly cared for home raised babies are really worth. It may mean putting things on hold for a year or so, but if the argument is from small scale hobby breeders being affected, then I will assume it is not your main income, so financially, we can ride the storm.

Best of luck to everyone... hang in there!

U raise some good points blessed and I totally agree about 3rd part selling .
I don't breed but fully support those good responsible breeders.
After all without those I wouldnt have my lovely dogs

Thank you furriefriends. So many people, including most of the vets I've seen, over the years (until they get to know me), treat 'breeder' like a dirty word, but yes... done conscientiously and with love, our precious little bundles of fluff can change people's world.
I think the main issue is the dogs that end up in rescue, but if every breeder homed every baby with a legal contract promising to take them back, no matter what (mine states I will BUY them back), if their circumstances change, there would be very few sad doggie souls in shelters!
Hmm... maybe that should be the next law?

Just a thought.... the main reason the inspectors eventually agreed to my chosen vaccination regime, was because my own vet was on board with it. Again, build a good rapport with your vet, and once they see you're knowledgeable, they stop trying to challenge you! Be authoritative, know your argument... they ain't the police!

The Kennel Club have just put out a post on FB which says:

"- Anyone in the business of selling dogs (even one or two litters in a 12 month period) may require a licence. This is not new and has been in place since 1999. The Government provides guidance on what local authority inspectors should consider when assessing whether a breeder meets the business test."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/doghealth.news.thekennelclubuk/permalink/245387492846982/

As this part of the law is not new, I can't see how or why it would suddenly be applied any more stringently than it currently is???

The difference is that the figure of  £1000 was never mentioned before.

But the £1k isn't a total means of needing a licence either. There is a business test.

1 litter every year and having bred numbers of litters every year before this reads to me that this would be deemed as trading which is how my council read it too before the KC put their announcement up

> The difference is that the figure of  £1000 was never mentioned before.

This law doesn't mention it either, it's only mentioned in the guidance notes for 'out of scope' that anyone under that and breeding less than 3 litters a year do not need to be considered at all. It's not mentioned at all in the 'in scope' section of the notes ans the only 'in scope' criteria that mentions money is that if breeding less than 3 litters but high sales prices or high profit is involved it could be considered commercial. So while some councils may choose to use it as an easy benchmark to enforce it Its not actually an 'in scope' criteria. In general if you breed less than the litter limit, make more than £1000 turn over but make no or little profit you can be deemed as not needing a licence.

More emphasis is being put in the breeding as a business part now because councils tended to ignore it only looking at the litter limit as its easier to enforce.

> The difference is that the figure of  £1000 was never mentioned before.

This is the HMRC Trading Income Allowance/Disregard, and is turnover, not profit, and in the advice notes is being used as part of the decision process of whether a breeder is 'In Scope' of the regulations requiring a Breeding Licence, even if breeding fewer than three litters.

A bit of this that concerned me in The Kennel Club’s announcement was...

“A breeder can breed as many puppies as they like without a licence “if the person carrying on the activity (breeding) provides documentary evidence that none of them have been sold (whether as puppies or as adult dogs)”.

So really it’s nothing to do with welfare at all. All about £££

I think they are assuming that most people are going to be unable to breed at all unless they sell some puppies. 

The cost of breeding full stop would make it impossible for me to breed a litter if I didn't sell the puppies....

Of course some service dog organisations who breed puppies for their own training schemes and don't sell them, would be exempt...

Blessed, you may only pay £58 a year for your licence.  My council charges £455 and this would be for a one off litter.  My last, three years ago, absorbed.  Then there is the problem of vaccination.  My dog are not vaccinated yearly (I stretch it to 15/16 months with my vets approval) and my elderly girl is no longer vaccinated at all.

unfortunetly vaccinations for lepto are compulsory.for breeding and none breeding dogs in establishments.already someone lost their business because they refuse.all mine are vaccinated and get boosters every year.

You vaccinate for all core diseases every year ? Going against the manufacturers guide lines ! So glad I don't breed dogs. I've titre tested for over 30 years & never given lepto during that time & had no cases of lepto not any other of the core diseases. These do gooders really are so uninformed. It won't stop puppy farmers as they are licensed by the local councils who ignore the disgusting conditions they farm dogs in.