This is the sort of story that should make the newspapers. The pups would be homed, and as long as it was written properly (although fat chance of that I guess.......) give people the message that breeding for money does not work!

If this breeder really was attached to the pups, surely she'd have kept at least 1 or 2? Why get rid of them ALL?

Although I really do feel sorry for the pups being put to sleep its probably far better for them than having to languish in a rescue kennel in the hope they might be given a good home, even if they are homed how many times do we hear of them being moved from pillar to post before ending up back in rescue.
Its the poor bitces that have to give birth to these pups that I feel for especially the ones who are used for cash pots for their greedy insensetive owners.
Id just add that if I couldn,t look after any of mine I,d feel it my duty to put them down rather than burden overcrowded rescue kennels with even more work.
There are many dogs living a life of hell who would be far better of being humanely put to sleep.

Fully agree with you pavlova.

I would also prefer that these pups had been pts rather than be put into kennels at this very crucial time of their lives when they really do need individual human attention to grow into well balanced family pets.

Oh well I suppose it'll be more work for the behaviourists! :(

Having said that, I feel just the same for the difficult dogs for whom just a normal family home just isn't suitable and very old dogs, who have never been left in a cold kennel with little human contact in their lives before.  I do my best to help but they break my heart and I'm not convinced that it's the best option for them. :(

If this breeder really was attached to the pups, surely she'd have kept at least 1 or 2? Why get rid of them ALL?

Maybe she couldn't choose which should live and which should die, it would probably be hard watching the pup you kept growing up knowing what the others would be like, some folks aren't as hard headed as us who breed for the right reasons and sometimes have to make decisions.................  **Burst the bubble Jenna!** At least that is the fairytale version. :-)

More realistic version, she was fed up with the poo and wee and noise and chewing and making food and cleaning and early mornings and late nights and wanted a nice home and to relax for Christmas.

But even so it must have been a hard decision to take them on that final journey.......... found the update, so pleased. :-)

>Whatever I may think of the breeder in breeding the pups in the first place and with no waiting list etc.

I missed the post where it said she had no waiting list. I know from experience that people on waiting lists change their minds, so having surplus pups despite having a waiting list, especially at a time where people are having to make savings, is far from uncommon.

Although I really do feel sorry for the pups being put to sleep its probably far better for them than having to languish in a rescue kennel in the hope they might be given a good home, even if they are homed how many times do we hear of them being moved from pillar to post before ending up back in rescue.

I do take offense to that. MANY rescues work with fosterers and many rescues like myself actually share their house with the rescues. I do not have kennels.

Not sure why your reply was to me, Otterhound - I never said that.

No it wasn't. It was in reply to Pavlova. I am having serious trouble with the quoting bit...

You need to click on the 'Reply' box at the bottom of the post you're replying to, Otterhound, so that the right person gets a notification of your reply, as well as doing a quote from their post (or mentioning their name!) to make it clear to others. :-)

Will do next time, thank you!

Well i think it was better she took them to the vets in hope he may help her,than to give them away on the streets to anybody.

Well i think it was better she took them to the vets in hope he may help her,than to give them away on the streets to anybody.

It said she'd already tried to give them away........ In one sense this is the best lesson for people like this, harsh reality rather than having the get out clause of dumping the pups on a rescue.

i agree that PTS would be preferable to being in rescue kennels at such a critical time, or being given away to people who, lets face it, are probably going to be even more thoughtless than the breeder!!

Also if these pups are black Jemima Harrison does run Black Retriever rescue which takes almost any black dog. Perhaps your vet might be able to get Jemima to help?

>This is why mandatory micro chipping should be enforced then the rscpa could of gone around to her house and insisted she neuter her dog and had a go at this person. With all the misery this has caused her hopefully she would not do this again? Sadly some low-life's don't think of the dogs involved only the amount of money to be made.<

Mandatory microchipping would not make any difference. You can stereotype people but you would would nearly always be wrong.

For example: two friends of mine both single parents, living in council houses, were not allowed a dog from the RSPCA, but they both got a dog from from a small local rescue. Both people had their dogs spayed or neutered, at thir own expense. They did not breed from their dogs, they went to dog training classes, and they loved going to local exemption shows. Both dogs did not want for anything. Another case I know of a lady who had just turned 63 was refused a dog from the same branch of the RSPCA. This lady was living alone and was very fit, again a council house resident, and as with the aforementioned examples the dog was neutered and not bred from, the dog went absolutely every where the lady went.

Next example: While taking some dog food and puppy milk to my local rescue kennels, which I do from time to time, a large car pulled in with a very smartly dressed woman in it. She had a litter of rottweiler x labs in the car. She told the people there that she had let her lab have the litter as she wanted her children to be able to enjoy seeing tiny puppies, but now she wanted to "Get rid of them". She literally dumped them in a box by the side of the car and drove off, nearly running the pups and a kennel girl over in her haste! She was not obviously poor.

Coming back to microchipping, dogs will still mate and will still eat and will still poo regardless of whether or not they are chipped, (unless they have passed away of course). The RSPCA don't do animal welfare in the manner you seem to imagine. All they require to check is whether or not the dogs have water. I doubt this person who bred the labradoodles would not have had a bowl of water down for her dogs. Did you watch the puppy farming programme which has a link here? If so you would know that the only regulation the RSPCA and councils check is whether or not the puppies and dogs have water, they don't even check whether this is clean or not!

> You can stereotype people but you would would nearly always be wrong.
>

With what I said about micro-chipping dogs how is that me stereotyping people?

I'm a single parent and live in a council house thank you very much.

I feel the more people are expected to do and shell out for- such as mandatory micro chipping to own a pet in the beginning they would think twice about breeding willy nilly? 

The microchipping would only identify the person who chipped the dogs/pups, won't make a person responsible.

I think all breeders should be made to microchip their puppies other wise they cant be registered.

with breeder and new owners name logged.

if shomething should go wrong with the dog then there is always the breeder details to be contacted and any responable breeder will want to know that a puppy/dog they have bred is being rehoming kennels, pts,stray had a accident etc .Then they can do their best. rather than finding out when its too late.

& if the chip fails ???????? Petlog do not keep breeder details BTW

I'm so glad the vet didnt put them down, would rather the stupid woman trying to breed for money was put down! I also wonder why so many dogs are being given up because of the credit crunch, there are some very cheap dog complete dog foods out there so if your really struggling financially you could put your dog on them for a while until things pick up again, personally I would never give up my dogs because of money, I would go without anything myself to make sure they were ok, this credit crunch is serious but it wont last forever so to instantly put dogs into rescue centre's make me think the credit crunch was just an excellent excuse to get rid of their pet :-(

cant the breeders name be kept on there aswell, it just costs a little extra??

> cant the breeders name be kept on there aswell, it just costs a little extra??

There is no facility on the Petlog database for the input of breeders details that cannot be removed.

It's up to Petlog, I put the breeders details in the notes box, but the new owner can remove that online if they wish. The NDTR retain all breeder details & of course have the hard copy of transfers of ownership. I cannot see Petlog reprogramming their database & if they did it wouldn't be cheap

its all ifs and buts

The new owner has to have the microchip in their name and then I guess it would be their responisbility to register it with the Kennel Club thus Identifying it with them, the new owner.  Pet Log gives you a form to send in to get the details logged (when the puppy is first registered).  If the new owner doesn't change the details then I guess the registered owner (or rather the microchip owner) is still the breeder.

There is nothing on the form to say keep the breeder registered and it would be something the microchip admin people would have to put in place, not something the breeders can do.

If my inforation is out of date perhaps someone can post a link to more up to date info.  This is always welcome.

posted at the same time Moonmaiden :)

> posted at the same time Moonmaiden :-)

LOL

The implanter sends the details to Petlog, either the hard copy or online. By the time I chip the puppies they are usually all spoken for so I can put the new owners details on the database on line & there is a notes box in which I put Tattoo/KC reg No/Breeder details, but these can be removed by the new owner via the Petlog site if they so wish. For the tattoo there is a litter registration form & this is sent directly to the NDTR & a copy kept by me & two with the breeder(just in case the KC reg haven't been recieved then they send in a copy with the KC reg numbers & names)the dogs breeder details are retained on the dogs database entry.

Now that sounds like a plan the tattoo reg seems more sensible

> Now that sounds like a plan the tattoo reg seems more sensible

It is probably because it was set up & is still run by dog people, unlike Petlog which is a commercial concern pure & simple

personally I would never give up my dogs because of money, I would go without anything myself to make sure they were ok, this credit crunch is serious but it wont last forever so to instantly put dogs into rescue centre's make me think the credit crunch was just an excellent excuse to get rid of their pet 

I do agree Papillion I think that the credit crunch will be used as an excuse by many to just get rid of their dogs due to being badly trained or not at all :-( leaving the dog with the consequences of that, many adolescents find their way to rescue due to this now, I dare say it will be an excuse for even more to use.

However, I do think there will be genuine cause for concern for many animals. Looking in the newspaper recently there was the pessimistic view that another 15 retail chains may go under next year, that will be huge job loss, with a knock on effect causing other job losses, people may very well end up loosing not just jobs but their homes, when money becomes short, there are going to be an awful lot of people with animals who have no chance of ever getting a council home, where they can happily take their animals, instead they will need to let, landlords are far and between who will accept animals, and if you are lucky enough to find a house that will allow them, often they are not places where you would wish to live, some may well sacrifice lifestyle to keep their beloved dogs, but there will be many who won't.

It is all well and good the interest rate being reduced, petrol now being back to normal prices etc, but without a job none of it will help some people, the strain on the government to support these people will be immense, there aren't enough homes to support them, something will give.......

I think all types of animals may very well find the credit crunch affects them, they may very well become a very minor priority to many with huge problems to come.

It's hard to imagine right now, but..............

***Shakes head vigourously*** Oh, No, was I just being gloom and doom?

Sorry! Let's not worry about things like that, at least for now.....

***Happy smile back on*** :-)  :-)

Your right Carrington, I hadn't considered the point about somebody losing their home and needing to go into rented accommadation where their pets would not be allowed, what a sad situation that would be for the people and their pets, I would have every sympathy for people finding themselves in that circumstance, oh dear its not a good thought is it that the worst of the recession is yet to come, perhaps those of us lucky enough to be able to keep our pets could maybe find a few bob extra here and there to donate to the already overburdened rescue centres to keep them going until better times when more people would find themselves able to adopt a pet again.

perhaps those of us lucky enough to be able to keep our pets could maybe find a few bob extra here and there to donate to the already overburdened rescue centres

Yes, I agree, more help is needed here, or just an idea, maybe perhaps rescues could adopt a new policy for those in need to come, (I know we have many who work in rescue on the board could this proposal work?) where those affected who can't take their animals with them to new residences but don't wish to give up their dogs etc, could put their animals in a new section of rescue, (kennels would be far too expensive) and pay weekly a small amount for their support, (£10 or so) still being able to walk their dogs and visit, not ideal I know but many will never find homes, if this could be practised maybe it could save a lot of heartache, along with donations too (as already given) perhaps this could work for some of the dogs and owners?

There is certainly a case for a long term fostering body - I think there are a few fosterers out there but it does need to be brought to the public attention more as you can only find them if you look for them.

How very irresponsible breed cross-breeds.  There's nothing wrong with crossbred dogs but there's far too many unwanted dogs around as it is without adding to the problem.  Where I live all the rescue centres are overflowing and one has announced that it has closed its doors for 3 months because it is overflowing and can't rehome the animals currently in its care.  I never thought I would say this, but it is far better to put the puppies down (or kittens for that matter) than have them live a miserable life in a cage or being passed from pilar to post as people discard them.

ABSOLUTELY SICKENING !!!!!!!

Yes there are worse fates than a humane death.

>"There were a few recently in this week's papers, in particular a litter with several still available advertised in one of the main tabloids this weekend - stating both parents KC registered, so presumably a first cross, health tested and from champion stock (!), 12 weeks pups, DLRC registered, sire and dam could be seen"

Teri,

can you contact DLRC please:

Received:

Hello
I Came across this link about our club on your website, we do not nor ever have registered Labradoodles so can you ask the person 'Teri' to show me the advert as i need to look into this?  please remove this thread as it is completely untrue.

Sincerely
D A Winters

email: EPotts4704@aol.com

Done :)