"The Times has learnt that only breeders with a registered number and who are subject to checks on their animals and premises would be allowed to sell or advertise the sale of puppies".

The above quote is from an article in the Times. So I wondered what happens if a pet owner's male dog escapes and manages to get mated to a bitch? Will these puppies have to be pout to sleep? Or will it become complusary to spay and neuter dogs? And if it is compulsary at what age will this happen? Will a compulsary spay or neuter order be imposed before a dog is mature? And if so what are the likely consequences and who do pet owners go to for compensation if their early spayed or neutered pet develops a problem?

So what do you think?

Unless they go all out like in California (but even there they rely on people being honest or others reporting those that are not) it will be like everything else -the responsible do it, the irresponsible do not.

Personally speaking, I think all x-breeds and mongrels should be neutered by 6 months of age.  All pedigree animals showing a serious genetic problem should be too. 

the responsible do it, the irresponsible do not.

So, does this make me an irresponsible owner? In a long life-time of dog owning, I have never spayed a bitch. Having carefully, always weighed up the pros and cons, I have chosen not to spay my bitches. I am perfectly capable of ensuring their safety, when on heat and understand the risks and benefits either way.  I would spay if necessary, for medical reasons. My vet certainly doesn't consider me to be irresponsible, respects my wishes and is able to see merit in my choice.

Yes, I agree bitches in many circumstances should be spayed, and understand your view, however, I don't agree 'one size fits all' Personally, I would not welcome having my right, to make my own decisions, concerning my animals welfare, removed.

I am  concerned as much as everyone else on here, about the escalation in BYB and the resulting overflowing rescues, but further erosion of personal responsibilty and liability, is not in my opinion the best way to approach the very serious problem.

Having said that, I haven't a better alternative to suggest, so maybe I should shut up!!  :)

Best wishes.

>Personally speaking, I think all x-breeds and mongrels should be neutered by 6 months of age.

Personally I think crossbreeds and mongrels should be entitled to develop normally until adulthood, just like any other dog. I would never willingly spay or castrate before 12 months.

Just because an animal is entire is no reason to assume it'll be allowed to breed.

Perhaps people should be fined for letting their animal breed if not a part of a proper breeding program rather than forced to neuter.

That way if they had a misalliance they would b e more keen to have their bitches jabbed or spayed and not allow a pregnancy.

We all know that the push for neutering really means that responsible people feel obliged to neuter their pet, even though theirs are the most unlikely to be allowed to reproduce, the irresponsible will not neuter and actually want their animal to reproduce, as they will nto take responsibility for the results.

"The Times has learnt that only breeders with a registered number and who are subject to checks on their animals and premises would be allowed to sell or advertise the sale of puppies".
It sounds a bit extreme and a lot of details to consider but something has got to be done to stop anyone with a bitch producing puppies - rescues just can't cope and the poor dogs are having miserable lives.
I consider it 'causing unnecessary suffering' for an owner with no experience to subject a bitch to mating, whelping and rearing a litter without sufficient knowledge. :(
I don't like unnecessary neutering but if the owner can't take care of their dog, then sometimes that's the better option.  People have choices but if they don't act responsibly ........... :(

>> Personally speaking, I think all x-breeds and mongrels should be neutered by 6 months of age.
> Personally I think crossbreeds and mongrels should be entitled to develop normally until adulthood, just like any other dog. I would never willingly spay or castrate before 12 months.
>
> Just because an animal is entire is no reason to assume it'll be allowed to breed.

In an ideal world, maybe, but because there are the ignorant, bitches will come into season before 12 months & get mated, entire dogs will be mating these bitches and people will be saying 'It was an accident' etc. whether it was or not.

> Personally, I would not welcome having my right, to make my own decisions, concerning my animals welfare, removed.

I agree. I have owned dogs all my life, and never had a dog accidently sire a litter (nor a planned litter!). I have no intentions of getting Buster neutered, but there is no way he will be siring any litters, he won't be allowed to roam free and is interaction with other dogs are always supervised (you do meet the odd in-season bitch loose ).

> In an ideal world, maybe, but because there are the ignorant, bitches will come into season before 12 months & get mated, entire dogs will be mating these bitches and people will be saying 'It was an accident' etc. whether it was or not.

Buster was diagnosed with ED at 5 months of age, as it's a growth problem there is no way I was going to mess with his growth further by castrating him.
Keeping him entire is for HIS benefit. I am perfectly capable of not allowing him to mate with a bitch and see no reason why my dogs development should be put at risk via early castration, or why I should put him at risk later with castration (ANY sugery carries a risk, doesn't matter if that risk is small, it's still a risk) just because some irresponsible poeple allow (or plan) the mating of dogs.

I'd actually much rather unplanned litters be aborted (and the bitch spayed as the owner obviously is not responsible enough to ensure no accidents happen, the sire castrated too if he can be traced) than healthy pets of responsible owners forced to go under the knife.

The problem as with many other laws it would be the responsible that get hit and not the irresponsible imo.

Always is, unfortunately.  The dishonest and irresponsible will always do their best to avoid.

But I sincerely urge anyone who thinks that they're a dog lover to take a trip soon to their local rescue kennel to see what's REALLY happening out there and harden your heart before yo go because you won't be able to bring all those desperate and sad dogs home. :(

Perhaps people should be fined for letting their animal breed if not a part of a proper breeding program rather than forced to neuter.



A good suggestion, I would support that idea. The problem lies in how to enforce it. As with the original suggestion of enforced neutering, BYB, puppy farmers etc could probably circumvent legislation, by registering as 'breeders'. There would have to be very strict criteria, as to classification of legitimate breeders. 

So I wondered what happens if a pet owner's male dog escapes and manages to get mated to a bitch? Will these puppies have to be pout to sleep? Or will it become complusary to spay and neuter dogs?

Prehaps if they are not registered breeders they would only be able to give them away rather than selling them.

I hope they dont try to bring in Compulsary spaying/neutering after all there are downsides to spaying/neutering, I defernatly would prefur Brainles's idea to Compulsary spaying/neutering. When i get my dog i wont be neutering him unless something came up that needed him to be done and will not be allowing him to go around sireing liters, Also if they did do Compulsary spaying/neutering what would people who dont breed but show do?

Is the story online as well or just in print? i would like to read it if it is.

I saw it on line. Should have put the link but didn't think of it at the time. I put up the original post having read the article and wondered how cross bred or accidental matings might be affected, if owned by people not registered as breeders.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6974649.ece

Doesn't affect me as both my bitches are spayed - but what I wondered, when I read this article, is why the Kennel Club chose someone to chair this enquiry who apparently knew very little about pedigree dogs. Apparently he hadn't been to a dog show before this was set up. And isn't he the man who chaired the enquiry into hunting for the National Trust? I suppose you could say he wasn't biased in favour of pedigree dogs, and if this is correct he doesn't seem to have done the kennel club any favours.

I think he was a DEFRA proposal.  I know his questionaire was very biased against the breeders, certainly too complicated and scientific for me to fill in, it assumed we had access to certain statistical information that doesn't exist or certainly not for the average show breeder, vets and R£PCA maybe!

I think the Time's are putting their own slant on this lefts face it non of the reports so far have done anything more than acknowledge the good work of responsible breeders, many still believe that we are as bad if not worse than those who previously illegally docked their puppies.

> I know his questionaire was very biased against the breeders, certainly too complicated and scientific for me to fill in, it assumed we had access to certain statistical information that doesn't exist or certainly not for the average show breeder, vets and R£PCA maybe!
>

Like Lincolnimp it would not affect me, but I do wonder how any legislation will be administered? I suspect like others have said it will be the responsible owners and breeders would comply and the others will simply stick two fingers up and carry on as normal.

I did attempt to fill in the questionaire even though I did not have the stats to hand. I thought any input is better than none. I suspect there will be much made of the "apathy of breeders" who did not fill it in. They will use this no doubt to beat us with yet again.

Rather than trying to make neutering compulsory why not make sure that proper, adequate action is taken against BYB and especially puppy farmers?  Creating yet more legislation is ridiculous when the ones in place are not even followed through.
It is interesting that there has been quite a lot on BBC News about puppy farmers by the Dogs' Trust. IMO educating the public [myself included] can have far more impact than any new laws, especially if coupled with action against those who flout them.

Education may work on thinking people but the ones who cause problems are the people who don't think! :(

Westcoast - > Education may work on thinking people but the ones who cause problems are the people who don't think! :-(

That's why action against the BYBs and puppy farmers is vital.  Enforce current laws rather than wasting time on new laws that will cause lots of aggravation in the dog world not to mention the time and money that could be more effectively spent shutting down these awful places.

We've got no laws to stop anyone with a poor quality pet bitch from mating it........ 

Good point - I've not really thought too much about single breeders - mostly about those that produce and produce....  But still think enforcing current laws would be a more cost effective starting point - giving severe penalties and shutting down these places could have a major impact.  Then, maybe look at the neutering issue.

Just been reading other post 'Impact?'  As I am not, have never been, and never will be, a breeder, I haven't come across the attitudes you breeders, and rescuers, have.  I've got to apologise.  I didn't realise how dire the situation can be.  Over many years I and many of my friends have had dogs, all sorts of dogs, mostly rescued, occassional pure bred [both wrong and right side of blanket].  I've got to say that, with one exception, none of us have been interested in breeding and have dogs because we love them, enjoy them and need them. 
I have come across people who have bred their pets, but thought them to be ill-educated rather than greedy and only thinking that there were a significant few that deliberately bred for profit [and that only after much education via forums like this and others].  How niaive can I be?  I certainly don't seem to be able to claim to be a thinking person.  But, for others like me - keep up the good work and encourage much education about these problems - there's got to be lots more idiots like me out there - surely.

> We've got no laws to stop anyone with a poor quality pet bitch from mating it........ 

Exactly and even when they are health tested and everything ok it seems that is the green light for breeding regardless of the bitche's quality or conformation but heck!  she's got a good set of hips!

> I've not really thought too much about single breeders -

If the US and Canadian statistics are indicative it is in fact the many many single litter breeders put together that actually cause more of the rescue/poor breeding problem than the puppy farmers.

http://www.nopuppymillscanada.ca/byb.htm

"The back yard breeder is the single greatest cause of pet overpopulation. Back yard breeders usually do not have bad intentions, but the results of back yard breeding are devastating.



The majority of homeless or abandoned dogs come from this category in many popular breeds and mixes, they are often destroyed in pounds. Most are sold locally through newspaper ads - the responsibility ends when the purchaser's taillights disappear from sight.



Many back yard breeders do not have the knowledge to properly raise a healthy, socialized litter, or to help the new owner with any problems that might arise."

I think the Times should put there efforts in to checking and closing puppy farms. There are a lot of breeders that already have a licence
that should not be breeding. They should start at the root of the problems.
As we all know, the councils give licences to many dog breeding business, that should not even be aloud to breed any animal.

This would be my reponse to overbreeding you may not agree but something quite drasic has to happen to stem irresponsible overbreeding and allow those that are brreeding responsibly to continue. Rescues are overflowing.

A better control of dog breeding is the solution.

Litters of puppies need to be addressed and they could be easily identifiable together with the breeder advertising puppies for sale. In order for puppies to be sold the puppies must be advertised at some point either by the breeder, dealer or pet shop. Newspapers, on line web sites are overflowing with advertisements, these can be monitored as they are already by some anti - puppy farming groups. Concerned animal lovers can report the advertisers to the Council authorities, as many do already. The breeders premises could be inspected by Council Officials along with the dogs and puppies and legislation enforced - by law.  This would  include provision for the health of the dam/sire (screening for known health conditions of the breed before breeding commences) plus a veterinary health inspection and identification of all the dogs male and female.  The puppies would also require a veterinary health inspection before sale and to be micro chipped by the breeders vet. The obligation to spay the mother (according to the licence commercial or casual breeding licence - see below) and identification requirements of the puppies. It would also permit seizure of unlicensed dogs and puppies if necessary.

The proposed control of breeding laws could be complaint driven only, with animal welfare groups taking the responsibility for the monitoring and reporting. Initially this would be seen as a much more friendly, less invasive approach.

Casual Dog Breeding Licence

If  person or household wishes to breed from their family dog they must purchase a casual breeding licence to be issued by their local Council. This would allow their dog to be bred from only once. Suggested fee for licence should be more than the average cost of a spay.

1.The mother dog must be spayed after one litter.  Proof must be provided within 90 days of the birth of the puppies and verification from the vet to be forwarded to the Council.
2.No female dog allowed to be bred from until certified healthy by a vet. If the dog is a pedigree and health screening is available then it must be undertaken of known conditions prevalent within the breed prior to mating, otherwise the vet cannot issue the certificate.
3.This certification must be displayed where the puppies are sold.
4.The licence number of the breeding permit must be included in any advertising of the puppies and displayed where the puppies are being sold.
5.That the puppies and mother dog are kept in a clean, warm dry area not isolated from humans.
6.That the quality and quantity of the food to be such as to ensure maximum nutritional health to both mother and puppies.
7.The puppies must not be sold until they have reached 8 weeks of age and certified healthy by a veterinary surgeon.  Had their first puppy vaccination and their stools must be certified clean of worms and parasites by a vet. A copy of this certificate must be given to the new owner of the puppy by the breeder.
8.The puppies must have a microchip implanted by the breeders vet before sale.
9.The breeder of the puppies to be required to put the name of the puppy's purchaser as the registered owner on the microchip form along with their own name and address sending the form to the microchip company.  Puppies sold to dealers/pet shops must also be micro chipped by the breeders vet before sale with the name and address on microchip and the form that is supplied to the dealer/store with the breeders name and address on the form.  The pet shop must fill in the purchasers name and address and the shops name and send the form to the microchip company.
10.The licence stipulates permission for an animal inspector/licensing officer of the Council to inspect the female and puppies if there is cause to believe they are not in good health or otherwise being cared for inhumanely. Any sick dogs or puppies that are treated to be within a reasonable length of time (this would depend upon the seriousness of the physical condition of the dogs and puppies) or any or puppies that are in a critical physical distress maybe seized and given the necessary treatment and returned on payment of the cost of veterinary care or retained if the attending officer has cause to believe that good care will not be given in the future.  Failure to comply with the above would result in a fine (of three times the licence fee).

The Commercial Multiple Dog Breeding Licence

If a person or household wishes to breed a dog more than once or even breed more than one dog (no breeder will be allowed to own and breed from anymore than 10 female dogs at any one time) a commercial dog breeding licence is required.  This will require that all breeding dogs male and female must have a readable ear tattoo, DNA profile or a microchip. The suggested fee for the licence being £500, as each puppy is worth between £200 and £1,500.

No female dog must be bred from until at least 24 months of age (or not until of such an age that health screening for known hereditary diseases in the pedigree breed can be undertaken) and then only bred once a year (in a 12 month period) and only 3 times in total and then must be spayed by the breeders vet. It must not be resold/given to rescue or re homed until spayed. A certificate with verification, signed by a vet, must accompany the dog.  

No female dog can be bred from until certified healthy by a vet and all health screening undertaken for known conditions known within the breed (if a pedigree).

All dogs must be free from worms and parasites and stools checked by a vet prior to breeding.

The certificate re screening and veterinary health check must be displayed where the puppies are being sold to enable purchasers to view.

The licence number of the breeding permit must be included in any advertising of the puppies and displayed where the puppies are being sold such a newspapers, Internet web sites.

That the puppies and mother dog are kept in a clean, warm dry area, not isolated from humans with regular daily exercise.

If dogs are to live outside then they must be accommodated in approved kennels
(dog boarding kennel recommendations) that are designed and fit for the purpose with attached exercise areas. 

That the quality and quantity of the food to be such as to ensure maximum nutritional health to both mother and puppies and fresh water always available.
.
The puppies must not be sold until they have reached 8 weeks of age and certified healthy by a veterinary surgeon.  Had their first puppy vaccination and their stools must be certified clean of worms and parasites by a vet. A copy of this certificate must be given to the new owner of the puppy by the breeder or if sold to a dealer/pet shop.
.
The puppies must have a microchip implanted by the breeders vet before sale to new purchaser or to dealer/pet shop.

The breeder of the puppies to be required to put the name/address of the puppies purchaser as the registered owner on the microchip form along with their name/address and send the form to the microchip company.  Puppies sold to dealers/pet shops must also be micro chipped by the breeders vet before sale with their name/address on microchip and the form that is supplied to the dealer/store with the breeders name/address and license number on the form.  The pet shop must fill in the purchasers name/address/licence number and the stores name and send the form to the microchip company. A copy of both health certificate and vaccination certificate from the vet which must accompany the puppy from the breeder, together with microchip details and any relevant registration details and pedigree (the latter if applicable).

The licence stipulates permission for an animal inspector/licensing officer of the Council to inspect the female and puppies if there is cause to believe they are not in good health or otherwise being cared for inhumanely. Any sick dogs or puppies that are treated within a reasonable length of time (this would depend upon the seriousness of the physical condition of the dogs and puppies) or any dog  or puppies that are in a critical physical distress may be seized and given the necessary treatment and returned on payment of the cost of veterinary care or retained if the attending officer if he/she has cause to believe that good care will not be given in the future.  Failure to comply with the above would result in a fine (of three times the licence fee).

Mandatory Spay/Neuter policy is not the answer on its own, neither is asking all owners to microchip their dog. The root of the problem of too many dogs coming into rescues and pounds are the fact that too many dogs are bred and puppies are too easily obtainable. Making breeders responsible for identifying puppies and reducing the number of breeding bitches they can legally own and bred from together with a reduction of the numbers of times a bitch can be bred then spayed surely has to be a solution. There should be no valid reason why someone would want to own and breed from 100 to 150 breeding  bitches other than to make money at the detriment of animal welfare.  This takes dog breeding into battery dog farms and puppy trafficking, is that we wish to condone in the UK?      
Some animals  welfare groups  wish to press for legislation that every dog owner except licensed breeders of pedigree dogs to have their dogs spayed or neutered. That is a knee jerk solution when figures are issued for the numbers of dogs  entering dog pounds and rescues resulting in euthanasia. When the actual problem lies with the dog breeders. There are too many licensed, unlicensed and back yard breeders of purebred and fashionable x breed dogs that run despicable puppy farms and own far too many dogs.  Resulting in too many purebred dogs suffering from unnecessary painful deformities and early deaths.
The thinking behind the two-tier license regulations for all dogs purebred, fashionable x breeds and cross bred dogs: a one time inexpensive casual breeding licence (then the dog must be spayed), and an expensive commercial breeding licence (anyone that wishes to breed from a female dog more than once or breeds more than one dog). The licence would include the provision for inspections of the dogs and puppies health, the facility, and the condition that all puppies receive certain veterinary care and micro chipping prior to sale, and the condition that if any puppy/dog ends up in the pound or rescue this will be the financial responsibility of the breeder who can be traced through the microchip.
This system is a fair and enforceable system.  Mandatory spay and neuter will not solve the problem of over breeding. Not all dogs that are not spayed and neutered are producing more puppies. Stricter regulation of those that are would be far better.  Litters of puppies have to be advertised, it would be easy to control those that are unlicensed if all those that are licensed have to display in advertisements their license number.  Make it compulsory for dog breeders to microchip their puppies prior to sale, with their name, address and licence number. This would place a greater emphasis on animal welfare, responsible breeding and a better control over the numbers of puppies produced and who is responsible. Always linking puppy with the breeder. Ultimately reducing the numbers of unwanted dogs, which has to be cost effective.
_______________________________________________________________
            
Just to add I would like to see the end of puppies being sold from third parties such as pet shops and individuals issued with apet shop licence enabling them to buy in and rsell puppies but until legislation is introduced to stop the puppy trade completely from third party selling we seriously have to find a solution.   

Sorry - haven't read it all but...

The law regarding licensing and breeding of dogs isn't enforced now, why would making MORE laws work???

The idea that if something isn't working then to make it work we do MORE of the same is IMHO ludicrous!  Besides which under your scheme many excellent breeders would not bother - leaving the field wide open to those who don't spend money on non-essentials like showing, breed clubs etc.

>All dogs must be free from worms and parasites and stools checked by a vet prior to breeding.

A dog can pick up fleas at the vets (or on the way to) where it is to be checked for parasites.  Worms can be picked up the day after worming, how does this prove the animal hasn't been kept free of parasites?
Conversely, a dog could be de-fleaed and wormed before a check and kept caged and isolated until seen by a vet.  This would be no reflection of how the dog is normally kept and would not necessarily ehance the welfare of dogs kept for breeding ;)

Re Vets checking breeding bitches before mating, I know a few breeders of One-off litters, they had the bitch checked by a vet first and were encouraged   not one of those bitches was worth breeding from and the only reason for breeding was - money!

>If dogs are to live outside then they must be accommodated in approved kennels
>(dog boarding kennel recommendations) that are designed and fit for the purpose with attached exercise >areas. 

Have you read this thread?  http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/120841.html

Hardly a recommendation which any of the excellent breeders on this forum would be happy with :(

As far as I can see, the best way to prevent unwanted breeding would be to ensure that ALL pups could be traced to their breeder and the breeder made financially responsible for any pup going into rescue - at the moment the rescues do nothing to stop puppy farming, just mop up the fallout and allow the farmer to carry on regardless :(

rescues do nothing to stop puppy farming, just mop up the fallout and allow the farmer to carry on regardless

I take exception to this. We are hardly in the position to disallow BYB and Puppyfarmers and many of us have been lobbying the government for a LONG time to bring in legislation to put a stop to it. And we are not just mopping up after BYB and puppy farmers, I've had countless dogs here who came from "reputable" breeders who had no the slightest intention of taking their pups/dogs back. So before you accuse rescues of "allowing BYB's etc to carry on regardless" you may want to familiarise yourself with the work alot of us actually do behind the scenes.

> I've had countless dogs here who came from "reputable" breeders

That is an Oxymoron, a breeder that will not take responsibility for the stock they breed is not 'reputable' and the best thing to do with a 'recognised' or 'well known' breeder behaving like this is to name and shame them to their peers.

I quite agree that rescues have their hands full dealing with the 'fall out' and that existing laws need to be vigorously enforced, and this would go a long way to helping matters.

Barbara, do you know how often I have contacted the IKC with complaints about breeder who refused to take back their dogs? Only to be told they are reputable breeders and the IKC can't do anything about it? Unless they are penalised NOTHING will change. Oh and btw, I've taken several dogs in which came from UK breeders who didn't want to know and the UK KC hasnt been more helpful either. Two of the dogs came from accredited breeders, so WHAT can I do?

I've recently taken in a dog who was dumped in a boarding kennel, with the help of an UK rescue I traced the chip which was manufactured in UK, implanted in UK but registered in Spain. A long story short, the dog came from a UK accredited breeder, was sold to a couple who moved to Spain and had sold the dog to an Irish bloke who must've brought the dog back to Ireland with him. He could not be traced. I phoned the UK breeder only to be told to dispose of the dog as I saw fit since they have stopped breeding 18 months ago. They didn't even ask how he was. I went through all this trouble because I initially thought this well bred dog had been stolen.

Absolutely Brainless!

I am NOT denigrating the sterling work that rescues do, I'm very aware of it, through Bedlington Breed rescue and Welfare, which many of us Bedlington breeders raise funds for, as well as being responsible for any of our own breeding - the dogs are the innocents in this, but as rescues take in the dogs they have bred, there is no impact on the irresponsible breeder.  This is why I suggested that ALL puppies no matter who bred them, should by LAW be permanently identified and traceable to their breeder.  This would be a simple law to introduce and easy to promote to the public - no identity, don't buy - just like a car ;)

As things stand,  puppy farmers and BYBs, and yes irresponsible recognised breeders, are getting away with making money at the expense of the dogs, puppies and the rescues (and those of us who help raise funds for them).   If irresponsible breeders were required by law to take back animals they bred or if this wasn't possible, pay for rescues to take in animals bred by them, then rescues would not be inundated with dogs and these breeders would not find their trade so lucrative.

> Barbara, do you know how often I have contacted the IKC

The Kennel club Irish or British is not the place that would Embarrass any breeder it is the breeders peers, that is within their breed, and exhibiting circles.

> Litters of puppies need to be addressed and they could be easily identifiable together with the breeder advertising puppies for sale. In order for puppies to be sold the puppies must be advertised at some point either by the breeder, dealer or pet shop.

Not all breeders advertise.

Some breeders do not need to advertise as the litter is allready homed before it's even been concieved, and/or puppies will be sold easily with the reputation, no need to advertise.

Word of mouth/reputation can sell poorly bred litter too, especially to people who are just after a cheap puppy.

Keeping track of litters is not as easy as checking the classifieds.

I think making it compulsory for any pup/dog to be traced back to it's breeder via tattoo/chip, and if any dog is found to not be tracable back to it's breeder the OWNER gets a hefty fine, may make owners a little more interested in the source of thier puppy/dog. Owners are just as much to blame as breeders. BYB/puppy farmers are selling their pups to owners, who then give them up to rescue. Take the owners out of the equasion and the BYB/puppy farmers have no market so they will be forced to stop.

> As things stand,  puppy farmers and BYBs, and yes irresponsible recognised breeders, are getting away with making money at the expense of the dogs, puppies and the rescues (and those of us who help raise funds for them).   If irresponsible breeders were required by law to take back animals they bred or if this wasn't possible, pay for rescues to take in animals bred by them, then rescues would not be inundated with dogs and these breeders would not find their trade so lucrative.

Never a truer word said! Irresponsible breeders cause most of the problems we see in dogs today, if all dogs were traceable back to the breeder and if one appeared in a rescue centre the breeder should have the choice of whether to take it back or to pay for it's keep for as long as it was in the rescues, we would see a huge reduction in unwanted dogs being abandoned. However I think we would need DNA and either a tattoo or micro-chip to identify the pups as chips can stop working and tattos can fade. DNA is at least a constant.

I am surprised no big businesses are offering a total DNA registration system, as a back up to the micro-chip and tattoo. So if anyone wants a business with a future surely there is one!

> I am surprised no big businesses are offering a total DNA registration system, as a back up to the micro-chip and tattoo. So if anyone wants a business with a future surely there is one!

I paid an awful lot of money to register my puppy farm dog and rescue dog with an organisation that offered DNA recording too [they are all micro-chipped and have tags as well].  This company has now gone out of business leaving me a few hundred pounds worse off with dogs who will hopefully live on for many  more years.  DNA records would be great if it were a long-standing charity or KC running it - it's not much use if the private company goes out of business after a year or two, also, any profits could help support rescues and/or other dog supports. 
Maybe any profits could even help enforce current laws before wasting time on new ones. 

I understand what Brainless has said about single breeding by pet owners yet I still believe enforcement of current laws is most important before creating new ones that could dilute existing powers.  Also, many breeders started from somewhere, hopefully with the help of the breeders of their own dog/bitch.   If it becomes too difficult for people to start in dog breeding how will breeds develop, particularly those with a relativley small gene pool?

Someone mentioned puppy farmed dogs being bought and then ending up in rescue.  I'd be really interested to know the facts about this.  Certainly general dog rescue centres seem to have a vast majority of X breeds, even those I've seen under specific breeds are majorly crosses. I know there are also many breed specific rescues who take their own breed from centres, but would still like to know the facts on this.

The KC have been doing DNA profiling for some time now, so they must have these records somewhere? If so perhaps it is time they made it compulsory as they tried to do when the ABS first came about.

And if the KC won't do voluntarily perhaps we breeders & owners should push this one by getting our dogs profiled at the KC? Then when the registers are challenged by the R£PCA the KC would have an edge over them?