http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/4725/bateson-report-in-to-dog-health/

Hope I am wrong but reading that it sounds very ominous.

Reading that!  It sounds more than ominous, it sounds like one sided trouble, another rough ride ahead by the looks of it only pointing out the negatives, doubt there will be positives and all breeds even though it is just some lines of some breeds will be lumped together as unhealthy the word pedigree is going to be beaten to a pulp again.

IMO the KC should only register litters where the parents are members of the relevant breed club, the breed clubs need to be the carers of lines and health issues and oversee each breed, be the ones working and caring for the breed, what good are these reports and programmes they do nothing but send out the wrong message for all pedigree dogs which is quite slanderous, look at the verbal attacks last year on innocent pedigree dog owners whose breeds and lines had nothing to do with the Passion production.

The KC can not co-ordinate all breeds, or understand all issues, the breed clubs need that power so that each breed can be looked after properly. That way any reports made or health issues can go straight to the breed club to look into and put right.

The GP are just going to get the completely wrong message as no doubt the report will be all over the newspapers.

The Telegraph report suggests that all breeders, not just those of pedigree dogs, will have to be registered and subject to random spot checks if they want to sell their puppies, and that's got to be a good thing (provided that the people doing the checks know what to look for!).

I can be a very lazy reader sometimes, especially when there are pages and pages of document. Is the Telegraph report (which I also have not yet read) selections from the bateson report? Is that what this B report is suggesting to help dog health issues pedigree and x breed alike? Unlike the PDE programme.

The Telegraph article is a brief overall summary of some of the points that made in the report, not extracts from it, because it isn't published till tomorrow.

I suppose that we have to wait until tomorrow to see what actually is written/recommended, unless what has been published in the press has been leaked.   It is depressing.

Thanks, I shall await the full picture tomorrow then.  I shall try to hold down the cynic in me until then and hope for some good points like registration for all, which would be a very good start towards dog health issues. :-)

Well here it is

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/4730/historic-bateson-review-in-to-dog-health-is-launched/

I especially agree with point 5 about vets collating breed info, though care needs to be taken that breed Identity is proven ans not assumed.

I hope they don't force chipping as the only means of identifying puppies, as I much prefer tattooing, and personally would end up having to do both.

The main points as outlined in that summary are fair enough, but as we often find 'The Devil is in the Detail'

This is one of the most important points, 13.A public awareness and education campaign should be designed to change public behaviour when buying a dog, and something any of us involved with rescue and welfare and on this forum have been screaming for.

It becomes quite simple if no-one buys pups that are not up to standard then it won't pay the puppy breeder to produce them.

Have read the whole report from beginning to end and has taken ages, will have to re-read to make sure that I fully understand it.

However, on the surface and on a first reading through it seemed to be fair and unbiased.

> first reading through it seemed to be fair and unbiased.

Especially since JH had access to it before it was published! Still it did not have the R£PCA as the administrators.

> This is one of the most important points, 13.A public awareness and education campaign should be designed to change public behaviour when buying a dog, and something any of us involved with rescue and welfare and on this forum have been screaming for.

It is BUT who will carry out this education? The R£SPCA? Dog Breeders? Local councils? Schools? The Kennel Club? It will clearly need to be co-ordinated properly with the right people, i.e not animal extremists, or people who like JH talk at you rather than talk to you. 

Did anybody here give evidence to this inquiry?

Like other posters have only skimmed it.
The DDA reforms will be welcomed I think!

Did not know that JH had access before it was published - why would that be?   And thought that the mention of the RSPCA was kept very low.   Do need to read it again though.

No doubt where the press leaks came from to ensure her continued "presence" in the general press. It says it in the report somewhere.... can't remember which page.

An extract...

"The extent of the trade in dogs is astonishing. One member of my Advisory group visited a dog breeding establishment in the Republic of Ireland where 5000 dogs are bred per year in this one establishment. Many other dog farms exist in the Republic. The great majority of the puppies are sold in Southern England"

And we are the badguys ladies and gentlemen?  

I haven't read it yet.. but how will they know if my neighbour for example has a cross breed bitch and mates it with her sisters cross breed boy..then sells the puppies via web or free ads? (ie puppy farmers/BYB)
Will the answer be the old fashioned Dog Licence? so they know who exactly owns dogs?
Sorry if the answer is in the report....will read i now. :-)
Paula x

I haven't read it yet, but does it, as was suggested in yesterday's paper, say that the regulations should apply to all puppies, not just pedigree ones?

Do think that the 'buying public' should have some of the responsibility - those that buy on impulse, those that do not take into consideration their facilities that they have to offer a puppy may not be suitable for that breed, but like all things once they have decided on a breed or a puppy there is not much that will stop them and puppy farms are there to supply that need, they will not ask many pertinent questions, just take the money without any thought as to whether the pup is going to a suitable, forever home. I suppose that the great majority of the puppies sold in Southern England are bought in by puppy farms.   I think that at the beginning of the report some where it stated that the report was not aimed at the responsible breeder.

Sorry if this reads funny having computer problems!!

I think from what I read that public education is a big part of the plan

Hmm, that, if it is true is really annoying, the lady annoys me anyway that would just compound the issue.   I do worry though that not enough responsibility is laid at the door of the puppy buyer, they must be made aware that they have to do thier homework first on the breed of their choice, and surely if you buy a pup it is your responsibility for life, through all the ups and downs, well it is for me anyway.   Sometimes I feel that it is made very easy for them, if it is not going well, which means that they can just drop all responsibility, difficult, as the welfare of the pup/dog has to come first.

I stopped counting Polly after having read 50 plus pages.

Change has been needed for a long time, and it has been slow in coming, what is annoying is the way in which blame has previously been laid at the door of the responsible breeder rather than targeting those whose breeding practices fell below a certain standard.   Let us hope that real improvement for ALL dogs will come from this report - I would welcome that.   Early days yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8458777.stm

> No doubt where the press leaks came from to ensure her continued "presence" in the general press.

I understand people do not like Jemima Harrison due to the upset in the dog world but I do not think it is right to acuse someone of something with not 100% proof. Have you proof of this?

>It says it in the report somewhere.... can't remember which page.

Ive done a quick check on the entire report in the "Preface" section it talks about Jemima Harrison and the programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
In the "aknowledgment" section it does say "I am very grateful to the following who commented on elements of the draft of the report" and one of the person is Jemima Harrison.

I am personally still absorbing the report but so far I can see a lot that is positive, but I do wonder if any of it will come into practice. Time will tell I suppose.

> One member of my Advisory group visited a dog breeding establishment in the Republic of Ireland where 5000 dogs are bred per year in this one establishment.

Flippin heck, none of us would breed that many puppies in a lifetime in dogs!

>> One member of my Advisory group visited a dog breeding establishment in the Republic of Ireland where 5000 dogs are bred per year in this one establishment.
> Flippin heck, none of us would breed that many puppies in a lifetime in dogs!

It also says that most of the puppies bred in Ireland are sold in Southern England. That's an awful lot of non-KC, non-tested, potentially unhealthy under-socialised dogs out there.

However it goes on to say that banning the import of Irish bred and/or EU bred dogs would land us in trouble with the EU...

Later on it outlines a proposal for mandatory identification of puppies as follows:
8.8  As soon as Parliamentary time permits, Regulations should be made under the Animal Welfare Act
2006 in order to:
a.  Require that all puppies should be indelibly identified, by implantation of microchip or such other equivalent system as may be developed, prior to sale; and that the ID number of the microchip or equivalent should be recorded on the contract of sale, all relevant health test certificates and registration documents and a central data base.
b.  Create an obligation on any person breeding dogs to have regard to the health and welfare of both the parents and the offspring of the mating.
c.  Require that any body laying down breed standards must have regard to the health and welfare of the dogs and the need to avoid
breed specific health problems; and that in exercising such a power, the body could be regarded as exercising a power of a public nature and thus be susceptible to judicial review.
d.  Create such offences with regard to the above as seem appropriate.

From this, I infer that it if the above became law, it may then be possible to regulate Irish puppy farmers as it could be enforced that any imported dogs must comply. However this would also apply to any other imported dogs. I don't know if that would get us out of the issues with the EU, or whether it could create more loopholes!

> or EU bred dogs would land us in trouble with the EU...
>

Well no EU bred dog can come to UK until 10 months old, so any that are doing so are illegal.

> Well no EU bred dog can come to UK until 10 months old, so any that are doing so are illegal.

I think it's different for Ireland as they don't have rabies and do quarantine... free passage of dogs between Eire and the UK has always been allowed.

Yes you can bring Irish puppies over at 8 weeks via the ferry with no problems.

Ok, Read it and think most of it has gone in, but I dare say some of it has probably gone out again too. :-D

I'm just picking up on one point. Getting the message across to help future dogs.

Looks good on the whole, my only bugbear is for years and years the KC, breeders, people in the dog world, via working or showing have always tried so hard to get the general public to buy registered dogs many of us have even sat down with friends and family and advised where and what to look for in a good quality pup and good lines.

How many of us have had that knowledge and info even with face to face converstations thrown back in our faces and they have still gone out and bought a dog not registered and with no relevant parentage/pup health tests etc.

These recomendations are they going to become LAW, that all dogs should be registered, because if they are not what is the point? The KC already have the accredited breeder scheme, but people buying puppies who are not in the dog world, don't know to use them.

We've had topics on this before about how to get to the GP for years, to become enlightened.  So unless it becomes illegal to breed puppies unregistered, pedigree and cross alike and there are large advertiseing campaigns to say it is illegal to buy a pup unregistered, how can anything change?

Talk is cheap, it all looks good but needs to become legal. It says nothing of stiff penalties (fines should do the trick) if unregistered dogs are bred, it says nothing of what happens if dogs are bred from without the required health tests, if it just means that they won't be KC reg that isn't enough, because it still won't stop the puppyfarms, still won't stop the BYB's.

My question is as good as many of these points are, the good and responsible will do these things anyway. The only way to stop the bad is for them to become illegal, will this happen?

Is this a recommendation or is it to become the law, because quite frankly it doesn't seem to matter to many dog buyers whether they have a registered pedigree (with all the proposed protection) or not.

So unless it becomes illegal to breed puppies unregistered, pedigree and cross alike and there are large advertiseing campaigns to say it is illegal to buy a pup unregistered, how can anything change?

Absolutely.  One of the big problems at the moment is that people say "I only want a pet so KC registration and a pedigree doesn't matter - I don't want to show it!"  and they'll still keep saying the same.......

Anyone who is concerned about the quality and health of the pup they're going to buy can find a well bred pup now with a little research.

> Is this a recommendation or is it to become the law, because quite frankly it doesn't seem to matter to many dog buyers whether they have a registered pedigree (with all the proposed protection) or not.

My understanding of it, is that KC reg or not, all puppies will have to be permanently ID'd before sale, regardless. Traceability.
It's not that far removed from an earlier suggestion that all dogs be chipped.... but this has knobs on. If it works, then fine. There will always be people who don't - go underground etc - but then what happens if those dogs are given up or even spot checked - and yes that could be possible... remember the campaign to get vets scanning all patients?

At the moment I am still trying to get my head around the ramifications, I'm sure if I sleep on it I will come up with some nasty loopholes that could be exploited, but... over all... I think it's positive. Given a day or two I will probably be able to think of the shortfalls.

>> So unless it becomes illegal to breed puppies unregistered, pedigree and cross alike and there are large advertiseing campaigns to say it is illegal to buy a pup unregistered

NOT unregistered, but not ID'd.

The year 2010 will be the year of massive public spending cuts, our national debt is huge and large institutions like local councils and NHS are to be cut to the bone.

Were is the money to come from to police any of this?

NOT unregistered, but not ID'd

So there will be no law for compulsary registration which IMO would be easier to trace as it would be so quick for the overlooking body if advised of a litter, to do a quick data search to see if a registered litter (which would have had all health tests etc to be accredited) is at a premises or not. A bit like a TV license check, it would be so easy.

Microchipping is hit and miss unscrupulous breeders won't do it, how would anyone know? It's a great idea, but as toolz has pointed out how could it possibly be policed.

yeah - like most on here I thought the report was on the whole a well considered balanced one  BUT ( and it's a big but ) I have a  concern - firstly just where is the money going to come from to finance all the extra research and breed specific health testing  ?  - if not enforced for all breeders will 'good  breeders'  not run the risk of being undercut by those that do nothing and thus being unable to sell their pups ?  ...and without enforcement it really is all just ineffective hot air !!! -

Yvonne

Microchipping is hit and miss unscrupulous breeders won't do it, how would anyone know?

Ahhh, ding dong, going to answer my own question, of course new puppy goes to vet for innoculations and primary check and no microchip, vet or owner reports breeder and then heavy fine or whatever (not been said) yes, that would work.   :-)

Microchipping OR tattooing (notice report said permanent ID methods) can become the new Dog Licence. Notice Bateson did not recommend bringing in a Dog Licence, as of old.... but permanent ID can and would make a change. The new 'licence' then would be owners transferring the ID to their names. Still have not had a good old thinky-thunk about this, but counting the dogs may be better than counting the owners.

> Ahhh, ding dong, going to answer my own question, of course new puppy goes to vet for innoculations and primary check and no microchip, vet or owner reports breeder and then heavy fine or whatever (not been said) yes, that would work.   :-)

Vet's confidentiality.... Argh. Vets will not want to police this.

Yes I knew that, I meant the rest fo the EU as per the post.

After a quick read of the report, which on the whole I think is not too bad, I was struck by one particular piece on the BBC News this evening. "Puppy farms need to be better regulated" Never has the phrase "money talks" been more clearly illustrated! Whilst there are many good points this is a MASSIVE opportunity missed and I can't help but wonder what could have been achieved if these odious people had been the subject of an emotive documentary instead of tarring all with the same brush.
Jeff.

Also chips can fail to work, and/or move.  At least a tattoo is obviously there, even if it becomes hard to read.

MsTemeraire thats what i thought, lots of lost clients for the vet

Having been to bed and thought about it, I do not think that there will be a great deal of change, only for the responsible breeders again.   My concern is always for the health and welfare of bitches and their puppies on Puppy Farms and elsewhere, real change is needed there - and it could be done, but I doubt if it will.   It is not only about health testing surely, we all wish to breed healthy pups (well, I hope that we do), but the conditions that they are reared, and kept in plus how some bitches are exploited just for money, it is big business for some.

How will microchipping be enforced, a good idea, but one I feel is impracticable, it is impossible to enforce drivers to tax and insure their cars, what hope is there of making sure that all puppies bred are microchipped?  If a pup has to be microchipped and it is down to the vets to check this, then a knock-on effect could be that the owner of a new pup may not even take their pup for its primary vaccinations.

The report was very long winded and not consise enough for me.   The majority of people will loose interest after reading the first 5 pages, even I found it heavy going, and I read quickly and usually take it all in, but not with this report.

Still will have to sit down and re-read it again.

a dog breeding establishment in the Republic of Ireland where 5000 dogs are bred per year in this one establishment

its no wonder the KC don't want to stop  registering puppies from puppy farms if these are the num  bers in volved. they would suffer a huge loss of income.

I doubt the number of puppies registered by show/hobby breeders would pay for London offices etc.

I think from what I read that public education is a big part of the plan

I think public education is  a must. It seems to me that buying a dog is best done in completely the  opposite way to how we buy almost anything else.
Buying almost any large purchase these days you can  go into a  shop and get it off the shelf. shops have a duty to make sure their goods are fit for purpose and as described. you get a guarentee and extended warrenty  so people feel safer buying from a shop rather than from an individual.
Is  it any wonder people want to buy puppies in the same way.

I do not think that there will be a great deal of change, only for the responsible breeders again

Yes, I've slept on it all too, and still can see the only way to really change the welfare of dogs health and surrounding wise is to compulsary have all dogs under the accredited breeder scheme. It is the only way, I guess the only reason they have not gone for it is because what happens to unregistered dogs and pups? They would have to be destroyed wouldn't they for it to hit home, (from the date it started) not nice but maybe essential for everything to kick in. Obviously they couldn't face it, so nothing really will change.

Cross breeds would have to come under the scheme but only if used to breed from. Problem is we know how it all goes out of the window with cross breeds as it messes up the genetics mixing two/three breeds together, I guess that would have to be a seperate problem.

Microchipping records could easily hold a dogs history with a breeders records, then owners records (however many) could be added to the microchip history, much like a doctors record still stores past addresses, so that can work.

However, personally I think all breeders should tattoo, then owners microchip.

Still compulsary registration isn't happening so I'm talking for nothing. :-) One of the worst problems is the sheer number of puppies being produced every year, the harder and more expensive it becomes in having to follow all accredited rules the less people other than the serious will do it. This hasn't been tackled.

I doubt the number of puppies registered by show/hobby breeders would pay for London offices etc.
And the Aylesbury ones. 
I suspect that's what's happened over the years.  The KC has grown into a huge business because of the money coming in but they've been so busy organising events and spending the money that they haven't noticed where the majority of money has come from!  Now they've got themselves into a cleft stick! :(
I remember going to the London HQ and the toilets were like a 5* hotel full of wonderful cosmetics that I'd never afford to use at home. :(  And their collection of antique dog artwork is wonderful.
I've always been fully supportive and The Kennel Club has done some brilliant work over the years with dog health research, keeping the only credible database, the Kennel Club Junior Organisation kept my daughter on the straight and narrow through what could have been difficult years, but I do think that a reorganisation is overdue.  Times change. :)

> Microchipping records could easily hold a dogs history with a breeders records, then owners records (however many) could be added to the microchip history, much like a doctors record still stores past addresses, so that can work.
>

Yes, it could work, but who will police it?   Will there be a new regulatory body, cannot see that happening with a general election coming up, all parties will be after votes, and will not wish to alienate 'breeders' (in its broadest sense), wonder how many breeders there are in the country (counting all who have a litter, even if it is only one) most probably millions.