Yes money that could be saved if it became compulsory for breeders to identify their puppies before they are sold.  The RSPCA would like to make it compulsory for owners to microchip their dogs but that is too late and I do not think that goes far enough or gets to the root of the problem. I personally believe that identification should start at the puppies birthplace by making all breeders responsible for every puppy that they breed by identification.

Below are the average figures for each Welsh authority kennel costs for stray dogs, when you consider that there are at least 5,000 breeding bitches in licenced dog breeding establishments in three counties in Wales and equally as many in the same areas operating unlicenced that should be licenced - these figures do not of course include anyone in these three counties who is a back yard breeder or hobby breeder.  When you think of how many puppies are being produced in just these three areas alone then surely it would make sense to make it compulsory for every breeder to identify each puppy for before sale.

This is just an example because I happened to find  the cost figures on another web site, here they are below.

£419,564 equates to total money spent on kennelling stray dogs by each Welsh local authority in 2008-09.
16 of 22 authorities responded.

Quite agree.

Every puppy I have bred has been ear tattooed so it can be traced to me, or doG forbid turn up in rescue I could tell if it were one of mine.

Mine are microchipped before they leave me now, after one I bred was found wandering in the Scottish Glens. :-(

I have to admit I don't.  Yet again those who pay blooming hundreds on health tests etc. will do it and the dogs that usually end up in dogs homes will still get there because the type of breeders that they come from won't do this.  I've paid over £700 so far on one of my girls in health tests before breeding from her, I myself cannot afford to keep on paying out for more and more things.

That is why is should be compulsory for all breeders to apply for licence before they can breed from their female dog (the Council already are responble for licencing anyone that produces more than 4 litters in a 12 month period, why not make it compulsory for everyone to be licenced if they wish to bred from their dog) even if it is from only one, that said dog should be identifiable and all the puppies produced whether sold or retined by the breeder should be identifiable too that way their is tracabilty from the beginning of a dogs life. It is no good putting the responsibility just on the owner tracability must go from breeder then to owner.  Not all owners will bother and if they do not then tracebilty will still be there back to the breeder.  If all owners did make the effort to identify then we would not have all these dogs unidentified in rescue.

This way it makes the breeder responsible, very important when sick pupies or those with hereditary problems are sold through the pet trade.  At the moment the seller is responsible for any come backs such as the pet shop or dealer. The breeder gets away scot free as the purchaser did not make their purchase from the breeder direct.  Puppies are classified as commodities in consumer law and purchasers are covered by the sale of goods act 1979.

That way too there would be some control over who breeds dogs that turn on humans - it is always the dog owner that gets blamed, it is possibly they are at fault, yet it could also be breeder that has contributed to the situation by breeding irresponsibly dogs that should never have been bred form in the first place but they never get questioned over such an occurance, compulsory tracability would help to identify the dog at fault and who bred that dog to prevent them from doing so again. It is all very well calling for a destruction placed on a dog and then allowing the person who bred that dog to continue to breed from the parents of that said dog that attacked, maimed or killed someone. I personally do not find that acceptable at all, the dam and sire of the said dog should be neutered or spayed to prevent any possible re-occurance of another tragedy.

We must also find away to regulate dog breeding better and prevent so many dogs ending up in rescues and pounds.  This vicious circle that is of no benefit to anyone least of all the dogs and is costing a fortune in time and effort. 

Unfortunately, licensing and registration would NOT affect those who breed casually or Puppy farmers.  there are already rules in place for commercial breeders which are ineffective.  What makes you think that compulsory licensing for the rest of us would make any difference?  

The only thing that will make a difference IMHO is for local councils to start doing their jobs properly and for commercial breeders to have to comply.

You only have to look at the rate of illegal guns owned and used in this country despite compulsory registration and licensing and policing to see that.

I'd be a little worried about microchipping my 10 week old toy breeds, and they are the bigger of toys. I did have to do one as he was going abroad, but in general I would just strongly advise the owners to do it when they are a little older.

Dill if everyone who wished to breed from a dog had to apply for a licence to do so then before they applied and received their licence they would be required to have the dog they wish to breed from identifiable. So straight away there would be a record of that person who wished to breed from their dog and their dog would have an ID number.  Then when the litter is born and before sold their identification details (from which ever method of ID was used) would be recorded by the identification company, which would then be transfered to the new owner at at the time of sale by the breeder. Fail in that the details would obviously remain in the name of the breeder. 

This has nothing to do with licencing premises to allow breeders to breed from more than four litters in a 12 month period, that would stand in any case. It is to try to introduce a method of traceability for all dogs. To be relient upon owners is inadequate we need a method that covers every dog that exists and puppy that is born.

If it is found that a person has bred without a licence and the dog is not identified then a fixed penalty type of notice could be issued to that person.

This maynot be perfect but it is simple and we do need some way of trying and I do say trying to reduce the numbers of dogs and puppies that end up in rescue, pounds and re-advertised for sale when they reach the adolescent stage, just look at free ads at the numbers of young dogs advertised soon after purchase.

Dog breeding and selling of puppies has got completely out of control by commercial breeding, dealing selling and the importation of puppies from Eire.  Yes Dill you are right, legislation is in place and it is not being adequately enforced for commercial breeders. When Councils licence premises with 140 breeding bitches and no employed staff it is crazy and irresponsible of Councils to do so and believe it or not stand by their decision to do so, which is wrong.

>if everyone who wished to breed from a dog had to apply for a licence to do so then before they applied and received their licence they would be required to have the dog they wish to breed from identifiable.

And how would that affect to all the squillions of chavs breeding their staffy crosses (as a random example)? Nobody knows how many dogs there are in the country or where they all live - how on earth can anything be policed? There's no point in bringing in rules that are so easily ignored.

I understand what you are saying but a dog can be checked for ID and everyone who breeds a litter needs in many cases to advertise that litter for sale.

What I may suggest maynot be perfect and have flaws but what we have at the moment is not working either, so surely anything that can improve a situation although not perfect must be an added bonus. The RSPCA is asking for all dogs to be microchiped the same could be said for that, not all will participate, which is true but maybe if a compulsory ID was introduced at the beginning of a person dog breeding and the puppies it must ultimately increase the numbers of dogs that can be indentified over all.     

> I myself cannot afford to keep on paying out for more and more things.

The ear tattoing is very cheap, only £20 plus £7 per puppy and the tattooist comes to your home.  Worth every penny for the visible peace of mind.

> That is why is should be compulsory for all breeders to apply for licence before they can breed from their female dog

and who would make those breeding accidental or casual litters tow the line. 

I recently heard of one BYB Rottie breeder who has an old school Friend of my hubby's come and do the tails (by which I mean dock them).  I informed him this was illegal, so what he said, she wants it done as all those enquiring want them docked and are willing to pay more, he gets a few pints.  The bitch is pregnant again with her third litter at 4 years of age.

He could see nothing wrong with the way she was breeding or that he was breaking the law.  He thought we were daft for not breeding more often and for spending money out on far flung studs and health tests!

So those in dogs and law abiding responsible owners get yet more red tape and expense, and those causing the problem carry on their merry way..

>What I may suggest maynot be perfect and have flaws but what we have at the moment is not working either, so surely anything that can >improve a situation although not perfect must be an added bonus.

The KC can already see who is breeding commercially and registering pups and as pointed out earlier, councils have responsibility for commercial breeders and their premises .  So there is little point in requiring all responsible, caring, occasional breeders to register, license etc.    If the will and wherewithal aren't there to deal with the present level of controls then all that will happen is that RESPONSIBLE people will police themselves - which they already do, and will have to pay extra for doing it.

Yet again the responsible would pay and the irresponsible would get away with doing as they please.

One of the best ways of dealing with the problem would be for the media to get involved and tell the truth about breeding and rescue.  Information is a powerful tool, but it takes while for JP to get the message, so one-off programmes/articles are useless and of course then there's the problem of journalists having their own agenda.

One thing I do know, more legislation will not help, to those who are the problem it's just a game they play, evading the law and playing the system, and they are very good at it.

WHat I mean is Brainless is that just for one of my girls before I've even had a litter I've already paid out £700 on health tests, then it will be around £850 to a £1,000.00 for a stud fee, I can't keep forking out more and more.  As always it will be those of us who do all of the above that will end up keeping with the law and in reality we are the ones least likely to be causing the rescue dog home problems, so as usual the RSPCA etc. will be aiming their laws against the wrong people yet again.

> if everyone who wished to breed from a dog had to apply for a licence to do so then before they applied and received their licence they >would be required to have the dog they wish to breed from identifiable. So straight away there would be a record of that person who >wished to breed from their dog and their dog would have an ID number.  Then when the litter is born and before sold their identification >details (from which ever method of ID was used) would be recorded by the identification company, which would then be transfered to the >new owner at at the time of sale by the breeder. Fail in that the details would obviously remain in the name of the breeder.

If this were the case, many responsible breeders (myself included)would not even get started, it would simply be more cost on top of the costs of health testing, occasional breeders already have problems making ends meet and the extra money would be paid out regardless of whether a litter were produced  I have a brother who did all health tests, research, had an excellent breed mentor and almost lost his only breeding bitch, the pup was dead and the bitch couldn't be bred again, he was thousands of pounds out of pocket.  Commercial breeders have no such problems, they would simply substitute another bitch/litter.  Also, there are ways to avoid having to register, false names and addresses, multiple owners etc.  how would they be found?   A dog is only traceable if it IS chipped ;)   Are you suggesting owners be chipped and recorded too?

> If this were the case, many responsible breeders (myself included)would not even get started, it would simply be more cost on top of the costs of health testing, occasional breeders already have problems making ends meet

This is a serious problem in my breed.

We are very fortunate that all those who KC register belong to one or other breed club and abide by the codes of ethics re health testing and long term responsibility.

The problem is fewer and fewer pups bred by Good breeders with new people able to take over from those that have retired.

When I got involved with my breed (1992) we were getting around 150 registrations per year (nearly 300 in the 1970's). 

Last year we had 98, the year before 55, and shock horror 2010 first quarter just five puppies, and I only know of 14 more puppies from 3 litters in the second quarter of this year. 

Yet we still get dogs into rescue or advertised in the free adds that came from commercial kennels or from over the Irish sea.  One is looking for a home at the moment and her two litter sisters were homed a few weeks back, no commercial/BYB to take responsibility, and Rescue supported by a declining number of true breed devotees finding things harder and harder.

Of course this also impacts on the breed clubs, with declining litters there are fewer new club members, entries at shows suffer.  Yet everyone expects the clubs to do this and that.  It means subs go up, and many purely pet owners see no point in joining the more it costs, vicious cycle.

Because of worried re rescue our breed devotees have perhaps been ken to hide them and not get them noticed, but we will soon cease to exist as a viable breed.

It comes to something when you need imported blood every generation or every other generation to avoid breeding too close, few can afford to do this, especially more than once. 

Brainless - How would I go about getting my pups all ear tattoo's for identification?
Also, how much to microchip? Is it better to Microchip or to tattoo?

Regards

See this link for the National Dog Tattoo Register.

If I really wanted to buy a puppy then if the cost quoted by the breeder was ( example) £750 plus £30 for ID registration then I would accept that the ID extra charge was a necessary part of the cost. This way it would not be down to the breeder to pay the extra and it would also show the people that really wanted a pup. I am not and will never be a breeder, but if I wanted a pup then I would pay, it is only the people that want a puppy the cheapest way possible that wouldn't, and do you really want to sell your pups to these people. If all pups sold HAD to be registered and the ID checked each year then could this prevent the sale of Pup Farm animals that could be prevented from registering their pups as only good breeders on the breeder register could do this.( hopefully puppy farmers would no be allowed on the breeders register )
Sorry if I'm rambling but I hope what I have written makes sense.

I know of no breeder that charges new owners for the identification of puppies, ti is part of the package, along with the extra like collars, leads, some bedding bowls etc that make a nice layette for new pup.

>I know of no breeder that charges new owners for the identification of puppies, ti is part of the package

ditto Brainless

>If all pups sold HAD to be registered and the ID checked each year then could this prevent the sale of Pup Farm >animals that could be prevented from registering their pups as only good breeders on the breeder register could >do this.

This situation already exists re. owning any firearms.  You only have to look at the figures for illegal guns in the UK to know it just doesn't work.  Those who are law abiding pay for the licenses etc. and those who aren't don't, it's as simple as that.

The situation also exists re Cars.  You are supposed to have a valid driving license and insurance in order to drive a car.  The car itself is supposed to be taxed otherwise insurance is void.   In my local area alone, our insurance office estimates that 30% of drivers are uninsured, based on their own figures for claims.  I doubt that it is any different around the country.

If this is the case, why haven't they been caught by the police?

In all these cases all that needs to be done is to apply the law as it already stands - yet this doesn't get done because it is far too expensive to go looking specifically for those who are avoiding the law.

Why would it be any different with dogs?  

Would possibly a simpler idea be that every dog that goes to a vet has to be scanned as a matter of course, then if the dog is not chipped it is done so and the owners details taken and registered. It is probably not the "ideal" solution but even "Chav's" take their Staffies to the vet once in a while.

>every dog that goes to a vet has to be scanned as a matter of course, then if the dog is not chipped it is done so >and the owners details taken and registered

Sooner or later everyone needs an MOT or work done on the car too, so why is it that unlicensed, untaxed cars don't get caught?

What would actually happen is that people would dump their dogs rather than giving them the care they need, if they thought it would cost them and stop their money making practises ;) - which is what happens now :(

I don't agree that everyone should have to apply for a licence to breed from their bitch ... if you read the thread 'overbreeding' you will see how ludicrous that would be! ;-) However, I do agree that all breeders should be traceable to the pups that they produce, whether that be by microchipping or tattooing, which is why I have just trained as a microchip chipper (sounds like the start to an advert :-)) and I will be microchipping my pups before they go .. they haven't arrived yet. If the KC cannot provide people with any experience/sense to determine what is and isn't good practice then I am 100% certain the council will be unable to do so. I saw an advert for a dog warden a couple of years ago, main qualification required: able to work alone and to determine when to take coffee break. I wish this were a joke, but sadly, very, very, sadly it isn't.

In Slovenia we've had a law for a long time now. It is compulsory to have ALL dogs micro chipped and if you don't you're braking the law..... I for one think it's a great idea, not only for the sake of lost or stolen dogs, but to prevent people dumping unwanted pets in front of someone elses door. On a few occasions we had our Italian neighbours dumping their hunting dogs on our side. Few had their ears cut off, to get rid of tattoo identifications :(. With this new law it just makes it much easier for the government to keep an eye on the ownership and people have to be a bit more responsible.

As far as I know this law was enacted in Poland some 10 years ago, guess what I know no one who complies, or even knows about it, except people in dogs whoa re likely to travel abroad with them.

It's down to the government to enforce it then ;). I know it works in Slovenia (of course there's always a few exceptions out there) and most breeders have it done before pups leave to new homes. Every time any pet goes to the vet, the vet scans and checks it against his computer records.

Well obviously they don't bother when the dogs go for their rabies boosters, every one does those to get the tags, but no-one is rushing to chip.