http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-12689401

To say I am dissapointed by this announcement is an a gross understatement. Dissapointed because the hobby breeders came into this discussion in the closing stages and for this reason it has caused the delay, because the WA have to be seen to be fair and rightly so but the hobby breeders could have voiced their concerns months ago. The KC, Dogs Trust, RSPCA were, alongside all Welsh Councils involved in the proceedings. Why did the KC not be more open with the hobby breeders enlightening them of the proceedings to enable them to oppose, if the wished earlier when this was being discussed instead of the last moments of the consulatation period and halting the process so it runs out of time with this Government?

This new legislation is about animal welfare the concern for breeding bitches stud dogs and their puppies that are commercially bred in licensed premises and living often in atrocious conditions. Why a hobby breeder should oppose paying a licence fee for the sake of the protecting the welfare of these unfortunate dogs I do not know.
There are many hobby breeders that are not true hobby breeders they may refer to themselves as such and they may even breed and show dogs as hobby but they also own a fair number of breeding bitches (more than one would expect a hobby breeder to own) they breed from their breeding bitches advertise and sell litters of puppies (but will not admit to being commercial and operating a business of breeding dogs for sale)but seem to feel that the words 'hobby breeder' should make them excempt from being licensed why?  If they breed puppies for sale then they should expect to be licensed under the proposed legislation and that is what I understand they are opposed to - being licensed.  They are not one little bit interested in the welfare of the dogs and puppies caught up in this despicable puppy trade but they should be if they too are breeding and selling litters of puppies because by doing so they are also contributing to the excesses of dogs being bred regardless as to whether they show a dog or not.  

I can assure everyone that opposes this legislation that for the situation to remain the same as it is now do not be surprised if you find that Wales follows in the footsteps of Ireland and very shortly you will see the very large commercial units set up and licenced for the purpose of dog breeding.  Already one such commercial dog breeder who was licensed for over 140 breeding bitches decided that without permission to do so, doubled the number of dogs to well over 300 and fitted out a very large agriculture shed for the purpose of breeding dogs.  If it was not for my research this would have been up and running but having made the Council planning department aware (the owner has temporary removed half of the dogs) but has now applied for planning permission for change of use from agriculture to dog breeding. I shall oppose this planning application and I trust that it will be refused. But if not then the consequences will be unbelievably unexceptable.  Is this what hobby breeders wish to see more of (rather than being licensed themselves), large licensed commercial breeders operating on the scale of this breeder with (as he intended) with over 300 breeding bitches?    


   

This new legislation is about animal welfare the concern for breeding bitches stud dogs and their puppies that are commercially bred in licensed premises and living often in atrocious conditions. Why a hobby breeder should oppose paying a licence fee for the sake of the protecting the welfare of these unfortunate dogs I do not know.

I do not know why either, is there a rational explanation, I doubt it.  Hang your heads in shame hobby breeders, you have prolonged the suffering of thousands of dogs and all because you don't want to be classed as commercial breeders, but thats what you are and unlicensed at that!

If I were a puppy buyer I would avoid hobby breeders like the plague after reading the news article, I hope the public view you in the same way.

Very disappointed in the outcome of the consultation at the moment thanks to the hobby breeders. We just have to hope that the new Welsh government will carry on with it.
I presume that you know Pat that anyone in the country can oppose a planning application so if you post the link on here and on other forums we can have mass opposition to it. I was going to do that for Petworld which is why the owner has not given the council the necessary info to validate it and the council are not enforcing it.

Sadly the trap the campaigners fell into was to try and lump all breeders into one bag.

I know many in rescue don't think there is such a thing as a 'good' or ethical breeder, full stop.

If they hadn't gone for the 'real hobby breeders' (not those who treat breeding as a hobby but who breed as part of a canine focused hobby) to be included and concentrated on volume breeders it might have got through.

What needs to happen is for laws to be enforced.  There is plenty enough legislation to make such breeding enterprises unprofitable.  The existing dog breeding Act,

Animal Welfare Act, Kennelling regulations etc.

Adding anther layer of bureaucracy and laws, and entangling small scale breeders who are easier to police and more likely to abide by the law would do nothing to help get rid of puppy farming.  It in fact would make the puppy farmers/purely commercially motivated, the only ones able to breed. With hobby breeders finding more red tape and extra expense too much.  Not to mention possibly having to apply change of use for their homes to business (which they wouldn't want or get), because they happen to have two litters or 10 puppies one year and possible nothing for the next two. 

In my own breed the KC registrations have more than halved in the 20 years I have been involved in my breed, and last years figure of 33 puppies total is less than 10% of the annual registrations in the 1970's.  The main reason for this is that new people coming into the breed find they cannot afford the time money and long term  and commitment to afford to breed. 

Most people active in dogs these days do not have kennelling facilities,  just average family homes that their dogs are part of.  This makes possibly needing to take back dogs they have bred at any age very disruptive and difficult, and more likely in the current economic climate where peoples circumstances keep changing.

I had a four year old dog back for re-homing with two hours notice days before his sister had her pups, he had to fit in with her and the rest or I would have had to pay for kennelling him until a good home was found all added expense I can ill afford, for an ordinary dog person.

I have two litters at present born 3 1/2 weeks apart, why because my bitches aren't machines, one missed last time and has long season intervals, the other litter entailed planning to go overseas and could not be put off because the next season would run high risk of excessive heat being a factor rather than the cold which is less of a risk for the dogs.  I won't be breeding again for probably nearly two years (again depending how seasons pan out).

Under the proposals I would have had to have a license, fulfil some set rearing facilities which my domestic set up would not allow, and have the council slap me with business rates, or at the very least slap me with license fees that I don't need as an additional cost. 

With the cost of flying myself and dog to USA I have already spent a fortune, as I did to produce the mother of the home based litter 4 years ago, the two litters together won't cover costs, let alone the cost of keeping the 6 (including my new puppy) dogs, three of which are non breeding veterans.

Counting the numbers of breeding bitches was always a bad clause in the old laws, as good breeders don't breed as young/old or as often from any bitch, some not at all, yet anything entire over 6 months would have counted as a breeding animal.

"Sadly the trap the campaigners fell into was to try and lump all breeders into one bag."

You make it sound like campaigners wrote the proposals, RSPCA, Dogs Trust and your very own KC were the ones who had the most input.

So hobby breeders are to have no inspections, no license fee, no business rates because they feel superior to other dogs breeders.  This will leave a huge loophole for new breeders to pop up all over Wales in the guise of hobby breeder and they will be exempt as they are now from any checks. You need to face the fact that some hobby breeders are just as bad as puppy farmers.   How you choose to spend your money is your business and should not be used as an example for exemption.

>So hobby breeders are to have no inspections, no license fee, no business rates because they feel superior to other dogs breeders.

You misunderstand.

The proposals, as they were worded, were the equivalent of demanding that anyone baking a few cakes for a WI stall having to have commercial-style catering facilities and being business rated as a commercial bakery.

Then please may I have some clarification can someone descibe to me exactly what you consider to be a hobby breeder in terms of how many breeding bitches a person owns and how many litters you would expect a hobby breeder to produce in any given time say a year to five years? 

When in your view should a hobby breeder cease to be a hobby breeder and be considered to be breeding commercially and therefore should in your view not be considered excempt from licensing in the proposed new Welsh Legislation?

We already had that one thrashed out when the Breeding dn Sale of Dogs Welfare Act came into being.

Anyone who breeds five litters of pups in any 12 month period or who is breeding puppies as a business.  The number of actual intact bitches is irrelevant, it is the number of litters that counts as not all bitches will be bred from, and neutering is nto the best option for all.

A local authority would be quite at liberty to feel someone breeding 4 litters of great Danes with an average of 10 pups a litter is breeding for business (unless the breeder can reasonably show otherwise) where as a breeder breeding 4 litters of Pomeranians where they are lucky to rear two pups per litter is clearly not breeding as a business.

To be honest I can't see how anyone in the average home could manage to breed and rear more than two or three litters of any breed with average litter size in a year even if several family members were seriously involved with dogs.  Also if you ahppen to have two litters cloes together it will take you longer to fidn hoems for them all, often meaning having several pups that need to be fully vaccinated, taken to trainign classes etc.

I have twice in 20 years had two litters together/close together, and I am dead on my feet, and the two litters together equal what some large breeds produce in one go, I will need the next 18 months to two years to recover.  At other times I average a litter a year of 4 - 7 pups, my total average is still just under 6 pups a litter.

With medium size breeds I would consider three litters in a rolling 12 months, as still within hobby terms if the average output over time is less.  As I said bitches are not automatons. Many factors come into play when determining the timing of litters, not whether one is allowed to have 'x' within 'x' time frame.

Factors that may determine having two litters close together is age (both of the bitch and or available studs) and bitches missing or seasons late/early, time of year/show/work schedule etc.

As I said most of us breed as part of a serious hobby or passion.  It is not a production line.

So over time a local Authority could determine that a breeder is producing a commercially significant number of puppies even if it is less than five litters, but initially those breeding under five litters should stay exempt.

There is no way anyone can make a living out of 4 average size litters, i.e. 24 puppies, even if the full average sale price of say £600 was profit, which it certainly isn't, cost alone will take off two thirds.  There already exist means by which those who are making profits can be brought into licensing.  Those with breeds with large litters or those with a very large puppy price tag.

That's the best explanation I've seen so far JG :)

Already one such commercial dog breeder who was licensed for over 140 breeding bitches decided that without permission to do so, doubled the number of dogs to well over 300 and fitted out a very large agriculture shed for the purpose of breeding dogs.  If it was not for my research this would have been up and running but having made the Council planning department aware (the owner has temporary removed half of the dogs) but has now applied for planning permission for change of use from agriculture to dog breeding.

I should imagine that anyone here is equally as distressed as you are..... that this atrocious suffering is continuing unabated....I know I am. But I'm also one of those who can't even get her head round referring to my Gorgeous Girlys as bitches....and could never in a million years consider referring to my dogs as "stock". I even have difficulty with the word "breeder" sometimes....especially when I see it written in the context of your above statement :(

Having loved and owned my breed my entire life.....I now find myself in a world that has changed beyond all recognition

I'm probably lucky in that I do have agricultural land for my dogs to free run....but my dogs live with me...and me with them... in the house...the attached barns and annexes and the enclosed private gardens. Why should I even consider having to apply for change of use on a residential dwelling to continue to share my life with them..??

I have seven intact girls here of various ages....three of which have never had...and won't ever have puppies. Why would I need a Licence...?? If I went all out tomorrow to produce as many puppies as possible....I could never even come close to the man in your above example who has deliberately got hold of 300 dogs with the express intention of producing puppies for the commercial market place.....

Currently and sadly....I find myself fence-sitting with regards to the ABS scheme as on one hand I can see it providing an air of respectabilty for the less than scrupulous....but at the same time I know ABS breeders... who (like me...or so I've been told :) ) have the best looked after dogs in England

I get involved in campaigns to try and stop cruelty wherever I feel its happening... both my daughter and I have been instrumental in getting dogs and puppies removed from houses by the RSPCA....and yet the RSPCA seems to be hand in glove with huge commercial premises ....like the one you mention above......and seem powerless to do anything about it...!

The people and organisations and think tanks and "bodies" that...CAN....do something about it....AREN'T...! :(

They just sit around talking about it....umming and arring....and sucking the ends of their pens....its political correctness gone mad....and the suffering just carries on regardless :(

It makes no sense...??

There sems to be a lot of misunderstanding by some relating to the WA new legislation and how it it likely to affect anyone who owns or breed dogs. This was the wording in the draft.

Licensing of Dog Breeders

4.- (1) the activity descibed in paragraph 2 below is an activity for the purpose of section 13 (1) of the Act.

(2) It is unlawful for any person to keep 3 or more breeding bitches and-

(a) breed 2 or more litters of puppies in any 12 month period;
(b) advertise 10 or more puppies for sale in any 12 month period;
(c) supply 10 or more puppies to any person in any 12 month period;
(d) advertise a business of breeding and selling dogs;
(e) occupy premises which hold planning consent authorising dog breeding; or
(f) keep 3 or more breeding bitches in kennel accommodation which an Inspector reasonably believes is consistent with commercial dog breeding.

without the authority of a licence granted under these Regulations.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1) any dog found on premises will be presumed to be owned by the occupier of those premises until the contrary is provided.

If FreedomofSpirit you did not meet any of the above then you would not be required to be licensed.  Vast numbers of commercial breeders that are already licensed in Wales have never applied for planning permission before being granted a licence to breed from their dogs, two different departments that have failed to communicate or to email pick up the phone to ask. So the fear of requiring planning permission change of use is more than likely to be unfounded if you are resident in Wales.  Unless by some miracle Councils sbecome more proficient in carrying out their duties.  

Even the breeder I refered to an earlier post did not have planning permission for operating a dog breeding business (which has been in operation for years) for the 140 plus dogs that he owns. Had he not applied for an extension to his very large agriculture barn listing it as 'for agriculture use' he may well have managed to increase the numbers of dogs he owned and bred from accommodating them in this large barn (which he was doing) still without applying for planning permission (change of use) to do so. 

 

Exactly lots of us who in no way are commercial breeders would fall foul of such a law.

Many of us would easily be guilty of having 10 puppies in a year (that's a normal litter for some breeds and not unheard of in my won that normally averages 6) or two litters in a 12 month period, even if we only average a litter or less a year.

Any entire bitch over 6 months would be considered a breeding bitch, this would include puppies and oldies. 

Not all dog owners ascribe to neutering their non breeding animals or consider a bitch under two or three years of age a 'breeding bitch' or any bitch that isn't of sufficient quality to be worthy of breeding from.

Just because your example didn't have planning for commercial premises does not mean that it should or would nto have been required and any council could easily require a hobby breeder to have it if they had to be licensed as a business.

Spirit of freedom already said she has 7 entire bitches.

Here is an example from me, some, who like to be known as hobby breeders will KC reg a couple of litters per year or maybe only one BUT so that they can stay undetected and breed as many litters as they like they will sell extra litters through a licensed breeder to a dealer. We know that as fact but there is no traceability so they get away with it year after year.  You want these unscrupulous "hobby breeders" to continue to abuse their dogs and breed on every season, is that what you are saying?  If you think all hobby breeders are saints and work for the good of the breed I think you need to take a lot more interest in the dog breeding world. 

We will expose these people its just a matter of time......

       

> You want these unscrupulous "hobby breeders" to continue to abuse their dogs and breed on every season, is that what you are saying?

You're being silly. That's like saying "There are paedophiles who use the net, so lets fine everyone who uses the net and that will stop the paedophiles".

It's not a case of "If you're not in favour of this you support abuse". It's a case of enforcing the current laws before bringing in tighter restrictions that only the law-abiding non-abuser will abide by, and many will be forced to give up their responsible breeding and only the big commercial breeders will survive - the exact opposite of the ideal.

>We will expose these people its just a matter of time......

Good. Just don't drag everyone else down with them.

I think you are the one being silly if you can't see there are "hobby breeders" who need to be brought into line? If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Current laws do not restrict how many dogs people are allowed to keep and new legislation would have given LA's more powers of enforcement but that seems to have been forgotten.

 

>I think you are the one being silly if you can't see there are "hobby breeders" who need to be brought into line?

*sigh* Of course there are. But don't punish the good ones because there are bad ones. That's unfair and bad law.

>If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

It has to be the right solution. Bad law does no good at all. Luckily the powers that be realised that the proposals were badly worded and so sensibly kept debating it.

>.But don't punish the good ones because there are bad ones. That's unfair and bad law.<

*Sigh* Well lets hear your ideas on separating  the wheat from the chaff when the good are mixed in with the bad. I am sure you have a  better solution than DT, RSPCA, KC and WA? 

At least I (and presumably they too) recognise that there is a difference and therefore a need to separate them, which is more than the people who worded the proposal did. The last thing dogdom needs is another law as bad as the DDA, and a law that penalises the small-scale, reputable breeder and financially encourages the large-scale commercial breeder is exactly that.

I am sure you have a  better solution than DT, RSPCA, KC and WA?

I am sure it is more beneficial to have a discussion where both parties are taking onboard both sides rather than assuming your way is correct.
As for the RSPCA and the like they are already tied in knots with their own red tape and often fail to act what makes you think more legislation will change it??? Just look at the DDA they tie themselves in knots over what constitutes a pit bull and often are unconclusive, a considered and more thought out response is whats needed not just a lump us all in to one category.

Jeangenie
As you feel there is a difference for the purpose of licensing then please tell me at which point does a hobby breeder become a commercial breeder?  I did ask the question earlier on, please see below

Then please may I have some clarification can someone descibe to me exactly what you consider to be a hobby breeder in terms of how many breeding bitches a person owns and how many litters you would expect a hobby breeder to produce in any given time say a year to five years? 

When in your view should a hobby breeder cease to be a hobby breeder and be considered to be breeding commercially and therefore should in your view not be considered excempt from licensing in the proposed new Welsh Legislation?

This gives quite a good view from a tax perspective :-)
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/turning-hobby-into-business-means-tax-breaks.aspx

Boody in response to part of your message

As for the RSPCA and the like they are already tied in knots with their own red tape and often fail to act what makes you think more legislation will change it???

The RSPCA do not partake in any action against licensed or unlicensed dog breeders if they are doing so commercially.  The responsibility is now in the hands of the local Council licensing authority to prosecute even if there is an issue of animal welfare, the Council take the lead role they refer to it as the 'joined up approach.'

Existing legislation does not take into account the present day situation regarding the welfare of the dogs and puppies who are the ones that suffer in the hands of licensed and unlicensed dog breeders due to their involvement in the puppy trade. Therefore stiffer legislation is required to ensure that the lives of the dogs and their puppies are better provided for by those that are responsible for their care.

Pat i agree that there needs to be a huge overhall of the current system, but if they can't even agree between themselves on who should be responsible for tackling it then how will more legislation help?? They need to go back to basics, they need to take action over squalid condtions dogs are reared in, farms that have pen after pen with little interaction, they need to stop pussy footing around these money grabbing farmers and say it is not acceptable, i don't see how they can be compared to hobby breeders when the volume of dogs they keep is off the scale.(once these kind of places are dealt with then that would be a huge chunk of poorly raised pups gone) They know where these farms are they get enough tip offs it is a welfare issue therefore i feel the RSPCA should be dealing with these problems, i have no magic answers to how this is done but i feel strongly that people like me that may have 1 litter every few years should not be lumped in with them.

>can someone descibe to me exactly what you consider to be a hobby breeder in terms of how many breeding bitches a person owns

Please define what the term "breeding bitches" means a) to you and b) in the terms of this proposal.

>and how many litters you would expect a hobby breeder to produce in any given time say a year to five years?

That would depend on how many bitches they had, but personal view would be a litter from each bitch maybe every two or three years. Depending on the breed, this could mean 15 puppies in one year and none for another two or three years, if they only had one bitch.

Boody, The WA are well aware of how lax some Welsh Councils are in enforcing the current legislation to ensure that animal welfare is not compromised but the WA has no control over how the Councils conduct their business. The WA has also been made very aware visually by undercover video footage and TV programes of the situation that exists in licensed dog breeding premises. (Councils will not accept this as evidence of wrondoing such as dog breeders not complying with their licence conditions). Therefore to try to ensure that legislation was more apt for the current situation the WA set up a task force for Councils to look at the existing problems surrounding dog breeding in Wales and how to better control commercial breeding.  They discovered by scanning all methods of advertsing by dog breeders advertising litters of puppies for sale that there were an awful lot of dog breeders that were avoiding being licensed, they were advertsing more than 4 litters in a 12 month period. This is the way the puppy trade starts as I am sure you are aware then the numbers are gradually increased until they become quite large some get away with not applying for a licence others are caught in the system maybe prosecuted but invariable given a licence to continue. I believe the thinking was simply to capture all those that were breeding puppies for sale earlier before they reach the stage where they had large numbers of dogs, by doing this and making them employ staff and to microchip all puppies gave traceabilty and hopefully accountabilty. The puppy trade is such a clandestine operation with dog breeders selling puppies by the thousands to dealers and pet shops that often due their location in premises with no or near neighbours that they can carry on their business of breeding dogs selling litters of puppies to dealers and no one is aware of their undercover trade in puppies.  The puppies often have no paperwork or of they do it cannot always be traced back to the breeder, made even easier with the fashionable cross breeds. The dog breeders that supply dealers and pet shops do not want tracabilty because more often than not it is tax avoidance too.  Most will not be declaring their extra income and it can be a very large income if a person has 90 plus dogs, no staff and sells litters to dealers there is no advertising cost either.
Unfortunately us that have campaigned for so long for the introduction of new legislation in Wales knew that there would be opposition from the dog breeders/puppy farmers who supply the pet trade but really did think the KC would have been more pro active in keeping up to date with progress during meetings to ensure that the breeders who they were representing would find the proposals acceptable but they failed to inform and then at the last minute kicked up a fuss asked for meetings and now what are we left with uncertainty as to whether anything will change and come to fruitition. From our point of view of course we are bitterly dissapointed because it could have been avoided. Not saying that hobby breeders may have a case to answer but it was a great pity it was not discussed earlier with the WA because there has been much publicity about it in the dog papers and on the WA web site over the past year, there really was no excuse.    
    

Jeangenie

"A breeding bitch" in term of these proposals means an unneutered female dog over the age of 6 months.

I personally (remember, I have never bred a litter of puppies or owned a female dog in my life) but I believe a female dog would be suitable to be used for the purpose of producing a litter when she was 23 to 24 months of age certainly not before.  

>"A breeding bitch" in term of these proposals means an unneutered female dog over the age of 6 months.

>I personally (remember, I have never bred a litter of puppies or owned a female dog in my life) but I believe a female dog would be suitable to be used for the purpose of producing a litter when she was 23 to 24 months of age certainly not before. 

I would agree with you; therefore I cannot agree with the proposal as it stands.

If, as isn't uncommon, a breeder has a first litter from a bitch at 3 years old, keeps a bitch puppy from the litter, she has a litter at 3 years and a bitch puppy is kept, and so on. One litter every three years, yet maybe four or 5 entire bitches are in the household. Why should that person be subject to the same conditions as someone with 30 bitches?

> Then please may I have some clarification can someone descibe to me exactly what you consider to be a hobby breeder in terms of how many breeding bitches a person owns and how many litters you would expect a hobby breeder to produce in any given time say a year to five years?&nbsp;
>
>

I did that in my earlier post when you asked that.

> i don't see how they can be compared to hobby breeders when the volume of dogs they keep is off the scale

An average hobby breeder won't breed in 20 years the number of puppies that in Pats example the man had bitches to breed from!

> believe the thinking was simply to capture all those that were breeding puppies for sale earlier before they reach the stage where they had large numbers of dogs,

Now this I have a problem with, the assumption here seems to be that all breeders are puppy farmers in waiting and that when we start breeding it will inevitably be for commercial reasons. 

This couldn't be further from the hobby breeders/enthusiasts reality.

To rear a litter with loving care yourself takes time and effort and this cannot be done on anything but a small scale, especially as it ineeds to be fitted around your dog hobby. 

> The puppy trade is such a clandestine operation with dog breeders selling puppies by the thousands to dealers and pet shops

Stop the sale of puppies and kittens from anyone but the breeder or stud dog owner.  Existing law already requires puppies are traceable so fine the pet shops and dealers if they cannot furnish the requited records and get the breeders that way.

The laws already exist.  Enforcement is the issue and new layers of laws won't change that.

Good breeders are all about traceability, we KC register our puppies, many of us permanently identify all puppies by Tattoo (because they keep the breeders details for good) or microchip, we are proud of the pups we breed, and proud of our breeding efforts, but made to feel we are something evil by being associated with those whose only interest in dogs is their commercial exploitation.

Then please may I have some clarification can someone descibe to me exactly what you consider to be a hobby breeder in terms of how many breeding bitches a person owns and how many litters you would expect a hobby breeder to produce in any given time say a year to five years? 
When in your view should a hobby breeder cease to be a hobby breeder and be considered to be breeding commercially and therefore should in your view not be considered excempt from licensing in the proposed new Welsh Legislation?

This is where even the very issue of terminology becomes cause for debate...and procrastination....and inevitably more layers of beurocracy... and more paragraphs to cover the last paragraph....but exclude people who may object to the sub-paragraph of the afore mentioned clause under section 287a) paragraph 189....limited to...but not excluding any such person who may be considered exempt under sub-heading 22) clause 105) under paragraph 12b)

It just gets so tangled up in red tape that nobody is even able to understand it.....let alone implement it :)

IE your definition of "hobby breeder" is unlikely to be the same as my definition of "hobby breeder"

Pat...I am with you all the way that something needs to be done URGENTLY to stop the abuse...and Pupsy I would be there with you in a heartbeat to rescue these poor lost souls who are suffering...while the red tape continues to tangle....and Rome burns amongst the fiddlers...

But in my view......there just needs to be one law....of one sentence...

It is illegal to buy a puppy from any person other than the person who also owns and loves the puppy's mother....and anywhere other than a residential home.

-------------------------

Stop the sale of puppies and kittens from anyone but the breeder or stud dog owner.

B...I so much agree with you....it would be the single most important piece of legislation that could be passed....to stop the vile trade in innocent lives.

Welfare issues would be immediately apparent the minute a potential puppy buyer walked through the door...and if cruelty and welfare issues were immediately apparent....then the buyer can walk out...pick up the phone and call the RSPCA.

(Ok....I might need just one clause.... it is perfectly acceptable for BCs to be covered in mud during rainy seasons...if this should be the case..please come back in an hours time and review shiny glossy gleaming coats as previously described)  :)

The Dogs Trust are dissapointed and frustrated with the delay too.

http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/mediacentre/newsreleases/pr11dogstrustwalesassemblygovernmentstatement.aspx

Pat, I was just reading in the latest edition of Your Dog magazine that, as well as the reduction in the number of 'breeding bitches' (the magazine article doesn't define what constitutes a breeding bitch) and the advertising of 10 or more puppies making a breeding licence compulsory, animals "must be kept in premises consistent with commercial dog breeding". That would mean anyone breeding a single litter would have to keep their bitch in a kennel, not the family home; and that would be most undesirable.

Some breeds can have 10+ pups in one litter so that isn't going to work for those who only have the occassional litter.

Most folk don't have the facilities/room for a seperate kennel at a domestic property.

Exactly. The wording, as it stands, deserves to fail.

I have just spent the last three months rearing my two litters (13 puppies, which some breeds have in just one litter) that unusually have fallen close together.  One (herself a product of an overseas stud to enlarge gene pool) had missed on last season and has long inter season intervals and it was two years since her first litter.

The other her half sister at 2 1/2 was travelling for a long planned liaison abroad, and I did not want to risk travel in the heat of summer.

I couldn't or would not want to rear my puppies in a kennel environment.  I do have a kennel that acts as a 'bedroom' for some fo my dogs used at night time only, and as daytime shelter when pups are playing outdoors.

As it is I have to take care and not let pups outside too early in the morning so as their play/demands do not wake/annoy the neighbours (next door did have a word about it when the little dears were wanting out at 6am, and playing noisy tag.

Fortunately it seems that them shouting the odds from the puppy pen under the breakfast bar in the kitchen does not carry enough to annoy, so I just have to cover my head with the covers when they do wake and want to go out.

The proposed tightened rules just do not take into account 'serious breeding' that is so much more than just producing puppies. 

It doesn't acknowledge that breeding plans are dependent on so many things, other than the simple biology of bitches coming in season, which is all the 'commercial' breeder contends with. 

We have show and work schedules to think about as the serious show or working breeder does have to earn a living (and not from the dogs), and pay for their dog hobby, travel arrangements, availability of studs when we want to use them (dogs can be away showing or working, booked to another bitch, or owners unavailable, dog too old, not old enough or not had the health tests through on time etc etc.

There is no way this kind of breeding as part of ouralready expensive canine hobbies can be simply fitted into red tape, and there is no reason for it to do so as the volume of pups produced is negligible compared to commercial breeders breeding as a living.

We are constantly told of the bitches kept in large numbers in poor conditions, and then that anyone breeding two litters needs to be included with such, as invariably the small scale breeder will become a puppy farmer over time breeding more and more.

If all breeders end up wrapped and constrained by Red tape and licensing this might happen (an extra litter) for them simply to afford to breed, so having the reverse effect. 

The current rules with anything from the fifth litter in any 12 months is quite adequate.  Putting a number as in number of pups is wrong as no breeder can tell in advance how many pups may be born or survive.

I have had a litter of 3 and a litter of 9.  It is uncommon but litters of 14 have been born and reared in my breed, though the average of pups reared is 6.  I have most often had either 4 or 7 pups.

After the pups all finally go to new homes (at least another 3 weeks) I can finally concentrate on my new puppy and certainly won't feel ready for another litter for 18 months to two years, if the girls co-operate of course.

Maybe if you have not read already, here are the 574 responses to the WA consultation proposals for dog breeding.  They make interesting and enlightening reading but have to admit I have not read a fraction of the 574, how they are going to wade through this amount I do not know.

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/drah/consultation/110311bdaconsultationen.pdf   

Must say that having just recently had two puppies chipped at £28 each that I really dislike the inclusion of only chipping as a method for permanent identification (to aid traceability) of puppies, as this then creates a monopoly.

I have had every puppy I have ever bred ear tattooed by the Dog Tattoo Register, and they always keep the breeders details permanently on record.

The cost a fraction of that charged for chipping by my local vets at only £7 per puppy plus a £20 registration fee for the litter, and they come to you to do it, so much better than hauling a litter of pups to your vet or paying for a cal out on top of the cost.