"Minimal Input for Maximum output"
"This young man is a credit"
"The way forward for dog breeding"

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Defiant-campaigners-vow-continue-puppy-farm/story-13280410-detail/story.html

I am horrified that the dogs can be treated like a commodity at that councillor hazel should be made to sleep in the farm for a week, see how she likes it :-(

Disgusted and as for the councellor words fail me

Disgraceful, how those councillors can seriously allow this concentration camp to operate is shameful, makes you wonder if their greasy palms have been crossed with silver.

It was quoted in another local Welsh newspaper (may have been the same newspaper group) that another  local Councillor said this is the 'modern method of dog breeding'.  How out of order is that.

I have my comments on the newspaper article, please add your comments too it may make a few welsh residents see the otherside such as reputable ethically dog breeding.  

Either these councillors are appallingly ignorant of basic animal care and welfare or there's a 'trail' between them and the applicant - I know what my opinion is ;)

As I have stated before.

New legislation will be pointless.  Unless the present laws on animal welfare are  being enforced NOTHING will change.   And with IDIOTS  like these councillors having a hand in encouraging such appalling breeding practise there is no hope at all of eliminating puppy farms.

What we really need is new legislation to make COUNCILS like Carmarthenshire Council culpable for not enforcing animal welfare laws.   A nice fat fine for the council for this kind of attitude would go a long way to eliminating puppy farming in a very short time.

Its disgusting,how can the councillors be so ignorant and unaware of the suffering of these poor dogs?
The fact that automated feeders and drinkers are going to be used is shocking-so these puppies are going to be reared having hardly seen humans at all then sold as family pets.

Ironic that so much is being done to improve the welfare of battery hens and phase out battery systems in this country entirely, and there's Carmarthen shire busily promoting and encouraging the self same system but applied to a creature with way more complex social structure than hens. Despicable. 

We regularly take our holidays in Wales. Carmarthenshire  is now off our list of destinations. The "farm" makes £100,000 - £200,000 profit per annum. Wonder how much the area gains from tourism ? The local councils seem immune to any requests to ban this horrendous "business" on moral and animal welfare grounds but might be more willing to listen once their constituents are up in arms about possible lost revenue from tourists. Innocent locals who themselves oppose the puppy farms will suffer short term but no other approach is having any impact on these idiot councils.

At the foot of the title page for the Discover Camarthenshire tourist organisation is a link that reads, "Spotted any errors on this website?" I'm off to email them the fact that they missed out an invitation to visit the many delightful puppy farms (battery breeding mills) in the county. "See the sickly puppies and their tortured mothers in appalling conditions - don't forget to visit the gift shop before you leave"

Sorry, rant over.

> At the foot of the title page for the Discover Camarthenshire tourist organisation is a link that reads, "Spotted any errors on this website?" I'm off to email them the fact that they missed out an invitation to visit the many delightful puppy farms (battery breeding mills) in the county. "See the sickly puppies and their tortured mothers in appalling conditions - don't forget to visit the gift shop before you leave"
>
>

What a good idea! :)  :)

I may have missed it but does anyone have the address for this 'farm' handy?

I'm going to check for local village/town websites AND write to the council to complain about the Councillors comments.  What a complete &^%$$er  !

Thinking about it, getting in touch with Camarthenshire's MP and the Welsh Assembly Member might have more of an impact - they will be able to ask some very searching questions of the council and it's councillors ;)

This is another thread about the campaign against the planning for this place. The address is on there.

http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/129480pg1.html

Shocking as the decision to grant retrospective permission is, it was predictable. The planning authority can only refuse on material planning grounds. There is a clue in the article--the councillor referred to the objections and said that  the majority of objections received were on welfare issues. It is a disgraceful decision without doubt, but the legislation is very clear. What it shows is that the general public is completely out of its depth with understanding the planning framework and legislation and that applicants can easily hire competent agents (very often ex-local authority planners themselves) who can successfully argue their case. The agents exploit the lay public's natural default to  emotional and welfare arguments knowing that they don't have to engage with these arguments at all. They are secure in the knowledge that planning authorities are vulnerable to very substantial fines if they allow their decision to be influenced by non-planning matters and can often bully a weak authority into giving way.

Pat, is there a body able to appeal the decision and is there potential for the Welsh Assembly calling it in on the grounds that it could impact on a much more significant revenue stream, namely tourism?

Jay I will return to respond to email later.

In the meantime there is an urgent correction that needs to be addressed. The media referred to comments made by a Councillor by the name of Hazel Evans (which many of us have picked up on) however Hazel Evans is a Councillor but not for the area in question but more importantly she did not make the comments reported in the media.

However the comments were made, but by a County Councillor and local town Councillor Mrs Linda Davies Evans (Plaid Cymru) covering the area of Llanllwni for dog breeding premises called Beili Bedw which has 196 dogs.

I would like to publicly appologise to Councillor Hazel Evans for this error and any distress it may have caused having taken my information from the newspaper report and thought it to be accurate at the time..    

I have sent the information to the Dog Advisory Council and asked them if they also agree that "this is the way forward for dog breeding."..and if not they need to be 'advising' pretty  strongly in order to get places like this shut down !

Yvonne

This is quite unbeliavable! I thought the Welsh Government had plans to introduce legislation against puppy farming, so how on earth giving this the thumbs up ties in with that I don't know!

The comments made by the Counciller are staggeringly ignorant in the extreem, however, reading the reported comments on the issue by Caroline Kisco of the KC in the 26/8/11 Dog World, it would appear our governing body doesn't have too much of a problem with this either:
"...it's not surprising that commercial kennels will step in to fill that void. (between the numbers of puppies being bred by 'good' breeders and people wanting a puppy.) "Providing they are able to suppy a healthy environment for bitches and their puppies and allow for proper socialisation and first -class care this would obviously be a big improvement on the appalling puppy farms we all hate. However, we would far rather see puppies bred by responsible breeders in a home envronment..."
Perhaps I have misinterpreted it but it sounds as if she is saying this place is a step up from a puppy farm. How can this development possibly be viewed as providing a 'healthy environment', 'first class care' and 'proper socialisation' when there are to be 96 dogs (presumably not including litters of puppies) to at most, three people!!
I feel the fact the KC has failed to condemn this planning desicion reflects very very poorly on them and perhaps shows just where they do stand on the issue of puppy farms, inspite of recent press releases and campaigns supposedly to the contrary. Shame on you KC!

>This is quite unbeliavable! I thought the Welsh Government had plans to introduce legislation against puppy farming, so how on >earth giving this the thumbs up ties in with that I don't know!

And this is exactly why I think more legislation on breeding is just a smokescreen.  Nothing will change for the large puppy farmers, but small hobby breeders will be targeted so that it looks like the Welsh councils are doing something about puppy farming - "just look how many breeders have to be licensed and checked now" with no mention that hobby breeders were not part of the original problem and ignoring the real problem of large numbers of puppies and dams in appalling situations.

What we need is legislation to bring these councils to understand that allowing appalling places like this to continue will hurt their budget - in fines.

That the Kennel Club doesn't seem to understand this is not a surprise after all if they didn't get all the registrations from commercial breeding they would have a vastly reduced income.

Tricolourlover

There are seperate issues here. The new welsh legislation is not in the statute book as yet therefore it cannot be taken into account.  The planning committee could only look at plannning issues, they could not take into account welfare issues in deciding to approve or to dissaprove this retrospective planning application.
However, the licensing department can and this is something they should have considered since 1994 when the premises had planning permission for 9 dogs only but licensing did not they ignored the growing numbers of dogs on these premises the same as they do in other premises too. Year by year the numbers have increased (info from inspection reports under FOI) until todays figure of 196 dogs. 100 dogs in one shed and 96 in another. The licence come up for renewal on the 21st December it is in the comming weeks months that letters should be written against renewal of the licence - remember one farmer, one wife works for the authority, one full time member of staff and one part time member of staff, 800 sheep, 200 hundred followers, 196 dogs and heaven knows how many puppies at a time to care for all to be sold to dealers and pet shops. An impossible task why doesn't licensing seem to to understand that?  

Dill, I believe the Welsh assembly does want things to change for the large commercial breeding kennels but by the Welsh Kennel Club (hobby breeders) not wanting to be included (they will to keep the five litter rule)it has made the WA look again at the legislation if it is not put in the statute book in its present format (draft) then the changes needed will not be seen to reduce/erradicate large commercial breeders and if that is the case the then the blame may lie at the door of the Welsh Kennel Club and hobby breeders.

The five litter rule may work for dog breeders that register their litters with the KC because the registation is in the public domain (KC breed supplements) and accreditted breeders identify puppies before sale therefore tracabilty in one form or another. The large commercial dog breeders that supply the dealers and pet shops do not (in the majority of cases). Two thirds of all licensed breeders in Carmarthenshire sell their puppies to dealers and pet shops, the vast majority of these do not use the KC or if they do they only register some litters and certainly not all they breed. Why? Because of tracability they do not want to be traced. Licensed breeders are supposed when selling puppies to a licensed pet shop with a collar/tag and their breeder details (this is written in the legislation) but the breeder, dealers and pet shops remove them if they were ever supplied in the first place. Buying a puppy from a dealer or pet shop the puppy will be sold with a 'made up' pedigree, it may have a made up registration certificate such as DLUK neither can be verified if accurate. It may or maynot have the name of a breeder and even some times an address of sorts but invariably not complete and inaccurate.

It is for this reason why it is important to have puppies identifiable but it is important that the paperwork is sold to the purchaser and details are not transfered into the dealers or pet shop name before being sold otherwise tracability back to breeder will be lost.

To revert back to the number of bitches 3 then licensed is workable but the 5 litter rule does not work for controlling breeders that supply puppies for the pet trade. To make it work it will have to include all breeders hobby, back yard and commercial all at the same stand point of 3 breeding bitches.

Monday I have a meeting with Welsh Assembly just the same as the WKC hobby breeders will everyone will have their chance to discuss once more the proposed legislation. I will not be asking the WA to allow hobby breeders to be exempt because I cannot see any reason why there should be one rule for one and another rule for another, to breed from ones dog is a choice. I like family history and for that I have to pay a subscription to ancestory.com, if I am excempt from paying then it is not fair on the ones that have to pay. 

I will certainly be writing Pat!

Can you provide contact details for the appropriate department?

> I cannot see any reason why there should be one rule for one and another rule for another, to breed from ones dog is a choice. I like family history and for that I have to pay a subscription to ancestory.com, if I am excempt from paying then it is not fair on the ones that have to pay. 

Hobby breeders largely loose money,  License fees would price even more people out of being able to breed, exactly those who should be breeding, with love and care for their breed.  Commercial breeders breed in order to make money.

If I had to pay the suggested likely licence fee of around £500 a year I would have to pass this cost onto puppy buyers as would other small scale breeders, for us that is likely to be £100 extra cost per puppy for those of us breeding once a year or so.  This sort of cost cannot be absorbed the way it is in a large scale commercial operation.

This would further encourage puppy buyers into the arms of puppy farmers who can afford to charge less, with smaller per capita expenses.

The old License fee was based on number of breeding bitches and that was found to be flawed, as what is a breeding bitch?  Many of us who show and/or work our dogs will have more than 3 entire bitches, some will be too young according to our ethics to breed from, some will not be good enough to breed from, and some will be retired after a couple of litters but still of breeding age.

There were/are many back yard breeders with only two bitches, who will mate each every season, producing 3 or four litters a year.  Would it be fair that they would be exempt when an exhibitor, obedience competitor that rarely bred, or only a litter or maybe two some years had to pay a high fee because they choose to keep three bitches entire.

As you have said those of us openly breeding under the kennel club umbrella are transparent, we already pay fees to have a kennel name, another fee for the Assured Breeder scheme and to register each puppy, and further most of us also permanently identify our puppies, so there is full traceability.  We are not the problem, as you say our activities are public record and can easily be checked.

We already pay fees to take part in our hobbies and costs related to breeding, so your analogy with ancestry.com does not hold water, as we pay for our hobbies, to those providing breeder and exhibitor services.  What service would we receive for our Licence fee?  For our TV Licence we get to watch TV.

Yesterday one of my more local shows, just 106 miles each way, £45 diesel, £75 in entry fees for two dogs, and then had to buy a rosette (ranged from £4 upwards) in order to comemorate our Best Puppy win.  Then there was a pressie (bottle of White) for my good friend/neighbour who looked in on the 3 remaining at home, others have to pay a dog sitter.

Brainless
The new draft legislation states
(2) It is unlawful for any person to keep 3 or more breeding bitches and -
(a) breed two 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 a 12 month period;
(d) advertise a business of breeding and selling puppies;
(e) occupy premises which hold a planning consent authorising dog breeding; or
(f) keep 3 or more breeding bitches in kennel accomodation which an Inspector reasonably believes is consistent with commercial dog breeding.
without the authority of a licence granted under these Regulations.
(3) For the purpose pf paragraph (1) any dog found on the premises will be presumed to be owned by the occupier of those premises until the contrary is proved.

Think the important word here is 3 breeding bitches ("breeding bitch" is an unneutered female dog over the age of 6 months)and the word and

Brainless, I do not know, because I am not aware of your circumstances, if you would be classified in the above and need to be licensed or that you even live in Wales.

But the £500 licence fee that you suggest as far as I am aware is not correct but I will certainly raise this tomorrow, the draft refers to 'any appropriate fee'.

>(a) breed two or more litters of puppies in any 12 month period;
>(b) advertise 10 or more puppies for sale in any 12 month period;

Bearing in mind that, over all breeds, the average litter is reckoned to be 8 puppies, these two parts are contradictory and discriminatory, and need to be rationalised.

Someone having a single small litter doesn't need a licence, and someone having a single large litter (which you won't know beforehand) does.

As Dill rightly said, any new legislation is pointless when the current legislation is flouted and not enforced.

Tricolourlover, the address to write to is as follows:

Public Protection

Head of Public Protection - Philip Davies
3 Spilman Street
Carmarthen
Carmarthenshire
SA31 1LE
Tel: 01267 228706
Fax: 01267 221616
Email: PHDavies@carmarthenshire.gov.uk

or if you wish to address your concerns to the Director it is Bruce McLernon, County Hall, Carmarthen, Carmarthenshire, SA31 1JP Tel 01267 228703
Email: BMcLernon@carmarthenshire.gov.uk 

Thank you I will raise that point.

thanks pat, I will write in--do you have details of the licence or is this available on the county council's website?

If you do a search on 'http://www.ukplanning.com/carmarthenshire/search/index.htm' for Beili Bedw you will be able to find them. If you look at the application marked 'current' and view the 3rd from last document, there are pictures of the establishment.

So anyone having this limited one litter a year had better pray for 9 pups or less, do you cull the ones over 9 that Mother Nature produced with no influence on numbers by the breeder?

Totally ridiculous, they can't police the breeders with licences now so how are they going to manage the small time hobby breeder?

I haven't had a litter for over 2 yrs and it was a single pup, I couldn't afford £500 per annum just in case I produce a litter.

> (b) advertise 10 or more puppies for sale in any 12 month period;
> (c) supply 10 or more puppies to any person in a 12 month period;

My breed averages 9 to 10 pups a litter and up to 15 have been recorded. My friends bitch had 12 pups (all surviving) in her last litter and she is due to have a litter soon. On being scanned at a regular health check the vet counted 11 then said and there appears to be another 2 or 3 under the ribs.

So how could somebody who has a breed which produces large litters sell pups? Not that I would want to scam anyone or break any laws but if my friends bitch had 12 puppies again she would need to find homes for 12 puppies. OK most were booked before the bitch was mated but if a breeder had not got any puppies sold prior to mating how would they manage? would they have to keep two?

Why is the figure of £500 being quoted the licence fees for carmarthenshire dog breeders are as follows
Vets fees £150
Up to 10 dogs £75.00
11  to 25 dogs £100
25 to 50 dogs £200
51 to 80 dogs £225
over 80 dogs £250 dogs
In the proposed legislation the licence will be for 3 years so is this where the larger sum has come from I wonder but for under 10 dogs 3 x £75 is £225 for 3 years.

parrysite, the link you gave is for planning. Most Councils use the model standard licence conditions for dog breeding under the Breeding of Sale Dogs (welfare) Act 1999, this can be found by searching with google  

No I don't live in Wales, I live in a suburb, in a 3 bedroom home, with until last month 6 bitches (having lost the oldest at almost 14 last month).  I do own 3 entire bitches over 6 months old, but do not consider a bitch to be a breeding bitch until two years old in line with my breeds breed clubs code of ethics.  Until last week when she turned 8 had I not spayed her after her last litter (many people prefer to keep their bitches entire due to coat changed, high rate of spay incontinence in the breed etc) I would have had four entire bitches under 8 years old.

On average I breed a litter a year, but they are not automatons, some years the two litters will be less than 12 months apart other times two years apart.

My last 3 litters were May 2010 (from my now 8 year old girl as I like to have a litter before they are 7), she had missed on the previous season.  Then January 2011 her daughter who last had a litter two years earlier (had also missed on previous mating 9 months earlier), and I also had a litter February 2011, which I did not want to put off until the next season due to weather restrictions in flying to the USA in force may to September, feeling it safer to travel in winter (and we had all that bad weather to contend with, with airports closing etc, but somehow we made it).

Now I won't be breeding again until the end of 2012.  That made it 3 litters (18 puppies) in a space of 12 months, yet I have bred 18 litters in that many years, averaging just under 6 puppies per litter (most often 4 - 7) as the needs of my breeding program dictate.  Many breeds have more than 10 puppies in a litter, so even the once in a blue moon breeder would get caught into licensing.

Now I am in a breed that last year had only 31 puppies registered.

The first bitch is a daughter of a dog I and 3 friends imported and put through quarantine at great cost, the second her daughter was conceived in Finland (again costly) so bringing in new bloodlines, and the last a half sister of the second was taken abroad to again expand the UK gene pool.  In fact the puppy I kept out of the litter of 5 cost me over $1000, as that is the loss I made, and had the Stud dog owner not kindly put me up for 12 days ti would have cost a lot more, but she too id it for the love of our breed, ending up with one of the puppies which cost her a pretty sum to ship over there.

As you can see I do not begrudge investing what little financial resources I have in what I feel will benefit my breed and breeding plans.  This does not include handing over money to a Local Authority for no benefit to my dogs, just so that they can take in money and issue licenses to those who breed in the stack em high sell em cheap manner minimal outlay maximum profit manner.  I resent even being included in with such.  The commercial breeding as in some areas in the USA will be all that is left, they may brush up their ideas and facilities to meet basic requirements re space and cleanliness, but nothing else.

Those like myself with limited resources will be forced to give up breeding for the love of our dogs and hobbies.

What those not in dog hobbies or breeding on the basis of being custodians of our breeds with aims above simple reproduction don't understand is that breeding for us is not breeding simply to produce a litter of puppies to sell, but breeding with goals in mind. 

The commercial breeder is simply producing a product to sell.   For us the purpose of selling of any puppies is about sharing the love we have for our breeds with others, some of who one hopes will also join us in becoming breed custodians and devotees, and future breeders, as without such breeders we will not have our breeds which we try to breeding to the best of our ability to safeguard for future generations to enjoy..

This is just a draft, is it not? As with most things of this nature there are problems but personally I don't think this legislation is the problem. The problem will be that we have a horrible habit in the UK of going after the easy targets. The list of supposedly noble people and organisations that have done virtually nothing to stop puppy farms is long and distinguished (no disrespect to you Pat - keep fighting the fight!) from councils to prominent charities yet the scourge of the canine world is the show breeder - apparently.
As for not advertising 10 or more puppies a year and not supplying any person with 10 or more puppies in the same period - no problem. If one has a large breed and can reasonably expect a big litter then the vast majority of us surely have puppies booked? I do realise "sold" and booked are not the same but even so.
As I understand it this type of legislation will target the unlicensed puppy farm/farmers but the bigger operations that have a licence can continue with impunity!
Jeff.

Good post Brainless this totally sums up what a good breeder will do and what a puppy farmer/commercial breeder is not interested in doing.

Forgot to add that the May 2010 litter of 5 pups needed a C section after the first puppy, so definitely unprofitable. 

I wonder what a puppy farmer would have done after the first pup was born and then the bitch was obviously distressed (they probably wouldn't know the bitch well enough to recognise she was in trouble and this was not just distress at birth).

I suspect she would have had minimal supervision, and would have probably either delivered the rest of the litter dead, or died trying, as it would not have been worth the Puppy farmers while to spend between £500 and £1500 (depending on time of day) for the C section.

Though I doubt they would have kept her until 6 1/2 as she would long since have been worn out producing the legal 6 litters, plus any others undocumented.  Not like my girls who will hopefully spend 7 years in peaceful retirement from motherhood, with just some shows to attend to in addition to their normal home life.

Over 80 dogs!!!!
I have seen these figures before and each time it shocks me anew that keeping/breeding from 80+ dogs in on establishment is even considered acceptable. Why oh why is it the minimum figures proposed in the legislation which are under discussion when in reality, it is the sheer lack of any maximum which ought to be giving the greatest cause for concern??

In spite of the shockingly high numbers of dogs being killed (yes I'm being deliberatly blunt) every day because there are not enough homes, there continues to prevail some idea that 'good breeders' simply cannot supply enough puppies to meet the demand. Even the KC subscribes to this myth. Not only that but the old chestnut that educating the public is the key to ending puppy farming. There will always be a significant element of prospective owners who don't care two hoots about health tests, rearing conditions, socialisation or anything else. They just want an easily obtainable, cheap pup with no questions asked. If it gets sick, becomes a nuisance or gets old and borning then no matter  -  dump it on a rescue and go out and buy another. Easy come easy go is the motto of today. If someone isn't prepared to invest some patience, time, effort and money into getting the right puppy then as likely as not, they are not going to make a very good owner either. So long as there is a market for these poorly bred puppies in the form of people that decent breeders would never sell to, the trade in misery will continue I'm afraid.

All you ever need to know about puppy farming is on the Many Tears website.
If you've never had a look, go on....
And most of their ex-breeding bitches, stud dogs and defective pups are from UK puppy farmers. God only knows what happens to the rejects from the huge Irish farms.

It could be made a lot easier for all concerned if it was compulsory for dogs to be identifiable by their breeder and all puppies produced identifiable before sold. Then if it was made illegal for a puppy to be sold by any  one other than the breeder that owns the dam it would put a full stop to the dealers and pet shops wh rely upon the commercial breeders in Wales and the unlicensed breeders in Eire for there regular supply of puppies.

We do not need third party selling of puppies from dealers and pet shops, if we could stop the trading of puppies through the pet trade it would stop puppies comming from Eire to be sold and stop the large commercial breeders in Wales from having somewhere to sell their puppies to. Two thirds of licensed breeders in Carmarthenshire sell their litters to dealers and pet shops (FOI, inspection reports).  
 

Many Tears bring into the UK from Eire many breeding bitches and many, many more puppies than you could possibly imagine. As you so rightly say also many from breeders in Wales

> Many Tears bring into the UK from Eire many breeding bitches and many, many more puppies than you could possibly imagine.

I didn't know that - thanks Pat :)

I also agree that compulsory chipping should be the law - it was recommended in the Bateson Report. While some legitimate show breeders may dislike it - and the BYBs even less - it would go a long way to make thousands of dogs' lives a lot better if they were traceable to source, and the people who are trafficking in them made responsible for their actions.

I don't think it's such a bad step to introduce traceabilty - almost all other trade livestock already have it, and I may be wrong but I think other EU countries already have it as mandatory for dogs.

As I understand it this type of legislation will target the unlicensed puppy farm/farmers but the bigger operations that have a licence can continue with impunity!

Jeff I worry about this too and it is question I shall be asking. I did hope that to introduce staff levels would make some commercial breeders feel it would not be worth the hassle.  However, when Councils will allow the numbers of dogs to increase year by year in premises without placing a ceiling on the numbers, such as Beili Bedw it may still be cost effective for the breeders to employ 8 or more staff when they are easilly obtainable to work on farms from Eastern European countries, when they are are prepared to work for a minimum wage.  It does concern me that this maybe the route some may go down.

> I also agree that compulsory chipping should be the law

I think the method of permanent identification should be left to the breeder.  I personally prefer to have my puppies ear tattooed (every puppy I have bred has been so identified), but do encourage new owners to also chip at a later date (usually with second vaccinations).

The NDTR always keep the breeders details on record, which as yet is not automatic with the many different chip registries, so no traceability to the breeder once new owner details updated.

For a start the tattooist comes to your home and the cost is quite modest.  My local vets all charge over £50 for Microchipping, no discount for litters.

Brainless -yes tattoos should be allowed as well, and are the norm in many European countries :)

Mind you, I have a tattooed rescue girl sleeping at my feet as I type - her tat isn't registered anywhere, and her chip has an Irish prefix despite coming from a UK rescue. There is always the possibility of fraudulent tattoos, but a chip is much more accountable.... well, in theory it is - her chip is Irish but registered to no-one... I can only guess that she was chipped by a rescue there before coming over to a shelter here. When I adopted her I had NO idea she might have come from Ireland. [Doesn't make her any less loveable though and she is a real treasure!]

So - saying that, any tat or chip also has to be registered to someone by law as well - it's not enough to just have one, and that would be a big exploitable loophole for puppy farmers.

> So - saying that, any tat or chip also has to be registered to someone by law as well - it's not enough to just have one, and that would be a big exploitable loophole for puppy farmers.

I agree.

None of the chip companies keep a record of the breeder only the owner and if the dog goes missing and cannot be found after while the chip company assumes the dog has been passed on with the owners knowledge. the dog and chip number is then registered to who ever ends up with the dog. Even if the original owner finds out their pet has been found they cannot get it back as the new owner is the registered keeper.

I was following a case a while back where a dog was stolen, after many months it turned up hundreds of miles away from it's original home. Th vet found the chip and the chip company were contacted but they simply recorded the new owner as the official owner. As far as they were concerned the original owner could have passed the dog on and it might have had one or two homes until it appeared with the people who took it to the vet. The original owner was told it was no longer her dog as the 'new owners' had paid for the dog and registered it's chip number.

Brainless,

I have some interesting information on the price of  C-Sections in Carmarthenshire.   

Cost of a recent emergency C-Section at 2am in St Clears Carmarthenshire @ £200  Cost of a C-section in this area £800 + (small breed)

For people not in Carmarthenshire the cost of vets fees are FAR HIGHER  so I anticipate that 'Vets Fees' will also be higher in areas other than Carmarthenshire :(

The 'professional breeder' I know of keeps a bitch for a few litters and then sells her on usually about 3/4 years old or earlier if she has problems, so no outlay there, if a bitch isn't earning she's sold ;)

I was following a case a while back where a dog was stolen, after many months it turned up hundreds of miles away from it's original home. Th vet found the chip and the chip company were contacted but they simply recorded the new owner as the official owner. As far as they were concerned the original owner could have passed the dog on and it might have had one or two homes until it appeared with the people who took it to the vet. The original owner was told it was no longer her dog as the 'new owners' had paid for the dog and registered it's chip number.

This makes chipping a pointless excercise, the whole reason for me tattooing my pups is that they remain traceable to ME, I would be inconsoleable to find one of my pups was in rescue and I wasn't informed

The whole idea that NEW LEGISLATION is needed is a huge red herring.  Licensing all the small conscientious breeders would bring in large amounts of money to the Council Coffers with little effort on their part, we're easily found and usually exceed their requirements regarding care of our bitches and pups.   The large scale puppy farmer would still be able to carry on regardless. 

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to join the real world - it's evident already.   The planning permission granted in retrospect proves this.  Had this been a private dwelling they'd have had to knock it down (and there are many precedents for this)    Also during this time the numbers of dogs kept increased dramatically, yet they apparently had no trouble with renewing their license despite breaking the terms of it by increasing their operation.

Those who are supposedly trying to stop puppy farming need to wise up.   There's no point in trying to alter legislation regarding the licensing laws if it's still accepted that commercial scale breeding should continue.  It would be more useful if legislation regarding the councils doing their jobs were put in place with huge fines for not making sure that licensed breeders complied with the rules.

> There's no point in trying to alter legislation regarding the licensing laws if it's still accepted that commercial scale breeding should continue.  It would be more useful if legislation regarding the councils doing their jobs were put in place with huge fines for not making sure that licensed breeders complied with the rules.

Here here.

Polly according to Petlog (recent conversation in last couple of days) they do keep a diary record of change of owner from breeder through to each subsequent owner. I think the confusion lies that this diary is not for public release as it is covered by data protection. It was particulary important for me to understand because if the new welsh legislation become law I needed to be certain of the process when a puppy farmer (licensed commercial breeder sells puppies to  dealer and dealer sells to pet shop). Petlog would release the details of the breeder to the licensing authority but not to the general public.

My understanding now is (for proposed new welsh legislation) that the breeder will have to fill in the details of the puppy and microchip number into a passport and those details will have to accompany the puppy and each time the puppy changes hands say to a dealer then pet shop the details have to be entered into the passport. The passport will then be given to the puppy purchaser together with the puppy when sold from the pet shop.
The pet chip company will of course have the details of the breeder but I fear the details of the breeder and dealer will be blanked out (after  puppy leaves breeder) leaving only the microchip number and the pet shop name. I have been assured (meeting today with WA) that this will not be the case but by not tying it up with the conditions of the Pet Animal Act 1951/91 to make pet shops sell puppies with their microchip number AND breeder/dealer name intact in the pet passport it will still leave the breeder and dealer anonymous.
Just the same as with the present legislation when pupppies sold from licensed breeders should be sold with collar and name tag (details of breeder) to comply with The Sale of Dogs (Indentification Tag) Regulations 1999
but the breeders do not like this and those that do comply are told by the dealers that the pet shops do not want the puppies to have details and remove the collars and tags. Councils in England often are not even aware of this legislation when  issueing a pet shop licence and omit to place it as an extra condition on their licence as it is not part of the Pet Animals Act 1951/91 but a seperate Act altogether.
So at the end of the day trying to close all the loopholes is a nightmare.

None of the chip companies keep a record of the breeder only the owner

Don't forget this is about to change with PetLog. For now, any breeder can easily give their own phone number as emergency contact as there are space for 3 different numbers.