So at the end of the day trying to close all the loopholes is a nightmare.

Pat,

This is my point.   Without specific legislation to ensure that COUNCILS are accountable and WILL be heavily fined for not ensuring the law regarding puppy farming/selling is followed, then all efforts will be a waste of time.   This is the legislation that is really needed.  This would instantly close the loopholes that allow this vile trade to continue.

If current legislation (both the breeding and sale of dogs Welfare Act, and Animal welfare Act)were properly enforced it would make puppy farming far less profitable and improve conditions in commercial kennels (as long as such are still legal ;( ) much better.

It could be ensured that the breeding animals had proper housing, exercise, staffing levels adequate to attend to their needs as 'companion' animals and not livestock.

If the legal requirement for proper record keeping by both breeders and Pet shops and dealers were enforced then maybe bitches really would not have puppies in under 12 months from last litter, the breeders could be easily traced and identified, puppy buyers would know where the pups came from.

All this is current legislation, adding more won't change the lack of enforcement and adding small scale reputable/ethical hobby breeders won't help do anything but add money to council coffers and take it away from animal lovers.

The breeding and Sale of Dogs Welfare Act provides a perfectly good framework basing commercial breeding quite rightly on number of litters, set at a level that would not interfere with true hobby breeding.  The only thing that might be needed is stiffer penalties for not complying.

I would of course prefer the outlawing of third party sales of puppies by Pet shops and Dealers, but it won't happen as it is considered a legitimate trade unfortunately.

The small scale Back Yard commercially motivated breeder could most easily be restricted by the animal Welfare Act re facilities and care.

Barbara,

I totally agree.

But I have a feeling that none of this is of any interest to those involved in the consultations and it is falling on deaf ears. 

The problem is that the will to be effective regarding enforcing the laws as they currently stand is lacking.  The consultations are an exercise in public relations and all involved want "TO BE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING" rather than actually DO something effective.

This endless TALKING UP of changing legislation is proof of this.    Changes could have been made effective months/ YEARS ago if there was the will to do so.  Instead of which those who should have long since sorted out this mess are still TALKING. 

And they will still be talking years from now.  Whether they bring in new legislation or not. 

Because they are not interested in stopping puppy farming, just in making a lot of noise and capturing a lot more money from law abiding breeders

> There's no point in trying to alter legislation regarding the licensing laws if it's still accepted that commercial scale breeding should continue.

Hear hear!!

There seems to be a prevailing perception that 'good breeders' cannot breed sufficintly to meet the demand for puppies therefore it is inevitable that commercial breeders exist to plug the gap. This was stated by Caroline Kisco in relation to the planning application being accepted. Yet we are continually being told that buyers need to be educated to avoid puppies bred in these places. So I'm wondering what puppy buyers are deemed 'suitable' to own one of these commercially bred animals - is there meant to be an underclass of owner to provide a ready market for sub standard dogs? Dogs should not be viewed in the same way as the value brand in the supermarket, a superior product for some and a cut-price, no frills alternative for the great unwashed. More or less the same situation exists in farming, the public have decided that they must have chicken as cheaply as possible now it is regarded as a staple food rather than a luxury, so the intensively reared chicken has arisen to meet the demand. Those that can afford to, buy welfare standard chicken. But the rest, so long as a cheaper product is available, will continue to purchase it rather than go without on the basis of ethics. So long as it is possible to look in the paper, pop down the road and hand over cash for a cheap, no questions asked puppy, people will continue to buy them.

> I would of course prefer the outlawing of third party sales of puppies by Pet shops and Dealers, but it won't happen as it is considered a legitimate trade unfortunately.
>
>

Then this needs to change. Other activities that were considered legitimate 20, 50, 200 years ago are now regarded as completely abhorrent. A 'hearts and minds' campaign is needed so that this becomes something consigned to history.

Quite agree!!!! 

Can't understand why the canine charities haven't campaigned for this to happen for years.

This one action would probably curtail the vast majority of puppy farming, exposing the activities to general public scrutiny if every puppy had to be sold direct to the public.

Puppy owners take up a huge amount of a breeders time, so I can't see a PF welcoming loads of potential owners, especially with limited staff!!!

> Without specific legislation to ensure that COUNCILS are accountable and WILL be heavily fined for not ensuring the law regarding puppy farming/selling is followed, then all efforts will be a waste of time. 

We shouldn't need a law to say that an existing law is enforced. and if we get one and that doesn't work what then? another law to enforce the law that enforces the current legislation?

If the will to enforce the current law is not there then I don't suppose a new enforcement law will work either.
But don't ask me what the answer is cos I have no idea.  :(

Hear Hear Tricolours and Brainless...!

If a puppy could legally ONLY be bought from the Guardian of The puppy's Mother...and not via dealers or petshops...it would be the single crucial factor that would curtail the over-production..and mass farming of dogs...and consequently reduce the sheer Volume of dogs currently ending up in rescue homes....

Tricolours it certainly does need a "Hearts and Minds" campaign...! :)

KC registered or not...a Dog is NOT a Battery Animal...

We shouldn't need a law to say that an existing law is enforced. and if we get one and that doesn't work what then? another law to enforce the law that enforces the current legislation?

If the will to enforce the current law is not there then I don't suppose a new enforcement law will work either.
But don't ask me what the answer is cos I have no idea

Which is entirely my point ;)

I can assure you that the answer isn't MORE legislation in the manner which is being promoted by the WA etc. as the current legislation has not worked due to lack of will to enforce it by local government.

There seems to be a prevailing perception that 'good breeders' cannot breed sufficintly to meet the demand for puppies therefore it is inevitable that commercial breeders exist to plug the gap

Absolutely!

The rescues are full of these cut price, bought on a whim pups and the Kennel Club needs to wise up, there is no gap to fill.   The idea of a "Gap in the market" is entirely a marketing idea for increasing the income of a company.

 

As some of you already know, Carmarthenshire county council have recently passed planning consent on what is in effect a battery farm for dogs. 210 dogs,
2 people to look after them and the dogs are fed mechanically. Our petition to the Welsh Government calls for an independent enquiry into the planning
processes.  We (Welsh Dogs Advisory Group)have decided to attack the councils this way as there is a nice cosy arrangement between the councils and the Welsh Government about complaints procedures. We wa to stress the adverse impact on tourism this unsatisfactory state of affairs will have as more and more people perceive the processes as corrupt and incompetent.

BBC Wales will be running a program on this and we hope to get air time both locally and nationally. The ,more signatures we can bet the more impact we can have.

If you havent already done so please sign it, ask your friends to sign and cajole your enemies too!!

Here is the link:
https://www.assemblywales.org/gethome/e-petitions/epetition-list-of-signatories.\htm?pet_id=624

We have cleared the 3000 signature mark for the petition. This is brilliant, thanks to everyone who has signed, cajoled others to sign and taken the hard
copy petitions around the shows. ..........Now if we could just get to
4000...................

Colin

Well said Dill and others.

Perhaps I'm being naive but isn't there one very simple solution to this?  Ie, the RSPC regularly shut down any commercial operation or private home where there's evidence of cruelty, neglect or inadequate animal welfare standards.  Surely they must know about this place?  Why can't they just go in and close it down, they have the legal means to do so.

Sorry if I'm missing something!

They have to have enough evidence in law, not just what we believe to be unacceptable (ie, the law says that as long as an animal has food, water and shelter they can't seize it just because it's not being treated the way we'd all like) and obtain a court order to close places down. They can't do it themselves - they're not a legal agency.

hmmm... bitches giving birth on bare concrete (according to one report) is acceptable to them?  Inadequate bedding, exercise, care (1.5 workers for 196 dogs + pups) - I mean perhaps I've been watching too much TV, but on the 'Animal 24/7' prog (just one example) owners do get taken to court for welfare issues like that by the RSPCA.

AND they are accredited breeders, says it all

Hello Zuluhour!
Interested in why you have commented on a 4 month old thread and not sure what you mean by your remark.
Who are accredited breeders and do you mean assured?

Interested in why you have commented on a 4 month old thread

Reckon I could make a good guess!

The "farm" makes £100,000 - £200,000 profit per annum

A seeming major omission, they make the proffit from 'registred' pedigreed dogs.

A common sense assumption is that puppy farm dogs are KC registered pedigrees. For a dog to be a registered pedigree breed the farmer must buy a registration with KC. The KC buisness deal is that a puppy farmer produces the product and then KC charges 2 fees per dog for their registration part of the buisness deal, one fee per dog from litter owner & another from the new owner if that owner wants to register their new pup with KC.

So, professional business breeders and KC are what is commonly known as connected business partners i.e. they make their money & build their business from breeding dogs, breeder breeds them and KC ups the value by registration. Without KC no breeder can develop a well paying puppy farm business from pedigree dogs & without puppy farmers KCs income would plummet.


Meanwhile, in Europe, fit for purpose breeding tests have been mandatory by all working breed clubs for numerous decades. Breeding dogs in Europe is hard work.

FCI Extract.

· Dogs with eliminating faults such as e.g. unsound temperament, congenital deafness or blindness, hare-lip, cleft palate, substantial dental defects or jaw anomalies, PRA, epilepsy, cryptorchidism, monorchidism, albinism, improper coat colours or diagnosed severe hip dysplasia may not be bred.

·  With regard to surfacing hereditary defects, e.g. HD or PRA, the FCI member countries and contract partners are obliged to record affected animals, combat these defects in a methodical manner continuously record their development and report to the FCI on this matter when requested.

·  The FCI, its member countries and contract partners are supported by the Scientific Commission in relation to evaluation, assistance and advice in combating hereditary defects.  In case the Scientific Commission would issue a catalogue of measures, the same shall be binding on being adopted by the FCI General Committee.

http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/Breeding_EN.doc
.

What do you mean, I am like us all, very concerned about the poor bitches shut up in these hell holes, and giving birth to pups with no proper social inter action, so please explain your comment, the kennel club should be ashamed of them selves awarding them an assured breeder, it makes a mockery of all the other breeders who have this, Which is why so many of us won't join.
Only just got back on line

"the kennel club should be ashamed of them selves awarding them an assured breeder"

Is that really true?
Where did you find that?

"the kennel club should be ashamed of them selves awarding them an assured breeder"
Is that really true?
Where did you find that?

Agree it could well be hearsay and that amounts to nothing but hot air, if you have proof then give us links.

Hi Hethspaw,

Registered where? KC or one of the other registries? Both happen but some ask for more info than others.
I can take you to at least 2 puppy farms where NONE of the dogs are KC registered and the owners both seem to do VERY well out of it.

Jeff.

> A common sense assumption is that puppy farm dogs are KC registered pedigrees.

That is a common assumption yes - ;)
...but there are other registries which are popular with the puppy farmers. There is one where you can register any dog under any name, as any breed, with any parents you care to provide, with no checks on ancestors or verification of breed etc. So the puppies are advertised as "registered" and buyers are duped into believing those registrations are valid.

You see just because I and lots of others won't become assured breeders with the KC and yet breed beautiful pups, reared to a very high standered, with all the necessary health tests in place and indate eye certs, with in the recommended averages for hips, we are now being slated by the kennel club, and they are advising buyers not to touch us with a barge pole,it was in the dog world companion spring edition, page 14, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and I quote
Don't take chances by buying a puppy from someone who is not prepared to sign up to such an initiative.
Assured breeders agree to health test their breeding animals, where applicable.
so there you go.

Well just because we don't join the scheme, does not mean we do not keep our tests in place and upto date, and rear our pups well, and give out all the necessary information. A lot of us do, but feel we don't want the kc to tell us what we have to do all the time, not to mention line their pockets yet again.

Many of us may agree with you there but in your previous post you seem to be stating that these particular puppy farmers have been awarded assured breeder status by the KC.
the kennel club should be ashamed of them selves awarding them an assured breeder

The new member Zuluhour has posted on two threads, and made, as yet, unfounded accusations about others and the KC but up to now, despite being asked, has made absolutely no attempt to explain where her information is coming from or what it is.

This is why, at shows, you have to pay a fee to make a complaint. It stops some of the mud-stirrers.

This is why, at shows, you have to pay a fee to make a complaint. It stops some of the mud-stirr

Imagine the chaos if you could just make a complaint, no cost, no comeback. Do not think people should keep quite if they think something is wrong but they do have to justify their accusations or they can't be surprised if people start to doubt their innocence and begin to think them just troublemakers.

I think the poster mentioned is confusing the pupy farm being REGISTERED BREEDERS (which means licensed by their Local Authority as commercial breeders breeding more than four litters a year) and the Kennel Club registraion and Assured BreederScheme.

I also believe that the main puppy farm registry also run an accredited breeder scheme, or maybe just a (meaningless) COE???

I think the poster mentioned is confusing the pupy farm being REGISTERED BREEDERS

Would have thought that as well Barbara if the same poster was not running another breeder hate thread and giving no details there either. (May be I am over sensitive but to chuck the dirt around and then shut up when asked to verify seems suspicious to me)

>I also believe that the main puppy farm registry also run an accredited breeder scheme

Yes, they do. Another way to fool the public into thinking it's reputable.

to chuck the dirt around and then shut up when asked to verify seems suspicious to me)
Me too!

For your information, you will all be very shortly confirmed to, it is senstive and one of the members I have replied to pm and she has now confirmed for me, I am sure she will post soon.

It is for all to see on the puppy sales site, but you have to have access to cross back to the breed record sups from the KC in the toys retreivers uty etc, and buy the books every 3 months. I am not a trouble maker, I want what is fair for everyone, and the public not to be hood winked

It was in the dog papers a while back

All too vague and woolly for me!
What puppy sales site? What does the BRS tell you? It doesn't say whether a breeder is assured or not.
If you are saying that the KC shouldn't allow puppy farm puppies to be registered - fair enough, but that doesn't mean the breeders are "assured"

Am I the only one confused here lol??

No your not Boody. There is nothing to stop someone producing pups as a business and still being within the KC rules, airy fairy accusations are not at all helpful. If this is the sort of "complaint" being put forward then I am not surprised no action is being taken, would go straight into the waste bin if all it contains is innuendo and no defined and accurate information

> What does the BRS tell you? It doesn't say whether a breeder is assured or not.

The BRS lists the initials KCAB in brackets after the name of the breeder if they're members of the ABS (took me a while to notice this!)

[BRS lists the initials KCAB]
Thank you! You live & learn. I find the print in the BRS is getting smaller every year - just like newspapers and books!

we are now being slated by the kennel club, and they are advising buyers not to touch us with a barge pole,it was in the dog world companion spring edition, page 14, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and I quote
Don't take chances by buying a puppy from someone who is not prepared to sign up to such an initiative.
Assured breeders agree to health test their breeding animals, where applicable.
so there you go.

Although they did not name individuals you might have a claim for small claims liable & damages.

It's this particular implication which might make it liable, "Assured breeders agree to health test their breeding animals", it imples a couple of things, that only KC assured breeders have health tests, that non KC asured are unhealthy, that a buyer is at risk of an unspecified something to their detriment if they dont have KC assured ("dont take chances").

At worst you might loose or you might not, it doesn't cost much to find out, I think you pay so much for every grand you claim, the max claim in small claims is £5k, the levels of evidence are quite low. It would be great if a few breeders such as you got together and chucked in for the costs just to try a test case, if you won everyone who is not an assured breeder could claim and that could cause chaos if someone won and ithe result got publicised.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">What does the BRS tell you? It doesn't say whether a breeder is assured or not.<br />

Actually in the BRS "Assured breeders" have KCAB next their names, so if it does not show this next to the litter registration details then they were not assured at the time that litter was registered.

Of course the BRS comes out a long time after the first registrations in it, and you have to pay to get them.

What would be more helpful is open access to KC registrations real time as you have in Finland for example on their Koiranet.

That would make things a lot easier to spot, and report when it would still do some good.

Of course the KC now finally now do require those who register more than five litters to verify they hold a breeders licence from their LA.

Puppy farming and commercial breeding are sadly perfectly legal.