Oh dear :(  Whilst some aspects of this may have some truth to them, this campaign does NOTHING to assist the hard efforts of so many decent breeders :(
A bit contradictory too considering the top 6 answers received in response to the poll?

I think there are more pressing issues to campaign for.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/media/news/story/-/article/PuppiesBredForLooksAreBornToSuffer_Dec11

Owners of fashionable pedigree pooches are unaware their "handbag dogs" could be "born to suffer", the RSPCA has said.

Research by the animal charity revealed many people believe pedigree dogs and puppies are healthy, quality animals that come from good breeding stock.

However, the dogs, which are primarily bred for their looks, are vulnerable to unnecessary disease, disability, pain or behavioural problems.

RSPCA senior scientist Claire Calder said: "Everyone needs to be aware of the serious health and welfare problems affecting pedigree dogs and that dogs bred for looks are born to suffer.

"A cute-looking puppy or dog can be hard to resist, but the result of not looking beyond this can be thousands of pounds spent on vets' bills and a pet with long-lasting health and welfare problems. This is one of the biggest challenges facing dog welfare in the UK today."

A survey commissioned by the charity found dog buyers are not doing enough research before getting a new pet.

Pollsters asked 2,127 people what they associate with pure-breed or pedigree dogs. The top six responses were that they are 1.expensive, 2.well bred, 3. from good breeding stock, 4. quality, 5. responsibly bred and 6. healthy

Victoria Stilwell, presenter and dog trainer from the TV show It's Me Or The Dog, said: "I have nothing against dog showing and nothing against responsible breeders.

"But what I do have something against is breeding animals just for the way we want them to look, even though that animal is compromised both physically and, a lot of the time, mentally. So we have to change. Why are we destroying these animals just because we like the way they look?"

The RSPCA is launching a campaign, Bred For Looks, Born To Suffer, in order to raise awareness of the issue

They had a full page ad. in yesterdays Mail on Sunday, featuring a head shot of a pug and the headline Bred for looks, born to suffer.  Also something suggesting all pugs had breathing difficulties.  All I can say is they should come to our "Pugility" sessions where up to 12 pugs at a time have great fun learning agility, flying over all the equipment and never seeming to tire out - certainly no breathing problems from any of them.  The most experience Pugility pug (the group superstar) is now agility Gr 5, and has just gained his Agility  Warrant Bronze - and yes, first he was a show puppy, winning several BPIB at open shows and qualifying Crufts first time out at a Ch. show.

As the RSPCA are apparently against all pedigree dogs, especially show bred ones, and seem to be pushing to be the appointees to have charge policing and running  any future dog breeding legislation you can't help but wonder what the outcome of the AGPAW sessions will be.  Las tI heard the KC had opted out as JH was being allowed to film, so that means no one putting the breeders side then, not even the lacklustre presence of the KC.

it on the facebook page tomorrow she will be answering questions between 1 and 3 i think it was, check out the rspca fb page, or my post from earlier on penfold got the link here http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/134436.html

They had a full page ad. in yesterdays Mail on Sunday, featuring a head shot of a pug and the headline Bred for looks, born to suffer.

I shudder to think what that cost them -money that could have been used on dogs in need!

Ah thanks for pointing that out chelzeagirl (how are you, haven't seen you on here for a while?).  :)

ok thanks getting the run around with my lot as per lol,, Have finally realized the Adults in the house are more trouble than the dogs heehee, i escape when i can ;-) , hope you have a wonderful Christmas and new year x

> I shudder to think what that cost them -money that could have been used on dogs in need!

I assumed that it would be running in other Sundays too, but only get the Mail and Times and it was not in the Times.  Anyone see it in any others?

Pity they do not make the same splash against puppy farming/commercial dog breeding, dealers and pet shops.

Why did they not combine all poor dog related practices together in one clear ad that dog breeding, dealing and selling is a complete and utter shables and desperately needs action taken from all quarters from the Government, the media and the public to eradicate bad practice.

Because that does not have the sensational impact, and of course they are still riding on the wave of PDE, which is still in the public mind.

> Why did they not combine all poor dog related practices together in one clear ad that dog breeding, dealing and selling is a complete and utter shables and desperately needs action taken from all quarters from the Government, the media and the public to eradicate bad practice.

Hi Pat,

There is no money to be made from exposing this type of bad breeder or the dealers. That is why the charity and media etc are not interested. As Jemima wrote to me in an email "That I have not shown any interest in puppy farms is not because I don't think there's a serious problem; it's because they've been done before (inc by me when I was a national print journalist) and as a company we tend to break stories rather than follow them. As for puppy farms being a greater welfare problem, I'm afraid I disagree". Jemima could not make any money exposing puppy farms or dealers, the BBC cannot make money out of it and the RSPCA always say they can't close pup farms down as the dogs have water. So I don't think this will ever have exposure or the type of impact attacking an easy target like the good dog breeders. It will sadly always come down to money, that's why Harrods and other pet shops still trade and why they refuse to stop the trade.

Is can they have water be a valid reason ? Is that written down anywhere by somebody from the RSPCA as that should be exposed and their reason brought into question surely ?

no idea but it is what the anti puppy farm groups I deal with tell me is the excuse. One campaigner also a reporter printed that he was told this excuse

Isn't it worth getting this confirmed from the horses mouth then ?

Whether or not it is the policy Jon was definitely told this and printed it. Having had problems trying to get the charity to take action against a pup farm near me, I had to resort to going to the police about it before anything was done, and even then it was the police not the RSPCA, who did anything. I had vets willing to back any action if the charity wanted to take action, one took photos of a pup from there which was in a dreadful state.

I do think if it is true that they should be brought into question as wonder if the Charities act has anything that can be challenged about their responsibilities and being able to have charitable status as surely this is breaking the animal welfare law ?

As for puppy farms being a greater welfare problem, I'm afraid I disagree

That really says it all. :( Totally deluded. I hope you've kept a hundred copies of that e-mail!

have always heard from 'inspectors 'that they  cannot do anything if the dog has water and gets fed...

''What are the main issues?
* Whilst the breeding of dogs for commercial gain is a legitimate business
the welfare requirements of the breeding dogs and their offspring are of
paramount importance. Welfare concerns have been raised about "puppy
farms" since Wales took on powers to deal with pet welfare in March 2007,
with the coming into force of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.''
My main issue is breeding of dogs SHOULD NOT BE FOR COMMERCIAL GAIN.

There were some good points raised by breeders on their facebook page.  Replies however, from the RSPCA person, were few and far between and when they did reply they usually ignored the point and just spouted rhetoric to suit their campaign.

The KC has come out with a press release today. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4098/23/5/3

The RSPCA's remit used to be that if a dog had food, water & shelter, they would not do anything. What happened to an animal's rights for love, comfort, necessary veterinary treatment, exercise and companionship?

> What happened to an animal's rights for love, comfort, necessary veterinary treatment, exercise and companionship?

Is there a law that gives animals all these rights?  The RSPCA can only act when the law supports them.

> Is there a law that gives animals all these rights?  The RSPCA can only act when the law supports them.

Animal Welfare Bill which came in a few years ago. They would be VERY quick to act if a pet-owner was keeping dogs in such conditions as the PFs do... why should they be exempt?

> Animal Welfare Bill which came in a few years ago.

I don't think that mentions love and comfort.  This is the difficulty that the RSPCA face.  If all the animals basic needs are being met there is no action they can take.  Much as we may wish differently puppy farming in itself is not illegal.

> I don't think that mentions love and comfort.

It does mention necessary veterinary treatment, exercise, freedom to express normal behaviour and a clean environment. You only have to look at some of the ex breeding bitches (and sick unsaleable puppies) coming into rescue from puppy farms such as Many Tears to know those needs are NOT being met.

MT only states dogs as coming from a "breeder" where they were "no longer wanted" or "couldn't be sold". I get a bit itchy about that as it's tarring all with one brush, but their input is clearly PF and you would have no doubts if you saw the photos of these dogs in such terrible condition. One on their website I saw yesterday had both cataracts and a huge glaucomous eye... And her last puppies are probably on sale in a pet shop right now. They all look so absolutely worn out and hopeless, with huge sagging undercarriage and just an air of despair... or worse, the same look of prisoners of war.

I can't believe the RSPCA wants to chase people who breed dogs compassionately, yet steadfastly ignores those who keep dogs in conditions like this reducing them to these worn out, useless, hopeless, joyless shells: it makes me feel quite sick.

> they are still riding on the wave of PDE, which is still in the public mind

Victoria Stilwell has now jumped on this bandwagon, more so in America, she has recently been updating her fb with this nonsense and some of the followers agreeing with this is crazy. Not even concerned about checking the facts on it and many saying dog breeding should stop all together and the world would be better off with mutts, go figure... Argghhh....

Marc Abraham is still working on puppy farmers, he just needs to reach a wider audience in the media world!!

> saying dog breeding should stop all together and the world would be better off with mutts, go figure... Argghhh....

But what about all these wonderful healthy labradoodles etc? are they not bred by breeders?
there are so few latch key dogs these days if we just left it to the dogs the species would die out. But perhaps that's what is wanted...

are they wonderful and healthy?  All dogs are bred by 'breeders' most aren't responsible... often they breed for one reason only and that's money.  Reputable breeders of pedigree, unrecognised (by KC) breeds or cross breeds don't make money with their breeding.  Labradoodles are as likely to get HD, poor eyes etc as poodles and labradors - more so if they're not health tested, hip scored etc

> are they wonderful and healthy?

no. Sarcasm doesn't work well in email.
But these charities seem to think all these crosses are more healthy than pedigree dogs.
I can see a time in the future when almost all caring breeders have given up as they can't fight against these groups so the only way to get a dog will be from a puppy farm or a backyard breeder.

>It does mention necessary veterinary treatment, exercise, freedom to express normal behaviour and a clean environment.

But not love and comfort, which although obviously essential in our view, aren't a legal requirement, partly because they're indefinable and subjective. (Having recently been a witness at a trial I know that dictionaries are an essential part of a barrister's equipment, as definitions and sub-definitions are argued over!)

>I can't believe the RSPCA wants to chase people who breed dogs compassionately, yet steadfastly ignores those who keep dogs in conditions like this reducing them to these worn out, useless, hopeless, joyless shells: it makes me feel quite sick.

They really have got it a@se about face, haven't they? :-(

>> I can't believe the RSPCA wants to chase people who breed dogs compassionately, yet steadfastly ignores those who keep dogs in conditions like this reducing them to these worn out, useless, hopeless, joyless shells: it makes me feel quite sick.
> They really have got it a@se about face, haven't they? :-(

Agree they have got it very very wrong and the fate of the puppy farm dogs makes me feel sick too. However they are a harder target and reputable breeders are an easy and soft target. We are the ones who will abide by the laws and so the RSPCA knows it can squeeze as much money out of us as it wants when it takes control of dog breeding and introduces a licence.

I think what you must remember too when refering to the RSPCA's lack of action with puppy farmers (commercial licensed breeders supplying dealers and pet shops) is that if a complaint is made to the RSPCA on a welfare issue and it relates to a licensed dog breeder the RSPCA hand the responsibilty of visiting the premises to the Council who are responsible for licensing the premises. 

It is what they call a 'joined up approach to working'  The RSPCA will only respond if they are asked by the Council to accompany them, if they are not then they have no involvement at all. That is what frustrates us as campaigners against puppy farming because Councils (particulary in Wales) are very lax and ignore the obvious. Then if they walk away stating everything is fine who else can we turn to, when a follow up complaint will only be once more dealt with by the Council.  It is turning a blind eye to suffering.

I don't know if anybody noticed, but the RSPCA made an interesting comment in regards to puppy farming during the APGAW meeting:
"Veterinary Surgeon Marc Abraham asked why it was that the RSPCA would send their inspectors in to castigate and even prosecute an elderly lady for allowing her dog to get to fact or too thin, while ignoring the puppy farm a few miles away that was churning out puppies by the hundred.  James Yeates, did not answer the question directly but did say, backed up by Chris Laurence, that 'puppy farming' was not a particularly helpful term and it was useful to think of the concept of  'intensive farming systems'.  It was an extremely complicated issue and it could be that many litters, given the right care and socialisation, could be bred satisfactorily together while a single litter not properly cared for, could be very poorly raised."

If anyone wants to read the Our Dogs article about it it's here the title of the peice is "Kennel Club's 'valuable changes' to breed standards recognised"

Well that is not likely to be the case in 'intensive farming systems' raising puppies is it.  A recent example was the case of Beili Bedwi with 197 dogs and 1,000 sheep, I full time employee (the sheep farmer)and one part time employee, who incidently happened to be the sheep farmers wife. What time would they have to rear and socialize puppies in the correct manner.

Another example is on another thread below this one on the board, this time sheep farmer again with 700 sheep who employs two part time employers and at least over 120 dogs, again no time to commit to the care that is needed to raise puppies in the proper manner.

Why do people such as James Yates and Chris Laurence make these statements giving the green light to the intensification of dog breeding and the mass production of puppies. Makes me so cross, they should know better.  

>it could be that many litters, given the right care and socialisation, could be bred satisfactorily together while a single litter not properly cared for, could be very poorly raised."

That's quite right. Given enough competent staff then you're more likely to get a better quality puppy than from a byb who's out at work fulltime leaving the bitch to whelp alone and the litter to effectively rear themselves  (thinking of the rottie litter mentioned in the comments on the RSPCA's FB wall).