I doubt it as they are still going to allow large numbers of dogs to be kept in agriculture sheds, all be it licensed and inspected - we have that in Wales and that makes no difference to the dogs and puppies within the confines of these buildings as the inspections are lax. It is still mass breeding on a commercial scale supplying puppies for the pet trade. We all must make a concerted effort during 2012 to stop puppies being exploited by placing pressure on Governments to prohibit the sale of puppies from pet shops and dealers. If there were no outlets for their puppies the puppy farmers/commercial breeders in Ireland and Wales would not have a ready UK market to sell their puppies to.

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/lifesty...ng-2974183.html

We need to make breeding on a commercial scale unacceptable.

Exactly stop trying to bring more people with a couple of dogs into licensing (the fifth litter in a 12 months is fine as it stands, not penalise someone who has three entire bitches over 6+ months that happens to breed from one occasionally), and get the welfare and licensing laws enforced.

Yes there are probably some poor low volume breeders but the large scale operations no matter how clean and sanitised are just not acceptable.  Especially as the only criteria will be productivity, not health, temperament, breed standard or socialisation.

They need hitting where it hurts - their wallets.  It needs to be commercially unviable more than anything - the public will always be gullible or impatient or downright uncaring and still buy the pups, but if it was not profitable then the farmers would give up.

So setting minimum standards of care such as requirements for bedding, quality of food for pregnant/nursing bitches, set vet checks and worming for pups (so every puppy would have to be seen X amount of times before sale and wormed X amount of times, with records for everything stamped by a vet or two to prevent forgeries), minimum time between litters for each bitch (say 1 or 2 years), so on and so forth.  Maximum numbers of bitches and dogs that are not very high, to allow for proper care such as exercise and socialisation.  Lower ratio of staff to dogs.

Also, just changing the vet checks on premises would help - instead of pre-announced spot checks, random surprise checks would be far more useful as the farmers wouldn't have warning to clean the place up.

Basically, everything where corners are cut now to put a squeeze on the profit margins.  Education of the public is having no effect so we need to address the source instead.

The KC has a petition on their website to stop puppy farming but I am not sure how much good it will do. We need something like what went on when the One Show did dog training, to get all the organisations working together.
The thing was for once all these societies spoke as one. We need someone with some clout who can get media attention and get something done to stop BYB and Puppy Farmers, then all the various dog organisations and members to support them. We need strong laws, not just self regulation along the lines Nikita has outlined, as a minimum standard for all breeders.

That would probably have a knock on effect of cutting out a lot of the back yard breeders too - if they had to conform to so many vet stamps in a record book for worming, certain standards of food and bedding, etc then that would increase costs and so reduce the amount left over for the annual holiday/new car etc and also hopefully make it seem a little more technical and specialised (because they need all this special stuff and lots of vets visits so it must be complicated!) so they are less inclined to let Fluffy get on with it alone for a few extra quid.

> So setting minimum standards of care such as requirements for bedding, quality of food for pregnant/nursing bitches, set vet checks and worming for pups (so every puppy would have to be seen X amount of times before sale and wormed X amount of times, with records for everything stamped by a vet or two to prevent forgeries), minimum time between litters for each bitch (say 1 or 2 years), so on and so forth.  Maximum numbers of bitches and dogs that are not very high, to allow for proper care such as exercise and socialisation.  Lower ratio of staff to dogs.
>
>

These rules already exist in law no bitch should have more than 6 litters, and there must be a year between litters from any bitch where a license is required.

As for staffing levels the current proposed Welsh regs they want a licence for anyone who has 3 entire bitches over 6 months (I do, 11 months, 3 and 5 years) and yet think 30 dogs per person is sufficient staffing level!!!!

I would say that no one person can look after more than two litters of puppies at a time and say half a dozen dogs (walking, feeding etc as one would in boarding kennel situation, let alone any love and affection).

As you say setting high welfare standards for dogs kept, not putting low volume small scale dog owners into the commercial net.

Facilities that would be required for larger numbers of dogs and litters are not the same perfectly adequate home arrangements that are more than suitable, even preferable in a companion home reared situation. Pups whelped in bedroom, puppy pens in family kitchen, make shift pens in the garden to protect pups, garden other dogs, none of these would pass muster under breeding premises type regulations largely based on the Boarding kennel regs.

Also different breeds need different facilities and care.

Requiring Small scale hobby related breeders to be registered will simply mean that either they will stop breeding, or will have to become more commercial in their outlook to cover costs related to compliance, this is already the case in may places in the USA, where the only people who can afford to breed are those who breed more litters and can afford kennels, or downright large scale puppy farmers, whose standards are lower and costs per puppy a lot less.

That is why we need someone who really understands dog breeding, and has the best interest of dogs at heart. Lets face it these large kennels are probably giving the local planning officer or inspector a large brown envelope !!

As you say it will just mean some puppy farms will be licenced and sadly some occasional god breeders will get caught up in red tape and expense they don't need.

With the basic licence fee being proposed around £500 with the average litter size in my breed being just under 6 pups so 5 likely to work out for sale would mean putting another £100 per puppy on the rearing costs, which will need to be passed on to the new puppy owner, but there is a limit to how much of the cost can be passed on when the breeder has to compete for homes with the cheaply produced puppy..

Much as having to have vet checks and supervised worming might be a good idea it will again add to costs for those breeders least likely to afford it.

the puppy farmer would arrange to have a vet visit and do all the litters on the premises in one visit, so less cost.

Same with food, bulk buying, low price food compared to tailored feeding by a good breeder.

Not to mention heal ht screening cost, using outside sometimes foreign stud dogs cost, with little if any return for the conscientious breeder.

I don't mind and do spend money of what will benefit my dog and my breed, but not on needless red tape.

Today dog 01.01.2012 breeders in S Ireland (Eire) will need to be licensed and all puppies before sale to be microchipped.

http://www.herald.ie/news/at-last-our-puppy-farms-are-made-illegal-2976872.html 

Added to previous post I wrote 'all breeders' sorry meant those breeding that meet the criteria for licensing ...

I have some info on the US pups bill objections re my worries about licensing conditions being imposed on small scale hobby breeders and the negative effects.

I have asked my contact to give me a link to the article, as the worries are similar to those I and others in dog hobbies have.

Here is an analysis (written by the sporting dog community) of the impact of the PUPS bill:

IMPACT OF PROPOSED PUPS BILL AND REGULATION OF RETAIL DOG SELLERS
PUPS changes the scope and intent of the AWA by covering private breeders, sellers and retail venues with federal regulation for the first time. PUPS adds new problematic definitions to the existing AWA and sets conditions with which many cannot comply. AWA engineered standards are not compatible with most residential home breeder settings.

PUPS adds a new definition of a breeding female dog as an intact female dog aged 4 months or older. It is virtually impossible for a 4 month old female dog to be biologically capable of reproduction and therefore this definition should be rejected. This definition impacts the owner's ability to keep young bitches intact while training or evaluating traits and/or working ability, and any female dog kept intact for any reason whether actually bred or not bred. As defined, this regulation would compel breeders to spay at 4 months in order to keep a dog of this age on the premises without having it count toward the numeric criteria for licensing. Federal government would be well advised to avoid such specifics in light of current research that finds early spay/neuter can be injurious to long term canine health.

PUPS creates the new definition "high volume retail breeder". A breeder only has to have "interest or custody" of one breeding female dog to fall under the first test of this criteria. The second criteria includes anyone who "sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period."

The "50 offspring" are not defined by age or as being from litters owned by the breeder or as being personally owned by the breeder. This definition will include puppies, young adults, spayed dogs; older dogs being retired from the breeding program; both male and female dogs; puppies back for stud services offered; previously sold dogs returned and resold. This also raises a concern for co-ownerships, a practice utilized by many purebred dog breeders which enables them to expand resources and gene pools while maintaining a limited number of dogs on premise; and whether cumulative sales among co-owners would count towards the 50 sales limit. There is no consideration that 50 sales could be the exception rather than the rule.

PUPS sets a dangerous federal regulation precedent by mandating specific exercise requirements exceeding those currently required for laboratory animals. PUPS dictates that every dog at least 12 weeks of age must have daily access to exercise that provides the ability to maintain normal muscle tone that is "not a forced activity" or "other physical activity that is repetitive, restrictive of other activities, solitary, and goal-oriented;". The provided exercise area must allow sufficient space to "reach a running stride".

In simple terms this new requirement mandates redesign of existing facilities to accommodate large enough exercise areas for any dog to "reach a running stride". This also prohibits alternate forms of exercise including walking the dog or puppies on or off leash for exercise; or use of treadmills for exercise in inclement weather. The proposed exercise requirements have not been scientifically proven necessary for the well-being of dogs in laboratory settings and certainly should not be imposed upon dogs in residential environments.

IMPACT ON RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS, SHELTERS
The "dealer" and/or "person" to be regulated is defined as any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of a dog. "Person" is further defined as including any individual, partnership, corporation, association, trust, or other "legal entity".

These definitions will certainly encompass rescue organizations, including those that sell from their homes and shelters, on Petfinder (internet), and similar venues. The definitions will include veterinary clinics with adoption centers, any nonprofit groups organized specifically for rescue and re-homing/adoption of unwanted dogs, and potentially some animal control departments. The criterion of 50 sales is easily achievable for the majority of rescue and sheltering organizations in most U.S. cities. Not all dogs adopted are altered at time of sale - some are sold under contract with vouchers to spay at a later date therefore qualifying the organization as being "in custody" of a "breeding female".

Rescue/shelters/animal control operate under the same exemption from federal regulation that retail sellers have historically been given. Congress never intended the RETAIL sector to be regulated. That is the pivotal point which was upheld in DDAL vs Veneman. Thru their PUPS bill and its predecessors, HSUS aims to destroy that commercial /retail construct. Breaking that barrier and defining a select "class" among the many venues of "retail" selling should not be legally justified or defended. The pet owning public purchases fairly equal numbers of dogs from both breeders and shelters therefore these sources should be treated equally.

Under PUPS they would be forced to redesign current facilities in order to meet federal housing standards including the new space requirements mandated by the physical exercise standards.Regulating them was not the intent of the AWA and changing the scenario now thru PUPS is neither logistically or economically feasible.

It should be perfectly clear to legislators that impact to rescue/sheltering organizations is not accidental. PUPS is crafted from a "model" developed in 2010 by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). In the "Background and Context" paper explaining who will be regulated, AVMA states the goal of their model bill is to provide regulation for all dogs sold to the public - "irrespective of facility type (i.e., dogs are deserving of a minimum standard of care whether bred/raised/distributed by breeders, shelters, or animal control facilities)."

The AVMA "model" has not been well received by the dog breeding or sheltering communities; and, in fact, has met with criticism for being excessive in scope. The much respected AVMA as a rule promotes animal welfare standards based on sound scientific principles, yet in this case suggests many requirements that are not supported by scientific evidence.

INTERNET SALES
There is continued focus on use of the internet as a means to "evade" AWA regulation. The presumption is that the public purchases sight unseen and sellers can freely operate in substandard conditions. Contact through the internet certainly could be just the initial connection for a purchase. It is not a foregone conclusion that the buyer and seller do not meet in person, and that the buyer has no opportunity to see the seller's facilities. There are many avenues available to the public for buying dogs. It is not the duty of the federal government to monitor and regulate the purchasing habits or prerogatives of the public. Although a few unscrupulous people may sell dogs via the internet that are housed in poor conditions, these people can be dealt with by local cruelty and/or consumer protection laws. Whether by passage of PUPS or USDA/APHIS rulemaking, requiring internet sellers to be licensed is excessive.

BUDGET CONSTRAINTS
The FY 2012 federal Budget has a proposed appropriation for APHIS programs of $837 million, which is 8.3% or $76 million lower than the amount appropriated for APHIS in FY 2011. Included in the modest budget of $29 million for Animal Welfare, APHIS has requested an increase of $6 million for increased investigation of current problematic dog breeders and dealers. Restructuring, retraining, increased staff, and increased funding should allow AC to satisfactorily inspect facilities and follow through with any enforcement measures of current licensees with consistency.

Expansion of regulatory responsibilities into the private sector will most certainly require exponential increases in APHIS staff and funding. Major expansion of current APHIS regulatory responsibilities is not only impractical but irresponsible at as the nation struggles with a government deficit, departmental budget cuts, spending cuts to vital services, and a struggling economy.

SUMMARY
As with all previous versions of HSUS introduced bills intended to break the commercial / retail barrier, PUPS subjects home breeders and rescuers of dogs to USDA licensure and its 60+ pages of regulations. PUPS misleads legislators and the public into thinking this legislation will put an end to puppy mills when in fact PUPS will serve to eliminate many fine sources of home-bred dogs.

PUPS does not address specific problems cited in the OIG report or the past poor enforcement history of APHIS inspectors, but instead focuses on expanding federal regulation into the private sector by creating a complete new class of breeders and sellers. This major expansion of APHIS responsibility is unrealistic and unenforceable.

As written, PUPS will negatively impact many in-home breeders who cannot comply with commercial standards or who refuse to have their rights to privacy invaded by federal inspectors. PUPS will drive many midsize producers of pets and working dogs away from their hobbies and livelihoods. PUPS poor language and arbitrary use of numbers for licensing criteria will potentially impact even the rescue community.

PUPS would force redesign of current facility housing to meet new standards; there is no objective evidence supporting any derived benefits or enhanced animal welfare from enactment of the proposed standards.

Without precedent, PUPS invades the privacy of American homes and sets questionable standards for pet care, sanitation, handling, exercise, and housing.

Expanding federal regulation into the private sector and people's homes is not an efficient use of limited departmental resources.

USDA/APHIS should retain the workable, legally upheld decision to focus its regulation and enforcement on wholesale dealers, where its resources are likely to yield the greatest benefit.

There is no substantive evidence to prove that expansion of the existing AWA will improve animal welfare to a higher level than properly enforcing current regulations and licensing those kennels operating commercially without USDA licensure. A better plan would be to improve USDA's enforcement ability and ensure that commercial kennels are properly licensed.

Here is the article link: http://www.saova.org/PUPS2011.html obviously some aspects are US specific, but it does outline the overall concerns that small scale hobby related breeders and small scale rescues have with well meaning legislation that ends up tying the wrong people in knots and having virtually no effect on the problem, mainly truly large scale, and the lets have one litter,  casual puppy production .

I have the gut feeling that even with new legislation in Eire and the forthcoming legislation in Wales that both Governments are prepared to accept large scale commercial dog breeding with dogs kept in disused agriculture sheds and barns as the norm. The reason I believe they find it acceptable is because many of these types of breeders are farmers, arable or livestock and Governments are prepared to accept this type of diversification along the same lines as holiday lets and any other type of cottage industry that is acceptable in the countryside, they are making no distinction between livestock rearing, companion animal breeding and any other type of permissable activity take takes place on green belt land providing it helps the economy.

In the case of dog breeding or battery dog farming as I call it providing the premises are licensed and complient  with their licence conditions, routinely inspected and the breeders pay for their dog breeding licence then as far as both Governments are concerned they are operating legally as busineses and are acceptable.

I think the only way we are ever going to make further changes over and above what is in both Governments, Eire as from today and Wales sometime during this year is to prove to Defra that it is detrimental to animal welfare to have puppies transported long distances and sold from dealers and pet shops.  The fact that commercial breeders who run these battery dog farms and sell their puppies to dealers and pet shops never health screen (BVA/KC) for known hereditary conditions means that many puppies, could almost say most puppies are carriers/or have many of the known conditions in their pedigree breed. The fact that many puppies are sick soon after purchase and some are pts to sleep to save suffering and others die says it all really. That is the area that we must now concetrate. I still have an email from a long time ago from Defra that stated that if can be proven that selling puppies from retails outlets was detrimental to animal welfare they would look at the issue. Therefore this must be where we concentrate our efforts now.
             

If we could get the retail sale of puppies stopped through dealers and pet shops it would make puppy farmers unable to sell except direct to the final owner. 

This would also put them much more under public scrutiny so that the general public could make complaints about poor  facilities or sick puppies.

I know that this issue is currently being looked into but apparently it has 'legal complications'. It is well worth reading the minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Council and also the dog breeding standard proposals, (under the 'programme' tab.) I think you'll agree they make interesting reading:

http://dogadvisorycouncil.org.uk/

From my perspective, it seems that if there is really strong public support for something, Governments will be persuaded to review or even change legislation.

One only has to look at foxhunting and tail docking to see this is true, even though both causes had considerable support in 'high places' it wasn't sufficient to prevent laws being passed, in the main due to pressure from the general public. And I cannot believe that foxhunting in particular did not have it's own legal complexities. I often wonder if 'legal reasons' is sometimes used to prevaricate any real action/change occuring. It is an argument the KC trots out when they are countering the question as to why they cannot prevent puppy registrations by 'anyone' who has registered parents, but stangely they never go into further details....

I agree whole heartedly with Brainless that if the selling of puppies through third parties was banned, it would be a very effective deterrant to puppy farmers/commercial breeders. However, the RSPCA do not seem to think the matter is of any great concern and the KC are not speaking out loudly against it either. Without driving power from the big organisations to get the ball rolling, there is little chance of getting enough momentum from the public. If there could only be a united consecutive outcry as happened after the One Show did 'dog training', there might be some hope, but currently it seems the big dog organisations in the UK have other fish to fry and looking at one of the real welfare issues for dogs comes low on the list of priorities :-(

Regarding the PUPS legistation, I can see there are problems, however, I don't think selling 50 puppies/offspring is one of them. Whether they operate in a partnership or not, that's an awful lot of dogs to be selling in a year...

> KC are not speaking out loudly against it

though it is against its code of ethics and where buyers have proved that they bought their pup from Puppy supermarket registration privileges were removed from the breeder. 

Of course most puppy farm pups are not registered with KC but with a number of mickey mouse pseudo registries, that give out pretty paperwork purely on the breeders say so (they have no pedigree database) but do nothing else canine related.

It's a bit like cars going though several owners in the past but only being registered with one or two.  the kennel club have no way of knowing how a puppy was sold, and only record transfer of ownership with those who choose, to, but how many hands may a puppy have been through before this happens??

I know only about half my well researched waited for puppies owners ever transfer them to their name. I had a dog back for rehoming who was still in my name at 4 years old.  I applied for a copy of the reg cert so new owners could transfer him to their names, guess what he is still in my name a year later.

> Regarding the PUPS legislation, I can see there are problems, however, I don't think selling 50 puppies/offspring is one of them. Whether they operate in a partnership or not, that's an awful lot of dogs to be selling in a year...

Ah but in the USA it is the norm for breeders who sell any stock with the possibility of breeding or showing in joint names.  In this way they can ensure that they maintain come control about any future breeding, show career (wouldn't sit well with most of us in UK for the breeder to keep that level of control). 

I can see the reasoning as in UK once the endorsements are lifted an owner is free to breed every season if they wanted to, use sires that might not go well with the breeders lines etc.

So a successful breeder whose stock is in demand by potential exhibitors and breeders could easily have 10 bitches in joint ownership and not breed a litter themselves.

Personally I think I would have bred 50 pups in 10 years!!! but there are breeds where a bakers dozen in a litter is not unusual so you only need say 4 litters.

Also it isn't either or criteria, Once the three entire bitches over 4 months is reached your in the net (The Welsh and N Ireland proposals are 3).  I have 3 entire bitches over 6 months.  The puppy won't be bred from until 2014, but by the end of this year I will have kept another puppy and have 4 entire bitches, though perhaps her mother will be spayed before she reaches 6 months.  I shouldn't need to base the needs of my modest small breeding program to fit in with such random constricting rules, and the puppy farmer happily pays the fee, and churns out pups in the 100's.

Personally I am happy with the current legislation based on litter numbers, under 5 litters they leave you alone, perhaps with a cap to number of pups too, for the breeds with huge litters.  After all 4 litters of 12 would still be under 50, but for the vast majority 4 litters would be closer to 24 pups and half that for most toy breeds.  After all the current legislation still allows a council to deem a breeder commercial even if they breed fewer than 5 litters.

What a terrible way to keep these beagles

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Long-awaited-legislation-outlaws-puppy-farming-in-Ireland-136523433.html

and probably they will still keep breeding legally with a licence, if they clean up their facdilities.

How did they stop Tortoises beign sold through Pet shops, probably 'cites' which doesn't apply to domestic animals. :(

Quote: "The new anti-puppy farming legislation makes it impossible to produce hundreds of puppies in grim conditions. "
Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Long-awaited-legislation-outlaws-puppy-farming-in-Ireland-136523433.html#ixzz1iWDz905q

IT WON'T STOP THE PRODUCTION IN ADEQUATE LIVESTOCK STANDARD OF 100'S OF PUPPIES DESTINED TO BE DOMESTIC COMPANIONS.

It won't encourgae selection for health and temperament or provide for adequate socialisation.

Pat I clicked on the link and there was an advert for Vivastreet  !!! Yet another site like Gumtree and Epupz that lets anybody sell puppies. I think if these sites and Facebook were stopped from advertising puppies surely it would stop some BYB having litters if they could not find a market for these pups.