I (accidently) visited a puppy farm a few years back. I was looking for a west highland terrier with someone and responded to an advert, amazingly it said they were home bred. Thinking about it, home bred is different to bred in the home! We got there and there were two inter-linked barns with a dozen or so pens in each, most had a bitch and her pups in. The pens looked fairly clean but there was nothing to stimulate either bitch or puppies in there. I was horrified by the whole mass produced aspect of it. I went for an unauthorised wander across a yard and found a smaller barn with a few pens in with I think King Charles Spaniels in. I didn't have the courage to challenge the woman there. I went into the office and looked at pedigrees and health tests and the KC registration papers. Obviously I didn't buy a puppy there and by her attitude she almost didn't expect me to, I think many people go and don't buy not surprisingly!

But it did make me think about how easy it is to scam people and the kennel club with regard to registration. I'm not saying this lady has, but as each bitch is only allowed 5 litters, she could in effect tell the KC a bitch has had 7 puppies and register 7 when in fact it only had 5, hey presto she has 2 further bitches registered who she can breed from later when it fact it is the original bitch having a further 5 litters making 10 in total that one bitch has. I would imagine this happens in the puppy farm industry.

I don't know how the KC can enforce the rules or somehow make sure people are genuinely registering the right amount of puppies with the right dam and sire, therefore who have had the right health tests? It seems so easy to scam people and scam the KC. I was so shocked by the sight of those poor bitches and puppies, surely there ought to be legislation to prevent places like that. They really need to be banned.

It's 4 litters per bitch and yes it does happen. :( In some popular breeds you see litters registered with impossibly large numbers. Many puppy farms these days though don't even bother with KC registration, after all they have their own registering club that don't ask for anything, and Joe Public has no idea that there is a difference.

Until I think this year it was 6 per bitch!  Sadly it still goes on, they'd just use other paperwork if necessary to be able to register them.

> I was so shocked by the sight of those poor bitches and puppies, surely there ought to be legislation to prevent places like that. They really need to be banned.

Unfortunately breeding puppies commercially is considered a legitimate business.  In fact one form of diversification encouraged in rural/farming areas, with Grants to do it!!!

Now if only we could ban selling from third parties and every puppy had to be sold from the breeder/puppy farmer direct, it would be a lot less profitable and more people would walk away, and the business would become unprofitable.

Since January the KC will now only register a maximum of four litters.

By law anyone requiring to be Licensed said puppy framer) is only allowed to have 6 litters from any bitch and there must be more than 12 months between litters, but without registration/identification how can this be policed.  Also such breeders can't sell a puppy direct to new owner until 8 weeks of age, but they an sell to a retail outlet/pet shop before that, so in fact the law encourages third party selling of puppies, and ti is laughingly called 'The Breeding and Sale of Dogs Welfare Act'.

Do you think that should compulsory microchipping happen, that it could be possible to check each puppies parentage and stop falsifying KC registrations?

The guidelines are that people should see the pup with its mother when looking for a puppy, perhaps guidelines should be that a breeder should use a scanner to show the prospective owner the chip in the pup, show how that number corresponds to the number on the registry and to the parents the breder says are the parents? Would this work?

I agree, third party sales of puppies should be banned. At least only registered rescue centres should be allowed to, though they call the money handed over a donation rather than a purchase.

I'm always amazed at the puppies in Harrods. Where is the mother? What is the pedigree? What health checks have they had? What socialisation have these pups had? What affect does being stared at through glass by hundreds/thousands of people daily had on them? And people pay thousands of pounds for a pup there!

Chipping wouldn't confirm a pup was out of any particular animal.  DNA profiling of parents doesn't either it is only if commercial breeders were required to DNA profile pups before sale so that parentage could be verified from the get go. 

In the grand scheme of things, except us pedigree buffs no-one cares if a pups parentage can be verified, a dog is a dog, and in law seen as a product/crop. 

Only some breeders (those interested in bloodliens and registration) care about it as it gives them information when breeding for improvement, disease surveillance etc, information that 'puppy producers' don't need or use.

For example pedigree Rabbit breeding isn't based on knowing parentage, Rabbits for shows are simply identified by a ring no on it's leg.  A breeder will ring their rabbits, and this number will be their ID for shows.  May old school breeders didn't keep any pedigree records as we know them, they simply put a Buck and doe together, maybe knowing roughly that they weren't father and daughter etc.  others did keep records, but purely for their own interest, especially when working with colour genetics..

Maybe if each pets KC number was part of the number in the microchip?

Still doesn't confirm parentage, a registration is based on a breeder saying their bitch whelped and the stud dog owner (in Puppy farmers case likely the same person) that said dog mated the b itch approximately 9 weeks earlier.

In reputable circles a breeder would have no reason to lie about parentage, what is to be gained.  Also of course people are likely to know, people know when a bitch is absent from the ring for a season or litter, breeders are proud of the litters they breed and their carefully planned pairings.

In most breeds the actual parentage of the breed makes no economic difference regarding their sale price so why lie.

Of course puppy farmers over breeding their bitches, or crossbreeding to get larger litters from their bitches (say adding Welsh Springer or Cocker blood to their Cavaliers to get larger litters), or using unregistered stock and attributing pups to a registered bitch etc are all tactics at avoiding the law or getting more for the pups.

Maybe if each pets KC number was part of the number in the microchip?

You know what would happen then, the unscrupulous would remove the original microchip and replace it with one from another dog and play swapsies, the unscrupulous will always find a way around everything.

I would not rely on microchips to solve this problem as already said DNA is the only infallible way, but that would only ever work if the breeders did not send samples involving vets would IMO make it too complicated.

The only way to stop it is for every KC litter once arrived would need to have a KC representative physically come to the home/s and DNA the litter, dam and sire and then confirm for registration, matched against other information.

But cost and man-power make it impossible unless it became part of the fee, exactly how much extra I have no idea what would be fair it might be worth a suggestion to the KC........ however I doubt it would take off. :-)

Puppy Farms disgusting places,, and i have never been in one only seen clips on you tube and it breaks my heart and heard form others,

These places Are My Main Reason I am No Longer a fan of the RSPCA, (and i told them this much when i had that visit,) 

I am really just kind of Gobsmacked at the whole issue of puppy farms at all,, we have the press jumping on every dog attack by bad owners,

People screaming we need to DO SOMETHING about all these Dogs,
Too many in rescues all over,
Too many destroyed,

It's Clear we have Doggie Issues we all know this,,, Yet we still have councils Licensing these places, and RSPCA,, Allowing it,
Basically their saying

"Ohh as long as the dogs have a bed ,food,water, and aint foaming from the mouth or bleeding form its backside, then Yes of course you can breed the poor Bitch to death and have little if any human contact with it or her off spring, You Carry ON Mate"!!,,,

Ohhh Sorry I dont want to be bitchy to them,, I forgot the RSPCA  are a charity,, they do good work too,, ok they really do good work,, i mean Have been Really busy come March for the last few Years!!,,,,

And whether their Fight be Right in someways and wrong in others,,,, I Just WISH TO HELL, THEY WOULD SHOUT ABOUT PUPPY FARMS AS MUCH AS they do their other ISSUE!,, Really does wind me up,,,,

As for this,,,,

But it did make me think about how easy it is to scam people and the kennel club with regard to registration. I'm not saying this lady has, but as each bitch is only allowed 5 litters, she could in effect tell the KC a bitch has had 7 puppies and register 7 when in fact it only had 5, hey presto she has 2 further bitches registered who she can breed from later when it fact it is the original bitch having a further 5 litters making 10 in total that one bitch has. I would imagine this happens in the puppy farm industry.

OHHHH You could bet your life this goes on,, in their line of business they'd be stupid not too,, Their All About the Money,, they all want burning down these farms,, edit to say get the Dogs out of course,,,

can anyone tell me WHY WE NEED THEM??

How did this turn out to be the RSPCAs fault?  They don't "allow it", the law does, infact they campaign against this kind of puppy production. 
As you say, these places are licenced and legitimate.

Not saying their to blame as such, But Maybe what i mean to say is,, Their Not Shouting Loud enough About it!

Not half as loud as their Born to suffer campaign,

it angered me more this year than it did last, to be honest,, when we still have all these factory's breeding away,,  and i have heard Nothing on what their doing about that, lobby the government get up a REAL campaign going,,dont make out this year that you give a crap rspca,, cos you gave it a minutes air time in you battle on pedigree dogs, (sorry :-/)

End of the day I am Joe public,, and in all Honestly the only time i hear about the RSPCA is when its crufts time and i want to watch and enjoy it on me telly,, then they start bashing pedigree dogs Again,!!,,, im sick of hearing it , when i know these farms are breeding willy nilly anything and everything,, who the hell really knows what their getting when you go their please, yet we got them saying breeder are breeding bad dogs,,, OMG!!,, Well does that mean then that all them in the factory's are ok then,, doohhh,, joe public thinking,, 

Id rather hear All year round about their campaign on puppy farms,, yet you google their campaign and the top answers are not puppy farms,

ok its allowed by law,,,, well its wrong its not needed so how do you all challenge this law, they got dog problems in this country so government should ban it, and the message needs to get out their,,

just like the way they want to bash pedigrees every crufts time of the year,,, 

The Puppy farms should be more advertised, people need to know,

I don't think you have looked at what they say and do at all in this respect.
Even their "born to suffer" campaign encompassed a drive against puppy farming.
http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaigns/companion/borntosuffer/pedigree
The Born to Suffer campaign, by the way, is not directed at pedigree dogs per se just dogs that have been bred to exaggeration, their petition calling for "breed standards* to be changed so that they prioritise the health, welfare and temperament of a dog over its looks and help put an end to the avoidable suffering of dogs" 

I think they do a lot to campaign for more humane breeding bearing in mind they are not just a society for dogs.

> they got dog problems in this country so government should ban it

Ban what?  Puppy farming?  You will need to define it first.

One thing that might work is that any establishment that has a certain amount of bitches used for breeding or that does not raise the litter in the home or other similar criteria has to use a certain title such as "commercial breeder" and then the public could be educated that commercial breeders are akin to puppy farms and should be avoided. So by forcing a title on them, educating the public as to the meaning of the title, might encourage the public not to use them and then they would cease or at least vastly reduce their clientelle?

Atm they can advertise the pups as anything, the advert we responded to said "home bred"! Well, the house was next to the barns I guess.

Id rather hear All year round about their campaign on puppy farms,, yet you google their campaign and the top answers are not puppy farms,

I agree. It's almost as if puppy farms are okay because they are not SHOWING their dogs, and of course it us show breeders that are the bad ones.........

Lets face it if a breeder of any kind kept the average  bitch her entire life (average 12 years) only has 4 litters, then they will never make money as keeping her to breeding age, and in between, then into old age, will remove any profit, let alone health testing, vet fees especially in later years)showing/working to prove their worth etc.

As said before if puppies were not allowed to be sold by dealers and pet shops/retail outlets and every puppy had to be purchased direct from the breeder then many people would not buy a puppy from the worst commercial breeders.

Also all puppies should be permanently identified before sale (choice of tattoo or chip) and permanently linked to their breeder (chip registries only keep latest owner).  Any unchipped or tattooed pups when presented at vets, the owner would have to report where pup purchased and a set fine (like with parking) be issued.

> Ban what?  Puppy farming?  You will need to define it first.

OK, so how about them taking a small first step and ask for a ban  on the sale of pups through a third party - no pups in pet shops, how about that as a suitable, easily defined campaign for the REPCA to get it's teeth into?

Support 100%, it would mean commercial breeders would at the very least have to improve facilities, and be far more traceable/visible with every owner coming to their door for a puppy.  More staff, time,a nd scrutiny the puppy farmers way.

Anyone having issues with their purchase would know exactly where ti came from.  Easier to take action against those breaking the most basic standards.  Even if people still buy they can alert authorities etc to unacceptable facilities.

The original posters 'puppy farm' sounded at least to be clean, so even with our distaste for commercial production of puppies, that is better than so many of the hell holes, large and small that produce puppies and sell through third parties.

As for permanent identification, even if it started with those who had to have a licence (commercial breeders) then records of litters bred would have to tally with number of chip/tattoo registration etc.  All the kinds of traceability they don't want.

> OK, so how about them taking a small first step and ask for a ban  on the sale of pups through a third party - no pups in pet shops, how about that as a suitable, easily defined campaign for the REPCA to get it's teeth into?

I'm sure this has been asked again and again but the Government does not seem to be inclined to stop this business only regulate it.
The RSPCA, however, do campaign strongly for people to buy directly from the breeder or rescue centre.  Take a look at their current "puppy smart" campaign.

I don't recall seeing any full page adds in the national papers about it, nor a TV campaign.  Perhaps they can't afford it?  Ah, silly me,it's  because they are spending the ad  money on  anti pedigree newspaper campaigns and TV ads asking for even more donations.

Their puppy buying advise does not look too anti pedigree to me, just pedigrees from certain sources, ie puppy farms.
http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaigns/companion/borntosuffer/pedigree
and they are not going to be able to do much of anything without asking for donations.

My point was that the profile of the puppy smart campaign is much, much lower than the one launched  called "Born to Suffer", and surely a small portion of the TV budget could go to an active anti puppies in shops campaign?

> My point was that the profile of the puppy smart campaign is much, much lower than the one launched  called "Born to Suffer",

I'm not sure that it is or whether it is just that the "Born to Suffer" aspects of their campaign is more of a sensitive issue to some posters.

> a small portion of the TV budget could go to an active anti puppies in shops campaign?

As they campaign strongly to see a puppy with its mother I would imagine if they thought there was any prospect of this Government getting in the way of free trade they might. I would rather think it is an issue that has been discussed between them don't you.

> I'm not sure that it is or whether it is just that the "Born to Suffer" aspects of their campaign is more of a sensitive issue to some posters.

Was referring to relative comparisons of size and placement of ads.    The Born to Suffer featured full pages ads in the National press.  The
puppy farm campaign I have only seen (so far) online as pop ups.

> As they campaign strongly to see a puppy with its mother I would imagine if they thought there was any prospect of this Government getting in the way of free trade they might. I would rather think it is an issue that has been discussed between them don't you.

But that is the point of lobbying!  There is little need to lobby for something which a government has already got on it's active agenda. 

Puppy Smart is part of the "Born to Suffer" campaign.  It isn't all about dogs bred to exaggeration :).

> But that is the point of lobbying!  There is little need to lobby for something which a government has already got on it's active agenda. 

When the demand on funds comes from so many quarters it can hardly be right to spend where there is little chance of success. Different, perhaps, if they were not a charity but rather a lobby group spending their members money ;)

> I'm sure this has been asked again and again but the Government does not seem to be inclined to stop this business only regulate it.
> The RSPCA, however, do campaign strongly for people to buy directly from the breeder or rescue centre.&nbsp; Take a look at their current "puppy smart" campaign.<

And just where do you think the dogs in rescue centres come from? :(

Sorry, not sure of your point Lokis mum.

Since January the KC will now only register a maximum of four litters.

And in between each one, these puppy farmers fit in a 'Doodle' litter

Or a DLR litter.

In your post, you defend the RSPCA's credo that "people should get their dogs from Rescue Centres".   I am asking you the question ...where the mary ellen do you think dogs that end up in Rescue Centres come from????

From reputable breeders - or puppy farmers??????

I understand the question and, of course, I know that a lot, if not most, of the dogs in rescue will have come from puppy farmers or BYBs but I still don't understand your point.  Are you saying people should not get a dog from a rescue centre?

They don't just say get from a rescue centre by the way, they do also say buy directly from a breeder.