Posting a link, some of you may agree with my thoughts others I expect maynot, however the movement of regular, frequent large numbers of dogs travelling from the Irish Republic without full responsibility taken by the 'rescues' concerned relating to their lack compliance I believe needs to highlighted.

http://batterydogfarmingdealerspetshops.blogspot.co.uk/

Thank you, Pat, that's a very interesting and thought provoking article. I have wondered about these dogs coming from Ireland. :-(

I have wondered about rescue dogs being imported from Ireland  and other european countries too Pat. Don't we have enough of our own dogs needing rescued here already without taking on other countries problem dogs? I feel very sorry for these dogs, they didn't ask to be born and abandoned after all but by allowing the buck to pass to rescues here we are just letting their government/breeders/owners etc ignore the issue.

If we had no dogs sitting in our own rescues awaiting homes or indeed if people have formed an attachment to an abandoned dog in a foreign country - maybe while on holiday - and wish to offer it a home, then fair enough. As it is spending money to remove them from their rescue kennel to another rescue kennel here is just perpetuating the problem in their own country. There seems to be a never ending supply of strays in some countries - particularly Ireland it would seem.

I don't particularly agree with rescues here allowing BYB's and puppy farmers to dump their excess and unwanted 'stock' in rescue either. They should be charged a significant amount for doing so and reported to the KC if they are registering their puppies with them and to the local council. Might make them think twice about breeding if they had to deal with the consequences of their overbreeding!

Just my opinion and I know others will disagree but until we get on top of our own problems with dogs in rescue we shouldn't be letting other countries off the hook!

Nothing I can see to disagree with.

Also I feel this importing of rescues from other places plays into the hands of those who are against breeding.

Why should people only be able to have a rescue which will not have been carefully bred,a nd may have issues due to being pushed from pillar to post, when they could have a well bred puppy instead if that is their preference.

Good breeders should be encouraged, especially as they do not generally add to the rescue statistics ans work to re-home any dog of their breeding that needs to change homes.  Those who don't take responsibility fro what they breed, and abandon, should be held accountable, lets not lay things entirely at breeders doors owners have responsibilities too.

What we should be concentrating on is reducing the market for badly bred puppies going to homes without the commitment or ability to keep them, ending in rescue.

We need to see what Scandinavian countries do right, so that there is virtually no rescue issue there, compared to the serious issue in English speaking countries (UK, US, Australia).

I've always thought that dog rescue centres are a double.edged sword, moving them between countries is just madness and smacks of 'rearranging deckchairs...'     Really, each country should deal with it's own rescue problem or is the UK the dumping ground foreveryone's unwanted dogs?

There's one rescue that has a website and claims to take in ex breeding bitches and rehome them, many in appalling condition.  Yet there's no mention of the breeders being prosecuted for over breeding a bitch, lack of care etc.    Can't help thinking that they aren't helping the real problem by doing this, if they are indeed a rescue :-(

I always thought a rescue dog was one that needed a home through no fault of its own.  For example, person dies, no family, dog needs loving home.   Or, dogs taken from irresponsible person and needs loving home.  I suppose like most areas you have RSPCA, Dogs Trust and a couple of private places where they are kept 7 days and then put down.  The RSPCA in my area is worse than useless.   Dogs Trust has Irish dogs.  If there is a decent dog looking for a home like the old woman who died and left thousands of pounds to a local dog charity to look after her dog.  They took the money and put the dog to sleep.

Dill - I wish there was a 'like' button for your post.

So true Dill. Some rescues do have the feel of a used dog mart rather than a rescue.

It is a very contentious subject and there are arguements for and against taking in Irish dogs.

I for one support helping ex breeding bitches as otherwise they will just get shot or abandoned.

The only way things will change is a change in the law. Meanwhile if it means that rescues can help these bitches then I support my rescues in doing this. It is amazing to see these dogs transform from scared unsocialised dogs to loyal undemanding companions that give people so much love and pleasure.

If rescues have capacity without turning away dogs in this country ( which the rescues I support ensure) then I for one will carry on supporting what they are doing.

There are also relationships between some of the pounds in Eire that are not into trafficking that help with dogs in immediate risk of being PTS so again if it doesn't compromise taking dogs into rescue in this country then I support that as well.

There's one rescue that has a website and claims to take in ex breeding bitches and rehome them, many in appalling condition.  Yet there's no mention of the breeders being prosecuted for over breeding a bitch, lack of care etc.    Can't help thinking that they aren't helping the real problem by doing this, if they are indeed a rescue :-(

Think I know which one you mean.  Personally I feel if all ex puppy farm breeding dogs were put to sleep and the fact made very public, then it would help the dogs in the long run a lot more than by giving them happy endings. If the general public knew that by buying a puppy in a pet shop and similar they effectively condemned the pup's parents to death.

I would also like to see all Staffies and Staffy crosses in rescue put to sleep. Without them, there would be plenty of homes for the few remaining rescue dogs of other breeds. People need a massive shock for something to change, and as long as there is no come back at all on the puppy farmers and BYBs by producing lots of pups that eventually end up in rescue, nothing will change.

Donning my fire proof jacket now as I might well be shot down in flames, but I say what I think, simple as.....

Well I  hope you have a spare fireproof jacket, because I totally agree.    I know it's not the 'nice' way to deal with the problem, but the cold hard facts of puppy farming should be public and if this is the only way to reach the public then in the long run it would be a good thing.

Otherwise the message is that it's ok, because the bitch only had to suffer for 4 or 5 years, no thought for the next bitch to suffer.

So you agree that it is ok for a non puppy farmer to rehome brood bitches then or should we say that is is also ok to have them PTS?

Goldmali I have to say I do agree with you. For every ex breeding dog that is kindly taken into rescue another poor soul is condemned to take it's place. If the puppy farms were made to have the dogs who are surplus to their requiremens PTS and that fate was generally known then maybe the general public might start to realise the real cost of their cheap puppy and hopefully wouldn't wish to be associated with breeders who treat their dogs purely as stock and have no use for them once they can no longer churn out profits for them.

So you agree that it is ok for a non puppy farmer to rehome brood bitches then or should we say that is is also ok to have them PTS?

HUGE difference between a private rehoming, and lumbering a rescue. The first is taking responsibility for their own actions (whether we agree with it or not), the second passes it on -including any related costs.

Not all breeders do rehome themselves though that is my point.

Agree as well that one a bitch is retired it should remain with the breeder for life.

> Agree as well that one a bitch is retired it should remain with the breeder for life

That's not practical for some breeders and may prevent them ever being able to contribute their talents to a breeds benefit.  I don't see any reason why they cannot place a retired bitch with the same care as they do surplus puppies.
When I look at some of these rescues it does seem to me it is not simply a case of misguided caring but, quite frankly, a way of stocking saleable dogs that bring a return.  Again, for some this may be a means of supporting the rescue of less desirable animals but it appears to me some are not even that.

I think though to generalise is perhaps doing the 'good' rescue a bad deal as it is tarring all breeds whether a puppy farms, BYB or a reputable breeder with the same brush.

> I think though to generalise is perhaps doing the 'good' rescue a bad deal

Like I said, my opinion is at best it is misguided.

Yes, but what about a rescue centre that states publicly they rehome mainly ex breeding dogs?  In an area known to have a lot of commercial breders?    And when you check, at least half of the dogs available are ex-breeders, then the majority of the rest are whole litters?     Exactly what is the purpose of that establishment, putting aside sentimentality?

Very often an establishment's publicly stated purpose is at odds with what actually happens.   You only have to look at the accounts of many very large, charities to see that.

The problem can only be addressed by a change in the law then in those type of so called rescues.

[ The problem can only be addressed by a change in the law then in those type of so called rescues.

How about simply implementing the law as it stands?    We already have legislation to cover neglect, pet owners are prosecuted for it, why not puppy farmers?

Personally, I think the real question is 'whether it makes it right for any bitch to have to churn out puppies for 5 years as long as she's rehabilitated afterwards?'     At least if the poor animals are put to sleep, Joe Public can't kid themselves that it's not an appalling way to breed.

And of course we are forgetting the stud dogs, they can father puppies for longer, but get minimal attention too.  Pictures of these dogs show them in very poor condition just like the bitches.     If an ordinary owner was to allow their PET to get into the same condition, they'd be prosecuted, yet puppy farmers seem immune from that kind of attention.   This causes me to wonder about collusion from the RSPCA.   It isn't as if there's no evidence!

The neglect issue is not the same as breeding unless the bitches are not in good condition and as the law stands you can have as many litters out of a bitch as you can which is not against the law.

Not all puppy farms keep the animals in poor conditions but they still sell the bitches on or rehome through rescue.

> you can have as many litters out of a bitch as you can which is not against the law.
>

There are restrictions for licenced breeders aren't there?

>There's one rescue that has a website and claims to take in ex breeding bitches and rehome them, many in appalling condition.

I know the one you mean; they are at best puppy-farming facilitators and at worst a puppy farm agency, and bring all rescues into disrepute.

Sorry as many litters as you can under the current legislation which is far too high in the opinion of many people as I also agree.

The KC is also facilitating the whole puppy farmer -> rescue cycle by continuing to allow these people to register their puppies. I have seen the photo's on the rescue page I think you are talking about and it is a disgrace that these dogs should be allowed to be in the state they are and no report ever made to the RSPCA, local council or KC. If no one makes them pay for their actions then why should they change? A breeder rehoming a healthy, older bitch in fantastic condition with a family friend ( I couldn't but I understand why it is necessary) is completely different to someone dumping a worn-out bitch, often with severe mental or physical problems on rescue and replacing it with another to treat in the same way. If you really care about dogs, how could you let such people walk away with no consequences even once, let alone over and over? The first time the rescue is given a dog in poor condition, the previous owner should be notified to the KC and banned from ever registering a litter again IMHO. (Well actually, I'd flog them til they were in the same state as the dog, but apparently we live in a civilised society ;-) )

The problem is if you do try and involve the RSPCA will they do anything ? Again and again we hear so many stories about people informing them about things but they never take any action.

Think if people had more confidence in getting them to take more notice and assist in prosecutions and the sentences are more robust then I should imagine you would find things changing.

I still say though the laws need to change really for anything to be more effective.

The people to inform and insist that they take action are the councils that take their money in the form of licencing fees on the basis that they will perform properly in a regulatory capacity.

That is where the problem is. They are the wrong people to police this or they are not funded correctly to do it. Also the paw perhaps needs tightening up then to make it less grey and more black and white in be able to bring prosecutions.

The RSPCA still have a responsibility to this if an animal is proven to have been abused in the terms set in the animal welfare act.

Interesting that the RSPCA were a topic this week in a Parliamentary debate .

> Also the paw perhaps needs tightening up then to make it less grey and more black and white in be able to bring prosecutions

the PAW (sic :)) is not at all grey, the monitoring and regulation of licenced breeding premises lies with the local authority.  They collect money to do so.  If they don't have funds what have they spent it on?

The only way the law needs tightening up is to make the RSPCA prosecute those responsible for bitches being over bred and then dumped in rescue in poor condition, mentally and physically, instead of going for the easy targets.   As has been stated, they are quick enough to prosecute private individuals who are often unable to afford a proper defence

The laws are already there for this, but clearly the will is lacking.

The problem is do they have enough funding to police the breeders to enforce the law and also are the people doing the job actually capable to do the job properly? I think the answer is no

> The problem is do they have enough funding to police the breeders to enforce the law and also are the people doing the job actually capable to do the job properly? I think the answer is no

Then the licence fees they set are insufficient and perhaps spend it on training their inspectors properly.  The RSPCA get their funds only from donation have a very, very much broader sphere to cope with.
They only have to do their job properly and inspect properly and would probably find sufficient evidence to pass to the RSPCA who may then be willing to actually stage the prosecution.
 

Stooge have you read up on the debate yet ?i still think the law is the problem as there are too many loop holes to enable the breeders to flout the law .

I don't think they particularly need loop holes, it seems to me certain councils either cannot be bothered or feel their local economy somehow justifies it.

The loop holes enable that to happen though.

Like all public sector organisations this is a way they get away with not being accountable.

You can disregard the RSPCA getting involved in any situation regarding a licensed breeder in Wales for a start and this is where most of the commercial breeders/battery dog farmers operate from that supply dealers and pet shops. They have an arrangement called joined up working or approach or something similar whereby the Council will be the first to go into a breeders premises and it will be the Council that will decide it the situation warrants the RSPCA to be involved. If they decide it is not necessary and to cover their own backs as they are responsible for icensing and inspect the premises once a year it is highly unlikely the RSPCA will become involved in any licensed dog breeding premises.
The RSPCA has no right of entry anywhere unless they apply to the Court for a warrant and have a justifiable reason asking for it.  

> So you agree that it is ok for a non puppy farmer to rehome brood bitches

That's very diffferent, if the breeder does so themselves, taking the full responsibility, not dumping them on rescue. 

It's one of the best ways of obtaining an adult companion of your chosen breed, with full history, health tested etc.

I too agree with marianne.

> Not all breeders do rehome themselves though that is my point.
>

Then they are/or are the same as the PF/BYB.

> as the law stands you can have as many litters out of a bitch as you can which is not against the law.
>
>

I believe under the law no bitch is allowed to have more than 6 litters in her lifetime (though how this can be proved when most PF litters are not registered), and there is supposed to be a clear year between litters.

The tread has gone off on a tangent onto puppy farming which is fine as it is my passion campaigning against it.  However on this occasion can someone please bring it back on track by commenting on whether they feel it is acceptable for van loads and sometimes a cattle truck entering the UK full up with dogs puppies and cats.  They most originate from dog pounds, then collected by rescues in the Irish Republic?  Then bought into the UK by Irish rescues or collected by UK rescues.  The UK rescues and the Irish are a mixture of Charity registered, Company House registered or most something that they call 'non profit organisation' meaning they not registered anywhere with anyone.  They all whether based in the Irish Republic or UK and it does include all rescues when they are operating as an 'economic  activity or commercial activity' must be compliant with both the Animal Welfare Transport Order and the Balai Directive when bring dogs, puppies, cats into the UK. This has been verified by the AHVLA which is part of Defra. Yet out of all the ones I am aware in this cartel involved in trafficking of dogs only one has the correct vehicle and approval yet none comply with the Balai Directive. Therefore we have thousands of dogs, puppies and cats bought into the UK by these groups of people who fly the flag of rescue yet are ignorant of their responsibilities towards the animals they are transporting resulting sometimes in suffering.

I was looking at the OLDIES site the other day and was shocked to see lots of Romanian street dogs.
Louise

I personally do not think it right to bring in dogs to UK from abroad, not until there is not a single UK dog left in rescue.

If people want to help those dogs personally they can adopt and bring them in, or contribute to the agencies in those countries to shelter and re-home them locally, and campaign for better education of puppy dog owners so that the rescue issue is reduced.

As has been commented before why do Scandinavian countries have such low rescue figures compared to English speaking countries?????.

> and campaign for better education of puppy dog owners so that the rescue issue is reduced

Definately a better cause.  If rescue societies here find themselves short of dogs let them rejoice and redirect their excess resources to something like that.