There are currently more dogs than owners.

According to Jeangenie the KC asked Staffie breeders to cut down on breeding (reference required).

How would you redress the balance ?

Somehow the 'Demand' pat of the equation needs to be reduced as too many people who do not realise or accept the long term responsibilities of dog ownership, who should not have a dog in the first place..

So often we concentrate on trying to control the production side, but most of the dogs ending in recue are not puppies that breeders (be they good bad or indifferent) can't sell, though there probably is still the occasional accidental or otherwise litter from the 'casual' breeder.

There should be some consequences, financial penalty for those giving up a dog without a very good reason, and also the same for the person that bred the dog.

If controlling the supply is seen as the best way then EVERY DOG must be traceable back to it's breeder somehow.  From the accidental litter to the deliberate.

I've often wondered if the upsurge in internet selling sites hasn't made it far too easy to buy and sell animals, in the past, people had to make some sort of effort to locate a dog, even if that was just buying an Exchange and Mart.
Now however, anyone can buy an animal during the tv break in Coronation Street, far too easy imo, some of the puppy farmers make it as easy as ordering a pizza, they'll even deliver !.
Inevitably, the purchaser hasn't researched the breed, or thought about the practicalities much, and what easier way to get rid of their purchase, than to flog it again, or if they have any sense and compassion, pass it on to a rescue.
So for my money, ban selling animals on internet sites such as Gumtree.

Yet Internet sites where good breeders can make their presence known (like champdogs, Kennel club puppy list) are invaluable way for breeders to locate suitable owners and vice versa.

It comes down to vetting and the breeders that are purely commercially driven the only vetting is ability to pay.

I've just seen the that the Humane Soc of the US ....(HSUS for short) are claiming that up to 80% of puppies eventually end up going through rescue in their lifetime.

Anti breeder smear of course ..but if you even HALF that number,then those of us who NEVER have one in that position have to realise we are lumped together statistically with those 40%.

Can WE as a tiny fraction (and atypical of that 40%) really DO anything other that keep our OWN house in order?

Perhaps facilitating those one off quick cash crop breeders to succeed by freely giving our advice...may not be helping at all.

According to Jeangenie the KC asked Staffie breeders to cut down on breeding (reference required).

This definitely did happen, and I am pretty sure that links were given here at the time. However the press release doesn't seem to be on the KC website any more, and I can't remember what year it was although I am pretty sure it was before PDE so mid 2000's I'd guess. I save a lot of KC press releases on my own computer but sadly don't seem to have saved this one.

This wouldn't stop the people breeding staffie type puppies. Look at how easy it is to buy pit bull types still even though they should have died out in the UK if the law had been upheld properly.
The same could be said to breeders of any breeds that have had an explosion in  numbers. Look at French Bulldogs as an example.

Perhaps facilitating those one off quick cash crop breeders to succeed by freely giving our advice...may not be helping at all.

That's my thinking too which is why I stopped.  If you make it too easy for them to make money then they'll do it again.  The only advice I give is "Go to your Vet".

Also 50 years ago there were just a few rescue centres scattered around the country, run by RSPCA and NCDL.  Before taking in a dog, the present owners were given the third degree as to why they couldn't be responsible for their dog.  They were sometimes asked for a fee before their dog was accepted.  It was very embarrassing to say the least and VERY occassionally, once or twice a year, a dog was tied up or a box of puppies were left outside.  But it certainly wasn't an easy option to part with a dog.

Now dogs have become an easy come (almost everyone who owns a bitch thinks they can produce puppies) and if they can't sell them all, they can always dump them on rescue, or give them to their friends who can dump them on rescue later when they are untrained adolescents.

The solution needs to be multi pronged but where to start?  No idea, we've progressed too far down the wrong road.  :(

I would like to see only pups registered when owners have been involved an a dog related activity, eg Breed Club, Agility Club, Working etc, for 3 years but how to stop backyard breeders producing?  I've no idea.

Can I just say that the numbers of staffords bred and registered with the UK KC has dropped significantly with blues now being in the majority that are registered. However there are no numbers to account for the number of non KC registered staffords or stafford crosses, poorly bred, poorly reared and thrown either onto the streets or into rescue. You will find that responsible breeders often have potential new owners contacting them because they cannot find a well bred KC registered non blue stafford pup that is fully health tested for love nor money and any new litters that do crop up are either spoken for well in advance or are quickly snapped up.

The only way to stop overbreeding of dogs is for the puppy buying public to stop going to crappy breeders, dealers and petshops. We all know those sorts of breeders only it do it for money cutting corners at every opportunity and selling to anyone with cash. If people only got puppies from good responsible breeders or from good rescues then those types of breeders wouldn't be able to sell the puppies so wouldn't make any money and would stop breeding.

There will still be the accidental litters or people breeding from their pets for other reasons but at least with out the people breeding for  money that would I'd guess be a big chunk stopped.

I do actually think there should be some form of rules to decide who can or cannot breed. For a start I would not want people in rented/council property to be able to breed, or those with near neighbours. Once upon a a time all dog breeders lived in the countryside, all of a sudden it seems anyone with four walls and a roof think they can breed. (Yes I know you can have good breeders living in a town, but I am trying to simplify things here -there will never be one size fits ALL.) But likewise of course I would not want rules that would allow puppy farmers to breed just because they have a farm in the middle of nowhere. I think maybe you'd need to demonstrate some sort of active involvement in dogs -whether it is showing them or working them or breeding for practical reasons such as for guide dogs, police dogs, gamekeepers, sheepdogs etc. Not just breeding to supply a demand.  And of course all puppies to be KC registered, and KC registration ONLY available to those pups that have health tested parents with good results.

Well I can dream.

Would endorsements on all puppies as compulsorily on registration help ?

It would then mean a request could go into the breeder but also a 'board' who decided based on some key criteria set before hand ( the same for all breeds but adaptations for breed specific ) which means that people can only go ahead if they meet that criteria. This should be made on the suitability of the bitch or dog which could go through some sort of assement if they haven't  shown some evidence of capability in the show ring or working ability. You could also look at training courses ( again compulsorily ) to ensure the potential brreders are fully armed with everything they should know about the breed and breeding before they go into it if all the above is cleared and passed . It may even get people more interested in getting involved and either shoe or breed .

I think there is still a kudos to get a puppy that is KC registered and doing this will only enhance that kudos of showing that people who are doing it are doing it correctly rather than mating it with the bloke down the road who both just happen to be KC registered dogs.

I still think that by cutting of the advertizing avenues it would help. No advertising in newspapers (Except the dog papers I suppose) No adverts in local shops or pet shop outlets. No puppy sales allowed from pet shops. No puppies under 12 weeks sold from anywhere other than the breeders home. I think the local councils should have some input and anyone who wishes to breed a litter MUST reg their intent with the council. I personnaly think any one who breeds should be a member of a dog related club preferable a breed club but any sort be it agility, shooting, etc.. I would like to see all dogs registered and see it become law that they carry thier "tag" as they have to in USA at all times. A tag is obvious and easy to read. Micro chipping or tattooing should be compulsary as well as a catch safe in case tags have been lost while the dog is roaming. It shows the dog is registered and the owner can be found. Dogs picked up on the streets without tags are then classed as strays untill they have been scanned or tattoos read. Reg to be transferred like a car reg document if the dog changes hands and put the ownes on the seller so if the dog is picked up it is thier responsibility ...
The BYB's and puppy farmers will allways have a market as many of the people who buy from them are those that good breeders refuse...!!! So we need to make it hard for them to advertize thier pups.
I expect you will all throw your hands up in horror but I still believe with the right government backing the kennel club is the best place to start. They hold thousands of owners details and have the right hardware in place to extent this. I also think that they could extend the "activity" register to encompass companion dogs. The ABS has its faults at the moment but it is the only form of vetting for breeding in the UK. With the right laws in place it could become so much better. At the moment those who object to the cost/rules/etc.. can walk away and so it has no teeth. If you could NOT breed in the UK without membership and you faced prosecution if you did then it becomes stronger. But even then the wrong people would get dogs. There are many more people wanting pups than good breeders can provide for but there are many who good breeders would not sell to as well !
Nothing will change as long as the laws are not in place to support any changes. The introduction of compulsory microchipping will help a little but it will not stop the rot. Those who do not care about the dogs they have will continue to do as they please. after all they do not love thier dogs so care not one jot if the dog gets loose and is picked up and is not tracable, why should they worry they can get another one tomorrow !! These sorts of laws are just pussy footing round the problems. We need good strong legislation and a robust system of registration. I do not think vets can do much to help as if they start to report dogs not chipped then the owners will not attend and dogs WILL suffer.
Aileen

I would like to see all dogs registered and see it become law that they carry thier "tag" as they have to in USA at all times.

I don't see this working, I know it doesn't in USA as I've seen alot of Americans saying online that they have not registered there dogs or have onky done one of there dogs and not the other one. They will likely only get caught if someone reported them which isn't likely unless there is an incident.

It's all ready law here in uk that all dogs must where id tags when out yet most do not. I've never bumped into a dog warden or police officer when walking my dog so how would they know if I'm following any dog laws or not.

The thing is with SBT breeder are numbers are done from years ago, and BRS its not the show people over breeding its bybs with blues, we are not gonna educate or dwindle this with the people who are breeding as we cant educate them people as they won't come on these kind of forums for advice. As if problems arise they dump them in rescue and start again. With no thought of the animals.

Sorry haven't read all comments.

Nessa

Perhaps the whole way of dog breeding needs to be re-evaluated and changed.

It needs to become a responsibility from the beginning....not at the end. (Most on the board do this, but we are a small minority of breeders)

So........I think a good idea would be to make councils even more active (someone has to step in).......All breeders one off's, big and small, should have to be licensed by their council first and pay for a license to do so, (any not, can and should immediately be reported and have large fines)

Then, wouldn't it be lovely if all breeders had to do what responsible breeders naturally do,  make it that no litter could go ahead without a fully vetted waiting list first, sent onto the council (It means no litter is unplanned, no pup does not already have a list of names waiting to go to.)  The list of names and addresses sent onto the council would then receive a contract to be signed by all potential puppy buyers as to the responsibility of care for the dog and towards the public, the contract also including the DDA act etc. After signing and sending back the contracts the litter can then go ahead and for those on the list lucky enough to receive a pup, a dog license is then paid for and supplied to the new owner by the council.

More money in our councils pockets and time, which is important for breeder and buyer time to think things through, no flippant buying or breeding, it becomes a responsibility from start to finish.

I know it is all pie in the sky, won't happen ..........but people will continue to breed first, buy first.... and think later, it can't be stopped unless someone steps in to stop it.

The only other redress is for rescues to put the message out big and bold, that there is a £200 charge for dogs sent there and no room at the inn, but don't think that would stop the over-breeding tbh.

Having dogs traceable back to the breeder is only any use if the breeder is in a position to take the dog back when one is traced back to them!

People's circumstances change, especially over years and the life time of a dog.  Unexpected things happen.  Someone who thought they would be able to take back any dogs which come back to them, might have been made redundant, been forced to move house, be sick etc etc.

Traceable back to breeder doesn't solve everything.

I really hope some of the ridiculously big-brother and authoritarian suggestions some of you make here, never come into being. 

Waiting lists are pulled out of and lost when the pups hit the ground (how many people like the idea of a puppy, but the nearer it gets to taking the puppy home, the more they get cold feet), people put their names on multiple waiting lists, and unconceived puppies cannot be bought when they don't even exist yet.

> or those with near neighbours

Well that's me out, one of the few regular breeders, who also has supported new breeders with her stock.  My annual litter nowadays accounts for 10%+ of our annual registrations.

I live in a  3 bed suburban semi, and most people I know in the countryside also have near neighbours, as most villages tend to be along a street.  One friend had to move due to neighbour issues and there4 were just two houses!!

We used to have breeders such as you describe who lived on farms, (not puppy farms), the last such in our breed has given up breeding and moved into a small house, prior to that they had sold the farm and lived in a house with not to close neighbours.

Sadly most puppy farmers have the facilities you describe and can hide their activities out of sight.

>I think maybe you'd need to demonstrate some sort of active involvement in dogs -whether it is showing them or working them or breeding for practical reasons such as for guide dogs, police dogs, gamekeepers, sheepdogs etc.

I'd reluctantly agree to this, it would still restrict some people Suitable to breed such as someone under the umbrella of their breeder/stud dog owner to help increase numbers of a numerically small breed, who perhaps didn't want their bitch to go back to the breeder to whelp, or be under breeding terms..

Sadly restrictions tend to have unforeseen negative effects for the wrong people, and often the bad people find a way t ignore or circumvent rules.

> Would endorsements on all puppies as compulsorily on registration help ?

No because there is a ready market for unregistered dogs in the most popular breeds or even crosses.

There are Mickey mouse registries, for people to sell pups as 'registered pedigree'.  Now Canada does not allow a dog to be legally described as pedigree unless registered with the recognised canine ruling body.

I do think endorsements should be something that is opted out of rather than an opt in when pups are registered.  with KC bumph saying something like your dog is not registered for breeding unless the endorsement is removed by the person placing it, please find out if and under what circumstances they are willing to remove it.

I agree with the latter part of your post.

It would rule me out as a breeder too, I live in a semi on the edge of town. But To some extent I can see the thinking behind the suggestion. It is a case of what facilities you have more than where you live. I sit on the fence with council/housing association homes, I think that if you do live in rented of any sort then it should be a must that your landlord is agreeable to your breeding. Of course the tax man is another who maybe should be involved, however I also think that if they do want to look at someone's tax implications then the cost of shows/working/agility trailing etc should be taken into account along with vet fees, heath tests, club memberships, travel costs, food etc... I know my costs well exceed any financial reward from a litter, but then I show, keep my oldies, go to meetings/AGM's of my club and breed rarely. The average BYB has numerous litters, does not become involved in dog related activities, and breeds specifically to make money.
Aileen

> Traceable back to breeder doesn't solve everything.<br />

but it would show where the problem was coming from, and of course the breeders circumstances could be taken into account when any accountability was introduced, if th3e person was commercially breeding then some financial consequences penalties would apply.  ditto if the person was still currently breeding.

Might also stop the welfare agencies tarring all breeders with the same brush as being the cause of the problem wh3ere good ethical breeding is part of the solution.  Well it is the solution

    > or those with near neighbours

Well that's me out, one of the few regular breeders, who also has supported new breeders with her stock.  My annual litter nowadays accounts for 10%+ of our annual registrations.

I was actually thinking of you when I wrote this Brainless, as you clearly are a perfect example of when it DOES work -but my main thought behind it wasn't so much it being better for the dogs, but better for the breeder. Having lived through the nightmare of having bad neighbours, I honestly don't think I ever could have near neighbours again -even if I stopped breeding and stopped keeping dogs altogether, I think I'd end up in therapy if I had to live with neighbours again as my experiences were so upsetting. I'd not wish for anyone else to go through bad neighbours (and if you have good ones can never be sure they will not move and be replaced by bad ones), and the majority of my breeder friends (with just a few exceptions) do live in rural areas with space and no near neighbours and it does make life SO much easier. But as you said, and I did as well, on the other hand it makes it too easy for the BAD breeders to hide away, so there is no easy solution.

I wonder if it would make a diffrence if they brought in laws to make breeders who do not do the breed recommend health testing responsible financially if any puppy they bred developed that problem at any point in its life.

That way if someone wants to save money and not health test there dogs and puppy owners start taking them to court and winning compensation they will either at least start testing or stop breeding. But if a breeder had done the health testing and a pup still ended up developing a problem then the breeder would not be financially responsible.

I think this option already exists, for those who have the will and money to take legal action, or through the Small Claims courts, but those who buy from the puppy farmer or BYB through a retail outlet may not know who the breeder is or still be able to locate them, even if they did.

I think this option already exists, for those who have the will and money to take legal action, or through the Small Claims courts, but those who buy from the puppy farmer or BYB through a retail outlet may not know who the breeder is or still be able to locate them, even if they did.

It's only relevant for licensed breeders. If you are not, if you are a hobby breeder, then it is caveat emptor and if the buyer does not ensure the puppy they are buying is fit and healthy/parents have been health tested, then they have no come back.

Why would anybody want to opt out when registering a litter as surely the viability of any dog should only be determined once they are old enough and have the relevant health tests and don't show any other issues such as allergies , temperament issues, visible detrimental 'significant' ( that significance needs to be determined) faults which could all be part of the vetting process to take off the endorsement.

If that is in place accompanied by a national advertising campaign ( this can be done via multi media channels as the demographic of potential new puppy buyers will mean different media will target different audiences then this will show the public the merits and quality you will get from buying a puppy from a scheme like that and also what you need to go through to breed a dog.

The only way to turn things around in people views is to get a quality dog then buy from the scheme.

Look at the egg example would you buy an egg without the quality mark ? The majority of people would say no as this was down to putting in place more ridged practices in egg production and a very clever on going marketing campaign turned the industry round.

I know you can't compare a puppy to an egg but can you see how people's perceptions can be changed.

I don't know if you have misunderstood my post or I'm misunderstanding yours :)

What I meant by Opt out is that endorsements should be automatic unless you select them to be not endorsed, and that the KC draw attention to it, and ask the buyer to seek the conditions under which it may be lifted..

At present when registering a litter you have to choose the endorse option.

I suspect some novice or l3ess caring breeders may not choose it as they don't understand it.

>According to Jeangenie the KC asked Staffie breeders to cut down on breeding (reference required)

A few minutes' search on here found this. Will that do?

No Barbara we are agreeing to the same thing

I think there needs to be a major PR campaign about the perils of poorly bred puppies. Too many buyers are willingly colluding with these breeders on any old speel as to why their pups aren't registered or health tested. I know because I was one of them! Even though my gut was telling me this isn't right I would try to reconcile their reasons to justify visiting theses litters. Thankfully my fear of getting another Unhealthy dog held me off from buying one. But it was only when I found CD and It supported a lot of the  KC puppy buyers guide that I decided I was going down that route.

Some websites who actually have the audacity of stating they are against this happily let the same poster have puppies on their website with the same pics for over a year.

The difference in environment attitude of the breeder and confidence this instilled was poles apart from the others. I got the impression with one "breeder" that the dogs were a major inconvenience and she was pushing us all the way to hand over the cash. She then threw us out when we questioned why the pups were isolated from the mum.

With the KC breeder it was a 2 month vetting process of getting to know each other - she guided me to the pup she thought most suitable for me and we are still in contact now. It's lovely to feel you have someone there to ask their opinion on and just share in your (very) little triumphs like passing her KC etc.

I don't think the majority of the public realise this is how it should be.

> I don't think the majority of the public realise this is how it should be.

I get the impression that they think breeders are a necessary evil to get their puppy, and that all breeders are the same breeding only for the money.

Your are a bit scary to us plebs ! There is also that myth that there is an elitist element to going via the KC.

But what I have learnt is that most people are happy to advise or guide you, the breed club, CD and the KC in particular.

I couldn't have wished for a more down to earth breeder. Although she is also very firm about what she expects from us. We had to give vets details etc I don't know if she ever contacted them but they were definitely provided.   She was also very firm on the socialisation and grooming aspects and for the first few weeks she was contacting us almost daily.

Maybe the KC PR campaign could be " breeders don't bite!"

Now that is one thing but there is still a huge backlash whether from PDE or otherwise ( ignorance maybe ?)

A lot of people won't entertain looking at breeders who show as I think think perception is that all they are interested in is making the dog look nice and well groomed so they can parade round ring in a beauty pagent  .I had an interesting discussion around this not so long ago and was astounded by the lack of understanding about what makes a well bred dog and what a good breeder is. People get very defensive if you start to talk in detail about it as some people feel you are boring them with detail about things they find insignificant and a not a risk. All I want is a family dog so I won't need know nor would want to buy a puppy from a breeder who does all of that. People do not see or want to know about the risks , that is one element that needs to be tackled .

It has got to be EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. I had a call from my niece last night asking about a puppy she had bought from a pet shop (we are 400 miles apart and don't speak regularly). This puppy was DL whatever registered (Disney Land?) and she was trying to access his ancestors and get him registered with the KC. I told her that only the breeder can do this. She now knows she has been ripped off and wished she had spoken to me BEFORE buying a puppy. He is a GSD, aged 10 weeks and was at the shop/kennel with hundreds of other puppies of different breeds. Someone who bought his sister asked my niece for her contact details so they could mate them in the future and he would give her a puppy. At least she had the sense to tell him where to go. She paid £650 for this puppy. The KC should really make an all out effort to educate and all on line advertising (except CD and KC) be banned.

Bad breeders are so quick to bad mouth anyone associated with the KC - in a way that makes a novice feel like they are the oracle on such things. More than once I heard I used to register my pups but i don't like the way the KC is heading.

For someone just starting out looking for a puppy it is a minefield of misinformation and exploitation of maybe a couple of well published  or mythical negative things about the KC that have been perpetuated and exaggerated over the years.

I heard " the boxer breed collapsed" and that "they destroyed the British bulldog" whilst I was looking.

A friend of my daughter is about to start looking for a puppy and thankfully my daughter suggested having a chat with me about how to find a good breeder. We had a an email exchange, but I also suggested she come and look on Champdogs and the forum. She was delighted to have found this resource and hopefully will be able to find a well bred pup in the future.
I think it's a case of getting people past the 'oh I only want a pet, not show dog' reply whenever I suggest looking on the KC or breed club websites. I usually reply 'dont you want a healthy dog', but I'm not sure what I say is considered as its quite a fixed mentality.

I was accused of being a snob on a cocker FB page because I health test my dogs. Comments like" it sounds like a business" were made. This is why I say EDUCATE.  BTW I do show and am trying to do my bit in education. So bloody frustrating.

I do not agree with all the KC advocate as I was an assured breeder but withdrew, but I do register ALL my puppies and have an affix so that my puppy buyers know where my puppies come from. A lot of the breeds have been degenerated, more due to the breed clubs than the Kennel Club. This, I think is being rectified by the Kennel Club. I do however, think that the KC need to be in the "real" world and "grow a pair" to make sure that ALL dogs are healthy.

> This puppy was DL whatever registered (Disney Land?)

Oh I like that I always call them Mickey Mouse registries, but that's a great alternative for that one ;)

But it's the same as staffies, I own frenchies and this will be my 5th year of doing so. I have never bred a litter of them. The state of those that are breeding at the moment. And type is inconsistent in the ring anyway, if those that are doing the breed some good and breeding for type and health stopped. The French bulldog would be unrecognisable! All we can do is keep our own houses in order and endorse endorse endorse