>What about how u advertise u have a litter ? Doesn't that require u to have a licence regardless of.the other criteria ? Maybe some won't need to advertise pups as could.be word of mouth i suppose

Here too, the mere fact of advertising puppies for sale does not mean the breeder would require a license. The Regulations say that the license will be required if the person is "breeding dogs and advertising a business of selling dogs." The guidance which accompanies the Regulations says that the local authority will need to determine, whether the person who is breeding the dogs is also "advertising a business of selling them, as defined under the business test."

Nowhere does it say that the mere fact of advertising puppies for sale automatically lands you in need of a license. Instead it says that the local authority will need to determine this, weighing factors for and against the suggestion that what you are advertising is actually a business of selling the puppies. Guidance provides examples of such factors, such as "systematic and repeated transactions using the same means of advertising are likely to indicate a commercial activity", whereas "breeding less than 3 litters per year and selling the puppies without making a profit" is likely not to indicate a commercial activity.

>Some of.the problem maybe how councils interpret the law. I've heard of at least one that is insisting  £1000 line is money received    In that case HMRC rules wouldn't apply the two can be separate

The councils have to interpret the law correctly, else they will be sued. At this moment it would appear that HMRC rules would apply, as the guidance explicitly says that the local authorities will need to consider a variety of factors in determining whether a person is business or not business, including those "listed in the nine badges of trade set out by HMRC".

The £1000 which the guidance refers to is 1) a trading income, not a profit, and 2) is there to help the councils indicate those people who won't be needing a license (because their income is less than the amount), not those people who will be needing a license (because their income is more). In order to determine the latter people, the councils will need to weigh the variety of factors mentioned in the Regulations, guidance and beyond, including the factor of whether the person, given that their trading income is more than £1000, actually makes a profit.

Hi Monkeyj

Having a trading income of over £1000 does not automatically mean that the person is engaging in business. I can't find anywhere where it says otherwise..
Instead, I found this HMRC guidance on business test: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-business-non-business/vbnb22000
and their nine badges of trade: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim20205


I think this is at the root of the problem - it can be interpreted so many different ways, I followed the government site on the hobby allowance (the £1000) and that lead me to look at the section on self employed - the problem is that although as a dog breeder we do not fit some of the criteria we certainly fit others and that could cause problems.

https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself

the main bits are as follows

Running a business
You’re probably self-employed if you:

run your business for yourself and take responsibility for its success or failure
have several customers at the same time
can decide how, where and when you do your work
can hire other people at your own expense to help you or to do the work for you
provide the main items of equipment to do your work
are responsible for finishing any unsatisfactory work in your own time
charge an agreed fixed price for your work
sell goods or services to make a profit (including through websites or apps)

Selling goods or services
You could be classed as a trader if you sell goods or services. If you’re trading, you’re self-employed.

You’re likely to be trading if you:

sell regularly to make a profit
make items to sell for profit
sell online, at car boot sales or through classified adverts on a regular basis
earn commission from selling goods for other people
are paid for a service you provide
You’re probably not trading if you sell some unwanted items occasionally or you don’t plan to make a profit. You can’t use any losses you make as part of a hobby to reduce your tax bill.

I hope that they sort out this mess and that you are right but until they get some clarity on the rules I think a lot of the good small time breeders will err on the side of caution and not bother and there will be a considerable loss to the genetic diversity of some breeds as a consequence.

I personally would not like to breed a litter only to find even though I consider myself a hobby breeder (one heath tested carefully planned litter every 2 - 3 years) that in the eyes of the government I am suddenly self employed for that year

this cessation of breeding has nothing to do with the expense of the license but more to do with the changes required to our homes.

Also if we can not advertise on Champdogs without displaying a license number or add a litter to the KC puppy register without being an AB, it severely reduces reputable places for people to find a good home bred puppy, as most puppy buyers would not think to go to the breed club (that's if they don't add that they want a license number to show litters too).

Sorry for the long reply, we can just hope they untangle this soon.

Hen

Sorry if this sounds stupid but can a petition not be started against the changes? Surely of it reaches the required signature rate, it would increase the chances of discussionin the houses of Parliament - balanced discussion with the input of the hobby breeder?

If the petition misinterprets the law (which is very likely to happen unless it is written with help of a lawyer, just have a look at this thread), then the petition will simply be brushed away....

As far as I am aware the law has been passed without needing a vote, it had less than an hours discussion in either house and will be in effect from the 1st October as it is written, it will have to have a review sometime before 2023 so we will all have to wait and see what happens. It will come as a shock to puppy buyers and the majority of breeders as most people I have spoken to have not even heard about it so I am awaiting the events post 1/10/18, presumeably there will be a fairly lengthy "grace" period especially as the Council websites I have looked at have advised licence applicants not to start breeding operations before they get a licence and it could be several months wait.  Inspectors are apparently being trained at the moment and there is no info currently on how many will be available for inspections in the various counties.

> the Council websites I have looked at have advised licence applicants not to start breeding operations before they get a licence and it could be several months wait.

What will they do about litters conceived or born between now and October but not due to leave for new homes until after the new regulations come in to force?  To hold off on a mating while waiting for a licence is one thing (if not ideal in all circumstances, e.g. breeding plans for a last litter from a bitch), but the born cannot be unborn.

> Inspectors are apparently being trained at the moment and there is no info currently on how many will be available for inspections in the various counties.

I wonder what they are going to do about vets?  Will they add participation in breeding-licence inspections to the workload of GP vets, or recruit others? and if so, from where? I have read that there may not be enough vets to inspect at abattoirs after next March.

What do the breed clubs say about this?  I have looked at some breed club websites and see nothing about it, and couldn't find anything on the Kennel Club website (might have missed it though). Also the groups concerned with other activities, such as Agility, Flyball etc.

(I don't breed, but will I hope be looking for a new puppy or young dog in the next few years.)

As far as I can see the wording isn't changing from what it currently is other than reducing the mandatory Licence threshold to three litters rather than five.

It's council attitudes that may differ, especially with a mind to finances.

http://www.petcare.org.uk/images/Images_2018/AAL/Guidance_notes_for_breeding_dogs.pdf

I believe that most of us consider ourselves out of scope based on paragraph: 6. Breeders that breed a small number of puppies (i.e. less than 3 litters per year), and that sell them without making a profit.

It is how councils will (in some cases already do) choose to interpret the above (determining profit) that will cause us issues.

How they choose to define point 2 and following:

In scope criteria Activities that fulfil one or more of the following criteria are subject to licensing:

1.Anyone breeding three or more litters of puppies per year (unless they can show that none of the puppies have been sold).

2.Anyone breeding puppies and advertising a business of selling them, as defined under the business test
outlined above . This is irrespective of the number of litters produced per year. This is not restricted to registered businesses - individuals can also be classed as a business depending on the extent of their activities.

3. Factors that should be considered when determining whether someone is “advertising a business” include:

4. The number, frequency and/or volume of sales - systematic and repeated transactions using the same means of advertising are likely to indicate a commercial activity.

5.High volumes of animals sold or advertised for sale could indicate a business.

6. Low volumes of animals sold or advertised could indicate a business where high sales prices or large profit margins are involved.

7. High range and variability in the breeds traded.  A wide variety of breeds being advertised could indicate the commercial nature of the activity.

8. High numbers of advertisements of puppies for sale, including on classified websites, could indicate commercial behaviour, even where there is no actual sale taking place via the internet. This could be high numbers of advertisements at any one time or over a short period of time, and/or regularly.

9. Advertising through a variety of sites, forums or media could indicate a commercial activity.

All the above is so open to interpretation, what is regularly, is annually regularly/systematically, what's high or low volume and what are high sale prices?

Interesting wording on item No 6, 'large profit margins’. That would appear to indicate that expenses are being considered rather then just turnover

I would like to think that David Cavill's interpretation, (Speakers' Corner, Our Dogs, 22.06.18), will be the way that this legislation will be implemented for the majority of hobby breeders. The last two columns of the article, 'No Need to Panic', and, 'Light Touch', seem to suggest that anyone breeding less than three litters a year will not even be required to register. This is reminiscent of the panic that surrounded the 1973 Act, which, as I have said earlier, was subsequently only very lightly implemented by the councils.
I am puzzled by the discussion of controls for advertising puppies though. If this is the case, I can see this leading to part litters of half-grown puppies being signed over to rescue by desperate first time breeders - surely this would be counter to the intention of the Act? Please tell me that I have misunderstood this part!
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but if you do have a breed that whelps large litters, and they sell for a decent price - why should you not be registered with the Inland Revenue? All of your expenses could be offset, and if your books show that you genuinely don't make a profit, you will not pay tax anyway. Puppies should always be a labour of love, and no hobbyist or  small business person gets paid for the effort they put into a project, only for the results of that labour.

"I'm not trying to offend anyone, but if you do have a breed that whelps large litters, and they sell for a decent price - why should you not be registered with the Inland Revenue?"

I don't think that's really the point. I am sure that most people would stuggle to justify not paying tax if there was such profit. I feel that the concern is about having to get a licence, which most of us can't for various reasons (eg no quarentine area, fully vaccinated dogs etc).

I really find it hard to believe that the councils will try to enforce standards more appropriate for a kennel block onto people who only breed one of two litters a year, and do so in their own homes.

I think the Councils will very much be on the case, pushed on by HMRC, breeders of any puppies will have to show that they do not make a profit which may be difficult in some breeds where puppies are fetching well over £1000 each, it may of course work in a way contrary to what was intended and the price of puppies will go up which may encourage more people to breed.

I am totally shocked that this legislation thinks it is ok to breed a bitch at a year old and have 6 litters from her including 2 c-sections if necessary, I wonder how the charities involved justify this being part of the grand plan to cut down on puppy farms and "back yard" breeders.  There also is no mention of imported litters except to say that the puppy paperwork must state the country of origin, what about the seeing the puppy where it was bred and the mother of that litter/conditions/health etc.

There is also a line which says that dogs should not be bred from if they are genetically predisposed to illness and puppy buyers must be informed of any potential problems in the breed (this is in a separate line).

> All the above is so open to interpretation, what is regularly, is annually regularly/systematically, what's high or low volume and what are high sale prices?

Agree, and this is because there is no definition under this legislation as to what is the "business test". Instead there are examples and suggestions, none of which are exhaustive or conclusive.

As it happens this is nothing new: it says on HMRC website "Neither UK nor EC law provides an exhaustive definition or test for working out whether an activity is business. As a result the meaning of “business” and “economic activity” has emerged from a body of case law." I can't see councils possibly ignoring this body of case law, a lot of which is based on common sense.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/technical-activities/technical-resources-search/2011/august/badges-of-trade.html&ved=2ahUKEwih4_-x5f7cAhWKLMAKHSN9B_gQFjAAegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw1yy8wzou4RXMWQCSfEQ5lO

link to hmrcs 9 badges of trade

> There also is no mention of imported litters except to say that the puppy paperwork must state the country of origin, what about the seeing the puppy where it was bred and the mother of that litter/conditions/health etc.

As puppies are not legally allowed to be imported before they are 15+ weeks old I don't think seeing them with their Dam really applies.

Though of course the conditions they are bred in and care of the dam doesn't as UK rules don't apply .

This survey by Battersea in 2015 might be interesting: http://www.bdch.org.uk/files/Licensed-Dog-Breeding-in-Great-Britain-report.pdf as it may give an idea of LA attitudes to Licencing dog breeders thus far when the threshold for mandatory licencing was 5 litters.

this is a wild assumption:
Our survey shows that 13,425 breeding bitches are kept by currently licensed breeders. The law says that bitches can only have one litter every 12 months. As the average size of a litter is five puppies, this would mean that licensed dog breeders would produce 67,125 puppies a year.

This presupposes that bitches are bred from every year.

My own LA doesn't have details on their website re breeding Licences, but the neighbouring one has theirs on site: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/documents/Breeding-establishment.pdf

How many of us could or would want to adhere to such requirements?????

I think the answer is simple, those of us who can't or don't want to adhere to these requirements, would need to "downsize" to a hobby breeder.

And I think we should count ourselves lucky that for now at least we do have this opportunity. If you look at countries such as Switzerland, the requirements that must be satisfied there are even more strict, and ALL breeders must adhere to those. That is, if you don't have an outdoor puppy play area that is 20 square meters minimum for the smallest of breeds, or 100 square meters for Irish wolfhounds, then you can't breed a registered litter...

> I think the answer is simple, those of us who can't or don't want to adhere to these requirements, would need to "downsize" to a hobby breeder.

but some councils will want to Licence us, for even 1 litter.  I have never bred more than two litters in a year (that only twice and then not bred some years) and have averaged 1 litter.

> That is, if you don't have an outdoor puppy play area that is 20 square meters minimum for the smallest of breeds, or 100 square meters for Irish wolfhounds, then you can't breed a registered litter...

bloomin heck, the average new build house has only a garden of 20 x 30 feet so less than 20m square.

My dogs use the first 25 feet of my 60 x 25 feet garden. pups under 6 weeks use a 10 x 6 foot puppy run before being loose with the adults after that.

Also a lot of us do not want to be licenced along with people like this at the huge 500+ puppy farm https://breedingbusiness.com/dog-breeding-profitable/ from 40 minutes in.

Folks, I think the near-hysteria here is unwarranted.

Just think about it logically:  The number of people whose dogs have a litter a year or a litter every few years, or an accidental litter which is subsequently sold, or Mrs Smith who decides to breed from the family pet to show the kids what it's like to have puppies, and doesn't realise she has to register with anyone... stop thinking about the words and what they could mean and start to think about how this could ever practically be feasible.... how on earth are they going to police all that??  Do you know how many people there are the UK?  They can't keep track of people and their doings, let alone the animals that are bred. 

I'm pretty sure they will target large scale breeders who breed more than 3 litters a year. 

Meanwhile:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/22/government-to-ban-unethical-puppy-and-kitten-farms-in-england 

So if they are going to discourage all small-scale breeders as some of you are worrying, and they are going to ban all puppy farms.....

Folks, I think the near-hysteria here is unwarranted.

I think it is driven by fear of the unknown, I know I am very worried - not by any financial aspect - I am with most of the people on here where it is to do with what the councils will decide regarding changes to our homes and I worry that they (the councils) will read the letter of the law not the spirit i.e. every one who breeds a litter is in business. This is not to say they will, but from the people who have contacted their councils that seems to be the case. maybe it will settle in a while.

I think that it has also been raised by someone that Champdogs will only allow litters from licensed breeders (sorry I can't remember who) That lead to my comment about where will people find decent home bred puppies - I know that Champdogs is well regarded as a place to find a well bred puppy. I did wonder if someone from admin could have confirmed their new policy regarding licensing and under what circumstances if any a license would/would not be needed. I know that the policy might not have been totally finalised (however it is not that far from being introduced and so must be nearly finished) but with memberships coming up for renewal all the time it would be better to make an informed decision.

The number of people whose dogs have a litter a year or a litter every few years, or an accidental litter which is subsequently sold, or Mrs Smith who decides to breed from the family pet to show the kids what it's like to have puppies, and doesn't realise she has to register with anyone... .... how on earth are they going to police all that??

I think that this is also part of the issue - they can't and won't police people like this and in some ways it is precisely the accidental breeder who will fly below the radar and in all probability has given scant regards to raising a quality puppy.

Occasional breeders, people who have one litter a year or even every few years, the ones who 'live' their litters, their world revolves around their dogs - an awful lot on here are like that, they  will get caught up in this because the do their research and are honest and want to do the right thing. It is an easy target as they hold themselves up for scrutiny. The world needs more breeders like Barbara (Brainless) (sorry for picking on you Barbara hope you don't mind!) who you can see the passion for her dogs shines through and less of the 'I had a bitch and my neighbour had a dog - hey ho off you go' type. How you do that I have no idea - and looking at this legislation nor does the government.

Reading some of what's been written here since the OP appeared, it seems that there's a huge amount of hysteria going on and very little Common Sense re this new legislation.   However, as always, it's the responsible hobby breeder that may be penalised or much of the breeding from the BYB/Puppy Farm, will simply go underground?   Just as would probably be the case if Dog Licensing was to be reintroduced.   Only the responsible would line up and pay for a Licence.

When we were breeding the occasional litter, 5 in Canada and 5 back in the UK between 1979 and 1987, only once did I list a litter with the KC here in the UK (never again as all you need to be listed is to register a litter and pay the fee).   We had somebody in the Breed Club who kept a list of people with puppies available and when we were active in the ring, I received a fair amount of enquiries too - a lot of it was word of mouth.   So general advertising our puppies didn't happen.

Overall I'm glad something is being done, apparently, re BYBing and Puppy Farms, but also so glad that I'm no longer involved in breeding (or showing, to be honest).   BUT any law that cannot be policed, is a bad law.

> I think the Councils will very much be on the case, pushed on by HMRC, breeders of any puppies will have to show that they do not make a profit which may be difficult in some breeds where puppies are fetching well over £1000 each

How could this possibly be difficult? If the breeder:

1) does not want to be licensed, say they don't want to turn their house into a kennel,
2) realises there is a risk of them being considered as "business" due to the high price of the puppies which even after expenses allows some profit, 

is the solution not a very simple one? To sell the puppies at a price sufficient to ensure the breeder breaks even, but makes no profit?


I can't see how a genuinely hobby breeder could possibly have a problem with this solution. I've mentioned this in some other thread, in my breed one of the top breeders always sells her puppies at nearly 50% lower price than is "usual". The money she charges are sufficient to help ensure the puppies don't fall into wrong hands, and given that the profit is nowhere among her reasons for breeding there are no other objections to her setting the lower price.

When I have a litter, I stop my other work (being self-employed I can do that), to raise the puppies.  So do I factor in my loss of earnings, into whether there is a profit or not?  There's no way I am better off... Even if I had 8 puppies and sold them for £1000 each (say), I would not be better off for it.  I would have earned more money, continuing my regular work.  Not to mention CHD vaccines, progesterone, travel to the stud, accommodation during mating, supplements during pregnancy, vet care as appropriate including ultrasound if needed, food for puppies, vet care for puppies, microchips, etc etc and so on.  No way any hobby breeder is making much of a profit, I'd say...

Hen, breeders advertising on CDs do not have to be licensed.  There is a place to put your licence number in, if you are licensed, but you don't have to be.

Thanks 1234 - I know that there is a place for license number on the CD members registration, I made the mistake of thinking that the person who posted about needing a license on CD had spoken with CD admin - sorry.

I agree totally that hobby breeders don't make much of a profit (if any) - even before your own time is taken into account, I think to the ill informed the price of a puppy seems a very tempting idea to make a quick buck.

Hopefully this will be a storm in a teacup and life will settle down, anything that will remove Puppy farms and help reduce BYB breeders has got to be good, it just causes concern for those who want to do the right thing.

I can't see how a genuinely hobby breeder could possibly have a problem with this solution. I've mentioned this in some other thread, in my breed one of the top breeders always sells her puppies at nearly 50% lower price than is "usual". The money she charges are sufficient to help ensure the puppies don't fall into wrong hands, and given that the profit is nowhere among her reasons for breeding there are no other objections to her setting the lower price.

I agree totally with this -I have noticed within my own breed that it seem to be a certain type of breeder (quite a number of litters at one time, you know the type) that push up the asking price and seeming to achieve ever more eye watering prices whilst the rest of us like you say cover our costs and try not to let the go to an unsuitable home - I would rather have the best home for the puppies than an extra wad of cash.

> When I have a litter, I stop my other work (being self-employed I can do that), to raise the puppies.  So do I factor in my loss of earnings, into whether there is a profit or not?

I don't think so. After all it is perfectly normal for the person to give up "business one" activity in order to undertake "business two" activity - there is only so much human beings can do in any 24 hours!

But if we were allowed to say - actually, there is no profit in my "business two" activity because it pays much less than the "business one" activity and so I'm deducting all my "unearned earnings" from it - then the idea of profit would sort of cease to exist, everybody would be able to say my 50000 grand a year is not profit, because in order to earn it I gave up earning 100000 grand a year, and you see how funny that sounds

Again, years ago out in Canada, because somebody out there had been abusing the system (re income tax) Revenue Canada started what amounted to a witch-hunt on all breeders.     Only having the very occasional litter out there, with an X = O outcome re profit, we still had to set out, chapter and verse, our outlay vs our income from the sale of the puppies we had available after we'd made our choice for the next generation.   And boy was that hard with those doing this having no idea what was involved in doing a litter!!   What to include, what wasn't taken into account and so on.   It was a nightmare especially when we were satisfied to break even, with one, or maybe two, nice puppies for the next generation.   But where do you stop ..... setting up the temporary surroundings for a litter (whelping box) and no I didn't want my home turned into a kennel!   Then there's the cost of the foundation stock, showing them etc., using an outside stud, maybe, needing a C.Section or not, TIME, HEATING/LIGHTING, feed, registration (ID of the pups in Canada - noseprinting or tattoo).... and on and on. 

Hopefully all this will settle down once the new regulations come into effect.

Good point, monkeyj...

I think those who debate this legislation should interview a few breeders and come and see what life is like with a litter of pups. 

PS - The thing is:  I don't HAVE to stop my alternate work to have a litter.  Sure, I could raise them less well, spend less time with them, supervise them less - and continue working in my other job.  I choose to take a loss so I can do this job 'better'.  I wish that was recognised and encouraged rather than penalised...

> The number of people whose dogs have a litter a year or a litter every few years, or an accidental litter which is subsequently sold, or Mrs Smith who decides to breed from the family pet to show the kids what it's like to have puppies, and doesn't realise she has to register with anyone... stop thinking about the words and what they could mean and start to think about how this could ever practically be feasible.... how on earth are they going to police all that??

Well they can easily track those of us who register our puppies with the kennel Club, who issue Pet Insurance (as required) and who Microchip our pups as the law requires.  We are easy game.

The true Back yard Breeder will go undetected yes.

Sadly the News today is all about the bill to Ban 3rd party Sellers of puppies and kittens and what is being said is people will only be able to buy from Registered Breeders and Rescue Centres!!!!

No mention of Small scale Hobby Specialist breeders Breed conservationists/Custodians.

> is the solution not a very simple one? To sell the puppies at a price sufficient to ensure the breeder breaks even, but makes no profit?

This can be quite difficult, as there is always the resale risk if your too far out from other breeders, and also peoples expenses, especially veterinary do vary.

I have raised the price concern with my breed club secretary (as one breeder at least has raised their price to £1000, where others have been charging £800 at most) as our breed has always been quite low priced especially as it is a truly rare breed now in the UK with around 50 registrations annually.

I have imported a dog (in  a syndicate) when we still had quarantine, helped with another, taken bitches abroad for mating twice.  All of this at a significant financial loss.  Health screening in the breed, depending on vets can cost £500 - £800.

Sadly we do have commercially bred pups bred in Ireland coming though commercial outlets and individually who charge as much as decent breeders from quality health tested stock. I have seen adverts of puppies that no longer suit for £800 (looked a typical pup) and £850 (very untypical poorly reared one).

On a very rough calculation, say you accept it costs £1000 a year to keep a dog, and you have two litters from your bitch, even three or four, by the time she is 7 (end of breeding age) that's £7000.  then add in the litter costs with Health testing, Studs etc.  Your bitch is never going to be profitable. 

On the other hand stud dogs, recently offered to someone I know a pedigree Frenchie, checked his pedigree on MYKC.  His sire at 2 1/2 years had sired over 50 litters, totalling 107 puppies!!!

There's a GSD on this site that has sired over 955 puppies. Sorry but NO dog of any breed especially one that has no working qualifications & no outstanding conformation assessments needs to produce so many off spring. This dog hasn't produced multiple successful working or show offspring either & doesn't appear to be an improver for hip status either & he doesnt have perfect hips either

The quickest way to stop the puppy farmers is to cut off their outlet and ban any rescues or so-called adoption centres from selling or taking money for any puppies under 6 months old as that's where most of the problem is comming from.

Stop puppy farmers by not issuing a licence or dropping the number of bitches they are allowed to something like 10, even that can bring in a massive income less expenses without bothering with health tests.

and ban any rescues or so-called adoption centres from selling or taking money for any puppies under 6 months old as that's where most of the problem is comming from.


So rescue centres cause bad breeding practices ? Really ??

> This can be quite difficult, as there is always the resale risk if your too far out from other breeders, and also peoples expenses, especially veterinary do vary.

The resale risk is a very good point, I hadn't thought of that. It could be dealt with reasonably easy I think, say by charging the owner the full amount, keeping that part of it which is necessary to cover expenses, and donating the rest to a charity (say the breed rescue or any other charity indeed).

I'm not sure why varying expenses is a problem however. For as long as the breeder keeps track of their own expenses, what does it matter if another breeder has access to a cheaper vet or cheaper food. It's your own expenses that count, for the purposes of calculating your own profit.

Folks, DEFRA is running a consultation on these plans and I think it would be great for everyone who is concerned to fill it in so we can ensure this new law gets drawn up in such a way that it doesn’t affect responsible hobby breeders - fill it in here:https://consult.defra.gov.uk/animal-health-and-welfare/third-party-sales/

Thats to do with 3rd party sales and banning those who didn't breed the pups from selling them. How will hobby breeders get caught up in that? Im all for that.
Who brings in litters of pups from elsewhere to sell?

My current understanding is that council officers are undergoing the training now and shortly for others so everyone is implementing it the same and they all fully understand the law and how it should be interpreted.
Its a wait and see game from all accounts

>Thats to do with 3rd party sales and banning those who didn't breed the pups from selling them.

No, it's to do with only selling from registered breeders (not 3rd party etc).  And who defines what a registered breeder is?  Or what one has to do to be one?  That is what this thread is about... So I would really recommend filling in that consultation.

The answer is in the title about banning 3rd party sales which is lucys law and totally different to the new animal welfare act on breeding, boarding and kennels etc which is coming in oct 1st.

> donating the rest to a charity (say the breed rescue or any other charity indeed).

I have donated part (5%) of my puppy sale price to our breed rescue and breed club health fund since I started.

> I'm not sure why varying expenses is a problem however

in relation to having a standardised price within the breed, quite useful in numerically small breeds like mien where we pass on enquiries to each other.

> Stop puppy farmers by not issuing a licence or dropping the number of bitches they are allowed to something like 10, even that can bring in a massive income less expenses without bothering with health tests.

Now this is something I agree with.

If councils applied the same principle to number of bitches and staffing as they do to Boarding then the guy in Wales Licenced for 200 breeding bitches with only themselves and one part time staff member, and no-one living on the premises would not be allowed. Especially when you consider the breeding dogs live out their lives on the premises, not just get boarded for a few weeks.

Bearing in mind that most Hobby breeders Exhibitors would never wish to breed more than what is needed to sustain their hobby, then we need to accept that commercial breeding for the pet market is needed to meet the requirement for pets. So decent clean facilities with adequate staffing and care for the dogs, DNA testing of all puppies to ensure bitches are no overbred (4 litters maximum) and that ex breeders are homed.

There should be some long term responsibility also so that more care is taken to ensure puppies are sold to more suitable homes.  Perhaps for every dog bred that ends up in rescue (as breeder can be traced via the chipping law) a fee should go to rescue???

Won't those breeders have to change under the new rules ? One of the posters here.mentioned 6 ? As being allowed.surely those big commercial businesses  are exactly who we do want affected not

I believe legally that 6 is the limit of number of litters from a bitch for a Licenced breeder.  It is the KC that reduced it's limit for registration to 6.

I don't believe there is a reduction in the new legislation, but I certainly feel that licenced commercial breeders should have to DNA test puppies against their mothers at least to avoid overbreeding.

With so many breeding unregistered puppies, or using mickey mouse registers there is no way to ensure that a bitch is nit bred from every season for as long as she produces.