So in short... yes they are breaking the law.

As I've said before... if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!
To all the 'hobby' breeders who expect to be exempt from the law claiming they may not make a profit at the end of the day, or doubt they will break even, or perhaps make a loss... I point out if your 'hobby' was golf for example, you would not expect to make any profit from it, and you would expect a hobby to cost money.
Don't see how that can be argued with... but no doubt it will, so most likely my last post.
We accept we need to prove we are competent to drive a car, with a license ~ BECAUSE LIVES MAY BE INVOLVED. I fail to see the difference.

So as is the case with my breed, puppies that individually cost at least £1K, then there will be 'profit' and so all hobby breeders will have to be classed as 'a business'.

Arnt the two things separate ? licensing is from your LA . They individually decide at what point you need a license , some have used |HMRC guidleines to decide who they want a licence to apply . Ours talks about income not profit but there are ways round it if you haven't advertised . Talk about making it confusing

HMRC is totally different any income from anything, not just dog breeding, should be reported to them . You may or may not then have to pay tax

Can someone please explain WHY genuine, resonsible breeders wish to 'get around' being inspected and licensed?

The in scope licensing law is very clear and uncomplicated ~ if you breed and sell any puppies for profit, you must be licensed. Unless you can prove you gave them away or kept them all. Simple.

> but that ANY profit made from the selling of even one puppy, which exceeds £1,000 GROSS income per year will be determined as a 'business',

I believe that the above is incorrect. If the breeder is not in a business of selling the puppies, they will not need a licence. Making a profit of over £1000 does not automatically make the breeder to be in a business of selling the puppies.

Can someone please explain WHY genuine, resonsible breeders wish to 'get around' being inspected and licensed?

That's easy. Going by my local council:
Application fee: £321
1 year license fee: £232
2 year license fee: £354
3 year license fee: £466
Renewal fee: £266
Re-inspection fee: £94

So even if I wanted to breed just one more litter, a one year license would cost me £553. A 3 year license would cost me £787. And people moan about the ABS costing £60 a year, saying it's just a money making scheme for the KC! That includes being inspected every 3 years and that is a very thorough inspection.

There are a number of other reasons as well for why somebody would not want to have a license - for instance what if somebody wanted to have a litter of toydogs every few years in a rented property, hardly a major problem but if you don't own your property and are suddenly seen to be running a business, then what? What if you have neighbours who object to a license? Neither applies to me personally I hasten to add, but there's just some simple answers to why people would not want to be licensed.

To add to the above, the very fact of interference in your private life by authorities. Sometimes there is a good reason for this interference, but at other times I would rather spend the time with my family and dogs, and not some inspector

There was  an update from defra about this in April
Business test 12.The Regulations licence commercial dog breeders and commercial pet sellers amongst other commercial activities.
13.This is covered in the ‘Out of scope criteria’within the specific guidance notes for each activity including guidance notes for conditions for breeding dogs and on selling animals as pets. A local authority in deciding if a breeder is commercial should consider all  of the criteria listed in the relevant guidance and not one section in isolation.
14.For dog breeding, the guidance states that out of scope are:“Breeders that breed a small number of puppies (i.e. less than 3 litters per year), and that sell them without making a profit.”
15.For pet sellers, out of scope is:“The infrequent sale of a small number of surplus offspring/excess stock by a private individual who breeds animals as a hobby, for pleasure, exhibition for prize, or for education, study or scientific advancement. For low value species that may produce large numbers of excess stock, consideration should be given to the value of the stock and the likelihood that the seller is making a profit.”
16.The £1000 trading income as referred to in the guidance documents should be used as an indicator and not a ceiling as someone with over £1000 trading income may not be a commercial dog breederor pet seller and they may not be making a profit

I totally forgot to mention THE most important reason for why responsible breeders do not want a license. The license will state how many dogs you are allowed to keep. My oldest dog is 17 and a half and I have quite a few veterans, they would all count even though all they do is lay around on the couches being retired. Say that I was at the max number given, and a puppy buyer had to return a dog to me, then what would I do? Refuse to take back what I've bred or rehoming another dog? What if you bred a litter and could only keep one (which is all yo'ud want) but couldn't find the right home for the last pup, so that two had to stay? I already know one person who has had to rehome an adult as otherwise they'd go above the number permitted in their license.

I find that very surprising, unless they have a very large number of dogs? You're allocated a very reasonable number of breeding age according to your facilities, and an overall number, to take into account keeping oldies etc. My allowance is 20! I'm never going to have that many, so what's the real problem here? Any why shouldn't breeders be held accountable, to weed out the bad ones? I'm sorry but the good ones have nothing to fear.

And do we really have to hear about the cost again? Hobbies cost money!
Everyone on here knows the price of a pedigree puppy, so if you have less than 3 litters a year, and you can prove you don't gain any income from it (really?) then you don't need a license. If you are selling your surplus puppies for sometimes £1000 + each for many breeds... small percentage, isn't it?

I find that very surprising, unless they have a very large number of dogs?

No, their limit was 8. Small to medium sized breed.

You're allocated a very reasonable number of breeding age according to your facilities, and an overall number, to take into account keeping oldies etc. My allowance is 20! I'm never going to have that many, so what's the real problem here?

How can you compare yourself to everyone else? We all have different circumstances. Different properties, different BREEDS. Are you allowed to have your max of 20 living in the house? What size breed? And what's the longevity on average? I have a 17 yo, a 14 yo, 2 x 13 yo, a 10 yo, and that's only taking into account those in double figures. Any of them could live for years yet, my large breed is known to live to 18 and my toybreed over 20. How could you possibly plan ahead for any litters if you have to take the oldies into account for the numbers? They could live one more day or 10 years, who knows. I certainly have more than 20 dogs, but there is a huge size difference between the breeds, and the last time I had a litter was over 2 years ago.

Any why shouldn't breeders be held accountable, to weed out the bad ones? I'm sorry but the good ones have nothing to fear.

I don't understand what you mean by that comment at all. Basically you could now have somebody who keeps x number of dogs as a business, gets rid of any not young enough to breed from and they will be fine, but the caring show breeder who keeps their oldies and takes back any dog that the new owner cannot keep for any reason (and also, like so many of us do, give a home to a rescue, foster for breed rescue etc), stays in touch with their puppy owners for life, they will be the ones penalised by not being allowed to breed until somebody has died or being forced to rehome dogs that to us are family members and not part of a business.

And do we really have to hear about the cost again? Hobbies cost money!

Certainly, but if my hobby of painting live dragons, flying kites, playing cards or doing some sport or whatever was to suddenly increase its costs by over £500 per year payable IN ADVANCE just to allow me to continue at all, I would not be happy! What other hobbies do you have to pay your COUNCIL for to enable you to do them?

ALL of my dogs live in the house as part of the family. They are small breeds, longevity around 15 years, though I have had some much longer. I keep my much loved oldies, and every puppy I have ever homed over more than 30 years hobby breeding, is homed with a contract promising to BUY them back if the owners circumstances ever change.
Try to work with the inspectors, not against them. Build up a good rapport, and I have found they will help you to work around most problems. I am absolutely shocked someone was forced to give up a dog that was well cared for, in a suitable environment. I'm sorry to hear that.

At the end of the day, however much we may disagree with some laws made in the UK... the law is the law, and we must abide by it.
I totally disagree with mandatory microchipping, given the complications which can arise, especially to tiny breeds at only 8 weeks old. I actually lobbied parliament, my local MP and the media to try to change this legislation from 8 weeks old, to 2kgs... but got nowhere, so there you go. And so I dutifully chip every pup at 8 weeks.
I actually came on here as a 5 star license holder, after a 2 year battle with my council, and many hurdles to overcome, to try and help anyone facing difficulties, and allay fears with actual first hand knowledge and experience. But again... I conceed. Moan and complain all you like ~ but it's the LAW!

As Tommee said "I don't breed and I never will", and Goldmali has stated "I have given up breeding"... I'm a little confused then, why they are so invested in a breeding license post?
Please understand I have tried to be helpful. I will no longer post as I feel completely under attack. Good luck everyone.

Yes I've decided to give up breeding, for a variety of reasons, but I have friends and puppy buyers who want to breed, so the subject still interests me a lot. Especially as there is so much conflicting information, even after a full year. And there's been no change at all to the numerous adverts on pet selling sites, with people breeding from dogs not health tested, without real care, and the ads even state they are not council licensed. If the law changes HAD stopped people like that, then I'd be perfectly happy to accept it all, but as usual, it's the responsible breeders that are giving up, those that are only in it for the money carry on as normal. :(

Not particularly related to any specific posts here, but thinking about this, I'd actually like to see a MAXIMUM number of litters allowed per year, per household, rather than '3 or more must be licenced'.  That just allows the farms to continue but limit it to 2 or 3 litters per year, and it'll make it no longer worth their while to continue.  No reputable hobby breeder should be breeding more than that anyway IMO, and the licence fee wouldn't need to be huge because the limitation would be the deterrant.

Commercial breeders aren't "household" - they have business premises, kennels etc... I would vote for a ban on commercial breeding though, absolutely no point or value in it, let alone undesirable consequences.

Per premises, then.  I had the puppy farm in mind that I stopped grooming for recently when I wrote that.  That is very much a household - big old farmhouse with converted stables for the dogs.  It's an upmarket puppy farm for sure, but still a farm.  But yes, premises would cover it better.

A ban on commercial breeding would be fabulous too but I'd still want to see a limit to number of litters to curtail the small-time farmers too; the ones with cages all over their house and the like.