I was sent an email regading a reputable breeder ( :(  :(  ) signing all her dogs over to RSPCA and they are now appealing but wait for it ... wnat £200 each for the labs !!
And not even enlisted any help from breed rescue.
I would question anyone having 160 dogs to be reputable

Yes I saw that Mattie, whats even better is they reckon they are ALL WORKING bred Labs, and they will all make suitable pets!!!  God only hopes they will place at least some of them with people like yourself who can truly find them SUITABLE homes.
Dawn.

Sounds just like when they took the Gatherals dogs & sold the Cavalier, sheltie & GSD puppies for the going market value without papers & the older dogs for £300 each. There were 85 dogs so the RSPCA were onto a nice little earner. I know of a working lab in a pet home along with a working ESS & they are terrible bahviourwise & are bad with other dogs

<sigh>nothing changes

<<whats even better is they reckon they are ALL WORKING bred Labs,>>

One wonders what exactly is meant by that Dawn. Just like showing, in order to take part in any gundog competition the dog needs to be KC registered. Does that mean that these dogs are KC registered? If so what was the KC doing whilst all this was going on? I really think we need a statement from the KC putting their position on puppy farming. Let's face it, if they are against puppy farming then it is not right that they should benefit from it. If on the other hand they condone puppy farming then maybe we should all be looking at registering with an alternative registration scheme, Dog Lovers for example, because there will not be anything to choose between the two!

John. 

I posted about this under Idle Chat. My point was will the RSPCA use some of the £200 per dog they plan to charge to help pay for training of the dogs and support of the new owners? Lets face it if they sell all 160 labs they are going to make quite a bit of money, £32,000 to be precise! That many dogs could not all live in the house with the breeder, therefore must be kennel dogs, so probably won't be used to living indoors and not housetrained! Working dogs need a lot of input mentally as well, will the new owners be informed of this?
I can see that when it suits them the RSPCA will use this in the future to bring in more anti dog legisation, more controls on hobby breeders as well as commercial breeders. Also as these labs are described as "working dogs" they will use this to say hounds and any working dog can be successfully rehomed by them. They will then say that the working breeder who was "so irresponsible as to have 160 dogs had the typical don't care for their dogs" attitude of those of us who do work our dogs. Sadly we'll all be tarred with the same brush as this "respectable breeder", as soon as it pleases the RSPCA to change their tune on this one!
I am not surprised they won't work with breed rescue, but I wouldn't mind betting that the breed rescue will end up picking up the RSPCA's mess, due to the RSPCA's total lack of co-operation!
I know a friend has already contacted the dog papers and shooting press about this. I do hope that these poor dogs will end up in loving knowledgeable homes.

According to this news item the breeder has 270 dogs in total and has no intention of giving up her business. :-(

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED21%20Sep%202004%2023%3A32%3A47%3A913

Kath

Quite agree with you John.
Dawn.

who is the breeder how on earth can the rspca not prosecute she has effectively dumped dogs and will continue breeding

Found this Mattie, from 2yrs ago.
Dawn.

147/02 SWANTON MORLEY:  CONTINUED USE FOR DOG BREEDING AND  ERECTION OF NEW KENNELS &#150; DERWENT WOODGATE LANE &#150;  REFERENCE:  3PL/2002/0821/F &#150; MISS C CADE (AGENDA ITEM 12)
  
In presenting the report, the Area Planning Officer (North) explained that the application related to continued use of land and buildings for dog breeding following the expiry of previous temporary permissions.  The proposal included a new sound-insulated building.  Members were reminded of the history of the site, detailed in the report, and that planning permission had been refused in May 2002 on the grounds that the use of the existing kennels would cause unacceptable disturbance. 
  
A number of letters of objection had been received from local residents who were concerned that the measures proposed in the revised application would not adequately deal with the noise problems if permission were granted.  The Area Planning Officer was of the view that the new noise insulated kennel in the proposal would effectively contain the noise of barking dogs within.  The Environmental Health Officer supported this view.  He also suggested that the applicant&#146;s proposal to house whelping bitches in the existing timber kennels was a reasonable one, given that the main disturbances arose from barking adult dogs.  He reassured members that the whole site would be subject to environmental controls to restrict noise levels.  Members noted that the new building would be of substantial construction and had been designed and detailed in line with the recommendations of an acoustic engineer. 
  
The Parish Council&#146;s views were reported to the meeting and included the following:

temporary permission to 31 December 2002 subject to strict soundproofing controls;
all dogs to be housed in sound proofed environments;
smaller entrance doors for the new building as there were concerns that noise would escape from the large number of doors in the revised proposal;
concerns that the applicant would not comply with the conditions of the permission if granted.
  
The application led to an extensive debate during which members became acutely aware of the strength of feeling on both sides.  The Ward Representative urged members to consider the matter before them carefully; he said local people had tolerated unreasonable levels of disturbance for a very long time but their tolerance had reached an end.  He added that he now shared the view of the Parish Council and he recommended that all dogs be housed in a sound-insulated building, including whelping bitches. 
  
A number of members and objectors drew attention to the Committee&#146;s previous decision (13 May 2002  - Minute No. 101/02) and questioned why negotiations with the applicant had departed from this.  After discussion of this point, there remained a difference of opinion as to whether whelping bitches and their puppies would generate noise through barking.  The view was also expressed that any noise generated would be subject to measurement and monitoring before any enforcement action could be implemented.  It was suggested that, in the event of a problem arising, it would be unreasonable to impose such a delay on local residents given the history of the site to date.  In view of this members did not accept the recommendation in the report and having been duly proposed and seconded it was
  
RESOLVED that

the application be deferred to enable negotiations to take place in relation to all dogs on the site (excluding those mentioned at 2) below) being housed in one new sound-insulated building as described in the report, including whelping bitches and their puppies, subject to the satisfaction of a veterinary and Environmental Health Officer and a further condition requiring all doors/windows in the new kennels to be kept shut and prohibiting outdoor exercising of dogs between 8.00 p.m. and 8.00 a.m.;
the site owner&#146;s four pets be the only dogs permitted to occupy the site owner&#146;s house;
all old/existing buildings be dismantled within a period of four weeks of this decision; and
the application be reported to the next Development Control Committee scheduled for 12 August 2002 for determination.
 

Area Planning Officer (North)

Environmental Health Officer 

can we have address

derwent kennels woodgate lane. swanton. morley.
get cracking and right your letters in protest

I have various issues with this.

1. The practice of puppy farming is condoned by weak legislation;
2. If all these dogs have been registered with the KC, what are the KC doing in respect of their
moral position in this. It surely does not take a rocket scientist to work out the scenario;
3. How much was this breeder charging per dog, more than £200 I would think, so this makes it a commercial enterprise;.
4. A lot of mind, body and spirit has been exercised by the hunting legislation, but I wonder how many puppy farmers are out there, and do people in their areas march against them?
5. I think it is time the KC gained some teeth, and perhaps a Canine Covigilance working party with RSPCA and police could focus on the issues of Puppy farming;
6. This Covigilance working party could also ask the Inland revenue to investigate earnings, life style ect, together with local newspaper ad sectins to target this disgusting practice;

In some areas puppy farming is not condoned but promoted! And by whom? The government who offer farmers subsidies to do this!
If it came to giving somebody teeth to act on this PLEASE not the RSPCA! They are a waste of space!!!!!

This breeders affix is Crisella.  She has also bred Curly Coats in the past.

She advertises weekly in the free ads. 

is this breeder in norfork? if so my best friend bought a pup from her 14 months ago. what a disaster. i can tell u a few things

Yes she is in Norfolk

It gives her address on the link I gave above. :-) 

There is a Court case in respect of the owner and these premises at the end of October.  I place the blame of the present situation firmly at the door of the breeder and the Council who is responsible for licensing the premises.  The breeder who I understand had a total of 275 dogs would have been aware of her responsibilty in respect of licensing the premises and at some time in the past was a licensed dog breeder (although at the present time is not) The Council must have at some stage stated on the licensing conditions the amount of dogs that were allowed to be on the premises - this appears to have lapsed as the numbers have increased to such an extent that it would be impossible to accomodate and care for this amount of dogs in a responsible way. Where, when licensed were the Councils yearly inspections, did the inspectors or dog warden not notice the numbers of dogs creeping up?
Even the accomodation housing the dogs was unsuitable as the Council said the existing sheds should be demolished and new built. Therefore the accomodation was not meeting the existing or past legislation, why had the Council at some stage licenced the premises when they were totally inadequate to accomodate the dogs?
There can be no excuse given by this breeder or any other that allows their business to increase in size to such an extent that this massive amount of dogs are on one site. There is no need to breed from dogs to such an extent, it can only be described as irresponsible and greed for monetary gain that has resulted in this deplorable situation.

There are too many dogs used for breeding too many litters produced without the forthought or concern for what is going to be the resulting consequencies of the puppies future. All puppies need homes and there are too many dogs being euthanased because suitable homes cannot be found and this irresponsible individual produces more that they can cope with.  I am disgusted there is just no excuse for this breeder or any that behaves in the same manner. This going on all over the UK and yet people are allowed to get way with it because they are irresponsible and greedy. The problem does not help when some Councils do not use their existing powers to take quick action before a situation such as this occurs.       

:) I can't comment as I am so angry :(

Yes LJS words fail me :(

Those poor dogs were on GMTV this morning, apparently the lady contacted them before things got out of hand, Good god!
Is 160 not out of hand?

I watched them on GMTV this morning too, poor things, they said most of them are in good condition but i wonder about there hips/eyes and to me i thought they did not look good for ped labs, what did you think?

Heidi

well at lease she did the right thing bye this,
heidi i thought alot were under weight,but did you see the chocolate one that was in the corner,would not come forward like the rest,the puppy were quite relax,

like you say what problems in health are the new owners going to take on,and temperment too,but looking at them on tv they were out going ,but it a new place.

the one in the corner,cowering really upset me. :-(

yes i noticed that one too, it looked quite frightened poor darling :(

I would love another pup and seeing them on GMTV all needing loving homes is tempting but wouldnt get one for fear they have problems :( plus hubby would kill me :D

hi her name is cristina cade of crisella retreivers ,derwent,woodgate lane, swanton morley, dereham, norfolk, NR20 4NS, TEL NO 01362 637784 0R 01362 638443, I AM actually taking her to court for money she owes me as i bought a puppy of her but she lied about the age and didnt even have pedigree papers for it  she has all the dog and puppies shut up in a shed to gether of all ages no water they dont even  go outside so they are all interbreed as she doesnt who the father is could be brother and sister? she banged the doors to get their attention they was so frightened of her so i reported her to rspca and breckland council as it was disgusting people like her should not keep any animals so the people who has took the dogs on have got alot of work on for the dog to trust them and i did ring the kennel club and they didnt want to know. hope this helps.

Welcome to the forum Tracy :-) and thanks very much for the info. You've confirmed everyones suspicions and fears about his woman. I hope you get satisfaction in court. 

Hope your pup is doing well. :-)

Kath.

If they're selling them for £200 and they're KC registered, how do they know which pup is which? 160 papers is quite alot..

I would doubt very much that KC papers would be given as I would imagine they will not allow breeding but then again anything is possible
:(

I cannot see how they can be sold as KC registered - surely under KC rules, a breeder cannot sell through a third party - and that is what the RSPCA would be!

This breeder is shown as KC registered :(

Margot

Can they "give away" through a third party though because technically the £200 the RSPCA are *asking* for would be classed as a donation.

Surely the RSPCA would have more common sense than to let KC papers go with them. As I cant see anyone giving away that many dogs, sorry young puppies, by the sounds of it some that shouldnt even have left their mother(I may be wrong there) would have had them health tested. 160 labs, unneutered. If 1/4 the people that get them decide to breed from them(conservative estimate) thats 40 animals, So what does that make for the amount of puppies the bitches will have or the dogs will sire, :(  (5 per dog-200 more puppies!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Wouldnt it be better for the RSPCA saying as soon as the puppies are of a suitable age, they HAVE to take them back to be neutered. Then I can see them charging the £200.
Lea :(

The RSPCA sold the Gatherals dogs at the going rate for the breeds, the best dogs somehow managed to end up with some of the hieracy of the RSPCA & not the GP, the cavaliers were sold at £350 each-no KC papers tho'

I saw them this morning and alot of them looked very ill at ease with people. The puppy looked relatively ok but wasn't that old to have been subjected to kennel life which the majority did. They asked would they make good pets and he said yes of course just may need a bit of adjustment. I would say a lot of them would need alot of hard work as they were not reacting like most Labs I have ever known in or out of kennels. He said it was nice to hear of a good story that they were handed over beforre they became neglected which yes he has a point but 160 Labs, I am sorry can you imagine the amount of puppies she has farmed and what sort of homes they may have ended up in :(

I am sure Lab rescue may well have seen a few :(

Lets hope she has learnt her lesson but I am sure she will back at it given half a chance :(

The thing that annoyed me (apart from the obvious distress caused to these dogs by putting them under extreme pressure with cameras etc..) was the fact that with simple training these dogs would make ideal family pets!  NO! the FIRST thing these dogs need is LOVING!  They are not house trained, not socialised, not used to people, cats, kids etc.. not used to leads, being in a home, they will be a LOT of hard work, especially the older ones.  I do hope they do their re-homing sensibly.
Dawn.

>Lets hope she has learnt her lesson but I am sure she will back at it given half a chance 

Lucy, I've read that she has no intention of giving up breeding. :-(

Just read an online news article headed "Get your paws on some prized puppies"  like they are fairground toys. :-(

[link]http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=845&ArticleID=862001[/link]

I notice it says "It's always exciting when a new dog comes in and especially when you have lots of young puppies."   Exciting?!! they should be devastated at the situation!

They admit "The dogs have been kept in kennels all their lives and have not yet been socialised or house trained." Then say " it should not be too hard to teach them new dog manners"!  :-(

Their "first-come, first-served basis" makes the whole thing sound like an "until stocks last" sale. Their last remark about homechecks and suitable homes sounds almost like an afterthought. :-(

Kath.

Glad they told us they were Labs, you'd be hard pushed to tell from that photo of the 2 yellow pups.  :rolleyes:  Not the highest quality.

I wonder if they had to agree not to bad-mouth the breeder in the press before she'd sign over the dogs? - haven't seen any press coverage that says how selfish, irresponsible, greedy .......... (I could go on!) she is, and all seem to gloss over the fact that she's still got 100 odd dogs there to carry on with.

What a dreadful state of affairs.

Marina

I agree Marina, they looked a bit houndy to me :rolleyes:

Kath

I am just so angry still about this. :(  I cannot still equate how the RSPCA can think this is a good thing when she is going to sourceand get her next lot of breeding stock no doubt. I wish I lived in Norfolk as I think I would and start to sit outside her house with banners as at the end of the day it is the animals welfare at the foremost importance surely ?

Has anybody got her email addy as please PM me :)

Thanks

Lucy
xx

ps hope you are well as haven't touched base with you for a while :)

Lucy my blood is still boiling also. 

Hi Lucy,
yep, I'm fine...hope all is well with you and yours.  :-)

Makes me furious too :-(  I actually just posted this on the Lab site so I'm being lazy and copied it....

"I can't understand why the local council is allowing her to continue. It is their job to issue licences, prosecute where the terms aren't fulfilled and decide whether a new licence is given when it runs out (which it had.. if the reports are right)

Taken from Norfolk Council website..

Licences
"Licences operate annually between 1st January and 31st December"

Therefore I assume hers ran out last December!

"Breeding establishments can only operate once in receipt of a valid licence. Operating without a licence is an offence and may invalidate any insurance and may invalidate Kennel Club conditions."

Disqualifications and Cancellations
"In the case of a successful conviction for offences under this Act, a Court can order the cancellation of the licence and disqualify the convicted person from keeping a Breeding Establishment, and impose imprisonment for a period of three months and fines not exceeding level 3, as it sees fit"

Offences
"It is an offence to keep a dog breeding establishment without a licence, or to contravene any condition attached to a licence" (Maximum penalty is 3 months imprisonment and/or a fine.... These penalties may be in addition to the penalties under Disqualifications and Cancellations)

http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/westnorfolk%5Ccouncil.nsf/pages/dogbreeding.html

It's about time the council read their own rules and made sure folk abide by them."

Kath.

Under KC rules (code of ethics) a breeder should not sell puppies to a dealer or wholesaler, yet many puppies can be seen sold from retail outlets that are KC reg - they are sold from a third party and invariably sold to a dealer before reaching the pet shop. This goes on all the time.
I doubt very much if the paperwork will be passed onto the new owners, unless the dogs are identifiable either by microchip or tattoo, how is anyone going to know what pup belongs to what paperwork, they all looked the same to me on TV this morning, a black working strain labrador.
The RSPCA will no doubt make up the rules to suit the occassion - a charge will become a donation, which as a charity they should not be making a charge of a set ammount other wise they would be considered as operating as a trading business, which charities should not be doing.
Are the dogs, the ones that are old enough going to be neutered before rehoming, or arrangements made for them to returned to the RSPCA or to be taken to a vet at the required time? Bit irresponsible of the RSPCA if no arrangements are being made and it is left to the new owners as and when or if or maybe don't you think?
I thought most on TV were quite lively this morning until the reporter approached one of them and it cowled onto the ground, very shy, did not like to see that behaviour. 

apparently they have rehome them all already

It would be the RSPCA that gets the money so technically, she's not selling them.  If she's given them away I assume she's not breaking that particular rule.

The KC should be ashamed of themselves allowing someone with so many dogs to be registered. :-(

Kath.

The RSCPA are going to find them experienced homes they say....

...well we'll soon know when we have 160 new lab-owning members here at Champdogs...

absoloutly kath what are the Kennel Club doing even thinking of registering that many pups from one source. She quite obviously is a puppy farmer and they have helped her to stay in business by registering her dogs without any questions. It amazes me that they can even think about bringing out schemes like  DNA testing and accredited breeders but then continuously legitimise puppy faming by providing papers for these poor animals.

Like the RSPCA they are happy to take advantage of the 'windfall' her discraceful breeding practices have  brought them.

I heard on TVAM this morning that they had 35,000 phone calls after showing the dogs yesterday!!!!:(

But Val, did you here Fionas comment.
We had 35,000 calls after GIVING labrador puppies away yesterday :/
Lea

MMmmm.  I do sometimes feel that I'm on another planet to the rest of the world!!