Had a phone call from my BIL this morning. His boss is on holiday and his Labrador x Poodle :rolleyes: is having puppies. Apparently they'd had a vague idea she might have been mated, but had done nothing about it and had no idea when she might have them. It might be a Collie cross type that they saw her with one day - but then, she also lives with a male LxP, so some or all might be his too.

She's had 7 pups and 1 has died, but 6 seem OK. He's got some instructions to try and help out the poor soul who is looking after the dogs and had no idea he was in for this, and I'll go and check on them tonight.

WHY OH WHY do people like this always seem to get litters, and decent sized ones at that - when those who really try to do the right thing often get nothing.

M.

I was wondering about that last night. We do everything right but are the ones that have to have the emergency C section, or the pups fade away, but those who don't really care end up with lovely healthy litters. Maddening, isn't it?

It would make me mad aswell. I hate things like this, and I lose sleep over them. I guess you can pretty much bet they won't care less where the puppies go, and it'll be a case of the first to turn up with the cash can have one.

A couple of times on walks we mentioned to people our girl was expecting, and they aske dif it was deliberate. I absolutely failt o see how a bitch can get 'accidentally' mated these days, there is just no excuse for it whatsoever. None.

I hope these pups turn out OK.

OH dear :( 

It's not fair though, my parents have pulled two bitches out from breeding plans that we brought with the idea to breed from but they both failed health checks :(  Yet other people just have litters willy nilly because it just happend :(

Such is life....

Surely they aren't planning to rear all these pups?

Oh doubtless, Barbara. Mind you, don't suppose they will to thinking about the fact they've got pups until they get back from their holiday on Friday.

I'm told that there is someone living there to look after the bitch and puppies, although there was no-one around when we went tonight. This person is meant to know about dogs, but had left a congealing bowl of food across the room from a bitch that no intention of getting out of her basket. When I gave her fresh food in her bed, she wolfed it down.

Poor girl has her bed in a corridor where people come and go from the house. Have told them to move it, get a heat pad going, put her somewhere where she won't need to be on edge all the time.

Final total is 7 live puppies, all look fit and healthy. Of course they do, it seems to only be the carefully planned ones that die.

M.

Grr, no heat no proper care for teh bitch, and no double the pups will thrive, all be sold by 8 weeks and none come back.

Yep, really annoys me too!

My mums had two litters this year, she doesn't usually and only one has survived in each one with terribly heartbreaking moments!!  She's been there all the way through, stayed up with them, done everything right and she's had a terrible time.

Maybe we should all let our bitches run with our dogs, go on holiday 8-9 weeks later and leave someone else in charge, advertise puppies at a fortune with no papers and live happily ever after....

However we are all decent people here and I don't believe a single person on this forum would be able to do that.

It's my turn to rant now. (I hope you don't mind me posting, didn't see the point in starting another thread)

A lady who sadly missed out on one of our puppies rang me this morning to help her find another litter. She had spoken to a woman who lives about an hour away from us, and wondered if I thought they were worth going to see. I said I didn't know the woman, but offered to ring her for a chat, as the 'client' (or not!) felt that I would be able to get a better impression of what the 'breeder' was like.

Anyway, the pups are advertised as KC reg. There was first a picture of them on a tiled floor, then a picture of them on a tiled floor with at least a blanket. Anyway, it turns out she has two litters, both of 8. Apparently, as both bitches came in season at once. I tried not to choke so I could carry on with my conversation. Apparently, she is not a breeder, so the puppies aren't 'just kept in some shed'. In fact, the Mums are so loved, that one of them even had her litter in the bedroom, and one downstairs the next night. (no mention of whelping boxes) I asked what the bitches pedigrees were, she didn't know unless she had the papers to hand. So I asked what the Kennel name of the bitches were. She didn't know. I asked about the stud dogs. Two dogs owned by one person. 'Breeder' didn't know the kennel names of them either. So, I asked the million dollar question, and it turns out that even though pups will be KC reg. neither parents have Hip Scores, eye tests etc.

I am so angry. Thank goodness for the fact I can endorse my pups papers to stop this happening. I am unsure though, of why the Kennel Club don't insist upon relevant Health Checks in order to register. Has anyone ever taken this up with them? Sadly, most people see 'KC registered' as a sign of quality.

I am unsure though, of why the Kennel Club don't insist upon relevant Health Checks in order to register. Has anyone ever taken this up with them? Sadly, most people see 'KC registered' as a sign of quality.

Unfortunately ethics and enforcing a code of conduct often goes out the window when money is coming in.  The kennel club will be making plenty money out of the puppy farmers and back yard breeders , not sure what the % will be but it will be massive.

I personally would not get involved helping people buying puppies to be honest unless you are really very active in the breed and can pass reputable breeders details on with real confidence, I don't think it is a wise situation to get into with all the best intentions ment.:-)  I would just refer her to the breed club secretary.

I think regarding this type of breeding, there is probably more of them than us ;-)

When I think of my own breed off the top of my head and a quick count I can only think of 7 exhibitors in my breed that regularly show in Scotland  but there are loads and loads AND loads breeding.

Blue, What is your breed?

Who's asking ;-)

Thanks. I did give the woman the Breed Club Puppy co-ordinator number, and also the number of the owner of the stud dog I used, (she is happy for me to do this) as she has vast experience and contacts. I only offered to ring as she wasn't sure if this woman wa reputable, and being at home with 9 pups for the next 7 week , I have far too much time on my hands.... :-)

Chances are and I hope Im right that this poor mother and pups do well and are fine. But it can make no one madder than me at the moment. After losing a full litter of 6 with 4  homes for pups and other people interested.
Hope all goes well.

According to the statistics here: http://www.nopuppymillscanada.ca/back_yard_breeders.htm

In America ........Where do all these dogs come from? Puppy mills churn out 20% of the total number of dogs whelped yearly, and roughly 1% are the results of feral dogs reproducing on their own. Less than 12% come from breeders who actively test their stock in conformation, obedience, and field trials. Backyard breeders, or people who breed their dogs without testing and certifying their stock, produce nearly 67% of all the dogs born annually in this country (Gardner, 1994)........

I can't imagine the percentages are going to be much different here in the UK either.

Sounds about right Barbara sadly..:-(

Maybe these big charities who can afford expensive TV adds should have such a paragraph on screen on their adverts so people realise how few pups are well bred.

Maybe some Vets need these figures pointed out when they keep slamming Pedigree dogs as a whole!

It's funny that I have come across this thread as I have been thinking the same thing. I am literally boiling with rage at what someone in our village has done.

Had a cross breed litter which was an accident. She then took half of them off the bitch to hand rear them. But she didn't get up through the night to feed them so from 9pm to 7am they weren't fed. The bitch and remaining puppies were kennelled outside. At 4 weeks old she took the bitch away and chucked all the puppies together outside in a kennel. Now we get to the best bit.....she has let one go to it's new home.

When I questioned it she said "well they had the money there waiting and said if she couldn't have it then she'd go elsewhere". My reply was I'd have told her to go and stick it. Nobody that wanted to take a 4 week old puppy home would get one of mine.

It makes me so mad and there is nothing I can do. I have raised concerns continuously all the way through but they know better. If it was a litter I had and I was doing everything properly I'd have lost one. But against all odds this litter have survived.

Ok where do you all stand on this 1. I know where I stand. My niece knew of a man who had a Akita with a litter of pups around 6 weeks old. She was told they were kept locked in a shed and not looked after.
She broke into the shed to find a mother 4 very small underfed pups and 3 dead pups. Without thinking twice  she took all the pups and mother.
She looked after the pups and I think the mother was passed onto charity which takes in unwanted dogs. She found good homes for the pups.
I saw 1 of the pups at around 6 months old and it was the smallest Akita I have ever seen. Obviously due to the very poor start in life.
Was she right to do this or do you think there was another way round.
In all honesty I think I would have done the same thing seeing the dead pups and others were so ill.

I would have done the exact same thing.  Our dogs did not choose to live with us, and when I see or hear about people who mistreat them, it makes me so mad.
They were the ones that made the commitment to have a dog.  They were the ones that took a dog in.  And then, they allowed the bitch to get pregnant, and left her and the pups in such horrid conditions, it is so maddening!
Yet, I for one, would spend every last penny I have on my dogs.  Every time they need something, it isnt a barter, as to do I get this, or does my dog get something she needs.  It is always the dog getting first, and me going without if I have to. 
Irresponsible dog owners make me so mad!  I bet I would have taken the mom and the pups, then called the humaine society to do something about the owner of the dog.  ARG

I would have taken photos and called the RSPCA, stressing the urgency (dead dogs), and the local paper. That way the culprits would be prosecuted, instead of being left free to go and repeat what they've done with another dog. The way your niece went about it means they've got off scot-free.

She was very lucky she didnt get prosecuted herself, with the bitch and pups returned to owner, and I'm suprised the charity took the bitch in as she was stolen. As owners, they have evry right to have the dogs back. I know it's very emotive seeing dogs in this condition, but it would have been far better to do as JG says, and reported them. That way they would have been prosecuted and maybe even banned from having dogs for a while/life, the bitch would have been seized and have no chance of ever being returned together with the remaining puppies.

so why didnt you report this person or intervene?

Why didnt I do something? To be honest we dont see the girl that often as they live away. she told me about it a while after it happened.
She was lucky she wasn't prossecuted but I dont think she thought about that at the time.
It was a friend of a friend who got the bitch cared for she knew personally of someone who'd take the poor dog.

I would get in touch with the RSPCA about the litter of pups and mum that is being left on its own as in the OP!!  This reeks of neglect to me!!!  I would also have photographed the akitas and did as JG said.  I think your friend was very brave to take them as she could have been prosecuted.  However, emotion can overcome us all and we can all act on impulse.  At least the dogs were saved!!!  Poor souls.

I was reading our local paper on Saturday and saw an advert, went like this:

Scottie/Westie pups (Scoland Terriers), 5 girls and 2 boys.  Good with children.  Parents have excellent temperament.  £450 each.  £100 deposit required!

I phoned asking what a Scoland Terrier was and was told it was a hybrid.  I told her you are selling crossbreed dogs for more than it costs to buy a pedigree.  This is actually fraud.  There is no such breed as a Scotland Terrier and I'm going to report you to Trading Standards and get you fined.  To that I got a barrage of abuse and the phone put down on me.  She must have thought about it and called me back to see who I was.  I answered the telephone by saying ******** Dog Welfare and they hung up.  This makes me mad.  I called SSPCA who advised me that the Animal Welfare Act doesnt cover puppy farming or breeding but this is clearly breaking the law by advertising something that isnt actually what you are getting.  The worst of it is - she only has 2 left!!!!  Where do the general public get their brains?

Spettadog

At least the dogs were saved!!!

Indeed they were, but the original owner is still the owner of the bitch and the puppies. They were stolen, well meaning or not, this is still theft and not a course of action to be congratulated on, on an open forum. The correct action would have been to have reported it, and keep on reporting it, until the RSPCA took action.

As to the crossbred litter, it's not fraud to sell them for whatever price you can get. Also they were not advertised as pure bred, simply as Scottie/Westie pups, with a 'name' given which is just like the 'doodles' and the breeder was straight up when you asked what a Scottish terrier is. The price has no relevance to breed/crossbreed.

Hi there

I think you will find that you are actually wrong in your assumption that selling dogs as a breed when they are not is not illegal.  Perhaps its not fraud in the true sense (I will have to look at the legal definition which is not to hand at the moment!) but it is illegal and the breeder could be sued under the Sale of Goods Act (as amended).  This is something that Trading Standards are very interested in - as is the SSPCA.  The sooner this type of irresponsible breeding is stopped the better.  There are far too many dogs (not only crossbreeds!) in the world that find themselves homeless because of irresponsible actions of people trying to make money.  There is no such breed as a Scoland Terrier and hence the so called breeder was trying to pass them off as a "breed".  She informed me that it is a hybrid breed.  Now, how many of the general public will know that a hybrid breed is not a breed.  Come on, the woman is trying to make as much money as possible from her deliberately bred crossbreeds as possible.  She is doing this by duping people into thinking they are an actual breed and charging £450 to confirm this fact. 

I would also like to bet that the parents have had no health checks and perhaps are not even KC registered! 

I would also like to see the police or RSPCA prosecute somebody who actively went in and helped a mother and litter of puppies that were in danger of dying.  There would be a public outcry if this ever hit the papers.  While it might in its true sense be theft.  The person that owned the dogs had no right in owning them and, you could actually argue, that because of the sheer neglect the person had a moral right to take the dog and puppies to get care.

Spettadog

The advert is very clear that the puppies are a cross, so no deception there. The breeder told you they were a cross - again, no deception. There's no law about pricing - if she wants to charge £100 or £1000 that's her right - whether people think it's worth it is up to them. Fools and their money are soon parted!

>I would also like to bet that the parents have had no health checks and perhaps are not even KC registered! 

That's not a crime either. Obviously reputable breeders don't approve of this, but that doesn't mean to say she's committing a crime.

Hi there

So why are trading standards so interested in it?  If there is no deception they wouldnt be interested!!!!  While I agree that they are advertised as scottie/westie pups they are actually being sold as Scoland Terriers.  When I asked she told me they were hybrids - not cross breeds.  I dont really want to get into a debate about this but as the dogs are being sold as Scoland Terriers at a vastly inflated price, trading standards are very interested and are investigating!!!  I do agree that fools and their money are easily parted but if I were to cross my Bracco with my cocker and called them cockerbracs and charge £800, I am effectively deceiving people into thinking they are a breed and that is against the law!!!  Even if trading standards do nothing, at least it will give these people something to think about.  That's my opinion, FWIW!!!

Kind regards
Spettadog

It's no different to people selling labrador/poodle crosses as 'labradoodles', saying they're a breed and charging £1000 for them! That's perfectly legal as well, unfortunately.

The term 'breed' is difficult to define. The general opinion is that if a dog is called a breed it is KC reg, which means a breed recognised in this country by the kennel Club. Many Kc recognised breeds are being crossed, and called 'a breed'....labradoodles, cockerpoos, teacup dogs, weizlas etc etc. So long as they are not said to be Kc reg, or capable of being so (inclucing the term 'not Kc reg', which could make you believe they could be or this breed is a recognised Kc breed) and the cross is pointed out, then calling them a breed is not illegal. Trading standards may make an enq with this breeder, but I can't see it getting anywhere. The only time I have heard of trading standards having a prosecution in these sort of 'breed' circumstances was when someone advertised a litter of ******* both from Kc reg parents of the same breed, calling them registered and it was later found they were not Kc reg but DL reg, the deception being in the term registered because without the DL bit an unsuspecting person would naturally assume they were KC reg. Which a buyer did, and took them to court via Trading standards. Buying a 'pedigree puppy without papers' is, IMO, no different to buying a cross, because you don't know if it, or its parents, are crossed.

if I were to cross my Bracco with my cocker and called them cockerbracs and charge £800,

You could legally do this, providing you stated the cross. And charge what you like. You are not deceiving anyone, because you are selling as a crossbreed which you have decided to name.

Even if trading standards do nothing, at least it will give these people something to think about.

This is true. They will know they can carry on as many others who cross breeds do, because they legally can.

While I agree that they are advertised as scottie/westie pups That tells you it is a cross.  Plain and simple.  There are loads of nick names for dog crosses. 

So why are trading standards so interested in it? Qwho said there were interested in it? Did they tell you this?  The trading standards will investigate any complaint even if it is only to read the ad through fully and close the enquiry without getting off their chairs. How do you know they are actually anymore interested that any other phone call they get 100 times a day :-) do you see my point.  I will be suprised if they do a thing.

The price along even if high for a cross breed should be a warning perhaps something is not right. Westies and Scotties for decent breeders will be considerably more than £450.

I assume nothing. lets look at the ad. They were advertised as Westie/Scottie (Scotish terrier). They were not advertised as either Westie or Scottie, giving the belief that they were either pure bred breed. They are both scottish terriers, so it could be argued that the 'Scottish terrier' part was to explain their 'type' as opposed to any other terrier breed (fox terrier for eg) Its a bit like calling the Rough Collie a 'Lassie' collie, no such breed but the ad clearly would state what they looked like. So, the ad in itself simply states they are a cross between a westie/scottie and being scottish terriers. The breeder was truthful and explained the cross breed as soon as you asked, so she is neither commiting fraud or any other offence. she is clearly advertising what she has for sale, and on enq is above incrimination by her description. Perhaps if you had enq furthur you would have found out which breed was mum and which was dad. Had you viewed you would possibly have seen both. There are many cross breeds these days advertised as 'breeds', Take the labradoodle or cockerpoo for example. Not 'breeds' recognised by the KC, but called 'breeds' nevertheless, and quite legal to do so. She can ask what she likes for the pups, if someone wants to buy a puppy with no papers, and as a cross breed, that is up to them. If she makes money out of it, she is still not commiting an offence. The tax man may be interested however. Trading standards would only be interested if they were advertised as a KC reg breed, which they are not. The parents may not be kc reg, and may not be health tested, still no offence committed, unless she had stated they were both KC reg, and it was found they were not.

I would also like to see the police or RSPCA prosecute somebody who actively went in and helped a mother and litter of puppies that were in danger of dying.  There would be a public outcry if this ever hit the papers.  While it might in its true sense be theft.  The person that owned the dogs had no right in owning them and, you could actually argue, that because of the sheer neglect the person had a moral right to take the dog and puppies to get care

Public outcry or not, the correct action would have been to inform the RSPCA, or the Police, or both. taking the law into your own hands does not help the situation. It is up to the courts to decide if that person should own dogs or not, and had it been put through the correct chanels the owner would have been prosecuted and the bitch and puppies legally removed and cared for before rehoming. the Animal welfare act covers this situation. the owner could well have been banned from keeping dogs for a long time. As it is, they can go out and get another no problem. had the owner informed the Police, and the bitch found, then they could well have been returned to them because they had been stolen, and all evidence of ill treatment removed, which would give nothing to prosecute with, except for the person who stole them. The public outcry would have been against the thief for removing them in the first place. Had the person who took the bitch informed the RSPCA and had them look at her and the puppies, in the state they were in, maybe the courts and CPS would have sorted this sad situation out for a good outcome on both sides. But, by taking over ownership and rehoming both the bitch and puppies, this is clearly theft.

Hi again

Sorry, not picking at hairs here but the puppies were advertised as Scoland Terriers not Scotish Terriers.  The Sco I would imagine from Scottish Terrier and the Land from West Highland!!  There is no such place as Scoland nor a breed as a Scoland Terrier.

Trading Standards advised me that they are getting more and more people being sold these dogs in the guise of being a breed and also registered (albeit they are probably DLRC!) - not the crossbreeds but "breeds" and they are taking the matter very seriously!!!  Just as if you sold a puppy in the guise that it was healthy and it turned out to be unhealthy then you could be sued under Sale of Goods etc.,

I do appreciate everybody has their own opinion of this but I get the feeling that you are justifying somebody's right to do this.  I personally think it is disgusting to try and make money like this.

My definition of a "breed" is a breed of dog ie a dog that is bred from 2 dogs of the same breed.  A breed doesnt necessarily have to be KC registered.  My definition of a pedigree dog is a breed that is registered with the KC.  Is that not right?  Many people sell dogs under the disapprehension that they are selling pedigree dogs when in fact they are selling a breed of dog which is not a pedigree.  IMO there is a difference. 

My point about the heath tests and the mum and dad being KC registered was just an add-on.  I know it is not illegal not to have your dogs health tested or to breed from dogs that arent KC registered.  I was just trying to point out the fact that the unsuspecting puppy buyers will probably not only be buying a puppy that is not a Scoland Terrier (because there is no such breed!) but from parents that have probably not got the best parentage in the first place.  That said, first crosses are normally healthier than "breeds" because of hybrid vigour.  Lets hope they are anyway.  I am sure that the puppies will be absolutely adorable however it doesnt make them worth £450!!! Eek!!  You can go to the pound and get an adorable rescue dog for £70 and I think the rescue centres would probably start seeing a bigger turnover in their dogs if they started advertising them as "breeds" - which they are not!!!

A crossbreed is not a breed, no matter how people want to put it.  A breed is a dog that has been selectively bred over generations for a final outcome.  The next litter of Scoland Terriers will probably look very different to this litter.  And lets make no mistake about it, if they are getting £450 for these pups they will do it again unless they are stopped!!!!  What is this country coming to?

Spettadog

Pedigree only means that there is a record of ancestry 'The Pedigree'. 

Purebred would be the correct term for a breed (whether accepted by our KC or not) that breeds true to type from parents who are of the same breed.

Crossbred would be a result of two purebreds (whether recognised or registered or not).

Lurchers and Long dogs may have Pedigrees going back many generations but are still not a breed but a type.

There are also crossbreds who have a known pedigree.

Kennel club Registered dogs have to be of a breed recognised by the kennel club and must have a Pedigree.

The puppies were advertised as Westie/scottie. This shows they are a cross. The name given in brackets still does not show them as a pure breed. Sorry i got the other bit wrong, the 'nickname' as is so often used for the crosses produced today. Of course, if they are cross they cannot be registered on the Kc breed supliment register. The DL one will register anything, and means nothing. If Trading Standards are taking crossbreeds with names seriously, where have they been over the past 15 years with Labradoodles for example? Do you know of any action they have ever taken against breeders of these crosses? or puppy farms, supermarkets etc that sell these dogs with all sorts of breed names?

Just as if you sold a puppy in the guise that it was healthy and it turned out to be unhealthy then you could be sued under Sale of Goods etc.,

This is totally different to giving a nickname to a cross breed when the cross has been pointed out.

I think you are getting 'pedigree'  'breed' and 'KC reg' a bit mixed up. Any dog, even a heinz, has a pedigree, that is simply the ancestors. The KC have a list of dog breeds, whos ancestory is registered with them, and any puppies born from each of the respective breeds can be registered. They then have the pedigree which shows the ancestors all of which are the same breed and registered with the KC.

A crossbreed can have a pedigree therefore, gained from both parents, although not eligable for KC registration on the breeds register because they are cross breeds and not recognised by the KC. It has become increasingly popular for breeders of these crosses to give them nicknames, such as Labradoodle etc, the names being made from each breed, as the lady you talk about has done with her Scoland terriers. A pedigree can be given if they know the pedigree of both parents, but like un KC registered 'pure bred' dogs, I would be suspicious of how genuine they are. Again, the price is down to the breeder, and how stupid people may be in actually paying this. if she was actually saying that the puppies were a recognised KC breed, then there would be a problem, but she's not, she is saying they are a cross.

I am not supporting this action, breeding dogs for money be they crosses or not, both forms of puppy producing for money (KC reg or not) I do not agree with, like everyone else on here. You only need to search crossbreeds to see that ;). No, but what I am saying is that legally she is doing nothing wrong.

It was a friend of a friend who got the bitch cared for she knew personally of someone who'd take the poor dog

I see, its just in your first post you said she went to an animal charity.

Perhaps it was the 'friend of a friend' who ran the animal charity.
;)

Yes, you could be right :)....and of course, all those involved in the 'rehoming' of these stolen dogs could be guilty of handling stolen property, as all thse dogs were subject of burglary. there may also be deception charges if the people who bought the puppies were led to believe that they were owned by the person rehoming them (as they were not) and if they knew the circumstances, they too could be guilty of an offence (if it was taken to court and the charges proved on all counts).

To lilymc..........how are the puppies getting on now?

Puppies are coming along fine. (Of course :rolleyes: - not that I'd wish them not to be, but you know what I mean.) They are now set up with a more suitable environment and BIL is getting various reminders of things he needs to nag the owners to do at certain stages.

M.

I know what you mean.....but same as you, I'm pleased they are coming along well. Hope the owners take on board the advice given....:rolleyes:.....and don't let it happen again.