I think 30 dogs to look after is more than enough but this breeder did not think so she wanted more. Now she is blaming the Councils refusal on the fact she will have remain on benefits rather than earning her living by dog breeding.  My heart bleeds for here predicament. How I wish more Councils would make a stance and not encourage dog breeders to have large number of dogs to breed for profit.  At £1,600 a time I think she may have thought she was on a winner.  Others may not agree with my view feel free to say what you think.
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/doncaster-news/dog-breeder-cries-foul-over-planners-decision-1-5168992

What a coincidence. I groomed my first Coton Du Tulear  today and  The owner said it came from someone called Julia in Doncaster. She is a lovely dog but the coat will take a huge amount of looking after. 30 Dogs will be far too many for one person to look after if they all have coats like this puppy and are kept in full coat.

sounds like she is a nuisance and her dogs are noisy. If not happy move or if she would work then she wouldnt have to live on benefits????

Good for Doncaster Council. Shame more councils don't take the same view.

Not far from where I live. Never heard of her.

I do have a huge problem with anyone wanting to earn a living from breeding dogs -that is NOT a good enough reason to do so.  However I DON'T think anyone can just assume it's impossible to keep the coats in good condition of 30 longhaired dogs for somebody who does nothing else all day -why should it be? The reason for breeding here is clearly irresponsible, we have no idea whether anything ELSE is.

Googling the kennel name comes up with plenty of show results.

> However I DON'T think anyone can just assume it's impossible to keep the coats in good condition of 30 longhaired dogs for somebody who does nothing else all day -why should it be?

Based on the soft texture of the coat and the amount of matting I would say that each dog is likely to need minimum of 30 minutes grooming each day to keep the coat in a good knot free condition if kept in full coat. For 30 dogs that is 15 hours. doesn't leave much time for anything else....

Based on the soft texture of the coat and the amount of matting I would say that each dog is likely to need minimum of 30 minutes grooming each day

But you don't KNOW that! What's to say they all have the same coat quality, for a start? Certainly my Papillons do not all have the same coat type, nor do the Persian cats, hence some take longer than others. How can anyone publicly state somebody cannot possibly look after their dogs when there is no evidence whatsoever to say so? It's clearly not a puppy farmer but a show breeder.

> It's clearly not a puppy farmer but a show breeder.

If she is a show breeder then all the more likely the dogs will be in full coat and need a lot of grooming.

And you think it is OK for someone to breed enough puppies to sell and make a living as long as they show? Personally I think that once the step is made to be producing puppies to provide an income then that makes a puppy farmer, even if they happen to show as well. I thought here on this forum people were in favour of breeding to improve the breed not to make enough money to keep off benefits.

If she is a show breeder then all the more likely the dogs will be in full coat and need a lot of grooming.

And you think it is OK for someone to breed enough puppies to sell and make a living as long as they show?

Can you not read? I said straight away that I thought there was no excuse for making a living from breeding. I would also say that anyone who actively shows often is MORE likely to have their dogs in good coat condition -how else would they manage to get placings at Crufts and other shows? So I still wonder how you can state their dogs must have neglected coats?

Re the coats she could well have friends, kids who help with that.

> I thought here on this forum people were in favour of breeding to improve the breed not to make enough money to keep off benefits.

Well I am on record as stating I have no problem with someone making money as long as they are breeding ethically. I can't understand on what basis we could object.   She appears to have bred the first UK champion so not doing too much harm to the breed :) Although not sure she actually shows herself.  Nor does she appear to dabble in any other breeds.
Other than that I really don't know anything about her other than what is in the above report so not really prepared to judge.    The reports talks about UP TO 30 dogs so do they mean puppies as well?  The councils objection appears to be based on noise rather than any shortcomings in how the animals are treated. 

Although not sure she actually shows herself.

Googling surname together with kennel name brings up results from UK Toydog and Leeds in 2012 on the very first page of Google (from Higham), where she herself owned the dogs that were shown and placed.

Well, there you go then :)

> Can you not read?

> So I still wonder how you can state their dogs must have neglected coats?

Obviously I am not the only one who can't read. I did not say her dogs had neglected coats. However I still stand by my opinion as a dog groomer that trying to keep 30+ Coton du Tulears in full coat, groomed and in good condition is impossible for one person to do. Your Papillons will not take anything like as much grooming. Their coat is totally different from the Coton.

She may not keep them all in full coat.

>I still stand by my opinion as a dog groomer that trying to keep 30+ Coton du Tulears in full coat, groomed and in good condition is impossible for one person to do.

Dogs that aren't shown - retired show dogs etc - might well not be kept in full coat because of that very reason. :-)

The breeder may well be a good and reputable breeder, carefully choosing lines and looking after the breed, however my niggle is why is she taking all this on herself, in this day and age there is no need for anyone to have up to 30 dogs to use as breeding stock.

She shows so she has a real interest in the breed, but one of the reasons for showing is to also meet others in our breeds, when we have pups we all look for people to also continue looking after our breeds with us as their mentors, when you have 10,20,30 dogs it is obvious that once they have reached their peak they will need to be passed on, making them just well cared for puppy farm dogs tbh.

IMO 6 bitches is well enough to be able to keep them all and keep all lines going without needing re-homing, breeders need to be like trees and have branches all over the place to keep lines healthy and have many others interested in the breed also.

This does stink of doing it mainly for financial reasons and she even says so which puts my back up immediately, maybe it shouldn't but it does.

I'm wondering where the numbers are coming from.  I googled for her website and it shows only about 3 bitdhes and two males.  Yet calls herself a business?

So even with pups , where does the 30 dogs come in.  The website says they have several litters a year, that seem to be small litters of mostly 2's, again not large enough numbers to make a living (say £20000 a year profit), even at the high puppy price.

So unless she was planning to really expand numbers????

Just tagging on to the end. My entire point here is how can anyone judge somebody based on a newspaper article? The ONLY thing we know for certain is that she applied for a license and was refused because of noise. How would everyone feel if we picked one of you to make assumptions about on the internet for the entire world to see? This could be the worst breeder in the world, it could also be the best or somewhere in between -nobody here KNOWS. It's not even like it's somebody not mentioned by name yet all sorts of accusations have been flying about.

And like JG said -nobody even knows if the dogs are all in full coats. And like Brainless said, we don't know numbers either. So why on earth start a vendetta like this?

I dont like the sound of it myself. 30 dogs??? And anyone that claims to do it for the money (I'll have to rely on benefits if I cant breed) gives off big warning signals to me.

At £1600 a pup why have that many dogs?? She would make a fortune just from a couple of breeding bitches. Sounds a bit puppy farmer ish IMO

Remember £1600 is not profit. 

To earn a livable income of £20,000pa, even if it were all profit they would have to sell 125 pups a year, but of course it isn't all profit and they would need to breed maybe twice that many to cover legitimate costs and income tax etc.

It would seem that the breed does not have large litters, maybe 4 (looks like some of the litters advertised were only two pups).  So that would need around 60+ litters a year.

I think the lady is rather naive if she thinks she can make a living on just 30 dogs (even if she had 30 bitches with 30 litters year), and it doesn't even say 30 breeding bitches and stud dogs, just 30 dogs, which might include any litters.

Yes she probably needs a breeding licence if she breeds more than 4 litters, but even 5 litters in a breed with small litters may only amount to 10 - 20 puppies.

> To earn a livable income of £20,000pa,

We have no idea if that is the amount required to keep her clear of claiming benefits.  She may have a partner that earns somthing, for instance or she may have been rather labouring a point to get her desired permission :).
  Nor do we know how many dogs she actually has.  As Marianne says I really can't see how anyone can make a judgement purely on a newspaper report.

> She may have a partner that earns somthing

"In her impassioned plea, Mrs Smith, told a North Lincolnshiore Council planning meeting that the dogs were the only source of income to support her and her two boys. "

She is either making enough money from selling puppies to support herself & her children or her plea was a lie.

Either way, I for one would not buy a dog from a person that is saying they rely on the sale of thier dogs for money, it's completely the wrong reason to breed.
If money is such a high factor in the breeding of these dogs, then she has to ensure she breeds enough dogs to make enough money, rather than taking the time to breed the best dogs she possibly can.
BUT, as I am not a breeder, I may well be jumping to the wrong assumption, maybe it is possible to churn out enough pups to keep the bills paid, kids fed & clothed AND the dogs looked after while only ever breeding to the highest standards????

The issue may be that she wants to have decent kennels and told she has to have change of use, and perhaps she breeds more than 4 litters a year because the breed has small litters. 

It certainly does seem the litters advertised have been small.

I agree when breeding one would like to be able to limit ones dog hobby/breeding losses or if lucky cover some of the costs so that one can continue. 

I am pointing out that the normal levels of breeding linked to a hobby cannot really be relied on to provide a living income for a family, at best low level commercial breeding (above 4 litters) can supplement other income.

The kind of levels of breeding needed to truly earn money as a stand alone business is incompatible with any kind of ethical breeding. 

It would require disposal of non profitable animals, maximising output, and cutting costs in doing things properly, e.g. use most available rather than best sire, adequate rather than optimum care, cut out expensive health screening, limit selection to productivity, so sod temperament, breed standard adn proving by showign or working, etc, as long as they breed easily and are good mothers.

> It would require disposal of non profitable animals, maximising output, and cutting costs in doing things properly, e.g. use most available rather than best sire, adequate rather than optimum care, cut out expensive health screening, limit selection to productivity, so sod temperament, breed standard adn proving by showign or working, etc, as long as they breed easily and are good mothers.

I know breeders, who I would describe as ethical, who place retired breeding bitches in pet homes.  Not sure I have any problem with that.
Not sure that this breed is subject to any expensive screening and she has bred at least one champion so does not appear to be compromising on the standard.  Maybe she is just really good at making ends meet :)

I assume the application is for expansion of current breeding activities. 

As for placing retired dogs in pet homes that is usually done by ethical breeders to keep numbers down (so dogs get enough attention) for the benefit of the individual dog and adopter, not routinely.

For example one of my mentors started homing her bitches after one litter so that they were under 5 years of age. 

Her view was she wished to remain active in the breed she had bred for 30+ years but no longer felt at her age that she could guarantee to be able to keep dogs in number until death, and ensure their welfare when she died (in fact when she died suddenly she only had 4, so they were easy to provide for).

She didn't think it fair to the adopters home them above 5 years of age. as they would not have them through their best years, and face loosing them too soon..

That is one example, as you say, but different people do view it differently and not sure that we can judge someone as unethical as long as they are placing those dogs with the same consideration as they do their puppies.

As I said to breed on a truly commercial basis (not as supplementary income, say in additon to another pet orinented business) you cannot do it ethically, it requires far too many dogs per person.

The numbers will have to increase considerably, and to even care for dogs adequately staffing costs would wipe out profit, so even larger numbers needed, and so on.

I am not even saying this person wants to breed for a self sufficient income, they may just be looking to supplement a pension, may own their home outright. 

The numbers quoted, of a small breed especially if it includes litters, is possible to care for by three people, but certainly won't provide an adequate income on it's own.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I know breeders, who I would describe as ethical, who place retired breeding bitches in pet homes.  Not sure I have any problem with that.

Going off topic, but I do have a problem with that. I think its awful that once the bitch has done its job in making the breeder enough money and fulfilled its purpose it is shipped off elsewhere to a 'pet home'
Often on here people criticise those who get rid of their dog because of a new child or different job but theses so called breeders are no more responsible than them!!

>I think its awful that once the bitch has done its job in making the breeder enough money and fulfilled its purpose it is shipped off elsewhere to a 'pet home'

There are worse things than pet homes!

Well said Fred's mum! If you don't have enough space in your life for the dogs you already have then you certainly shouldn't be breeding any more, there are already far too many dogs without loving homes in the world.

It isn't likely to be made them enough money but fulfilled their role in the long term breeding plan. 

Think, if they were bred by the breeder then they are simply going to their first new home rather later than their siblings did, theri first home after the breeders.

Many people feel that their retired dogs deserve to be getting more human attention as they mature than they did in a group.

I am aware that I will never make as much of a mark in my breed as I coudl if I did let some of my retired dogs go, but I am one of thsoe who has chosen thus far to keep my girls for life (7 genrations so far).

Shivi you fail to understand the purpose behind breeding for those who view their long term involvement with their breed as being that of custodian, someone responsible for maintaining the breed at a high standard.

It's not just about producing puppies for the here and now but laying foundations for the future and building on the past, it's an art.

Each litter is potentially a piece designed to fit in the jigsaw of the breed.

My main mentors viewed their involvement in our breed as their lifes work, covering 40, and 50+ years.

> She appears to have bred the first UK champion so not doing too much harm to the breed

Where does it say this? Cotons are still a rare breed in the UK and don't have CCs yet

> Remember £1600 is not profit. 
>
> To earn a livable income of £20,000pa, even if it were all profit they would have to sell 125 pups a year

Make that 12 and a half pups per year ;-)

Irish champion.

Ooh sorry can't count, so say 25 pups which is more realistic remember there will be expenses not only the litter but the upkeep of dogs accomodation, shows etc.

Then 30 breeding dogs is actually realistic.

Just can't imagine pups at that price, more than double tthe price of ours.

>If you don't have enough space in your life for the dogs you already have then you certainly shouldn't be breeding any more

Guide dogs get rehomed if they fail their training; they get retired and rehomed, not always with their blind owner, when they become too old to be reliable health-wise; what's the difference between that and rehoming an retired breeding animal or show dog?

It's not something I could ever do, which is why I am unlikely to have a long and successful breeding line, I'm too softhearted to rehome the ones that are no good show-wise or too old, but I also can't manage more dogs. But I wouldn't judge anyone else as bad for doing it, assuming of course that they pick the retirement pet home carefully, which most breeders do. Re caring for that many dogs in full coat, it's not something I would want to do, even if we assume that perhaps she's only showing 6 or 8 and the rest are clipped short?

I wonder if this lady was also planning to board dogs with her new kennel space?

Brainless I don't see what is incompatible between my esteem for people who keep on retired brood bitches and a person with a life long commitment to a breed with a breeding plan that looks forward over many generations. I'm sure you'd agree that it is possible to achieve both. From your earlier post you seem to say that you yourself have that standard.

A life long commitment to a breed which fails to commit to the dogs involved along the way is more about a person 'making their mark' rather than a genuine love of dogs in my view.

> what's the difference between that and rehoming an retired breeding animal or show dog

A guide dog is a 'commercial' dog :) If it is the same for a 'show dog' - then the breeder is a commercial breeder and rehoming a 'commercial' animal. Breeders can't have it both ways IMO - if they are 'hobby' breeders and their dogs are, first and foremost, their pets then they should keep their oldies. If I announced on here that I was going to rehome Bramble because I needed the space to get another younger dog there would be uproar (hopefully). Of course there is no way I would do that because he is my pet/much loved dog (and I don't breed anyway - apart from the fact that he is male and a crossbreed :) ). Breeders who rehome dogs obviously think more about breeding than they do about their 'much loved dog' ???? As for saying that they would have parted with the dog when it was a puppy anyway, surely there is a lot of difference between rehoming an 8 week old puppy and an 8 year old dog ?

This is all IMO as a non-breeder - I could never part with one of my dogs :(

>Breeders who rehome dogs obviously think more about breeding than they do about their 'much loved dog' ???

No, otherwise they'd keep the retired dogs but not have enough time to devote to them - they'd fall into the trap of becoming 'over-dogged' through sentimentality, rather than do what's best for the dog.

Jeangenie I would hope that most people could see there is a difference between rehoming a failed or retired guide dog and a rehoming a retired showdog or dog which has finished its useful breeding life!

> they'd fall into the trap of becoming 'over-dogged' through sentimentality

Exactly - they care more for the breeding than they do for the individual dog, surely ? But then, I suppose, the dog is probably better off  in another home :(

>they care more for the breeding than they do for the individual dog, surely ?

No, because the dog might well be happier as a single dog than part of a group.

>Jeangenie I would hope that most people could see there is a difference between rehoming a failed or retired guide dog and a rehoming a retired showdog or dog which has finished its useful breeding life!

What is the difference from the dog's point of view? When you get down to basics they've both been bred to do a job, have performed it and are now retiring to a new home.

The difference is some breeders view their animals as family members, and to others they are just a commodity so once they are no longer of any use, for breeding or showing they get passed on.
Speaks volumes !!!

just adding onto the end. i got a dog from a breeder via here. 9 years ago. if the breeder didn't re home dogs that didn't make the grade then i wouldn't have had tho pleasure of owning beano for the last 9 years! his breeders are not puppy farmers and only re home to people the last trust. one of them is an activand trusted member on here. so please don't judge unless you know!
Lea x

> because the dog might well be happier as a single dog than part of a group

In the extreme - yes, there are circumstances like that. Usually it just because the breeder has no further use for the dog in their breeding programme.