Champdogs Information Exchange - Not logged in
Forum Board Index Breeders Active Topics Help Search Register Login
Previous Next Up Topic Dog Boards / General / A step forward to stop puppy farming in Wales (Page 4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  
By suejaw (****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 11:38 GMT
> Leave the classification of a commercial breeder as it stands now (5 or more litters in a 12 months) and you will have full support from all DECENT breeders.

Totally agree Brainless... As I said a sliding scale of fee's to be paid with the more litters you produce..
Give the council and those who do the checks more powers and then we can see if it works or not. Nothing will work without man power, money and power to act.
By goldengirl (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 11:45 GMT
Will these rules apply for breeding any animal, Cats, Rabbits etc. Any animal should be protected surely?
You breed anything get a licence?
By pupsy (*) [gb] Date 27.10.10 11:47 GMT
You are alienating alot of people who like Barbara, are to most people, well respected and passionate about what they do. There are always ways and means to flush out the 'bad' hobby breeders so why not open your mind to look at suggestions rather than dismiss them.

I am agreeing with proposals if that means I am alienated so be it . If there are ways to flush out bad hobby breeders without new rulings why have they gotten away with it for so long and if proposals don't go through will continue to get away with bad practice.
By LJS (****) [nl] Date 27.10.10 11:52 GMT
But surely my suggestions about the KC registered details being sent to the councils would go a long way to help this ?
By mountaindreams (*) [gb] Date 27.10.10 11:53 GMT Edited 27.10.10 11:56 GMT
I cannot revise my view knowing what I do about some hobby/show breeders and I am sure most of you know too, so why should people like that be exempt?    

Pupsy like every walk of life we aren't all the same.

In April my beautiful girl died having a section. I was left with 12 pups which was great BUT my heart was broken, I was in turmoil. I raised those babies with love and have kept 2 for the ring BUT I still cry about their mum who I loved with all my heart. When some breeders found out what had happened I had comments like yes but u have 12 puppies or yes but think of the money. That disgusted me all I wanted was my beautiful girl. And that is why I don't want  to be seen to be the same as these people. Some of us genuienely care for and love our dogs.
By Jeangenie (*****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 12:00 GMT

>I am agreeing with proposals if that means I am alienated so be it . If there are ways to flush out bad hobby breeders without new rulings why have they gotten away with it for so long and if proposals don't go through will continue to get away with bad practice.


You seem to have totally missed the point. There are already laws that cover the puppy farmers. The sad fact is that they are not enforced, for one reason or another. There is absolutely no reason to think that any new law will be any different in this respect; and so to show that they're doing something the councils will penalise the breeders who're doing everything right and let the bad ones get away with it as usual. There is no point.
A closed mouth gathers no feet
By Mandy D (*) [gb] Date 27.10.10 12:18 GMT
I think that both sides might be seeing this as too black or white and no middle road. We all want puppy farmers to be controlled and if this proposal goes forward and is enforced than the situation will be greatly improved. It is possible to support the majority of the proposal and compromise slightly on the level of breeding needed for a license to be necessary. I hope that the people on here who are objecting so strongly will return the consultation questionnaire with strong support for most of it and also emphasis on it being enforced. There is a question for the level of breeding and your view can be put there. I still think though that there is no reason to believe that "they" will insist on changing the way you keep or rear your puppies in a household environment so apart from the cost and a bit of red tape I can see no reason for not being licensed. There is also the problem of the smaller backyard breeders who are doing it purely for profit rather than the good of the breed who need to be controlled as well.
By pat (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 12:35 GMT
Of course we need ethical breeders backing this proposal it would be rather foolish not to as these are the breeders that need to setting the standards and examples to others that do not breed in a responsible way.

It does not help when the KC does not back this proposal for I presume 'hobby breeders' for the very reasons that has been highlighted here by some posters. 

http://www.prlog.org/11023456-huge-step-forward-but-long-way-to-go-says-kennel-club-of-welsh-puppy-farm-proposals.html

But what I find even more annoying is that the Kennel Club does not seem to appreciate that some licensed breeders are puppy farmers.  They always make reference to puppy farmers as unlicensed breeders. Which is  incorrect but goes into the public domain where it is read by all.  It is not helped because there is no legal definition for a 'puppy farmer' but I generally think of a puppy farmer to be a breeder who breeds on commercial scale does not adhere to good animal welfare practice and sells their puppies more often than not to dealers and pet shops although some will use free ads. Some people may have other descriptions of what they feel best describes a puppy farmer, I think we all have our own ideas. I know many now will say that is not me!!!  Yes, many will say that and I can understand why some are outraged and do not want to be lumped in with the rest by being licensed  but as I have written before some breeders may give the impression (I am not saying anyone on this thread so please do not take offence) that they are above board because they although reg with KC their puppies but (not always every litter) they are and can be volume breeders too.

So it can be quite difficult in deciding to exclude some but not others or to capture all by making the new ruling very strict. The WA decided on the latter.

Being in receipt of inspection reports under FOI that out of the nearly 90 licensed breeders in Carmarthenshire nearly three quarters when asked say they sell their puppies to dealers and pet shops.  That is without the unlicensed breeders who sell this way too that is microchipping all puppies is so important need to have tracabilty.  
By pat (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 12:40 GMT
Someone asked about the Guidence and model conditions for local authorities and their authorised officers and veterinary inspectors for the licensing of dog breeding establishments.

I have a copy if that is any help.
By pat (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 12:59 GMT Edited 27.10.10 13:01 GMT

>I am agreeing with proposals if that means I am alienated so be it . If there are ways to flush out bad hobby breeders without new rulings why have they gotten away with it for so long and if proposals don't go through will continue to get away with bad practice.


You seem to have totally missed the point. There are already laws that cover the puppy farmers. The sad fact is that they are not enforced, for one reason or another. There is absolutely no reason to think that any new law will be any different in this respect; and so to show that they're doing something the councils will penalise the breeders who're doing everything right and let the bad ones get away with it as usual. There is no point. .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeangenie, you replied to Pupsy post above and you are right there is existing legislation that is not being used effectively either by prosecuting those breeders that are breeding outside existing legislation when the clearly should be licensed, instead of which when they are found Councils granting them a licence without a prosecution for unlicesed breeding.  That is not right and is unexceptable.

Councils (Wales) as I have written before have been exceedingly lax in ensuring that dog breeders adhere to their licence conditions and have granted a licence when the premises are totally unsuitable, they have allowed breeders to increase their numbers of dogs to a level which is impossible for them to care for without employing staff. Anything from 10 dogs to 140 dogs has been allowed with many on the upper end of this figure.

I do not see why the Councils will immediately target the small breeders when for example Carmarthenshire have nearly 90 licenced breeders, many of which many will find it exceedingly difficult to comply with all the new regulations, this will be their first priority I imagine.

Hobby breeders generally say they do not need to advertise their puppies because they always have people on a waiting list and are found by word and mouth therefore many will not be known, so a Council official is hardly going to knock on those breeders doors as they will not be aware of them.

   
By Jeangenie (*****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 13:16 GMT

>Hobby breeders generally say they do not need to advertise their puppies because they always have people on a waiting list and are found by word and mouth therefore many will not be known, so a Council official is hardly going to knock on those breeders doors as they will not be aware of them.


It's conventional for breeders who are members of breed clubs to announce the arrival of a litter in either their club newsletter or club's website. It's not an advertisement as such, but would undoubtedly be taken as such.
A closed mouth gathers no feet
By LJS (****) [nl] Date 27.10.10 13:20 GMT
Yes please Pat that was me :-)
By pupsy (*) [gb] Date 27.10.10 13:33 GMT
Having just read the KC press release, what a joke!!   I will just say we at Puppy Love will push as hard as we can for these proposals to go through as they are written as all that would happen if ABS were to be exempted would be that most of the puppy farm community would jump on the scheme to avoid council intervention, some are already on it.

The KC do not police the scheme very well, many have been accredited without inspection and continue to make a mockery of the scheme on daily basis.
By LJS (****) [nl] Date 27.10.10 13:57 GMT
I think you will find there are quite a few breeders that also hold the view that the ABS is not the best policed scheme and do not myself agree that all ABS scheme memebrs should be exempt. I would say that it could be all ABS members that have under 5 litters a year though but even 5 to me is too much.
By mountaindreams (*) [gb] Date 27.10.10 14:26 GMT
The ABS scheme is taken as a joke in carmarthenshire I know puppy farmers who had the 2 weeks notice of inspection from the KC and still laugh about it.

One of their newest members has a bitch, whelped August 2009, Jan 2010 and again August 2010 and guess what the rules of one litter a year don't apply don't count cos they were members until just after she whelped. This is not the only complaint about this breeder!!!  This breeder is seen as better than me as I choose NOT to rejoin the scheme because I do not want to be seen as on a par with someone who is appalling in my book.

Other breeders only register pups for those buyers who want KC registration keeps them looking like they are breeding less in numbers. Cash incentives are given to breeders who dont want registered pups!!!

The ABS means more money for KC but they won't police it. In my opinion if you want to be on the scheme you should do all tests not just the complusory ones and take notice of the results and there should be a limit on number of litters per year.

I personally feel the ABS is seen in Carmarthenshire as something people use to say....... Hey I can't be a puppy farmer I'm accredited.
By Maisie B [gb] Date 27.10.10 14:35 GMT
The problem with all legislation is the enforcement of it.  This new legislation in Wales  is to be enforced by the councils as is present legislation , the councils are not going to be provided with extra funding so I guess nothing much will happen. Many are saying that the WA are so behind this move that they will make the councils comply -- how?  The WA  have been fully informed , many times, as to the conditions in many "puppy farms"  and yet they have done nothing.
What is the answer? I despair, we all know there are responsible breeders but are also very aware of the appalling puppy farms, the dealers, the pet shops and free adds , we can spend hours bickering over details but somehow something has to be done - you only have to go to one of these 'farms' and it haunts you  ---   the ending of it becomes your priority.

-- The KC do not inspect their Accredited Breeders  so not much use really.
By LJS (****) [nl] Date 27.10.10 14:38 GMT
MaiseB well said as the enforcement is quite a valid point.

That is why it would be interesting to read the document Pat has said she will send me as if this document is flakey then this would also need a lot of rewriting.

As for extra money for the councils they would get it if  the licenses were based on the upwards sliding scale I suggested :-)
By Brainless (*****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 15:36 GMT
As has been said before there are perfectly adequate laws to cover any volume breeders, and enforcement is the issue.

Breeders who are not registered and should be because they are breeding more than four litters are just as likely to avoid being registered if the threshold is dropped to two litters/10 puppies.

The law abiding will apply because they have to, but may find they don't meet model 'standardised' rearing requirements, or in anti-dog councils, or with anti dog neighbours may find licenses refused (I am sure the councils would have to advertise a 'breeding establishment and may get objections from neighbours).

This will basically mean that real 'Hobby Breeders' will not be able to breed, or find the requirements and red tape just too much trouble.

Any ethical breeder worth the name would support any move to enforce the laws as they stand or add to them where breeders of five or more litters are concerned, who are required to be licensed, avoid Licensing, or flout the conditions required in 'Commercial establishments'

I cannot accept any need or benefit to being added to the ranks of commercial breeders (find it offencive actually) because I occasionally breed two litters/10 plus puppies in a particular 12 month.

I do not have a 'breeding establishment' or want to have my and the dogs home classed as one. 

I have a home where the family members occasionally breed (be that human or animal LOL).

If as an animal owner I do not treat my animals properly I can be prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act, or any other anti cruelty laws.

Now I bow out of this thread, as I think it is quite clear what ethical small scale breeders who breed for the Love of their breeds, health testing, carefully rearing and homing their pups, and taking back any whose homes didn't work out, have fierce objections to being lumped in with commercially motivated breeders, and worse still those with horrendous welfare standards.  No-one makes us do these thing other than our conscience and perhaps agreed consensus within our breeds, as to what is appropriate for them.
Barbara and the Grey Curly Tails.
By goldengirl (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 16:05 GMT
I was just wondering if more people would join the ABS if it was policed better, If this meant putting the fee's up.

I think that it should be a scheme for responsible dog breeding only, a hobby breeder is the best way forward and I am proud to be one, I do all the health tests, I microchip every puppy in my litter, they are all KC reg, they are reared in my home and dog lives in the house NOT kennels outside.

I have never had more than one litter a year, some times none.
I have 4 bitches, all the same breed.
1. speyed
1. puppy
1. who has had 2 litters, may have 1 more litter before retiring.
1. 2 year old maiden

I would say if you have more than 2-3 litters a year it should remove you from being a hobby breeder, why would a hobby breeder want more than 3 litters a year?

I would be happy to pay KC 100 + a year to police the ABS better so puppy farmers, backyard breeders, pet breeders and anyone breeding just for profit, would be removed from the scheme. Anyone else agree.
By Brainless (*****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 16:16 GMT

> would say if you have more than 2-3 litters a year it should remove you from being a hobby breeder, why would a hobby breeder want more than 3 litters a year?
>
>


It has to cover every breed, so no I don't think I could contemplate coping with more than 2 litters in a 12 months (in a breed where average is about 6), but those with breeds with tiny litters may need to breed that on occasion just to get the sex they need.

Personally I am thankful that my breed these days rarely has large litters,a dn couldn't even contemplate breeding when it was likely that there would b e 10 or more pups, smaller litters are so much more enjoyable and for me that would e 4 - 6 pups if I could just choose.

I would much rather have two litters of four puppies than one litter of 8, even though ti is more work and expense.

As the law stands at present those breeding up to and including 4 litters (unless deemed commercial due to other factors) are most often treated as 'Hobby breeders'
Barbara and the Grey Curly Tails.
By sillysue (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 17:05 GMT
I would be happy to pay KC 100 + a year to police the ABS better so puppy farmers, backyard breeders, pet breeders and anyone breeding just for profit, would be removed from the scheme. Anyone else agree.

I am not a breeder, I live on a pension ( aged 70 and widowed) and also still work in order to have money to keep my animals well and healthy, yet I would be willing to somehow go without in order to find up to 100 each year if it would help rid us of puppy farms and BYBs
Properly trained humans can be a dog's best friend.
By goldengirl (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 17:12 GMT
Yes - Didn't really think about the breeds that have small litters, unfortunatly I have never had joy of having a small litter, with mine I get plenty of choice of the one I want to keep, but surely if we are not all tar'd with the same brush the ABS and breed clubs could all have a say of whats responsible for each breed.
Its not just puppy farmers that I would like to see stopped, its all irresponsible breeding, when joe public stops buying these poorly breed puppies things might change.
By LJS (****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 17:17 GMT
would be happy to pay KC 100 + a year to police the ABS better so puppy farmers, backyard breeders, pet breeders and anyone breeding just for profit, would be removed from the scheme. Anyone else agree.

Yes but consider this might have to be alot more money as more monitoring and less money coming in (getting rid of the puppy farms and BYBI would say the entry citeria and rules should be changed as much as increasing monitoring thye monitoring
By goldengirl (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 17:32 GMT
Yes Lucy, I was thinking more on the lines that all hobby breeders would join the ABS and our breeding practices would be monitored by them and the breed clubs to ensure that all members followed responsible breeding, stop all members breeding more than lets say 4-5 litters a year.

All other breeders would fall under licenced breeders and would need a licence and then fall under LA/WA rules.
By Brainless (*****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 17:46 GMT Edited 27.10.10 17:56 GMT
With serious breeders that sort of already exists.

those breeding 4 or fewer litters responsibly will be following breed club rules re numbers and frequency of litters, health testing etc.

To be honest why worry about the small scale breeder at this point at all as these will e the breeders mindful of their reputation among their peers, when the large scale ones are happily flouting the rules and laws that exist already. 

These people don't have a good name to protect, for them what matters is just the bottom lien and managing to sell their product.

I believe that the KC have statistics that show that less than 1% of KC registered litter registrations are from volume breeders, not 1% of breeders.  I can't remember what the definition of volume was, whether it was 5 or 10 litters.

I as many others would prefer them not to accept these registrations, but if the figures are correct then KC registered puppy farmed litters are in the minority, most are not registered or registered with Puppy farming registries.  So puppy farming can't really be laid at the KC's door, nor all the unregistered Staffies their crosses and other macho dogs, bred and owned by a certain sub culture.

Quote: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/stoppuppyfarming

The Kennel Club is calling for:

1.The standards and principles of the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme to be mandatory throughout the country. Our Accredited Breeder Scheme strives to raise breeding standards and indicate responsible breeders to potential puppy-buyers. Accredited Breeders offer health tests, follow KC breed standards and agree to allow KC Inspectors' access to their premises for spot-checks.
2.A review of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, to prohibit the sale of puppies in pet shops under the Animal Welfare Act.
3.The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 (as amended by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999) to be consistently enforced across all UK authorities.
Barbara and the Grey Curly Tails.
By Maisie B [gb] Date 27.10.10 18:44 GMT
The ABS does not really stand for much when you look at the detail also  the breeders are not always  inspected    -- if they are they are given notice - so again the responsible breeder will do it all to the letter and the others ??
If puppies were not allowed to be sold in shops or via free adds I think this would help the situation, I presume a 'good breeder' will have a waiting list of vetted homes for any expected litters ?
By Brainless (*****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 19:24 GMT

> I presume a 'good breeder' will have a waiting list of vetted homes for any expected litters ?


but we do need people to be able to find good breeders so may will list in the places that PF's advertise to try and steer people to better sources.  Ask the man in the street where they would look for a puppy and sadly it will be the local paper or a Pets shop notice board, or perhaps the vets.
Barbara and the Grey Curly Tails.
By pat (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 19:45 GMT
The Kennel Club is calling for:

1.The standards and principles of the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme to be mandatory throughout the country. Our Accredited Breeder Scheme strives to raise breeding standards and indicate responsible breeders to potential puppy-buyers. Accredited Breeders offer health tests, follow KC breed standards and agree to allow KC Inspectors' access to their premises for spot-checks.
2.A review of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, to prohibit the sale of puppies in pet shops under the Animal Welfare Act.
3.The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 (as amended by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999) to be consistently enforced across all UK authorities. .Reply ToDo Report

I could agree with (1) providing that those breeders that join the scheme do not abuse the system as some are doing at the moment - having accredited status for one breed but not for all they own and breed from. In other words being deceitful when joining or adding other breeds but not advising the KC that they have more than one breed under the scheme. In other words the KC is not ensuring that all members are honest and therefore the public when looking to purchase a puppy from and Accredited breeder cannot always be assured that they are as reputable as they would like the public to believe they are.  The KC need to get their act together before I can give it 100% support.

I agree wholeheartedly with (2) my aims too.

I could agree with (3) if it was working correctly but in Wales it is clearly not and therefore new legislation has to be introduced.

  
By pupsy (*) [gb] Date 27.10.10 20:08 GMT
number 1 would have to be amended for me to agree in that dogs who have bad scores on health tests should not be bred from. At the moment that doesn't happen? As I understand it so long as tests have been done you can breed regardless of scores ?
By Jeangenie (*****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 20:09 GMT

>I could agree with (3) if it was working correctly but in Wales it is clearly not and therefore new legislation has to be introduced.


It's only not working correctly because it's not being enforced. Why does anyone think further legislation would be any different, or more effective at eradicating the evil that is puppy farming?

I agree totally that the standards and principles of the ABS should be mandatory; again it's a matter of enforcement.

As for the sale of puppies from pet shops; surely we all agree that should be banned completely.
A closed mouth gathers no feet
By Mandy D (*) [gb] Date 27.10.10 20:19 GMT
Just commenting on everyone being opposed to the sale of puppies in pet shops. I started a thread yesterday about the next protest at Dogs4Us Leeds and there has not been a single reply to it. I will also be starting a thread about an upcoming protest at Harrods. We really hope to make this a big one as it should get lots of publicity with such a high profile target. It would be great to have lots of responsible breeders there.
By LJS (****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 20:21 GMT
The enforcement question does also question the guidelines hence why I was interested in looking at it as if this is the 'bible' the councils are working to based on that pat has told me via pm is 20 pages long then it stinks of a public sector type beaurocratic type document which has lots of loopholes in it
By Dill (****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 20:41 GMT

>I could agree with (3) if it was working correctly but in Wales it is clearly not and therefore new legislation has to be introduced.


>It's only not working correctly because it's not being enforced. Why does anyone think further legislation would be any different, or more effective at eradicating the evil that is puppy farming?


Really the only NEW LEGISLATION needed is for the Welsh assembly Government to legislate so that councils found to be promoting or condoning puppy farming will be fined, and Environmental Officers who fail in their duty to enforce the law will be automatically liable to prosecution for aiding and abetting a puppy farm themselves. 

At this stage no other legislation is needed. 
Neither a Psychic, nor a Clairvoyant!
By Dill (****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 20:44 GMT
This is why I think that the new legislation is just distraction, any new document will have similar loopholes, they seem to be built into every document written by government, most are ambiguous  and contradictory, and can be interpreted in different ways depending on how they want things to work :-(
Neither a Psychic, nor a Clairvoyant!
By pat (**) [gb] Date 27.10.10 22:08 GMT

>I could agree with (3) if it was working correctly but in Wales it is clearly not and therefore new legislation has to be introduced.


>It's only not working correctly because it's not being enforced. Why does anyone think further legislation would be any different, or more effective at eradicating the evil that is puppy farming?


Really the only NEW LEGISLATION needed is for the Welsh assembly Government to legislate so that councils found to be promoting or condoning puppy farming will be fined, and Environmental Officers who fail in their duty to enforce the law will be automatically liable to prosecution for aiding and abetting a puppy farm themselves. 

At this stage no other legislation is needed.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Dill I understand exactly what you are saying.  Feeling so frustrated with the incompetance of some Welsh Councils for their lack of integrity in being able to effectively licence dog breeding establishments that did not compromise animal welfare I presented a case to the Ombudsman focusing on one Council. However, due to the fact that I personally had not been effected by the Councils decision to not prosecute breeders that were not complying with their licence conditions, the Ombudsman was unable to consider the case.

So what are campaigners against puppy farmers, dealers and pet shops left with to back them when they clearly believe that Councils are not acting in the best interests of animal welfare and knowingly allowing dogs breeders to break their licence conditions?

Yes, you are right the responsibility does lie with the Councils and frankly some officers are not doing their job properly.  That is the reason why serious concerns were raised with the Welsh Assembly.  The WA have accepted that something has to change, this situation can no longer be tollerated.   I am of the opinion that it may have been cheaper and quicker to make some Council employees redundant or give them the sack and employ new officers with the understanding that they have to enforce the licence conditions and have a far stricter control on licenced dog breeders.  But I guess that is not the way it works within Councils it would be too easy.        
By Dill (****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 22:40 GMT
Yes, but the WA have decided in collaboration with the consultees that they will change the legislation, instead of making it so that the councils have to act or both the Environmental Health Officer and the council gets prosecuted.

The likely hood is that because of the way legislation is written, there will be enough leeway in interpretation that nothing will change for the big puppy-farmers. 
Neither a Psychic, nor a Clairvoyant!
By Maisie B [gb] Date 27.10.10 22:40 GMT
There is also the Advisory council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding  which will be up and running soon-  yes more people sat around a table talking but they are asking for input so it is worth sending them all the information and recommendations that we can - you never know something may come of it.
By Brainless (*****) [gb] Date 27.10.10 23:16 GMT Edited 27.10.10 23:20 GMT

> started a thread yesterday about the next protest at Dogs4Us Leeds and there has not been a single reply to it.


The timing of the protest is a little unfortunate as it clashes with the final day of a major championship show (at Stafford) that people will already have entered over 6 weeks ago.
Barbara and the Grey Curly Tails.
By Mandy D (*) [gb] Date 28.10.10 07:10 GMT
That is a shame as they are both midlands events. I normally get the same problem with agility shows. I hope that there is nothing on down south to clash with Harrods.
By suejaw (****) [gb] Date 28.10.10 08:14 GMT
Mandy maybe you can answer my questions as I do feel they are very valid. Where is the money going to come from to enforce the legislation? Will it be council employees who do it? If they go alone(employees) to a puppy farm and they need to close it down due to it not conforming what happens next? Where do all the other employees come from to deal with it, one person alone we know won't get anywhere, you need numbers, which comes back to money and employment of people.
Where do the dogs and pups go if removed and indeed will they be removed?

Also when they do checks one would hope it is ad hoc and the farms aren't advised of an up and coming check, that then would be pointless.
By pat (**) [gb] Date 28.10.10 08:29 GMT
Yes, but the WA have decided in collaboration with the consultees that they will change the legislation, instead of making it so that the councils have to act or both the Environmental Health Officer and the council gets prosecuted.

The likely hood is that because of the way legislation is written, there will be enough leeway in interpretation that nothing will change for the big puppy-farmers. 

---------------------------------------------------------------
Dill, I so hope you are wrong.  During the consultation period it will be a time to ensure that all loopholes are closed but there are still bound to be concerns that incorrect interpretation will assist some to flaunt the law .

The fact that they must have one full time attendent for 20 dogs and 1 part time attendent (other work commitment)for 10 dogs  is a start but of course the inspectors will need to glance at details of the employee such as taking NI details to physically see them working on an unannounced visit otherwise it could be Mr or Mrs from down the road or next village in name only.

The fact that they must keep a record book of each dog with microchip number, vaccination record throughout the dogs life and what happens to the dog when no longer used for breeding must all be entered.

All puppies must be microchipped before leaving the breeder

The new legislation appears to be stricter re size of accomodation such as sleeping and excercise areas.  

Every breeder must be registered with veterinary practice.

Most of the above sound like a common sense approach but many at the moment are not even registered with  vet, do not vaccinate and have no excercise area giving direct access for the dogs other than a concrete cell where they sleep and walk a few feet within the same cubicle. Many have no bedding, milk and bread crates, wooden platform and cow mats. These poor facilities supplied maybe ok for a day but not for the lifetime of a dog

 
By Maisie B [gb] Date 28.10.10 08:34 GMT
Your questions are very valid, some people seem to think that by asking these questions people are being negative however without funding the councils are not going to be able to enforce these laws even if they want to. The only way to do so is with an independent 'body' which in the present economic climate is unlikely to happen.
By suejaw (****) [gb] Date 28.10.10 08:39 GMT
Maisie I've asked this question about money 3 times now and no one is responding to it. If they don't have the money now to enforce what is already in place then I have no idea where they are going to get it from if this new legislation comes into place.

The government has already said local councils won't be getting extra funding, everything has gone up in price so councils are making huge cuts. So if they made made new jobs and these people enforced the legislation then it would need huge cuts elsewhere and I honestly can't see local councils agreeing to this or actioning it at the very least.
By pat (**) [gb] Date 28.10.10 09:30 GMT
The finance will be the same as now as far as I understand and is not being cut therefore this enable Councils to carry out their task of licensing. Some breeders maynot be able to comply and therefore may close voluntary, some may be closed due to not meeting the licensing standards, others maybe required to be licensed and therefore generate more funds for the charge of their licensing fees.

If a licensing officer is visiting a premises it is not going to cost more to inspect more for the new legislation than old once because much of the cost will be in the hands of the breeder to comply, such as microchipping, vaccination, staffing, bedding, suitable updated accomodation etc.      
By Brainless (*****) [gb] Date 28.10.10 10:25 GMT

> If a licensing officer is visiting a premises it is not going to cost more to inspect more for the new legislation than old once because much of the cost will be in the hands of the breeder to comply, such as microchipping, vaccination, staffing, bedding, suitable updated accomodation etc. 


Then what makes you think there will be any more compliance for new rules than there is for the existing ones, that have been in place for Eleven years.  As far as I can see the rules already in place are quite adequate.

They require all puppies to be identified when sold with tags giving details of where they were bred etc.  So how come it isn't happening and Joe Bloggs buying a Pet shop pup doesn't know which puppy farm it came from?
Barbara and the Grey Curly Tails.
By pat (**) [gb] Date 28.10.10 12:19 GMT
Brainless, because the licensed breeders (Wales) that sell litters of puppies to dealers and pet shops are not complying with the legislation. They are being advised on the inspection forms to comply but they take no notice and it is not followed up by the inspectors. Remember they are only checked once a year (will soon be every three years - dread the thought). Sometimes the dealers do not and the pet shops do not want or are not required to have collar and tag on the puppy.  Therefore the licenced breeders do not bother.  This is why whilst puppies are still sold through a third party that tracability must be introduced such as microchip.

There is also a problem when Councils issue a pet shop licence they do not check the legislation relating to Breeding and Sale of Dogs Welfare Act 1999, The Sale of Dogs (Identification Tag) Regulations 1999 and note that licensed dog breeders should be complient in ensuring that all licensed breeders when selling puppies to a pet shop licence holder that the puppy should be wearing a collar and tag with the breeders details.

As this is not written into the Pet Shop Licence Act 1951/91 and has to added as an extra condition not all Councils write it in as an extra.  It does not help when the PSLA 1951 does not restrict who a pet shop can purchase litters of puppies from, by this I mean a dealer and pet shop can buy litters from both licenced and unlicensed breeders. 

When pet shops and dealers are supplied by puppy farmers in Eire (there is no licensing for dog breeders it will be introduced next year) then there is no requirement for them to comply.  So the pet shops have a mish mash of puppies, some from licensed and some from unlicensed breeders.  It is easier for them to sell puppies by breed rather than by licensed and unlicenced breeders regardless of who has bred them, they can all be one price. They do have to keep records on who they have purchased the puppies from and sold to but this is as hit and miss as everything else relating to the puppy trade. Some puppies will be KC reg (against KC rules) some DLUK reg some just a pedigree some nothing at all. Often the purchaser will know very little about the puppies background and what they are given cannot always be relied upon as correct.

Next year in Eire when dog breeders have to be licensed they will also have to microchip their puppies before sale BUT not until 12 weeks of age.  This means that most puppies comming from Eire to be sold in our pet shops by dealers will not have ID as they will be 8 weeks of age which is under the requirement for identification.

I think gradually many of you that are keeping up with this thread will realise what a mess the puppy trade is and the best result for everyone would be to stop puppies being exploited by being sold from pet shops and dealers.  If only people would not purchase a puppy from dealers and pet shops this trade would draw to a natural conclusion if the demand goes then there would not be the need for puppies to be bred on a commercial scale, transported all over the country and imported into the UK.     
By Jeangenie (*****) [gb] Date 28.10.10 12:24 GMT

>Brainless, because the licensed breeders (Wales) that sell litters of puppies to dealers and pet shops are not complying with the legislation. They are being advised on the inspection forms to comply but they take no notice and it is not followed up by the inspectors.   


This is not a fault of the law, it's a fault of enforcement.

>Sometimes the dealers do not and the pet shops do not want or are not required to have collar and tag on the puppy. Therefore the licenced breeders do not bother.


Again this is an enforcement problem; and the last sentence explains very clearly why reputable breeders are aghast at the prospect of being lumped in with 'licenced breeders'. The term is anathema because of all the negative connotations that it has.
A closed mouth gathers no feet
By Brainless (*****) [gb] Date 28.10.10 15:31 GMT
Well JG has said it all. we come back again to the problem that it is all down to lack of enforcement, no point enacting adding more laws and rules that continue to be flouted.

Guess who would abide by rules?????  the people who do nto need them in the first place. 

The reason so many people did nto initially join the KC ABS is that we objected to being coerced into joining a scheme that demanded less than was normal practise for ethical breeders, again being lumped with people with lower standards.

As there is room for breed clubs on a quarterly basis to have new requirements added to ABS more people have joined.

I bred my first litter under the system this year, and did nothing new other than produce some extra bits of paper re grooming and exercise (superfluous as covered in general dog care book, but required).

Each puppy owner was given the folder with their feedback form.  I have no idea how many would have returned these to the kennel club, but again as is quite usual only half have transfered ownership I doubt many forms get returned.

I suspect though if a buyer had problems with the breeder or Puppy under the ABS they would complain to the KC, and the KC does remove breeders from the scheme if they do nto adhere to the rules.

The whistle blowing for the ABS is most likely to occur from within the pedigree breeding community.  Can't see anyone in the Puppy farming game shopping others.
Barbara and the Grey Curly Tails.
By pat (**) [gb] Date 29.10.10 07:45 GMT
What has not helped the situation was the introduction  of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (welfare) Act 1999 this changed the previous legislation from counting breeding bitches 2, then 3 needed a licence to the 5 litter rule. By counting litters it allowed breeders to have more breeding bitches before requiring a licence.  Who was the instigator of this, if my memory serves me right, it was a group of hobby breeders who with others through Parliament asked for change to bring hobby breeders out of licensing.  This was a very big mistake although originally it was thought to be an advantage because they had asked that all puppies to only be sold by the breeder and not third parties.  That was until the Office of Fair Trading stepped in and together with the Pet Care Trut prevented that from happening (restriction  of trade). To this day the Pet Care Trust are still in favour of puppies being allowed to be sold by pet shops.

Unfortunatly, it is not so easy to keep abreast and check litters that are bred by individual breeders.  Whilst some breeders will register their litters with the KC and therefore breed supplements can be checked there are many others that produce litters and register with alternative registration companies (records are not in the public domain) or issue the purchaser just with a pedigree, now with the popular cross breeds it has become an even bigger nightmare for tracabilty. Possible by looking at ads in papers and some of the web based sites but with some offering hidden numbers this is at times difficult.  Firstly for that reason and secondly too many breeders going over the 5 litter rule and not applying for a licence when they should has created a massive problem.

With the new Welsh legislation going back to basics 3 dogs and licence together with the requirement for all dogs and puppies to be microchipped at least there will be tracability.  If pressure can be placed to take away, initially in Wales councils issueing pet shop licenses to dealers (people wo do not have a pet shop but buy in and resell puppies) then we may see the situation improve, more so if was extened throughout the UK.   

 
By Jeangenie (*****) [gb] Date 29.10.10 08:25 GMT

>What has not helped the situation was the introduction  of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (welfare) Act 1999 this changed the previous legislation from counting breeding bitches 2, then 3 needed a licence to the 5 litter rule. By counting litters it allowed breeders to have more breeding bitches before requiring a licence.


That was actually very rational, because it allows for the fact that people are perfectly capable of having entire bitches (previously considered to be 'breeding bitches) that will never be bred from. It's not the law (thank goodness) that animals have to be neutered, so to penalise people for responsibility was acknowledged to be unfair. If laws aren't seen to be fair then they'll be ignored.
A closed mouth gathers no feet
Previous Next Up Topic Dog Boards / General / A step forward to stop puppy farming in Wales (Page 4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  
About Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

Powered by mwForum 2.12.1 © 1999-2007 Markus Wichitill