Steve

I said it on the night Pauline but will say it again here - you're it . If ever I had a hope of what a master Breeder would do you are a perfect example and we are very proud to have you with us and to be able to put a spot light on how hard you have worked to get it right.

To those of you who contributed a square or two to Erny's quilt - I wish you could have seen how magnificent it looked in person .When I first got it back after it had been put together each time I looked at it and saw the feeling and effort people who visit this forum made in order to let one of us know how much they are thought of I cried and to be able to use enough words to explain how dogz is truly a great community and has literally changed so many people's lives would take me all night. I hope Troy knows how much his forum has impacted on so many things and in case I haven't said thank you often enough - Thank you Troy. Thank you Erny for being such a warm and beautiful person and it was good to see you back to your old self and be able to share in the presentation of the quilt for you - something you can look at and know every day for the rest of your life that you are not alone and that people care for you. Julie

O.k Im finally back home and wanted to say what a great night it was and to thank everyone who made it that way. To everyone who was nominated and who nominated someone - thank you so much for allowing us to be able to make the positive things people do for dogs to shine. To everyone who attended - I know what a huge trek it was for some and even those who live close by had to make a large effort to get there. It was disappointing that some who we expected - Felicity and Andrew didn't make it as they were flooded in and I hope life is a bit easier now. If I ever have any complaint about the awards it is that I never feel I get enough time to spend to personally say how happy I am to see you there. It really is a full on period and its difficult to get to you all and spend a few personal minutes with you. Puppy Sniffer I was trying to get to you all night to say thank you for your offer to help and say hello - Im sorry I didnt get there. Without exception every single one who was nominated truly deserved that recognition and to those who attended and helped us to say job well done and share a meal as we celebrated the great things that happen in the dog world - Thank you Canberra is already coming together and nominations will be opened again soon. Couple of category changes too. The only sour note is that when I got home my computer has bitten the dust - have all my stuff including nominations etc on external hard drives but I've lost my emails so its going to take a minute to get back to you all. Bear with me.

Last time I bothered to read that standard it ALLOWED a variety of coat types. If people want to develop a new non-shedding breed and get it recognised, well more power to them. Cutsey names don't do them any favours though. But honestly, I just don't get the "why". What was "wrong" with the foundation breeds in the first place? Oh well, at least they'll have to stop rattling on about hybrid vigour once their stud book closes. :) These breeders aren't on about hybrid vigour - they in bred to set type - another reason why the name needed to change and a major difference in a first cross and someone who is down several generations of breeding like to like.

As far as I know no one has accepted them as a new breed - the MDBA certainly haven't and if ever they do its not going to happen until they reach the necessary criteria . Allowing them to use the foundation registry simply means we recognise they have that goal in mind and we allow them to use our tools because we believe that its better for the dogs . The foundation registry isn't anywhere near like the main stud registry and they aren't there along with recognised purebred dogs so why would anyone find it offensive? The breeders who are breeding them according to our codes of conduct however are recognised by us and considered to be doing the right thing by their dogs and that has been the case for the last 8 years since the very first minute the MDBA began.The first board of directors had a mini foxie breeder in there and some of our foundation members were breeding dogs which are not now nor which ever will be recognised by the ANKC. A white shepherd breeder and an american bulldog breeder were both nominated in the first awards - there is nothing new here so why there is even an issue is beyond me. There is also nothing new in the concept of allowing those working on new breeds to use a foundation registry - this is common in most other countries most notably the US in the AKC registry and its usual for cat registries to do the same. At the end of the day we believe allowing them to use an arm's length pedigree registration system to enable them to keep better records which also tracks qualifications and health and temperament issues is what is better for the dogs .It ensures accurate records, it ensures they work under a code of conduct and they are health testing and they are not primarily breeding for profit. If others feel its not what is best for the dogs thats their choice but why its such an issue and people want to yell about it is difficult to see if we are all really on the same page regarding what is best for the dogs. http://www.akc.org/breeds/fss_breeds.cfm

Well for the record the objectives haven't changed nor have the codes or the requirements for membership. From day one its been about what is best for the dogs and those who have been working on new breed development have always been able to be members. They believe they are producing non shedding dogs which are well suited for assistance work. We believe they are doing an excellent job and hope they are sucessful in what they are aiming for . Im not that sure why people want to get upset about us getting involved sooner than the ANKC does as they do in most other countries but we think that's what is best for the dogs so knock it all you like but its getting boring.

I think that part of the reason people find they have dogs which they cant live with as well as they might is because part of it all is choosing a dog which is most suited to your life style. SOME families can live with any breed others - mine included cant - so therefore if someone has a dog which needs management issues which the family isn't able to live with the risk factor that the dog will be unhappy [and the family] or the dog will be dumped rises. Obviously if its a cross breed it is not able to be predictible in management and grooming,fencing requirement ,temperament etc - this is why I choose to own and breed purebred dogs . It is also why only those who are breeding purebred dogs or working toward building a breed which will be predictable are able to be MDBA members - in order to be accepted they need to articulate what they are doing and how - first cross breeders or those who cross any old dog with the hope of getting a nice puppy are not accepted for this reason no matter how well they do it all. This is why the name was changed in order to enable people to know the difference btweeen a first cross and a new breed development

excellent point. AND a few reminders that they do regular inspections themselves whenever a complaint is made and have for decades.... I dont see that has ever been mentioned for the public to be aware of either. these are points that need to be out there... not kept inhouse. so that only registered breeders know. public perception is being manipulated by the anti lobbyist and so far our leaders have not been very vocal in reminding them and the press what they REALLY do do. asal, this last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain. That Dogs NSW. (for example) if they receive a complaint about any breeder send out a representative to inspect their dogs and how they are kept. How many people think this is only done by the rspca or animal welfare??? If a breeder did fail the inspection they can be told if not fixed in a defined time their membership can be cancelled. In the case of an animal welfare group you have 2 weeks to rectify the problem or face prosecution. I read that in the Newsletter the RSPCA publishes itself, in the Winter Edition of 1999 a lady was charged for not fleaing her dog during the two weeks she was given to rectify the problem. and was charged and convicted. I read it while i waited for them to bring in Stringy for me to take back home after his 13 days of testing for conditons he didnt have. for not complying with whatever he was seized over in the 2 weeks between the no information visit and seizing him 2 weeks later. Interesting to say the least that a lady who had a flea smothered dog was left still in charge of said dog and told to flea it yet i was told nothing whatsoever when i was inspected. As I keep saying like a broken record. you cant fix what you dont know is broken. as it was my dog had been fleaed only 48 hours before he was seized and according to their list of costs included flea treatment for dog that certainly had no fleas when he was taken and could have had serious adverse effects with a second dose on such a small 1.2 kg dog. I know after a altercation with another breeder, they rang all of them on a fortnightly basis for something like 6 months, in the end even the rspca said one more call and we will be charging them with stalking. dont know if they were told the same thing, but the complaints stopped, certainly learned how the system worked. one of the reasons i knew instantly when insp donnelly rolled up a few years later and refused to tell me what the complaint was, that he was breaking the law then and there, then when leaving just as determined not to tell me anything he thought needed improving or if he was satisfied or not. you cant fix whats broken if you cant find out can you? so I knew before he left that day I was being set up. for exactly what did happen. Although it was stressful being stalked by that other person, they did do me a favour in that as a result i knew how the system is supposed to work. Part of the agreement dogs NSW have with the NSW state government is that they will police their members and that they will ensure they comply with legislation and codes. This is the deal they cut in order to get members exemptions on registrations etc. Same in Victoria with Vic dogs and in some shires in Queensland with QCCC.

Some breeders have no choice - if they can only have 2 dogs in their back yard etc and they still want to breed. I wouldn't do it ,my breeding dogs are my family it but Im not restricted either.The logic is that the dogs get to live in a family environment and not a kennel type situation and the breeder can still have choices in what to breed and make good breeding choices - it also eliminates scrutiny from animal rights etc too I guess.

In the big scheme of things their ideas on dogs are better than many and the fact they don't have animal liberation Victoria or Oscars Law in their ranks is definitely something in their favour. I think we probably do need groups of this nature to draw attention to the things which aren't right but my questions are about how far they might want to push the truth or sensationalize things to prove their perspectives and until [at least] I know Id stay away. I cant see any evidence of this except I remember some accusations of people being paid to beat up cattle or similar in the live export thing - because I believe others to be capable of this I find it not so hard to consider this is a possibility and even though they probably haven't done this anything that even has a slight wiff of animal rights I would back away from and treat with suspicion until I had better info. Once you have been bitten by a dog you don't walk the same way home to be bitten again. I would find it easier to work with theses guys than many others but would still not join them or support them because of late based on the dishonesty and lack of any form of respect for the law or integrity which I have witnessed from other animal rights loonies Id rather not take the risk that I might in any way be associated with such lack of morality and ethics.

Makes one ask why aren't they charged ad how they appear to be a law unto themselves. disclaimer - this is not me supporting puppy farmers its me saying illegal acts and dishonesty will corrode anything good that may have come from anything done.

there are actually three organisations and just as I explained earlier this is caused by in fighting and some not agreeing with the vision for the breed. the original founders had a certain vision - a laid back non shedding dog well suited as an assistance dog and as time has progressed some didn't agree with the way others were going about that - this is common with breeds in development - and all breed really even those which are established but because there is an arms length registry for established breeds no one has more say or more power and they have little choice but to work together .Some want more testing , some want less, some want more and different infusions etc You need a single parent club to be able to progress to breed recognition. edited to ad until yo get to about where the Mini foxies are with an established breed standard and requirements for registration even with an open stud book you see loads of conflict - the fact the mini foxies have been able to maintain only one breed club and progess without too much bloodshed is a testament to their president who has often been battle weary as well over the years.

But the fact is you cant stop some dogs being dumped and you cant tell if more of less via percentage is dumped which are purebred really or not because we breed far less than any other group. If ours get dumped in the same ratio per those bred as any other you would expect to see limited numbers in comparison because we breed less. - It doesnt matter because no matter how hard you screen them no matter what you do now and then someone is an idiot , someone has no choice because their lives have changed but to place their dog in rescue. The change has had a focus on breeding and where they are sold but no matter how many are bred no matter where or how they are sold until you address the real problem which is the owners the problem will remain. It is the owners who buy them, the owners who live with them and the owners who decide to chuck them away. Reality is just as many good owners exists regardless of where they purchased their puppies from but they are bogged into stopping pppies in pet shops and stopping them being bred as if this is the only issue we are dealing with.

Look - there a few things in life which are introduced as laws which dont have un intended consequences .Sometimes when they make these laws they know what those consequences my be but the chances they could know what they may be if they are only coming at a problem from one perspective are greater. Some bright spark decided that if we are to ensure dogs don't suffer in commercial breeding and rearing establishments that they needed to draft a whole pile of things every breeder would have to do. They thought about what things made it easier to keep a clean environment and based their thinking on how pounds and boarding kennels operate - no one seemed to get that keeping a dog on your property for years and now and then allowing her to have a litter is vastly different and requires different methods of managing them in order for them to be able to act like dogs and live healthy lives. No one really considered how a person knowing their dogs individually taking into account so many variables including breed and size etc that they would need to consider how many run together and play together and sleep together. As soon as I say this we can all see that keeping a dog in a shelter and a boarding kennel are of a temporary nature, they have many different animals coming and going and they dont really have to consider their long term health and how their environment will impact on them.they have to have policies and procedures which limit the risks of what they are doing to keep the dogs safe and prevent over crowding fighting etc. These codes and regs and laws were pushed by animal welfare and animal rights with little or no understanding or experience in what things a breeder really does have to manage and live with on a daily basis and there seems to a general lack of desire for them to learn about that - they see a problem - these people keeping their animals in disgusting conditions - assume the cause and assume the solution without full information. So lets look at the unintended consequences of drafting laws and codes and regs which don't fully consider the potential unintended consequences which are already introduced in various parts of this country. If a dog breeder who owns more than a couple of dogs on properties where large scale breeding kennels can be erected is given the choice in how they would keep their animals its my opinion most would want to keep them in yard like environments appropriate to the size required for their breed and the numbers they want to live together at any given time. they would want to provide them with shade , dirt to dig in and earth to stand and run on ,sunshine to lay in ,wading pools, things to climb on jump over hide under etc where the breeder can walk in and throw a ball and interact with them at various times of the day. Where they can live as a pack in numbers which the breeder determines is best for them , the management and their breed. Where they can bark at each other, strangers, and all else without going deaf in an enclosed building etc. Where at night they can snuggle up together within their pack. Where a whelping area with easy cleaned surfaces because its a confined area etc is used only for a very short period of say 3 to 5 weeks to whelp puppies. More healthy less costly to build - where dogs can live like dogs and not prisoners in cells on concrete floors . Where they are not over medicated or their immune systems are not compromised by generic instructions on vet treatments Then look at the laws and mandatory codes in - say Victoria. if people come onto your property in Victoria in the middle of the night with cameras and your dogs are not locked up - only ever 1 or 2 in each pen regardless of how many you own you are breaching the mandatory codes. Try and get a DA in any state to breed dogs on your property and then see the requirements for housing etc is based on these codes which are more suited to pounds and boarding kennels. So in order to keep your dogs in areas you dont want to keep them in you have to pay tens of thousands of dollars on permanent non porous flooring etc ,lock them up at night singly or in pairs . then we hear screams about them being kept in stalls and factory type situations - but its the laws which are making them keep them in those situations. So some people who don't have the money or who are renting or who just dont think its good for their dogs and of course some who couldnt care less what is best for their dogs but dont want to spend the money start to get paranoid and go underground and do things designed to avoid detection .They dont register their dogs and will find all manner of ways around any laws designed to track them and locate where they are. the question becomes - would more rather than less breeders keep their dogs in yard like environments which is better for the dogs rather than hide because they have to keep them in old sheds and shipping containers because they cant or wont comply with codes and laws? I spoke with a large commercial breeder about this some weeks ago - they own 200 dogs and they are in kennel blocks - in my opinion its horrible but it is fully licenced and they have all the permits and pass all of the inspections. These breeders are as upset about having to keep their dogs in these conditions as most of us are looking at it but if they do what they want to do and what they think is best for their dogs they cannot operate because they dont fit the codes and laws. Its not all easy to analyse and find solutions for but usually there are other hidden agendas - money or zealotry Would seem to me if we really are all coming at it from the same base - trying to work out what is best for the dogs the great divide has to come together with each group assumed to have the best interests of dogs at heart and try to find a realistic solution which doesn't become part of the problem.

No - you have interpreted the numbers wrong - there are about 30,000 members of the CC Australia wide but only about 4,500 are breeding registered pups Australia wide - we dropped about 2,000 registered breeders in 2011 The figures can be accessed on the ANKC website. This has registration numbers of all breeds, state stats and litters bred and members by how many breeders australia wide etc.

They arn't going for ANKC recognition? That quote from their website is complete rubbish, the real reason they aren't going for ANKC recognition is because they have no hope of getting it. Yep, neither does the Mini Foxie. Absurd isn't it. So why is it? What is their reason for not accepting these dogs ("labradoodle")? Because as yet they either dont fit the necessary criteria for ANKC recognition or they don't want to be recognised by the ANKC as they don't want to participate in the ANKC conformation shows.

They arn't going for ANKC recognition? That quote from their website is complete rubbish, the real reason they aren't going for ANKC recognition is because they have no hope of getting it. Yep, neither does the Mini Foxie. Absurd isn't it. Now that they have changed their name there is no reason why they wouldnt get ANKC recognition when ever, if ever they have complied with the criteria required to apply. In order to fit that criteria thy needed to change their name just as The Australasian Bosdog has recently changed its name from Aussie Bulldog so that when ever if ever they want to be recognised as a breed they fit what is required to be able to do so . In both the Australasian Bosdog and the Australian Cobbadog they are at least 5 to ten years away from being able to do that if they want to do that at the time . Many groups working on one day being recognised as a breed are adamant they dont want to be given the tick from the ANKC and the Aussie Bulldog has split into 3 different groups one of which is of the belief that ANKC recognition would be detrimental to the breed and which is refusing to change the name. If they cruise along for 15 years and make these kind of decisions at the end when they are able to qualify rather than now then all they work for is lost if some dont agree to go for ANKC recognition.The Murray River Curly coat retriever peopel are definite they never want to compete in dog shows and feel getting a tick for their breed would not be best for what they goals for the breed are .Some working dog registries which also have ANKC recognition will not accept dogs which are registered with the ANKC. The Cobbadog people started out with a name which confuses the public because there is a vast difference between what most consider to be a labradoodle and what they are doing - which is why they have changed the name in the hope that as time progresses that the public and the dog world will come to know they are not breeding first cross poodle x labs . Usually when a breed is in a developmental stage lots of mistakes are made with pedigree recording and with those who are within the group not agreeing on what is the best to do for attaining the long term viability and goals of the breed especially when there is still an open stud book. Working on a breed in development is difficult and not just because the requirements for actually being a breed is long and lengthy .Its 15 plus years of being treated as if you are the scum of the earth by those who believe we have enough breeds and who cant see the difference between what someone has to do to get to breed recognition over what someone does to breed first cross dogs.Just as there is in any breed there is in fighting and those who don't agree on what is required to get to the end result - often with those who are keeping the stud registry simply deciding they wont give the details out and it all blowing up with many false starts and lots of nastiness. In many country's main stud registries including the states which is the biggest in the world they allow those who can prove they are working on a breed in development to use their foundation registry to record their pedigrees - this ensures that the integrity of the record keeping is under an arm's length registry control and eliminates many of the accusations which have been levelled at most breeds in development in Australia regarding incorrect pedigrees etc .In many other species it is also nothing out of the ordinary for those working on a new breed to be allowed the use of these tools as they work toward one day fitting the necessary criteria to be a recognised breed. The ANKC has nothing to do with any breed as it is working toward fitting their criteria until they get to where they can fit that criteria at least 15 years after those developing the breed have decided that where they want to go have been working without any outside body overseeing what is happening as they move toward their goal. I understand that traditionally most purebred dog people have had the beleif that if the ANKC dont recognise it then its not a breed. Dog breeds have had to be recognised as a breed by the ANKC to be eligible for acceptance at ANKC sanctioned dog shows but some don't ever want to compete in ANKC affiliated dogs shows.Some only want to hold their own dog shows - the mini foxie people do this and so do the Cobbadogs,white shepherds etc but some such as the Murray River Curly coat retrievers dont ever want to have dog shows especially not those affiliated with the ANKC.In the states the Maremma Sheepdog isnt a recognised breed and isnt even on their foundation registry - that doesnt mean the breed as a breed doest exist - its simply means it cant compete in their sanctioned events because they dont want to. just as any one who looks at a Murray river curly coat retriever or a mini foxie knows instantly what they are to suggest that ANKC recognition has to be the goal for all breeds in order for the world to recognise them as a breed doesnt really make much sense in this day and age and there have always been many other registries other than the ANKC registry .Recognition as a breed with the ANKC grants you entry to ANKC stud books and ANKC sanctioned events - if a breed has decided they dont want the ANKC to keep their pedigrees and they never want to compete in the conformation ring held by the ANKC why would they want to be recognised by them? The ANKC doesn't recognise pit bulls but seems to me that doesn't stop them from being treated as a breed when we talk restricted breeds . There is a vast difference between a first cross mongrel and what those who are working and breeding consecutive generations toward a consistent and predictable look and behaviour do and if it were just about the money they would make a lot more by simply breeding first cross labradoodles than spending their money and their lives working on a new breed. When dogs of a new breed are "visibly similar in most characteristics" and have reliable documented descent from a "known and designated foundation stock" they can then be considered members of a breed, and, if an individual dog is documented and registered, it can be called purebred. Whether they want the ANKC to recognise it or whether the ANKC does regonise it neither impacts on the fact that they will one day fit the definition Because a purebred dog means, "the sire and dam of a dog are members of a recognized breed and that the ancestry of a dog consists of the same breed over many generations" Disclaimer - No Im not supporting mongrel breeding I am supporting the right for people to have a go at developing a new breed if they have the time and courage to do so as long as they have articulated breeding goals and methods. and the concept of giving them the use of tools to help them do a better job which also brings them under a code of conduct - a foundation registry which is why - even though Im not fussed on the name- changing the name from labradoodles to Australian Cobbadog no longer gives credibility to those breeding first cross dogs which they call labradoodle and can help the Cobbadog people hopefully one day become a breed.

A license is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to have something, or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the license. It makes dog breeding illegal. It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency which can at any time, inspect, confiscate,suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. Licensure is a taking by government without compensation. If you live in a city, town, municipality,county, or state that requires dog breeder licensing, then the act of dog breeding has been made illegal without permission of government. they can at any time change the rules and leave you unable to comply. When we agree to license ourselves to breed dogs we agree to give over our ownership and breeder right to the licensing agency, which can at any time revoke our use rights. We grant them absolute control over our animals. They can come onto our real property, and remove our transitory property (dogs) without due process of law. These people where doing disgusting things and were found and prosecuted - how is any of us paying 500 bucks going to stop them before they are found and prosecuted?

I don't think it will make any difference how many they get and they have to wait anyway until the review is up if they are going to go via the companion animals act but there is a push nation wide for a licencing system for breeders and for an outside agency to be calling all of the shots. If they try the way they did with the whole anti pet shop thing via someone like clover Moore it could get scary For me its the general push and general anti breeder stuff that seems to be getting way way too much attention and lots of sensationalism and propaganda. Dishonesty, lies are every where .You can have hate pages about a breeder for the most trivial of things but not about a pedophile I don't think breeders should have no rights of what they can do with their own property and no privacy rights and no rights of where they can sell their puppies etc simply because someone is guessing as to what may be causing dogs being PTS . I don't understand how they can think they can introduce fees and regulations that make no sense to small breeders and not advantage commercial breeders - yet they say this is what they are trying to stop. Nothing they do to breeders is going to stop irresponsible owners - its the owners who dump dogs .So its sort of like punishing someone for selling a car if they if they have lots of people deliberately running them into trees How is it you have to be treated as a potential criminal and animal abuser because you happen to want to breed a litter of puppies - this is truly a world gone mad and it saddens me that my kids will never be able to experience the joy of breeding great dogs which will make a difference to the dogs and the people who live with them for generations. We should be able to stand proud of what we do and not have to constantly defend ourselves and our property because now and then someone somewhere mucks it up.

Until puppies are fed real food and over 21 days old their mum cleans up after then - You can have a litter of a dozen in your home and there is no smell and no mess. After they start to move around and their mum stops cleaning up they are managed differently. Here for example they are moved onto the porch area where they can come and go in the house when I want them in and they can go out to the toot. Puppies given the chance to go away from where they are sleeping are clean and prefer to go out onto the grass - my house is also set up to have accidents now and then without a problem - no carpet.

The AWL is equal to the RSPCA in legislation - only difference is in their size.

Well the reality is - its not going to matter - not one little bit what a dog looked like a hundred years ago. Its a nonsense argument which takes the focus off the real issues. This is now and lots of things have changed - how it got to this isn't counted - all that matters is that dogs don't suffer because of the way they are bred to look. Having some war about what they were back then doesn't excuse the fact that some breeds suffer less quality of life because they are bred the way they are TODAY. So rather than excusing such cruelty if it is occurring it needs to be addressed and whether or not they have always looked like this means nothing. IT would appear that some dogs do have conformation traits which cause them to have health issues and its difficult to deny it when the KC is the one doing the talking about their own members and their own members dogs. So if any one really wants to see any good come from this debacle best we talk about now not then - because in the big scheme of things no one cares if the dog in front of them is suffering today.

There is one stand out issue with any accusation that hobby breeders make enough money from breeding dogs to be able to cover such a high expenses - the tax man says we don't make a profit . All of us would love to be able to claim our dog expenses against our taxable income as it would mean we paid less tax but they say we are breeding as a hobby and wont play with us. Again its all based on assumption. Its a bit naive too - alright for them to say any inspection wont make people have dogs whelping out in sheds etc but the planning laws and mandatory codes are going to have to dictate what they can and cant allow when they inspect. they cant just come in and make it a case by case because that would mean if I sleep with the right one or take him out to dinner - or if he doesn't like my hair colour he can do what ever he wants. and say no show.or next year change his mind. It has to be based on the guidelines.Everything advantages the large scale commercial breeder.

you can tell them over and over that all they do is advantage large scale breeders but they don't listen. I would like to know where are all of these puppy farmers? If they really are as prolific as they tell us why haven't they pinged them? Why is it we only see those on the TV which have all of their licenses and doing it all under the current laws? The Bulley kennels were zoomed in on but they weren't breaking any laws. You don't have to agree with what they were doing or where they were selling puppies but they were complying with the laws They have hate pages on one person with accusations going back 12 years accusing her of puppy farming but she is a 73 year old lady with 3 dogs sleeping on her bed. If there really are such terrible puppy farmers where are they and why are they spending so much energy on something which doesn't exist?

We already have mandatory chipping before sale or at 12 weeks and no one policing it .