Steve

If we are given charge of ensuring your wishes are complied with then thats what we do. 100% no matter what. Its not just your will or what happens if you die which you need to consider. Here's another one. Elderly lady. Her dog which she has had for around 5 years - a Kelpie has jumped up on her ,knocked her over and broke her leg. We get a call from her neighbour asking us how he can organise for someone to take the dog away and find it a new home. I explained that our goal is to do all we can to keep owner and dog together , not whisk them off to the pound while their owners are in surgery and even if we wanted to we have to get the owner to sign off on that - we cant just take the word of a neighbour. Her adult son arrived home the next day - he hadnt seen his Mum for 2 years. He was keen to move the dog out too. The dog was placed in a boarding kennel and we paid the bill.I spoke with the lady and she was off the air about her dog even being discussed this way. We worked with the son and got an agreement that if we could get training for the dog and the owner that he would go with his Mum keeping the dog. You can not imagine the trouble we had in getting a trainer to agree to train the dog even though we were paying the bill. One local rescue group told me I should wake up to myself and that the only thing they would do to help - they wouldn't even point me toward a trainer in the area- was to accept the dog as a surrender because they didn't agree an woman of her age should have such a high energy dog. the owner said it was a once off and the dog was a lounge lizard and had been her only companion since she got it. End of story is the dog was kept at the kennel and the dog and owner had some training lessons all paid for by Pacers and the owner and the dog are back to being on their own - together living happily ever after.

Between the Ccs and the animal rights nuts in government soon we wont need to worry about any decisions in our breeding choices or where we can take em and what we can do with them because everything will be covered and leave no decisions up to the breeder and their own vet. One more right lost to registered breeders.

One more thing a breeder no longer has the right to decide. There goes another one.

Ill bite - what associated health risks ?

There is always a good story to justify what they are doing and the very sad thing is that they aren't doing it to be rotten they actually believe it. Pacers has some which have come to us because their owners have had to go into nursing homes. We send stories and photos every 2 weeks to let the people know their animals are safe and well and allow them to still feel they are in at least a small way still connected and able to make small decisions on what they think is best for them. Ive told my kids if they put me in a home where I cant have my dogs Ill come back and haunt them.

Some of the stuff I ve seen since we began MDBA Pacers has really educated me on what can happen if you don't have a plan in place - not just if you die but if you have an accident or become ill etc. Families think they are doing the right thing sometimes but it often means they are making decisions which might make sense to them but are not taking into account the way peopel can feel about their animals. We had one where the lady owned 2 GSDs and had a heart attack.While she was in hospital some of her friends decided it would be best for her if the dogs were removed. Some justified this by saying that the reason she was ill was because she had dogs sleeping in the house! Others felt that she would be too ill when she came home to look after them, some felt that the fur they dropped in the house etc would increase her work load and that wouldn't be good for her. I could write a book on what went on and how many people in the small country town got involved - each justifying why they wanted to send the two dogs to the pound. We were able to prevent that happening because we had the papers signed and sealed to give us the ability to make decisions regarding the dogs. When the lady was released and was back home with her dogs again I waited till she settled in and then told her what the town's people including her priest wanted to do with her dogs. She told me if she had no dogs to come home to she wouldn't want to come home at all and I knew exactly what she meant.ive no doubt that her recovery would have been as successful without them. There was another in WA where the owner had a terminal illness and had only a very short time to live. He left his dog with his neighbours who promised to look after the dog forever. The poor bugger only had a few days to live and the neighbours decided they couldn't wait for him to die and that they couldn't stand the dog so they were going to put it to sleep. We fought like mad to get that dog out so the owner could go to God knowing the dog was safe but because the neighbours had control we lost and the owner died knowing his dog got there before him. That was the one where I kept having to tell myself if I was going to keep doing this job Id have to toughen up. There are dozens of other examples I could speak of but the fact is that you really do need to have something in place with someone who understands the human animal bond and who values your wishes. Don't assume that your family and friends really do get it and at the very least incorporate a safety net if they change their minds or they cant cope etc.

I know when I type this that it’s going to sound too hard for some of you and make you feel unsure you’re up to it all. However, we really are putting together manuals and resources to help you get it off the ground and hold your hand while it all comes together. It really isn’t as daunting as it sounds and all you need to start is about 5 people who live near you who want to be involved. Things you should know The goal is to have thousands of locally based MDBA Pacers Clubs. All autonomous but working as a huge team. These clubs will be helped to register as non- profit incorporated associations in their own states. These clubs will be chartered by MDBA Pacers with particular requirements written into their constitutions and by laws. These pertain to the use of the MDBA Pacers name and logos, support and resources but they also ensure that the club will operate as a charity with the same core values and operating bases as the Parent group. It also streamlines such issues as insurance protocols and legal issues to ensure everyone is covered and protected. One major requirement which should be noted is that clubs will be required to set up two bank accounts or to distinguish between deposits via their accounting process. • Funds for administration and activities must be kept separate through book-keeping or two accounts • Administration Account – These are funds from memberships fees, dues, fines, and internal funds and internal fundraising. – Funds can be transferred from this account to the activities account • Activities Account – These are funds raised from the public. These are funds which are raised where the public has a perception that these funds will be used for the sole benefit of the community – The funds in the activities account cannot be used for administrative purposes. – All money from the public goes back to the public – 90 % of net income generated from local fundraising is to be used for local community needs. – 10% of net income generated from local fundraising is deposited monthly with MDBA Pacers National Office to be used as a national disaster reserve fund for use for the wider Australian community where required in the case of a widespread natural disaster, for use in areas which as yet have not established a local community MDBA PACERS Club or where more funds than the local community currently hold are needed on a case by case basis to help your Clubs local domestic animal owners in need. There is an election for an exemption for this if it is determined the particular club community is in a higher need phase. MDBA Pacers will not use this fund for any administrative expenses and 100% of these funds will held to be used for the public as the need arises. So now you have this basic info and you can see more clearly what we have in mind the question is – Are you interested in giving it a go ? We are.

There has been lots of work going on behind the scenes for MDBA Pacers with much to get through. This email is to inform you all of the first of the changes you will see and why the changes are necessary. As from the 1st of August 2010 membership to our Top Dog level of membership will be by invitation only. Those of you who are already there or who join before the 1st of August will be considered foundation members and not have to pay any further membership fees for as long as you want to remain members. This is happening for several reasons. One is that soon we will be setting up MDBA Pacers groups all over the country. We have almost finished the administrative things we need to be sure that we have covered all of the bases. As a result the Top dog membership will be drawn on for group leaders and various other roles and help. Another is that we need to be able to be as sure as we can that those people who we bring in to be in our most responsible positions locally and at state level are of good standing within their local communities. On the whole these people will be chosen from the basic level of membership or nominated by people who are already. Top Dog Members.There are more reasons which will become obvious soon. So those becoming top dog members after the 1st of August 2010 will only become members by invitation and there will be a higher member fee and a yearly membership fee. Those already top dog members by the 1st of August will not need to pay yearly membership fees. If anyone has been thinking about becoming a Top Dog Member you only have a couple of days to do so to gain these benefits. Join Now The Pacers Team

http://www.examiner.com/x-25445-Pet-Rescue...eased-into-wild An 11 year-old American Kennel Club Shiba Ibu was mistaken for a coyote by the Frankfort Humane Society in Kentucky and released into the wild. Lori Goodlett is Copper's owner, and on July 3, Goodlett returned to her home in Cloverdale to find her dog missing from their fenced yard. She called the Humane Society and was told that no stray dogs had been turned in that day, and when she called back to leave her name and address, the person answering the phone was dismissive and uncooperative again stating no stray dogs had been turned in. The next day Goodlett posted signs and pictures of Copper around the community, and a Frankfort Police officer responded to the posters telling Goodlett he had picked the dog up as a stray the previous day. The dog had no identification on her, and the officer took the gentle animal to the Humane Society. Shortly thereafter, the Humane Society called the officer back and stated that Copper was not a dog, but a coyote, and they were not allowed to keep a wild animal at the shelter. The officer called a wild life service and was told that coyotes are regarded as nuisances, and the animal could be either freed or shot. An officer then picked up Copper from the Humane Society, and released the dog behind Home Depot. Since then the Shiba Ibu has been missing. The Frankfort Humane Society stands behind their decision stating it is illegal for a shelter to keep a wild animal. They also stated it could have harmed the other animals. Humane observers are disappointed and angry with the organization for not being able to accurately assess a dog's breed. "Just the fact the animal was friendly should have been a clue," states Jenna Marshall, a local vet tech. In a statement Copper's owner stated, " People would say when Copper was young, she looked like a fox with her pointy ears and red coloring, but no one has ever mistaken her for a coyote." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have offered a $1000. reward for information that leads Copper back to Goodlett. If you have any information. please call Goodlett at 502-226-2580 or call the Frankfort Police.

All I know is when I was at school if I spelt it jail I got it marked wrong and Ive got 8 kids two of which are at school still and 13 grandkids - most of whom are at school and the Australian school system still calls it gaol.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07...?section=justin The RSPCA has reached an out-of-court agreement with lawyers for graziers in the south-east of South Australia who were charged with mistreating hundreds of cattle. Thomas and Patricia Brinkworth and three of their livestock managers were charged with mistreating more than 800 cattle by allegedly allowing them to slowly starve to death. Criminal charges were dropped in January when the evidence was ruled inadmissible because of an error made by RSPCA staff. Lawyers for the Brinkworths had been seeking substantial legal costs from the RSPCA. The organisation says it has now reached a confidential settlement.

Same here SwaY - just this week I found information that a registered breeder is actually a puppy farm and advertising all sorts of x breeds on petlink - I supplied him the evidence, and he removed them. I've also reported this to Dogs NSW and the RSPCA - what I found was disgusting. The fact that Troy removed them is pretty spectacular because as members of dogs NSW they are perfectly entitled to do exactly that and not breach their code of conduct as long as its not with their registered purebred dogs. They are also able to do that and remain within all bounds for the RSPCA. If he has removed them while they still hold dogs NSW registration - Im impressed. Really? I would think it would be against Number 3 of the code of ethics firstly, they are not 'maintaining and/or improving the standard of the Breed and the health, welfare and soundness of their dogs', and also against Number 5 'A Member shall not knowingly permit any of that Member's pure bred dogs to be mated to a dog of a different breed' it doesn't say 'pedigree or papered or registered' just 'purebred' - and breeding purebred poodle to a purebred maltese to me would be a breach, whether they are papered, main registered, limited registered or not at all?? Surely Dogs NSW would not allow such a loophole? There is also Number 15 - must register all litters bred by them. How can they register cross breeds? This is a blurb from Assoc of Australian Pet breeders website placed there by a QCCC registered breeder who has also joined the puppy farmers association. My partner and I have been breeding dogs for over 16 years,we each have are own breeds and lines of dogs, although we do share our registered prefix for our Dogs QLD registered dogs, my main interests are my pet Bostons and crosses of these, I have only gotten into crosses seriously since the Qantas airline refused to carry the brachycephalic breeds if they are pure bred, they will carry crosses, and we are getting ever more enquiry for these, so I have decided to add a few to my kennel of pure Bostons who may be had on pet registry papers as well, all bitches are desexed weather cross of pure no dog is sold for breeding. All pure bred Bostons are either cleared by parentage or by direct DNA tests of being affected by Hereditary Juvenile Cataracts, crosses cannot be tested, but any we breed ourselves with be bred from clear dogs, to start off this new crossbred venture, some dogs have been purchased who are not from tested stock, but we have been careful to buy from breeders who have been breeding for some generations without many, if any, problems. I may be wrong but wasn't the president of this association raided and charged with animal cruelty in the last few years I ahd a butchers at the sigth and the name rang a bell. I dont think so - she is a vet.

in my opinion its miles off that yet but there is an extremely big push coming which has already started on several fronts. It seems they are really going to put everything they have into it. As things stand now if it progresses to a law situation it would be with the states but there has been a strong push for animal welfare issues to be made federal.I know that Hugh Wirth was advising the PM - Rudd on such things. At first look I think most of us would say its ridiculous. Seriously how likely is it that breeders would be placed in a position where they had to post their street address to be able to sell a puppy? It seems to be so incredulous that we would be the only group that I can think of in this country which would be placed in a position where this is part of being able to have a leisure or even a commercial activity. However, one quick look at the AAPDB website tells us that the puppy farmers who are registered members of that group agree to having their addresses published and that their full details are disclosed on the website.Whats more at least one possibly 2 out of 6 members are CC registered breeders! But you also have some of our own - registered breeders who are pushing for this to happen too. What they dont seem to get is that its not just the dogs we are worried about.We breed dogs in our homes. talk of getting security cameras and locking the place up when we go out etc are crazy in my opinion- why would anyone want to live like that because they have a litter of puppies now and then they want to find homes for? But what about the other risks associated with anyone posting where they live on the net? What about the safety of my kids and myself and my possessions? What of our right to privacy? All well and good to tell me what to do to protect my dogs while a breeder is not at home but what of risks when they are? What of women who live in semi isolated areas alone and a bunch of other things which come to mind? All I know is that ever since I first turned on the internet everyone in my life has told me not to place my home address up there and yet now Im being pushed to place my address up there. Bloody hell even pedophiles get to keep their street address private!

these are our two sold via Pacers shop I dont have a photo of them on a dog but perhaps someone who won one in the Jed auctions could help with that

Same here SwaY - just this week I found information that a registered breeder is actually a puppy farm and advertising all sorts of x breeds on petlink - I supplied him the evidence, and he removed them. I've also reported this to Dogs NSW and the RSPCA - what I found was disgusting. The fact that Troy removed them is pretty spectacular because as members of dogs NSW they are perfectly entitled to do exactly that and not breach their code of conduct as long as its not with their registered purebred dogs. They are also able to do that and remain within all bounds for the RSPCA. If he has removed them while they still hold dogs NSW registration - Im impressed. Really? I would think it would be against Number 3 of the code of ethics firstly, they are not 'maintaining and/or improving the standard of the Breed and the health, welfare and soundness of their dogs', and also against Number 5 'A Member shall not knowingly permit any of that Member's pure bred dogs to be mated to a dog of a different breed' it doesn't say 'pedigree or papered or registered' just 'purebred' - and breeding purebred poodle to a purebred maltese to me would be a breach, whether they are papered, main registered, limited registered or not at all?? Surely Dogs NSW would not allow such a loophole? There is also Number 15 - must register all litters bred by them. How can they register cross breeds? This is a blurb from Assoc of Australian Pet breeders website placed there by a QCCC registered breeder who has also joined the puppy farmers association. My partner and I have been breeding dogs for over 16 years,we each have are own breeds and lines of dogs, although we do share our registered prefix for our Dogs QLD registered dogs, my main interests are my pet Bostons and crosses of these, I have only gotten into crosses seriously since the Qantas airline refused to carry the brachycephalic breeds if they are pure bred, they will carry crosses, and we are getting ever more enquiry for these, so I have decided to add a few to my kennel of pure Bostons who may be had on pet registry papers as well, all bitches are desexed weather cross of pure no dog is sold for breeding. All pure bred Bostons are either cleared by parentage or by direct DNA tests of being affected by Hereditary Juvenile Cataracts, crosses cannot be tested, but any we breed ourselves with be bred from clear dogs, to start off this new crossbred venture, some dogs have been purchased who are not from tested stock, but we have been careful to buy from breeders who have been breeding for some generations without many, if any, problems.

Dogs and cats have a voice under new Massachusetts law Digg This Tweet This Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Related News Scenarios: What could happen with Arizona's immigration law 8:10am EDT Asset manager earnings up on year, flows mixed Mon, Jul 19 2010 Massachusetts restaurants hope for strong summer Wed, Jun 23 2010 Related Topics http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66J3...pe=domesticNews U.S. » By Lauren Keiper BOSTON | Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:09pm EDT (Reuters) - Massachusetts on Wednesday will become the first state to ban the surgery that devocalizes dogs and cats, which many animal rights advocates see as a cruel and unnecessary procedure. Under the new law, anyone in the state who cuts or removes an animal's vocal chords for nonmedical reasons may be punished by fines and up to five years in prison. The law, signed by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in April, is dubbed Logan's Law after a dog that underwent the controversial surgery but was later abandoned. "To take the voice of an animal would be the equivalent of taking a person's voice or a person's ability to communicate," Brian Adams, spokesman for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), told Reuters. Supporters of the new measure say it is more important for pet owners to understand the needs and motivations behind their pets' making noise. The silencing surgery may suit the needs of the owner, but not the health and welfare of the animal. Devocalization, known as "debarking" when performed on dogs, is largely done by commercial breeders for their own convenience, according to the Animal Law Coalition, an advocacy group based in New York. Some of those opposing the bill argued that more animals would be surrendered to shelters or abandoned if the surgery is banned, but Adams said they are not expecting a influx of new animals. In 2009, the MSPCA, a non-profit animal welfare organization, did not have a single dog or cat surrendered because it was too noisy, Adams said. Inspired by the Massachusetts law, a U.S. Congressman introduced a bill in May to support states that pass similar legislation to ban devocalization. H.R. 5422, sponsored by C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-MD, would authorize grants of up to $1 million for the prevention of cruelty to animals. It was referred to a House Agriculture subcommittee in June.

I have to say that if I'm being honest I'm a bit ticked off that an email I sent out to our members has been circulated to so many places without anyone asking me if that was O.K.

I think its past the starting discussion point and there is a fair bit of resources going into it all. There is a big conference happening in Victoria tomorrow which rescue groups have been invited to attend to gather anti breeder support [ it would seem] and there appears to be a fair bit of money about ready to be thrown into it. The RSPCA have also announced they will name the celebrities today or tomorrow who will be backing them on their anti puppy farm crusade. This is an Australia wide push. At this point I dont think individuals have been asked to give comment so I would suggest you contact your state CC's if you feel you would like to let them know how you feel about them. The intent of my email which has been posted here was to ask our members what they think so when we go in they know we have heard their concerns and that we will speak on their behalf. Or you could join the MDBA. Join Now

double post

All I did was send Troy through the evidence, and said I'd leave it to his discretion on whether or not he feels they should be removed (and pointed out they are still registered so would understand if he had to leave them as members - maybe their membership had expired anyway which is why they were removed or something?? I don't know). I didn't demand or insist on anything. And if this person is reinstated then so be it. I only found out through an ad in the trading post that I did a bit more digging about to find out information and basically it opened a can of worms - something that I never expected. I also didn't think it was everyone's 'right' to belong to their state CC - I thought of it more of a club, and if people are doing unethical things, they could be expelled. Call me naive, but I assumed that Dogs NSW would act on something like this. I don't see how Trade Laws apply? If people want to breed whatever they want, they can without membership, but if they breach Dogs NSW COE, then they can be expelled can't they? Why even have a COE if they can't act on it? Why threaten expulsion and suspension if they can't do it? (not being smart - I read through the COE and figured that it was like 'club rules' and the CC could act on breaches which is why I reported this person to begin with - now to find out they can't do anything about it anyway is very surprising to me). If people HAD to be members of Dogs NSW to advertise litters, and then they were restricted, I could understand the whole Trade Laws thing, but no one HAS to be a member to advertise puppies?? You may be right - as although the contact number is the same as their registered prefix contact, this puppy farm is using a different contact name and email address - so probably you are right in the fact they'll just say it's someone else in their household, not the holder of the prefix - but if they are using papered dogs to create the crosses registered to the holder of the prefix - then can DogsNSW do something? As it appears the crosses, are crosses of the breeds they are advertising as being a registered breeder of - they could be breeding the crosses in the seasons that they can't breed the pedigree pups (ie: dogs can't be bred on every season they need to be rested - maybe that's the time they cross them??) I don't care if they're expelled from here, DogsNSW or anywhere else - my concern is that there are hundreds of puppies advertised by this person, and I just want to ensure the dogs are being looked after. If DogsNSW are then comfortable allowing this person to continue doing this, then so be it. The MDBA is not the be all and end all either - you have at least one member I know of that breaches your own COE just by what is on their website (let alone what they are like to talk to personally), but you haven't acted on that either. There will always be people doing unethical things. I think I'll go back to minding my own business and making sure what I do measures up to my own high ethics. Trying to do the right thing and reporting others is just too damn frustrating. Better fill in the gaps here. If any of our members are breaching our code we will and have acted on it. I would appreciate an email or PM explaining who you are speaking of.

What about Waratah?

Membership is open to residents of Australia only who are members of their state's canine controlling body and have a registered Prefix for breeding and/or have pure breed pedigree dogs that they show and wish to showcase on this site. Looks to me that as long as you hold a prefix with state CC regardless of whether everyone thinks you should or not you are O.K. to be a member and advertise here. How on earth could Troy promise that when someone other than the CCs think they should not remain members that he will remove them ?

Same here SwaY - just this week I found information that a registered breeder is actually a puppy farm and advertising all sorts of x breeds on petlink - I supplied him the evidence, and he removed them. I've also reported this to Dogs NSW and the RSPCA - what I found was disgusting. The fact that Troy removed them is pretty spectacular because as members of dogs NSW they are perfectly entitled to do exactly that and not breach their code of conduct as long as its not with their registered purebred dogs. They are also able to do that and remain within all bounds for the RSPCA. If he has removed them while they still hold dogs NSW registration - Im impressed. Really? I would think it would be against Number 3 of the code of ethics firstly, they are not 'maintaining and/or improving the standard of the Breed and the health, welfare and soundness of their dogs', and also against Number 5 'A Member shall not knowingly permit any of that Member's pure bred dogs to be mated to a dog of a different breed' it doesn't say 'pedigree or papered or registered' just 'purebred' - and breeding purebred poodle to a purebred maltese to me would be a breach, whether they are papered, main registered, limited registered or not at all?? Surely Dogs NSW would not allow such a loophole? There is also Number 15 - must register all litters bred by them. How can they register cross breeds? So whats a purebred? Dogs NSW is a dog stud registry - its only interest is in the dogs that are registered on their stud records. Some years ago there was a pretty heated debate on this forum between my self and Kate Scoffeld who is the first to admit she is a large puppy farmer. At that time she had never bred a purebred pup and every one bred was a first cross but she held Dogs NSW membership and advertised that when she promoted herself.I felt that was rotten and I said so - in that thread she agreed and told me she would resign her membership - I assume she did but if she did there was nothing saying she had to. Some breed cross breds and some breed the same breed [unregistered]with dogs which are not registered. Some people who are breeding dogs not recognised on the registry enjoy the same benefits of Dogs NSW membership. Some mini foxie breeders for example are members of Dogs NSW and many who are beginning a new breed or working toward breed recognition are also members but technically breeding dogs the CCs don't recognise as purebred even though many of them have registered pedigrees. Think it through - I'm a member of the Dorper sheep society - If I own a couple of purebred sheep and breed them now and then within the Dorper sheeep codes how could they stop me breeding sheep of a different breed or cross breed to earn my living? How could the CCs stop their members owning a cross bred dog and doing with that dog anything they want to? Trade laws don't allow any Canine council to stop any of their members from breeding a dog in any way they wish which is not on the registry any more than they can stop them from selling them any where or to anyone they wish. There are examples of this everywhere but apart from all of the above - what about people who have a registered prefix but their partner or kids don't and they breed cross breeds from the same property- how would the CC prove it was the person with the registered prefix who is responsible even if they could stop them? The CCs cant restrict how many litters a person has each year or how many dogs they own. This is one of the main reasons the MDBA set up under the business entity we did because it allowed us more ability to restrict what else our members do. The CC is about the dogs - They keep a stud book and reward dogs with ribbons and the like.They get to say what can and cant be done with the dogs on their registry - the CC dont recognise any dog which is not on THEIR registry as a purebred. The MDBA is about the people who breed, rescue, own and work with dogs and that is the difference and why I can say our members don't do these things with any dogs not just their purebred dogs which are listed on a CC registry. You cant always accept that what you think you're seeing is actually whats happening either. A breeder might post ads on that website to help out a mate.They may be a breeder but also rescue.They may have had a dog jump their fence and have a pregnant dog by accident and not know until its late in the pregnancy. We had one case where someone who used to work for the breeder in another business used their passwords and placed the ads to make them look bad. Troy has had to deal with this here at least once I'm aware of. The criteria for advertising here is that you have a current prefix with a CC and if the CC hasn't thrown you out for breach of ethics, in my opinion, asking Troy to do so is a hard ask. Troy is the owner of this website and has the right to say you cant advertise here if he doesn't like you but asking him to be the judge on breaches of a code of ethics which is the responsibility of another org especially when there is a such a high incidence of malicious unfounded complaints places him in a role that most people who accept advertising wouldn't expect to be in. He isn't guaranteeing anything except that the breeder is registered with the CCs because he cant police the entire dog world.

However, the recommendations the RSPCA has presented are in the main supposedly targeting the big filthy enterprises which do everything from go to end illegally. They hide away without council permits and keep their dogs locked in sheds in filthy conditions out of sight , they don't declare their income etc. they sell to agents and dealers and never show up in the chain until someone catches them out and by then they have had hundreds if not thousands of dogs suffering at their hands. If we stick to the topic of pet shop sales whether the dogs come from BYB or puppy mills to a pet shop at least we know the pet shop isn't going to be stupid enough to buy sickly,unhealthy pups because of the regs on them and their desire to make money too. What I'm saying is that at least the pet shop acts as some kind of buffer to protect the public but if they just sell them from their back yard or even from the puppy mill there is no protection AT all for the buyer.

DOUBLE POST