Steve

I just wouldn't keep a large volume of dogs in a kennel because I don't think it is good for them. They aren't cows. So I would prefer to see this practice stopped rather then finding ways to make it ok. Yes but it clearly isn't going to stop. Large scale commercial kennels are becoming more common rather than less and small hobby breeders are being made to keep even what I consider relatively small numbers like this when they prefer not to. The facts are that if you breed a dog on your property you are seen to be operating a business from home - same with rescue by the way - even one rescue dog and its the same thing and it has no consequence whether you are after a profit. That means a DA is required to get approval to breed dogs on your property and this plus the companion animals act and prevention of cruelty to animals acts will be taken into account if we have to be licensed. In NSW in at least some council areas - its an inability to house more than 2 dogs within 15 metres of a dwelling as well. We have seen recently breeders who have only a few dogs who have an exemption for a permit in Victoria who still have to have money spent on kenneling, quarantining and whelping areas. One in Queensland had 8 dogs on 100 acres and has had them living in her home and sleeping on the bed - whelping them in the laundry for over 10 years.She is told when she applied for a licence to breed that she had to have 35000 worth of kennels built in order to breed them. Nowhere in any codes does it say you get out of it if you only have one dog - same applies to everyone. This has already been discussed at length. I was under the impression this was a different topic. And you said all views were welcome. Incorrect obviously. Keep this up and soon you are going to to talking to yourself. The intent of the topic was to try and find ways to have alternatives for housing dogs in concreted kennel blocks - it wasnt to try to find ways to make it O.K. or to re enforce why it should be stopped but hopefully very different. I understand now that when I said all comments welcome it wasn't expected I would discuss the comments. Your view happens to be my view but that doesn't help to find a solution at all because they are still going to need ways to house dogs. They are still going to have small breeders regulated the same as large breeders.

Why is it necessary is open to debate but reality is some people have many more than that and sometimes I think that's justified - sometimes I don't. Some of the best breeders of purebred dogs in history owned many more than 6 to 8 very few chi breeders would only own 8 but in the real world there are breeders who own too many dogs to be able to have free run of the place as every day pet dogs but there are also breeders who only own a few which could be kept in a back yard as pet dogs which have to house their 6 or 8 in conditions they would prefer they didnt. Most commercial breeders Ive spoken to have told me they would prefer to use their acreages as simulated back yards rather than have to construct traditional kennel buildings. Though what do they do with 25 or so plus litters at one time - cant see them being housed in simulated back yards while they whelp ?????? You didn't answer the question though. Why is it necessary to have 'too many' dogs. What is the benefit? If the dogs are being kept kennelled because there are 'too many' dogs to keep any other way, what is the justification for having 'too many' dogs. If there is no relevant justification then limiting the number of dogs is part way to resolving the issue isn't it? No government agency is ever going to limit numbers - breeding dogs for profit is seen as a legitimate business and is recognised by the ATO .The answer is always going to be introducing more laws and more regs to control what can and cant be done - but the problem is there is no distinction within these laws and regs which determines the difference between someone who has 2 dogs and someone who has 100 dogs. Answering why do they need or want 'too many ' is impossible due to the variables and at the end of the day you may be able to restrict too many on some properties but you will never be able to stop anyone having 'too many' to be able to live as pets especially when its not the breeder who gets to determine how many is 'too many' to live that way. Your assumption that this is necessary if the breeder has too many isnt the case its what is required for breeding dogs regardless of if there is too many for them to be treated and live like pets or not.

Yes and I know its hard to imagine a hundred plus dogs on one site - Im still getting over it and had to work hard at not showing the thoughts that were going through my head .But purebred or other wise some breeders do keep large numbers of dogs and some have to keep small numbers of dogs as if they keep large numbers of dogs. I guess trying to work out a better management was always going to be difficult. In all honesty when I saw it whether or not they were getting adequate socilisation is the last thing I was looking at ticking. I was sorting out if they EVER got off those concreted floor, if they EVER saw sunlight, how their eyes didnt disintergrate and their lungs collapse with the stench of the ammonia - socialisation ? how? But would it be easier to give them socialisation if the basic planning of the housing were different?

Yes but if you get a breeder that moves them off site via a guardian home will that stop them from having as many as possible anyway on their own property.It can increase the numbers a breeder can breed with but it usually doesn't keep numbers down any lower on the property as in the two cases I spoke of earlier.Its a possible solution and a good thing for purebred breeders but we are not only speaking of purebred breeders who know their limits - who have those specific goals in why they breed - probably needs a topic of its own but it doesn't address the need to find ways of keeping dogs in larger than average up to outrageous numbers without them having to compromise on what is good for them.

Why is it necessary is open to debate but reality is some people have many more than that and sometimes I think that's justified - sometimes I don't. Some of the best breeders of purebred dogs in history owned many more than 6 to 8 very few chi breeders would only own 8 but in the real world there are breeders who own too many dogs to be able to have free run of the place as every day pet dogs but there are also breeders who only own a few which could be kept in a back yard as pet dogs which have to house their 6 or 8 in conditions they would prefer they didnt. Most commercial breeders Ive spoken to have told me they would prefer to use their acreages as simulated back yards rather than have to construct traditional kennel buildings. Though what do they do with 25 or so plus litters at one time - cant see them being housed in simulated back yards while they whelp ??????

I just wouldn't keep a large volume of dogs in a kennel because I don't think it is good for them. They aren't cows. So I would prefer to see this practice stopped rather then finding ways to make it ok. Yes but it clearly isn't going to stop. Large scale commercial kennels are becoming more common rather than less and small hobby breeders are being made to keep even what I consider relatively small numbers like this when they prefer not to. The facts are that if you breed a dog on your property you are seen to be operating a business from home - same with rescue by the way - even one rescue dog and its the same thing and it has no consequence whether you are after a profit. That means a DA is required to get approval to breed dogs on your property and this plus the companion animals act and prevention of cruelty to animals acts will be taken into account if we have to be licensed. In NSW in at least some council areas - its an inability to house more than 2 dogs within 15 metres of a dwelling as well. We have seen recently breeders who have only a few dogs who have an exemption for a permit in Victoria who still have to have money spent on kenneling, quarantining and whelping areas. One in Queensland had 8 dogs on 100 acres and has had them living in her home and sleeping on the bed - whelping them in the laundry for over 10 years.She is told when she applied for a licence to breed that she had to have 35000 worth of kennels built in order to breed them. Nowhere in any codes does it say you get out of it if you only have one dog - same applies to everyone.

Dunno pick a number . Probably more than Angelsun's 5 .

All well said Angelsun except what of the people who do own lots and lots of dogs or even just a couple and they have to follow the local laws for housing them? Is there some way to manage them and house them and have a good outcome for the dogs ?

The RSPCA and AWL are charged with policing the NSW companion animals act and the Prevention of cruelty to animals act .Vaccinating and chipping and underage are all covered in that. So that's a good place to start to report them or you can report them to the council.

Geez Im sorry if Ive said anything to offend you that wasnt my intention and I certainly dont want you to feel you shouldnt have any input. Your suggestion obviously does suit some people as they do it and obviously if they have 100 out all over the place its less they have on their property but its not something that I would consider - I just see my dogs and feel about my dogs differently and I dont think that Im alone in that.I love them and want them to be with me all the time. Please accept my apology if you took anything I said as any form of disrespect for you.

Yes it is already law that you have to register your dogs and chip your puppies at point of sale - has been since 1997 So now like numb nuts they think the only thing they have to do is follow up those who own a chipped pup because the breeder has done the right thing and make them register their dogs. No other method is used to police laws which have been mandatory and havent been used by the majority of people breeding dogs for 15 years ! If there was no penalty for doing that and they dont do that why would they get a licence and start doing it now ?

Yes some breeders do have a guardianship program - that's not for me. I dont want a maternity hospital where dogs come and go to have puppies I want to live with them and love them and have them part of my life. Allowing them to remain in the guardian home while they whelp would put all of those owners in the same position any breeder is in too. I think it would be hell to manage if there were large numbers out all over the place though I believe there is a very large puppy farmer in NSW who puts them out as pets and brings them back for two litters on his property. Another big one in Victoria did the same. They still ended up in pet shops.

Yes but its all cost prohibitive too. A breeder who owns 300 dogs isnt going to go any bigger than they have to as it all costs per metre. The more dogs they own the less likely they are to take it up size so more dogs suffer at the hands of less people.

By the way my fear with getting exemptions for any group is that it creates a situation as we have seen in Victoria where membership numbers go through the roof but a vast majority of them dont own a purebred dog , dont breed purebred dogs and do breed cross bred mutts. The MDBA would get the same exemptions in NSW as any Dogs NSW get as we have equal status under state government laws and we have a much tougher screening process for anyone to get in but I dont want exemptions if the cost is people wanting to join just to get the exemptions. I dont believe that if it gets in there will be any exemptions - one of the reasons why I think it wont get in.

If the new laws pass in NSW then assuming everyone follows the law every person who breeds a litter of puppies will be on the radar more than Dogs NSW breeders are now. Unlike Queensland the number of dogs you have registered with Dogs NSW can never be used to determine how many dogs you have on your property as the onus for the transfer is on the new owner and very very few of them ever transfer them. But with a licencing system or even without a licencing system if those policing laws are able to match up microchip details and council registrations they will know how many anyone has and how many anyone breeds, how many bitches anyone owns and how often she is having a litter. In other words one way or another sooner or later the only way anyone can be under the radar is not to chip their puppies and not to register their dogs - something like many of them do now. My prediction is that many more wont register their breeding dogs and many more wont chip their puppies - therefore more people will be outside of the required standards imposed ,less will allow visitors to view Mum and Dad and some of these will be because they dont believe keeping dogs should entail housing them in purpose built kenneling.

Yes these things concern me too. Most of them look too fat to work In fact I thought the whole testing process was mad considering what the dog is required to do when its looking after its species. All good if its just a test when its not on its own property on leash but I somehow its a bit of a worry that the working side and temperament is being disregarded.

O.K. It appears to be obvious that some breeders are going to keep more than a handful of dogs. In some states there are pretty explicit requirements on how these dogs should be housed and kept but its horrible. Minimum pen sizes are tiny and dogs only have to get 20 mins a day out of them - which is also impossible to police. Remember while we are looking at this that these aren't dogs which turn over a lot such as in boarding or shelter situations .In many cases they live their whole lives like this or at least their whole breeding lives. New dogs come in rarely and dogs on the property are not ever exposed to visiting outside dogs. Also there is no current difference in how someone can keep 10 breeding dogs in difference to someone who keep a couple of hundred. Do we just accept that if we breed dogs we have no choice but to have to house them knowing its not good for them or do we have a chance at finding some thing that really does focus on what is best for the dogs? All chatter and suggestions welcome - There is no wrong or stupid input.

Beautiful - Id rather see than than the other photos you have posted.

Agreed.

1. Theoretically breeders of purebred dogs know their lines and can take into account health issues when they are profiling their pedigree but not all breeders are equal and not all information has been easy to find. ANKC pedigrees have no data on them except where the champs are so a breeder needs to be able to access the info from a variety of other sources.Some care some dont - Its still about the breeder. 2. Theoretically there is potentially as much info about any dog which would be bred with any dog of any other breed.Some people who cross breed know what is in the lines of each dog regardless. It is possible for them to know which genetic diseases are common to both breeds and what they need to test for and they test .Some care most dont. Its still about the breeder. 3. I don't believe I could say I'm confident that more purebred dog owners are likely to take their dogs to the vet than those who own cross breds. People these days pay more for a hybrid and treat them very much like their children. For me the big deal is that its difficult for people who are not passionate about a breed to understand why every decision a good breeder makes is also about future generations and not just the one hitting the ground. Anyone can pick two dogs and watch them mate and have puppies. Not everyone can consistently breed happy healthy predictable puppies generation after generation. Thats the difference between a breeder and someone who just breeds dogs. A good breeder takes it all into account , nutrition, environment,genetics etc because they know it all impacts on generations to come. Its still about the breeder.

Im not going to argue about the pros and cons of concrete - fact is dogs shouldn't live on concrete for extended periods of time no matter how much easier it is to clean or look clean and if they are keeping them there for longer they should have different accommodation for them. T. If you give dogs concrete to sleep on and let them run all day on grass or dirt they wait till they get out of the concrete runs to crap and piddle anyway. If you give dogs only a few minutes of off concrete exercise the first thing they do is relieve themselves. Jo- I wouldnt let any of my dogs stay at any boarding kennel especially for long periods and again thats designed for dogs which come and go I would like to think that no one would leave their dog for long periods anywhere that they cant get off concrete for extended periods. All Im saying is that concrete pens shouldn't be used to house dogs for long periods - and in every situation but one I am aware of any person directed by the RSPCA to erect concreted pens has never been directed that this concrete should be sealed. No mention here either that this would have to be done. I have only ever heard of one large scale puppy farmer who used sealed concrete as a matter of choice. But I know which boarding kennel Id prefer

Yes but that doesn't mean its good for the dogs to live on for extended periods so if this mob are keeping lots of dogs for lengthy stays it will make cleaning easier and it will be easier to make it look clean.Concrete is still porous and hold viruses and bacteria fungi etc and isnt that posh on comfort for a dog having to stand on and walk on. But because they receive dogs constantly its a high risk situation and much depends on their management and protocols with health checks and quarantine etc and how keen they are to clean it properly so its best for disease control for them if they have this in place. Its the same old question - how do you house dogs when you have more than a handful for extended periods of time for optimum health and quality of life and there isnt a hope in hell that its locked in a concrete prison block day after day. Whilst I think the RSPCA have a lot of experience with this for shelter dogs which have a quick turnaround Id like to see some research and an interest in alternatives for housing dogs which stay for more than a short period.

However, a point breeders have been trying to explain is that dogs which are kept in temporary accommodation with a high risk of germs and virus exposure etc - such as an animal shelter are different to dogs which are kept for the dog's life time or at least for many years. In my opinion even though concrete isn't an ideal surface for dogs to be kept on it is probably the best option for shelter dogs - but that assumes they have soft bedding and they dont stay long before they are rehomed. Having said that the RSPCA like to push their own policies which arent necessarily laws or even regulations. The council can say what is required for them to have a development application but unless there are specific laws in SA which make it illegal for dogs to be Kept that way the RSPCA dont get to say they have to. It may be worthwhile looking into and having some legal advice over before they go mad with concrete.

The lack of shock absorbency in concrete flooring affects feet first, causing the soles and heels to ache. Feet take the brunt of the hard impact, as the muscles in the feet absorb the impact to protect the legs, back and rest of the body. Muscles can become sore,and over time, bones may even weaken as a result, leading to susceptibility to fracture. They may develop lower-leg pain as the feet fail to absorb the full shock of concrete to the joints. The muscles in the calves can become sore as they endure more impact than usual from the hard concrete, and knees may begin to ache. Over time, the joints in the knees can become permanently damaged and arthritis may develop. Hip Degeneration - Constantly walking on concrete floors is extremely hard on hip sockets. The hard landing on the concrete jars the joints in the hips, causing long-term damage such as arthritis or degeneration of the hip bone, and may necessitate hip-replacement surgery. Frequent contact with cement residue can cause skin irritation which can cause rashes or irritation on the soles of the feet. Dogs that have been studied in a noise environment were found to have increased pulse rates, faster respiration and tenser muscles. Noise can require considerably more oxygen consumption by dogs and cause expenditure of fully 25 per cent more energy even when the dog himself is not exercising.

Yes its a case of Ill show you mine and you can show me yours. I have 8 kids and my husband came from a completely different country with no common ancestors we could find over 26 generations and 6 of my kids have been diagnosed with a blood disorder which he happened to have and I happen to carry. Outcrossing didnt help us either.