Rspca Calls For Getting Tough With Breeders

[Tassie]

Souff - Post #31 - :D

That deserves to be pinned IMHO. Gets right to the heart of the differences. Do you think ANne read it???

[Mystiqview]

Souff - Post #31 - :D

That deserves to be pinned IMHO. Gets right to the heart of the differences. Do you think ANne read it???

Does not look like it.

It sounds like any one with more than one bitch is a puppy farmer. Anyone who needs to have an emergency C-section, loses pups post whelping or has a small litter should "give up" as their breeding stock is "not good enough for breeding".

Anyone who does not keep a puppy from their litter should not breed as that is puppy farming. It does not matter that the parents have had all the necessary health tests and the puppies are all healthy, happy and are sold to loving homes who go onto live full and happy lives.

[Chocolatelover]

What has always given Souff the irrits is that a breeder is condemned - because they own more than a certain NUMBER of dogs, they must be a puppy farmer.

Wrong!

Condemn them if their practices stink, but get your facts straight first!

Many good breeders (who have more dogs than some people would ever own) often have a few favourite oldies lounging around the verandah, eating up any meagre hint of a profit, getting all the needed vet care,love and attention, until they go to the bridge. They are not put down after their show and breeding life is over, many of these dogs have a right royal retirement. But they are still counted in the number of dogs that are owned by the breeder.

That is not going to happen at a puppy farm (puppy mill). If you are old and not breeding, you are OUT.

Then up in the kennels, they will have two beautiful bitches about 5 years old who have been bred from only twice in their lives, because the right stud dog has not been available on all occasions, or it was not convenient for other reasons for the breeder to have bred from them more often.

This would not have been tolerated in a puppy farm. They would have been mated to the first available male, or whatever breed.

Their breeding bitches will have a litter once every 18 months, not every 6 months. No back to back litters. The breeding bitches are as good as any show winner and they have many show ribbons to their credit. They are always in excellent condition and this is confirmed by their vet, who visits the premises.

The condition of dogs at puppy farms has often been found to be closer to the state where it is humane to euthanase, rather than treat.

Dogs from puppy farms often do not enjoy good health as a normal part of their life.

Exercise and socialisation? A must. And these dogs are well socialised and well exercised through a variety of means and they are not locked up in small dog runs for the majority of the day. Yes, they are managed in areas for safety and you will also find some of these dogs with the owner or staff when they leave the property. When they go to town, some of these dogs are in the car with them, some go to organised canine activities, and often staff have pups with them overnight at their homes, for socialisation. Good breeders know the importance of socialisation.

Puppy farmers do not have places like this, and they do not have dogs like this.

SO, BEFORE YOU USE THE TERM "PUPPY FARMER" - PLEASE REMEMBER:

Puppy farms exploit dogs for profit, no matter what their numbers are.

An excellent breeder can have the same number of dogs, but never be guilty of the same sins that you will condemn a puppy farmer for. Many of these people have made a huge contribution of their lives so that you, the dog owner, can have high quality dogs made available to you. You have met some of them at dog shows and they have been happy to give their time to you and many others, to tell you of what to look for in a good dog. You will find some of them, or their friends, as volunteers at agility and obedience classes, or taking one of their dogs to the local aged care home to bring a bit of joy to some oldies lives. And much more. Many are no longer with us, but they have left behind some wonderful dogs and some great doggy legends.

The animal world is a better place because of the contribution that many of these breeders have made.

They obeyed the council rules and had their kennels inspected and spent many thousands of dollars on the right systems and facilities.

They did NOT have dogs sleeping in wrecked cars and jammed into tiny filthy crates in old caravans.

They did the right thing by their dogs and by society.

Yet on paper - based on numbers alone - it is all too easy for these legends to be tossed into the puppy farmer basket, by people who don't know them.

Take care when labelling people - your labels can sometimes be very, very wrong.

Souff

Man talk about defensive. Who actually labelled anyone here as a puppy farmer???

I would think three to four dogs would be the most that someone could care for to a high standard - and this would be someone without children with reasonable working hours. But I base that on someone who socialises and exercises their dog every day, feeds them a high quality diet and spends quality time with them - cared for as a companion animal deserves to be. I wouldn't purchase a pup from a breeder that kenneled their dogs.

And whoever can afford to pay people to "work" in their kennels from their own pay packet while not making a profit from their dogs - can you tell me where to find one of those jobs.

I am not saying that making a profit is necessarily wrong - it's just that most people seem to talk about the "losses" they make as ethical breeders. Few people seem to admit to making any money from it.

It just seems to me that the more I read I get the impression that as much as breeders abhor puppy farmers, they are more worried about protecting their own "rights" to breed than they are about stopping the puppy mill industry.

I think any legislation should focus on reducing numbers of puppies brought into the world - not just chipping them and registering them so we can monitor them as they are passed from home to home and then possibly PTS through no fault of their own. Good on the ACT - bring on this legislation and work on enforcing it.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Chocolatelover

[~Anne~]

Souff - Post #31 - :D

That deserves to be pinned IMHO. Gets right to the heart of the differences. Do you think ANne read it???

I did, but obviously you didn't read anything else but that post otherwsie you might have a little more clue to what I was actually discussing. It wasn't puppy farmers or how many dogs makes a puppy farmer. But, I will extend a little more for you benefit given that I did make a statement about puppy farmers in my last post (perhaps your sense of order is a bit screwy and you thought that post 31 was in response to me??? Not sure to be honest). A puppy farmer can breed pure bred dogs. A puppy farmer can bred mongrels. A puppy farmer can be registered with their state association even.... they're still a puppy farmer.

This whole discussion of 'what is a puppy farmer'is rahter pointless. People generalise about all walks of life and evrrything in it and we each have our own definition of what a puppy farmer is... and guess what - your definition is no more right than mine or Souffs or ayone elses. It is purely what we each interpret. The same goes with bybs. I define a byb as an unregistered breeder who has the ocassional or very occassional (edited: oops, meant more than occassional) litter of pups. I know many breeders though will also call registered breeders who breed inferior dogs and those who do not register their litters as byb.

But, it is a long weekend ahead and I don't plan on worrying what you consider a puppy farmer is (or what excuses you want to give breeders who produce mass litters for a market) or a byb is, cause seriously, I don't care what you think.

Souff - Post #31 -

That deserves to be pinned IMHO. Gets right to the heart of the differences. Do you think ANne read it???

Does not look like it.

It sounds like any one with more than one bitch is a puppy farmer. Anyone who needs to have an emergency C-section, loses pups post whelping or has a small litter should "give up" as their breeding stock is "not good enough for breeding".

Anyone who does not keep a puppy from their litter should not breed as that is puppy farming. It does not matter that the parents have had all the necessary health tests and the puppies are all healthy, happy and are sold to loving homes who go onto live full and happy lives.

Now, now, there is no need for hysterics, whic is exactly what your post reeks of.

Honestly, do you not look at some posts, such as yours above, and wonder why the pet owning public look at some breeders in less than a favourable light? I mean, seriously. I wasn't even involved in the discussion about puppy farmers apart from a statement in my last post. I thought we were actually discussing my, and your, interpretation of the profit vs loss scenario? Still, you can pull outrageously exaggerated scenarios together and actually feel chuffed enough to post them like they are intelligently thought out statements.

These threads are not about you personally, try to remember that.

Edited April 1, 2010 by ~Anne~

[j]

From reading this thread, one of the things that concerns me is the early desexing ie. prior to sale of pup at 8wks

I don't know if this is law in other states but in Qld. it isn't - thank heavens!!

In my opinion it is way to early to desex a pup as they need all their bits to develop normally.

I would agree to compulsory desexing after 6mths of age for pets though.

From reading this thread, one of the things that concerns me is the early desexing ie. prior to sale of pup at 8wks

I agree. The regulation says six months and that I'm more comfortable with. I think you can also get a refund on a sexually entire permit if the dog is desexed within 3 years.

So, although it would require an upfront cost, I could in the ACT get a permit for my giant breed dog which enabled me to keep it entire until the age I would be happy desexing at, which would probably be 18 months, and then get my permit fee refunded. At least there is that much accomodation in the govt processes for those of us that are nervous about desexing our large/giant breeds at a young age.

Here is the relevant legislation in the ACT (with a cut and paste of the sections)

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2000-8...pdf/2000-86.pdf

74 Dogs and cats to be de-sexed if over certain age

(1) A person must not keep a dog that has not been de-sexed if the person does not hold a permit for the dog.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) A person must not keep a cat that has not been de-sexed if the person does not hold a permit for the cat.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) An offence against this section is a strict liability offence.

(4) This section does not apply in relation to—

(a) a dog that is less than 6 months old or a cat that is less than 3 months old; or

(b) a dog or cat born before 21 June 2001.

(5) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against this section in relation to a dog or cat if—

(a) the defendant proves that it is less than 28 days since the day the dog or cat first came into the defendant’s possession; or

(b) the defendant proves that the defendant —

(i) carries on the business of offering dogs or cats for sale by retail; and

(ii) is keeping the dog or cat for the purpose of offering it for sale.

74A Sale of older dogs and cats to be notified if not de-sexed

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person sells a dog or cat that has not been de-sexed; and

(b) the person believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that—

(i) in the case of a dog—the dog is 6 months old or older; or

(ii) in the case of a cat—the cat is 3 months old or older; and

© the person does not, within 3 working days after the day the person sells the dog or cat, tell the registrar in writing the name and address of the buyer.

Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.

(2) Strict liability applies to subsection (1) (a) and ©.

75 Permits for dogs and cats not de-sexed

An individual may apply to the registrar for a permit to keep a dog or cat that is not de-sexed.

[Jed]

Chocolatelover

I would think three to four dogs would be the most that someone could care for to a high standard - and this would be someone without children with reasonable working hours. But I base that on someone who socialises and exercises their dog every day, feeds them a high quality diet and spends quality time with them - cared for as a companion animal deserves to be.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise.

There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum.

I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Jed

[Chocolatelover]

Chocolatelover

I would think three to four dogs would be the most that someone could care for to a high standard - and this would be someone without children with reasonable working hours. But I base that on someone who socialises and exercises their dog every day, feeds them a high quality diet and spends quality time with them - cared for as a companion animal deserves to be.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise.

There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum.

I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call.

Oh do I know you??? How do you know what my experience is? I know how much time I spend on two dogs every day to have happy, content dogs and there would physically not be enough time in the day for any more. But maybe our ideas of how much time a dog deserves is different due to our experiences. Not that I would like to make assumptions about you of course

[Longcoat]

'Chocolatelover' date='1st Apr 2010 - 07:07 PM' post='4432537'

I think any legislation should focus on reducing numbers of puppies brought into the world

I agree. Legislation focuses in the wrong areas IMO. It should be an offence to breed dogs without being a registered breeder. It should be an offence to breed cross breeds without a purpose and permit to do so. It should be a requirement that a litter's sire and dam are pedigree papered. It should be a requirement that registered breeders can breed a maximum of two different dog breeds only. Most of the legislation is focused upon closing the gate after the horse has bolted and needs to be focused from the beginning.

[Jed]

Chocolatelover

I would think three to four dogs would be the most that someone could care for to a high standard - and this would be someone without children with reasonable working hours. But I base that on someone who socialises and exercises their dog every day, feeds them a high quality diet and spends quality time with them - cared for as a companion animal deserves to be.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise.

There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum.

I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call.

Oh do I know you??? How do you know what my experience is? I know how much time I spend on two dogs every day to have happy, content dogs and there would physically not be enough time in the day for any more. But maybe our ideas of how much time a dog deserves is different due to our experiences. Not that I would like to make assumptions about you of course

It's not an assumption. You have already stated your experience, and for you to make that statement, you have no experience.

Because you can only cope adequately with two dogs, does not mean that everyone is in the same position. Some people can't cope with one, some can cope with ten, if you had exposure, you would have understanding.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Jed

[Chocolatelover]

'Chocolatelover' date='1st Apr 2010 - 07:07 PM' post='4432537'

I think any legislation should focus on reducing numbers of puppies brought into the world

I agree. Legislation focuses in the wrong areas IMO. It should be an offence to breed dogs without being a registered breeder. It should be an offence to breed cross breeds without a purpose and permit to do so. It should be a requirement that a litter's sire and dam are pedigree papered. It should be a requirement that registered breeders can breed a maximum of two different dog breeds only. Most of the legislation is focused upon closing the gate after the horse has bolted and needs to be focused from the beginning.

Now why can't I say it like that

[Chocolatelover]

Chocolatelover

I would think three to four dogs would be the most that someone could care for to a high standard - and this would be someone without children with reasonable working hours. But I base that on someone who socialises and exercises their dog every day, feeds them a high quality diet and spends quality time with them - cared for as a companion animal deserves to be.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise.

There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum.

I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call.

Oh do I know you??? How do you know what my experience is? I know how much time I spend on two dogs every day to have happy, content dogs and there would physically not be enough time in the day for any more. But maybe our ideas of how much time a dog deserves is different due to our experiences. Not that I would like to make assumptions about you of course

It's not an assumption. You have already stated your experience, and for you to make that statement, you have no experience.

Because you can only cope adequately with two dogs, does not mean that everyone is in the same position. Some people can't cope with one, some can cope with ten, if you had exposure, you would have understanding.

Sorry have not given you a run down of my life experiences. Nor do I wish too. I don't "adequately" cope with two dogs - this is how many I choose to have at this point in my life while I am raising a family. SBT123 asked me what I considered a large number of dogs and I said three to four. And now you are an expert on my life experiences I gather you are trying to defend your position and in my limited experience people who do this are trying to convince themselves Good luck with that.

[Jed]

Chocolatelover

I would think three to four dogs would be the most that someone could care for to a high standard - and this would be someone without children with reasonable working hours. But I base that on someone who socialises and exercises their dog every day, feeds them a high quality diet and spends quality time with them - cared for as a companion animal deserves to be.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise.

There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum.

I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call.

Oh do I know you??? How do you know what my experience is? I know how much time I spend on two dogs every day to have happy, content dogs and there would physically not be enough time in the day for any more. But maybe our ideas of how much time a dog deserves is different due to our experiences. Not that I would like to make assumptions about you of course

It's not an assumption. You have already stated your experience, and for you to make that statement, you have no experience.

Because you can only cope adequately with two dogs, does not mean that everyone is in the same position. Some people can't cope with one, some can cope with ten, if you had exposure, you would have understanding.

Sorry have not given you a run down of my life experiences. Nor do I wish too. I don't "adequately" cope with two dogs - this is how many I choose to have at this point in my life while I am raising a family. SBT123 asked me what I considered a large number of dogs and I said three to four. And now you are an expert on my life experiences I gather you are trying to defend your position and in my limited experience people who do this are trying to convince themselves Good luck with that.

Your life experiences have no relevance, and I am disinterested in them, because they are irrelevant to the topic. Your choice is to have 2 dogs,and you have stated that you can cope with that number. Others can cope with more, yet you have denied that others can cope with more than you can.

Perhaps you are making assumptions?

I have absolutely no need nor desire to defend my position. My position needs no defense, and you are correct in stating that your experiece is limited if you believe that I am trying to convince myself. For you to categorically state that people cannot cope with 3 to 4 dogs demonstrates that you are extrapolating your own experiences to others which is usually an invalid way of qualifying situations which are outside your personal experience.

[Crisovar]

I would think three to four dogs would be the most that someone could care for to a high standard - and this would be someone without children with reasonable working hours. But I base that on someone who socialises and exercises their dog every day, feeds them a high quality diet and spends quality time with them - cared for as a companion animal deserves to be. I wouldn't purchase a pup from a breeder that kenneled their dogs.

Well, there are a hell of a lot of damn good breeders and owners that you just wiped, including many ont his forum.

Your experience seems very limited, maybe this has formed your view.

[centitout]

I dont need to spend every waking minute of my time with my dogs-does this make me a shonky breeder?

.I do not want to have them live inside with me either.they come in for visits-my own belief(and i know i will get severely beaten for this ), is that the rise in dog behaviour problems stems from dogs being treated like children-they are not.My dogs are treated as a pack,with me at the top,and if it means order is kept by not having them take over the house-that is for me to decide.I have lost count of the people who have seen my dogs (some of them breeders of other breeds) who are amazed that they all run together,this includes new dogs and when the girls are in season.ALL WITHOUT PROBLEMS.

How else can i run 2 entire males,females and pups together IF THEY THINK THEY ALL HAVE AN EQUAL PLACE?

My dogs are happy dogs,they have their own kennel at night,and that is the only time they are kennelled(and it is to minimise bloat),my 2 girls are on the verhanda at night.They all get extensively socialised,1 is training for SAR,one is being shown and will do SAR later.Ask any of my puppy buyers ,one of which is a DOLER,about my pups and how much time and effort goes in to each one,and that is working part time,4 kids as well.

Maybe some people on here need to go and see a few breeders and their dogs personally,before they go telling experienced people how many dogs they should have,can handle,how much time they should spend etc.

I have seen people who cant handle 1 dog,or neglect one dog,i have one here at the moment-and i can guarantee he is happier here than he would ever have been before,despite him being one of 6.

Edited April 1, 2010 by centitout

[goldchow]

Breeders care for their dogs alittle differently to pet owners, they have to to be able to run numerous dogs together as Centitout has described, and yes dogs are dogs, much of todays dog problems are because people tend to humanise dogs far too much and dogs by their very nature are being put in impossible situations by todays 'modern' ideas.

I have a high maintance breed and, shock horror. currently have 14 (down from 17 I might add) and all are well socialized with access to inside the house as they wish, kept groomed, well fed and disgustingly healthy despite the fact that they have a couple of acres to run in and like nothing better than rolling around in roo poo and eating rabbit turds.

Some are rescues, some are oldies who have retired from showing and exhibiting, one is a puppy for which the right home never eventuated and one is a puppy I bred whose owners circumstances changed and could no longer keep him so he came home as an old dog.

Unfortunately the label of Puppy Farmer is applied willy nilly by many pet owners and the general public to anyone THEY think has too many dogs, judged by their own perception when they in fact have no idea what really constitutes a puppy farm.

Anne is correct, there are registered breeders who do have what I would call a puppy farm, very large numbers of a variety of breeds, dogs kept in appalling conditions and constantly bred purely for profit. No amount of legislation or new laws will stop this sort of activity.

There are also breeders who have 20 and 30 dogs, one, maybe two different breeds and who do breed two or three litters a year using different bitches because they have the numbers to be able to do so and because of this also, these breeders produce excellent quality dogs because they have the choice of different suitable stud dogs) and they do make a profit and I personally cannot see a problem with this.

All dogs in this situation are well cared for and loved, well socialized, all puppies go to carefully selected homes with lifetime ongoing support, nothing like the filthy puppy farms we know exist.

There are already enough rules and regulations to deal with animal care and control, mandatory desexing will eventually kill off many breeds which one suspects is the motive. The current laws need to reinforced.

[WreckitWhippet]

I'd fail miserably when it comes to Chocolate lover and the magical number. We have anywhere from 6 - 13 at any given time

[sandgrubber]

Jeezus K'rist. No wonder the animal rights loonies are getting more/better press than the pedigree mob. Can't you people do anything more constructive than attack one another. For shame.

I think it was Thomas Paine (~1775) that said something about "all hang together or we'll all hang separately".

Edited April 2, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Jed]

Sandgrubber, don't you think explaining (defending?) the position of breeders who keep more than 3 -4 dogs is a worthwhile exercise?

Public perception, formed by animal rights, seems to be (from what we read) that anyone with more than 5 dogs is either a collector or a puppy farm.

[centitout]

I dont wish to be on the side where anyone with more than 2 dogs is a puppy farmer ,thanks . So i feel justified in defending my position ,i dont see it as attacking people.Before they tell everyone that breeders should be restricted in everything,like we are not already,perhaps they should make a more informed decision and go and meet some of these breeders,then go and see a real puppy farm.

Then see if there is a difference in perception of the word "puppy farmer".

And if breeders of numerically small breeds were to only have 1 breeding bitch and only breed every couple of years-how will people buy one eventually-there will be none,they will die out .Or you can go on a 5+ years waiting list,which i wont even do.

Without good,registered breeders where will people access there dogs in years to come?

[Souff]

I'd fail miserably when it comes to Chocolate lover and the magical number. We have anywhere from 6 - 13 at any given time

Yup, Souff has failed the numbers test too.

I will just have to put some of the oldies down so I can be within the bounds of magic numbers.

Damned dogs are living too long now - must be too well looked after.

Was much more convenient (for the sake of numbers anyway) when they toddled off earlier.

Souff