The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Pets & Working Animals => Dogs => Topic started by: Beewyched on September 13, 2012, 10:02:35 am
-
I've copied this post from another thread to start a new one - Moleskins "go for it", but be gentle with me please :sofa: I so agree with what you're saying here Annie - legislation needed (http://www.accidentalsmallholder.net/forum/Smileys/default/thumbsup.gif)
If all dog owners had to micro-chip & register their animals then ... let me think (http://www.accidentalsmallholder.net/forum/Smileys/default/idea.gif) this has got to make sense ... but where to begin ...
If Jane wants a puppy of X breed, then she goes to John who is a registered breeder.
In order to be a registered breeder of Xs he has to have registered with the AB Scheme (therefore known to K Club as a breeder) & be a member of a KC approved X Club (of Scotland/Cheshire etc).
Before breeding his Xs, John must be inspected by KC rep in X Club ( KC fees for the AB Scheme for each breed pay for each breed club to have inspectors) and all John's Xs are health-tested for all breed issues, micro-chipped etc. KC issues a Stage 3 Licence
So ...
John has his breeding stock tested, permanently identifiable & registered with KC. He is a member of the local X breed club, who inspect him on an annual basis that his dogs are healthy & kept over a set of minimum welfare requirements.
Jane calls John - wanting to buy a puppy from him.
Which ever region Jane lives in, she then contacts the X Club Inspector for her area who visits her at home, explains scheme & that she understands requirements of dog-keeping & anything specific to Xs requirements - Jane pays a fee (to help fund Inspector for the X club) & gets a Stage 1 licence.
Jane takes her Stage 1 licence to John, choses her puppy & pays deposit, John gets puppy micro-chipped.
Before Jane collects her puppy, she buys a Stage 2 licence from her local authority, who will use the fee towards their Animal Health/Dog Warden Officer - this will need to renewed annually. John will have to see this before Jane can take puppy home.
I know all this only covers pedigree dogs, but if every dog owner has to have a Stage 2 licence linked to the dog's micro-chip then every dog & owner will be licensed.
Am I being too simplistic with this (http://www.accidentalsmallholder.net/forum/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
-
Too simplistic ?
Far from it, it's all far too complicated for me. In this country we're red taped up to our eyeballs with everything we do and charged for it into the bargain.
Where does Jim fit into this plan? Jim couldn't give a 'four X' about joining the local branch of the KC because he is too busy with other things in his life. Jim does however have a very good dog / bitch which he would like to breed from. Jim is sick to death of being inspected by somebody from the 'council' in both his work and his home life by the way.
Jim has heard that some breeds of dog, regulated by the KC and their existing systems, have got health / physical problems because they've been bred by 'breeders' who have chased cups or rosettes.
Jim does however think it's right to have appropriate health checks done on his dog before breeding and he's looked at the KC assured breeder scheme and thought 'well I'd do that anyway, without having to be told and inspected'. Jim pays his council tax and picks up his dogs mess, he doesn't want to pay again to cover the dog wardens wages. Jim can see that non registered dogs will not be chipped and their owners won't pay the licence.
This suggestion only serves to get at Jim and other sensible breeders / owners it doesn't solve the problem of puppy farming because they'll find a way round things regardless.
Jims going for a read of the paper and his breakfast now. :wave:
-
Enjoy your brekki Jim :thumbsup:
-
Ok here's an alternative:
I agree that all dogs should be registered on a National database, and chipped which refers to the same. But this must be kept up to date otherwise its worthless. Details should include parentage, convictions such as worrying livestock agression in public etc, also deaths and severe illnesses. Any offspring will have to be registered also against both sire and dam. Potential buyers of puppies should check the registration document (or online database) which mentions recommended health checks for that breed - its then up to the potential buyer to ask for the results. If the bitch has more than an "allowed" number of litters then this should also be flagged up so buyers can spot puppy farmers and vote with their feet. Like wise if we could check the data base for the previous offspring and see how many have been diagnosed with HD, PRA etc etc then we can avoid these pups.
My main concern is the sheer volume of puppies that are being bred - far more than the UK wants or needs and so many many dogs are losing their lives every day because no-one wants them :'(
OK it would be expensive and take a lot of setting up and policing but Defra have thought of far more complicated schemes for our livestock!!
-
...
OK it would be expensive and take a lot of setting up and policing but Defra have thought of far more complicated schemes for our livestock!!
So true Helen :thumbsup:
-
Jim is the person we need to stop breeding! By ANY means whatsoever.
-
Jim is the person we need to stop breeding! By ANY means whatsoever.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why.
-
Already did - on numerous occasions, not getting led down that path again. In my opinion you should only breed when you have a market, only breed from health tested dogs.
There are too many dogs in the world already - that is why rescue centres are full, and why thousands of healthy dogs are put down.
There are too many dogs being bred with inherited diseases with no thought to the aftermath of owners struggling to pay vets/medicines and cope with the emotional stress.
-
Already did - on numerous occasions, not getting led down that path again. In my opinion you should only breed when you have a market, only breed from health tested dogs.
There are too many dogs in the world already - that is why rescue centres are full, and why thousands of healthy dogs are put down.
There are too many dogs being bred with inherited diseases with no thought to the aftermath of owners struggling to pay vets/medicines and cope with the emotional stress.
So let's be clear, Jim is not a puppy farmer 3 of his bitches litter were sold before they were born. Jim cannot sell all the litter before they are born because he doesn't know the litter size.
The dogs in rescue centres are the wrong sort of dogs, they are not able to do the job that Jim wants his dogs to do. Unfortunately they may well have to be put down. This is not Jims' fault and should not prevent him from breeding dogs of the right sort.
Jim has had his bitch health screened and has used a stud which has been screened too.
On a previous thread we discussed the problems of Setters and having to cross the working strain into the show strain due to problems of too small a gene pool. Excluding Jim from being able to breed from his bitch reduces the size of the gene pool. Result, [size=78%] [/size]dogs being bred with inherited diseases with no thought to the aftermath of owners struggling to pay vets/medicines and cope with the emotional stress. Your policy has caused this not Jim.
Are you really so blinded by your time as a judge and your loyalty to the Kennel Club that you can't see the holes in your argument ? In previous threads you have agreed that certain breeds of dog are not right due to the way they have been bred. Yet here you are again being critical of someone you've never met. Jim is the person we need to stop breeding! By ANY means whatsoever.
The only good from this is that Jim is now more likely to report the 'breeders' he knows who have their dogs in a basement. He never sees them out walking their dogs !
If you're so convinced that there are too many dogs in rescue centres perhaps you could explain to us all why you have Brittany Spaniels rather than some of those rescue dogs.
When show judges have the reputation they do, it's no wonder Jim isn't interested in that aspect of dog ownership.
-
I certainly wouldn't go through that rigmarol to either buy or breed a pup. Why should I? Costs more money and time, which I would rather spend on my dogs, and other parts of my busy life.
I personally don't see why "Jim" shouldn't have a litter, if he's done it the right way. He seems to be health testing etc so what's the problem?
Helen
-
Normal service is resumed then?
-
Normal service is resumed then?
Eeek!!! what have I done :sofa:
-
I really got a lot out of the discussion on docking. It's a subject on which I would have said I had a strong pre-formed opinion that was unlikely to be modified.
However, the conversation in that thread was so respectfully and unemotionally carried out that I found myself willing and able to consider alternative views. I believe we are all the richer - and certainly better informed - for conversations like that one.
When topics are very close to the hearts of contributors, it is very hard to phrase one's views in that detached and respectful way. Ironically, the more emotional the post, the less it is likely to permeate or change its reader.
If only we could all bring that same detached respecful manner to this topic here. There is a lot I would like to learn and different angles I would love to explore and consider. Sadly, when posts are emotional, provovative, angry, disrespectful, they simply switch off the attention of the very people they most wish to inform.
-
Beewyched, I don't think you've done anything, you opened up a topic of conversation.
Rosemary, I found the docking thread most informative and I have to say I learned from it.
With this thread a view was put forward and I replied with a 'hypothetical' situation which showed potential flaws in the idea given by Beewyched. This reply was given I think in a light hearted manner and the reply to that was equally light hearted.
Once again a particular member chooses to try to to down 'Jim' and if I were him I may be offended by the 'allegations' that he has behaved irresponsibly.
Were the discussion to continue to explore how unwanted dogs could be homed, or to find ways of training them to be useful rather than a nuisance, that would have perhaps been productive and informative to the members of the forum.
Sadly, not the case. To accuse someone of producing an unwanted litter of poor quality pups is quite frankly insulting when you don't know that person or the animal in question.
I look forward to any reasoned argument to counter mine and 'Jims' view.
-
That may work for pure bred dogs but what about the cross breeds? I know of a lady who has a shi tzu bitch and chuhaha boy, at least one of the pups from each litter are born dead and the rest die of heart failure by 10 weeks old. I have had to console new owners andtheir families when their puppy dies or is put down. It is a hereditary heart condition, the breeder does not care and who can stop her selling puppies?
-
I see what you're saying Ff & that woman needs stopping - should not your local AH dept be dealing with this?
If we consider my original start to this thread ...
... anyone considering breeding from their dogs should apply for a Stage 3 licence - hopefully this will eradicate most of the inherited conditions & if folks have to put some thought into producing puppies, then many of them won't do it.
And ...
If every puppy is micro-chipped before leaving the breeder, then any health problems can be traced back to the individual dog (which may have passed all it's breed tests, but have a genetic throwback issue) - so that dog can then be neutered/spayed, if it passes problems down the line.
Then ANYONE breeding puppies can be held accountable and swift & prompt action (including huge fines to help finance the "policing" & publicity) can be taken against those who refuse to comply.
Please folks, don't let this thread turn into some personality attack - we all know there are problems with dog breeding / puppy farming, I'm just trying to explore ways to consider of how to start dealing with it - for the welfare of the animals, not folks' pockets :fc:
-
That may work for pure bred dogs but what about the cross breeds? I know of a lady who has a shi tzu bitch and chuhaha boy, at least one of the pups from each litter are born dead and the rest die of heart failure by 10 weeks old. I have had to console new owners andtheir families when their puppy dies or is put down. It is a hereditary heart condition, the breeder does not care and who can stop her selling puppies?
Exactly why we need legislation
-
That may work for pure bred dogs but what about the cross breeds? I know of a lady who has a shi tzu bitch and chuhaha boy, at least one of the pups from each litter are born dead and the rest die of heart failure by 10 weeks old. I have had to console new owners andtheir families when their puppy dies or is put down. It is a hereditary heart condition, the breeder does not care and who can stop her selling puppies?
Exactly why we need legislation
So true Annie :thumbsup:
Btw - IS there anyone with any legal "clout" that this "breeder" can be reported to?
-
I've had success in the past with e-petitions with the Government. Anyone want to have a go? I would but I have another one on at the moment in Scotland unrelated to animals.
-
Sounds interesting Annie - tell me more about the process?
-
We need legislation to prevent dogs shagging?
Is this all a bit surreal?
Before I bought my collie last year, I have only ever had either 'types' of dog or deliberate crossbreds (terriers and lurchers).
It was one of the thing that appealed to me about Patterdales over the other terriers, that they are not a 'breed' but a type, and that new blood can be added - keeps the gene pool nice and wide.
Should I be in prison?
-
...
Should I be in prison?
I dunno Steve? why what have you done :roflanim:
This started in response to another thread regarding health & welfare problems caused by "breeders"/puppy farmers & has now developed to include cross-breds, this can also be used for "working dogs".
Something needs to be done & I though it was a good idea to "put it out there", so everyone can input & their views/ideas can be taken into account.
-
Sounds interesting Annie - tell me more about the process?
If you go onto the Holyrood website it guides you through it. The Office staff will help reword any petition to make it more interesting/appealing/likely to be taken up by the petitions committee.
here's the link, I daresay there is something similar on the Westminster and Llywodraeth Cymru websites.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/gettinginvolved/petitions/HowToPetition.aspx (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/gettinginvolved/petitions/HowToPetition.aspx)
-
...
Should I be in prison?
I dunno Steve? why what have you done :roflanim:
This started in response to another thread regarding health & welfare problems caused by "breeders"/puppy farmers & has now developed to include cross-breds, this can also be used for "working dogs".
Something needs to be done & I though it was a good idea to "put it out there", so everyone can input & their views/ideas can be taken into account.
Aye, I know, and it was slightly tongue in cheek.
But I think, in reality, you have as much chance of stopping dogs from shagging each other either by design or by accident as you have urinating successfully into a force 8.
-
Sounds interesting Annie - tell me more about the process?
If you go onto the Holyrood website it guides you through it. The Office staff will help reword any petition to make it more interesting/appealing/likely to be taken up by the petitions committee.
here's the link, I daresay there is something similar on the Westminster and Llywodraeth Cymru websites.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/gettinginvolved/petitions/HowToPetition.aspx (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/gettinginvolved/petitions/HowToPetition.aspx)
Thanks Annie :thumbsup:
-
... as you have urinating successfully into a force 8.
Never tried that myself Steve :roflanim: :roflanim: :roflanim:
-
the breeder does not care and who can stop her selling puppies?
Can't the Kennel Club just not register them, or are they not registered because they're a cross breed ?
The sooner we have a dog Stasi the better, then all breeding can be in the hands of the select few.
OK I'm taking the p with that last bit.
-
Xbreds don'tget registered - though lately some have been creating designer crosses (thinking labradoodles etc here)
I'm not looking to make dog breeding some elitist activity - just exploring ways it can be monitored in the best welfare of the animals :fc:
-
We need legislation to prevent dogs shagging?
No Steve, to stop any old T D or H from using their 'pet' as a money tree and ignoring any health issues the dog might have.
Sorry if I come across as weird and maybe over assertive - I just have very strong views as I've had two dogs in the past with hereditary health issues and also inadvertently bred some as a result of problems being hidden from us. Heartbreak has made me angry about how things are allowed to happen.
-
I'm not looking to make dog breeding some elitist activity - just exploring ways it can be monitored in the best welfare of the animals :fc:
We need legislation to prevent dogs shagging?
No Steve, to stop any old T D or H from using their 'pet' as a money tree and ignoring any health issues the dog might have.
Sorry if I come across as weird and maybe over assertive - I just have very strong views as I've had two dogs in the past with hereditary health issues and also inadvertently bred some as a result of problems being hidden from us. Heartbreak has made me angry about how things are allowed to happen.
Beewyched, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. I agree dog breeding is far from perfect at the moment, puppy farmers down the road and a brother who gets all the leave offs from a breeder or ones with health issues from a home. So I think I know a bit about what I'm talking about / doing / saying.
Doganjo, what can I say, by all means we need to deter any T D or H from using a non health checked dog as a means of paying the bills. But what about the aforementioned Jim who has bred responsibly. As you've said, you'd stop him too. In that respect, yes, you do come across as weird and over assertive if not worse.
Personally, I'd rather have one of Jims pups than one from the a***h**e of a breeder who was up to her neck in the KC and offloaded her worn out bitches onto my brother.
So unless you've got me on blocked and are not reading this ( head in the sand ? ).
Are you happy to leave breeding solely in the hands of the lady above who clearly ran her breeding and showing as a business.
-
once all you dog breeders can agree on the way forward your ideas could be applied to the pig breeding which is more fornicated up than the dog breeding :farmer:
-
But I think, in reality, you have as much chance of stopping dogs from shagging each other either by design or by accident as you have urinating successfully into a force 8.
Yes accidents may happen, but responsible owners of bitches in season do not let them wander the streets or country lanes!! Or entire dogs for that matter!! If owners do not neuter they should take great care - and it is possible to own both entire males and females and not have accidents.
-
some petitions already on the go:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/23648 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/23648)
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/11614 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/11614)
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5136 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5136)
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30636 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30636)
not saying I support all these ideas but there's plenty of topics for discussion :thinking:
-
But I think, in reality, you have as much chance of stopping dogs from shagging each other either by design or by accident as you have urinating successfully into a force 8.
Yes accidents may happen, but responsible owners of bitches in season do not let them wander the streets or country lanes!! Or entire dogs for that matter!! If owners do not neuter they should take great care - and it is possible to own both entire males and females and not have accidents.
I have known of several different people with bitches of differing breeds who have 'escaped' when they were on heat - a particularly interesting one was a collie x gsd x summat else bitsa I knew in my youth who broke a panelled wooden garden fence to run off and shag a predigree racing greyhound down the road.....
-
Good lord.
I'm going to try very hard to be non offensive, and please know that I've no idea about what's gone on between some of you here, and I mean no personal attacks.
Right. :relief:
Who is going to pay the IT company for this database?
Who here trusts the Government to sort it out, with their record of large IT projects (NHS spine, anyone?)
Who here wants yet another database full of personal details and history?
Who here thinks that Mr Yobbo with his well 'ard status-breed bitch is going to give a stuff about microchips or papers?
Who here thinks that if challenged, Mr Yobbo will either claim an accidental mating and/or abandon dog and/or kill it? And if dog happens to be tattooed etc for ID....well you've seen what happens to some greyhounds (tattooed ears cut off). Microchips can be cut out if you're so inclined.
If some silly person gets hold of an unregistered dog (through accident or design) - will they dare take it to a vet for treatment?
Who decides how many litters is acceptable, or what problems rule a breeding animal out (one breeder might think "his legs are too short" but what if I WANT a short legged "version"?) - and thus reducing the gene pool.
Does the number of acceptable litters depend on the breed status (rare etc)?
What about dogs intended to be workers that just don't have "it" - cull them?
Layers and layers of paperwork serve only to p*ss people off so that normally law abiding folk think "to hell with it"
-
Shep - I'll have a good look at these epetitions when I'm more awake :thumbsup: afternoons are best for me :tired:
Yorkshirelass - the KC already has a lot of the IT & know-how to move on this. Part of the reason I started this thread was to gain different viewpoints from folks who are used to being "regulated to death" with their other animals/stock. I do appreciate where you are coming from - that most law abiding folk are probably not keeping/treating their dogs in poor health/welfare conditions - whether it be due to ignorance or greed. But there has got to be some way of dealing with these issues - for the sake of dogs, puppies & potential new owners.
-
some years ago nearly 4 now i was working in toryglen in Glasgow a young guy (obviously the local dealer) had a pitbull he trained it daily in the swing park with tyres tied up and swinging it round to get a better grip now this was A very busy area hamden is just across the road the asda car park where the gangster was shot dead in his car is next to these multi storey flats
the laws were in place to prevent this from happening but it did and like it was just normal
so how is more legislation going to reduce the dog numbers :farmer:
-
I personally think the only people legally allowed to breed dogs should be licensed and regulated.
To recieve the license a qualification must be gained a bit like a degree (expensive and time consuming including checks on premises) any dogs sold by said breeder should be chipped, vaccinated and spayed (unless being sold to other breeder).
There is no reason why dogs sold as pets should not be neutered- this would discourage the backyard breeders trying to make a quick buck flogging mongrels as designer dogs.
As for the kennel club regulating it- I totally disagree they cant even regulate what they currently have in place and a lot of health issues in breeds has been caused by in breeding just trying to get that perfect standard for the prize.
We had a great dane bitch from a KC recommended breeder and that poor girl had so many health issues which eventually took her life, that if i ever met that breeder again she would be damn well suffering too! (another trophy chaser who did'nt give a damn about the health of her breed)
N.B I am certanly not tarring all kc breeders with that brush a good friend of mine is the KC breed health co-ordinator for a breed and i know the tireless work she puts in to improve the health of that breed. Sadly even she has had her work ridiculed and scorned by high up members of the KC who dont like home truths.
If the owners of all dogs were held accountable for their actions there wouldnt be so many dogs in rescue. currently any idiot can buy a dog with no questions asked. Then see his mates dog that looks nice and breed a litter without any care of market demand etc. The newspapers are full of stories of cruelty and appeals by charities to keep them ticking over etc.
So make owners be responsible for their actions (you want to own a dog- then gain a license through a welfare qualification) all fees could then be used to do something positive, and it may just put the idiots off owning a dog if they have to actually work to be able to achieve the privilage .
As they wouldnt be legally allowed to breed the dogs less unwanted dogs being born everyday.
I am pretty sure my idea will be disected by the more knowledgable on here but i just dont see why if you are a geniune breeder/owner of a breed why you would have any issues doing any of the above if it would make things better breed and welfare of these animals
just to clarify we have two rescue great danes and a beagle/lab mongrel.
-
so why just settle for qualifications for keeping a dog bring it on across the animal kingdom :farmer:
-
Reluctant to get involved in this thread as I understand many of you have very strong views and opinions on this subject but I am going to hide behind Robert now :-J :eyelashes: ;D .
Have to say I agree with him here. Where do you draw the line? Of course all breeding should be responsible. Yes health checks if appropriate, yes have homes lined up, question potential owners and so on. But why just dogs then? Lots of animals are reared in dreadful conditions and neglect. And a lot of children too!!!!! How can you possibly police everything to that extent?
And would you really want it? If you look at it in the wider context ?????? ??? Where would we be heading ?
-
Good lord.
I'm going to try very hard to be non offensive, and please know that I've no idea about what's gone on between some of you here, and I mean no personal attacks.
Right. :relief:
Who is going to pay the IT company for this database?
Who here trusts the Government to sort it out, with their record of large IT projects (NHS spine, anyone?)
Who here wants yet another database full of personal details and history?
Who here thinks that Mr Yobbo with his well 'ard status-breed bitch is going to give a stuff about microchips or papers?
Who here thinks that if challenged, Mr Yobbo will either claim an accidental mating and/or abandon dog and/or kill it? And if dog happens to be tattooed etc for ID....well you've seen what happens to some greyhounds (tattooed ears cut off). Microchips can be cut out if you're so inclined.
If some silly person gets hold of an unregistered dog (through accident or design) - will they dare take it to a vet for treatment?
Who decides how many litters is acceptable, or what problems rule a breeding animal out (one breeder might think "his legs are too short" but what if I WANT a short legged "version"?) - and thus reducing the gene pool.
Does the number of acceptable litters depend on the breed status (rare etc)?
What about dogs intended to be workers that just don't have "it" - cull them?
Layers and layers of paperwork serve only to p*ss people off so that normally law abiding folk think "to hell with it"
Yup, I take that all on board - so what is the solution, YL? The FACTs are:
1. Too many dogs being brought into the world
2. Too many being euthanased for no other reason than no-one wants them
3. Too many maulings
4. Too many dogs with inherited diseases causing untold misery for both them and their owners
There are more but that'll do for starters.
-
Yup, I take that all on board - so what is the solution, YL? The FACTs are:
1. Too many dogs being brought into the world
2. Too many being euthanased for no other reason than no-one wants them
3. Too many maulings
4. Too many dogs with inherited diseases causing untold misery for both them and their owners
There are more but that'll do for starters.
1 Too many of which breed?
2. What breed, age, temperament are being PTS?
3. What breed are responsible for the mailings?
4. Which breeds and where are they being bred and who by?
As usual no substance to your input.
-
You don't even need a licence to own a dog. Maybe that would be a more realistic starting point in getting people to realize the responsibility that goes with owning a dog.
-
I agree with Robert also :) it should be across all species the same happens with all domestic/ service animals i only kept it to dogs for this topic.
Honest people with the welfare of the animals at heart in whatever situation i think would be prepared to do that. it would stop so much of the (i can't be bothered to get my animal spayed so i will worry about what do with its offspring if/when it arrives)
How many times do we see adverts for animals. Pigs, goats, dogs, cats, horses free to good homes because people have bred these and havent got a market for them. they just assumed they could make a few quid and failed.
If it were humans breeding other humans for profit with no thought of health/intellect issues there would be public outcry! (what would we do with all the chavs,,,they'd never sell! :-J ) so why should this happen to animals.!
we used to have dog licenses years ago and they were scrapped...Why? Because they were'nt worth the paper they were written on. you went to the post office paid your tiny fee and were issued the license.
They were'nt regulated and they had no relivence to the welfare of the dog. so i am not sure a license that you buy at the post office is the way to go i think it would need to go further, which is why i think qualifications would be the way to gain the license.
Once you could prove that you knew enough about the animal, the welfare, illnesses, basic training of said animal (if domestic) etc. before you could obtain a license.
purchasing of said animal without the license could be prohibited.
again these are just all ideas, that in a perfect world may work, however sadly we are'nt living in that perfect world so things probably wont change. :huff:
-
in the hills if step to the side that leaves you in the firring line
maybe the fancy breeds buyers will wait till there are pups on the ground but run of the mill dogs either pedigree or not will not wait they want them when THEY want them
licenced breeders would only jack the price up more than they charge just now :farmer:
-
:o Robert, how could you .... where's the hiding behind the sofa icon ..... I can't find it. :o
Littlelugs - that was my point really. How many dog owners actually bought the license? Did the irresponsible owners/breeders bother to get one? If something as simple as that didn't work how could the other proposals on here ..... as much as they maybe needed for all critters, including the human kind. And I know we're in the doggy section but if you brought in such legislation for dogs ... why not everything else?
And since Mr W. has stepped aside, I am well aware of what goes on. Someone locally has had 2 cross bred litters recently .... all sold .... not a "fashionable" or working cross but still £200 per pup. While there is a market??????
-
:sofa: it is still there but i am not hidding :roflanim:
-
Grrrr...
We all did so well on the tail docking thread but we ain't making such a good job of it over here.
Some pedigree fans appear to think that all crossbreeds and mongrels should never have been born.
Some mongrel and crossbreed fans appear to think that all pedigree breeders are responsible for all the hereditary problems now found in so many of our dogs (and not just pedigree dogs, now, either :()
Note, I said 'some' in both sentences! :sofa:
I, being a fan of healthy, active dogs in appropriate homes living appropriate lives, however they are bred, do find it hard to really assimilate a post which is written around an assumption that the only good dog is a pedigree dog whose parentage is known for 5 more more generations. I just switch off as I don't agree with that premise. So my mind is not opened and my opinions cannot be modified.
Equally, I can see how folks who believe that responsible breeding can cure the ills of the pedigree dog, will be similarly closed down and turned off by a post whose opening premise is that the only healthy dog is one full of hybrid vigour.
When the animal rescue centres are full of unwanted dogs, and most breeds have a society with either a rescue centre and/or a list of dogs for rehoming, none of us can argue that there aren't too many dogs - of all kinds.
I don't have the answers either, but I do wish we could conduct this debate in as level and respectful a way as we did the one on tail docking - I really learned something there.
-
Sally, where abouts in the North are you ?
I want to come and kiss you for speaking some straight forward common sense. !!
I feel got at because I've a pedigree dog which has just had a litter. And one member in particular is very keen to give her cloaked criticism, frankly I'd rather people were straight and open. 3/5 pups with homes at 2 weeks of age, health checked sire and dam, bred her because I was asked if we would, just where's your problem ?
We live in a free country and all the hot air about training and licensing for all animals, how the heck would that work in reality, I've got bees, sheep, hens, the dogs had some pigs but not at the moment. Lets try to be realistic, and if we are, we know it ain't workable.
Perhaps we need to accept that some animals are 'wrong' for whatever reason and cannot be kept or found happy homes. Many of us do it all the time with male sheep, cows, pigs, hens etc etc. yet when it comes to dogs boy does the SHTF.
I know this sounds hard, I'm a softy really but we have to be practical.
What are the practicalities of homing every stray dog, preventing breeding, licensing etc. So big breath, cup of tea have a think and come up with ideas which will work in the real world.
-
Yup, I take that all on board - so what is the solution, YL? The FACTs are:
1. Too many dogs being brought into the world
2. Too many being euthanased for no other reason than no-one wants them
3. Too many maulings
4. Too many dogs with inherited diseases causing untold misery for both them and their owners
There are more but that'll do for starters.
1 Too many of which breed?
2. What breed, age, temperament are being PTS?
3. What breed are responsible for the mailings?
4. Which breeds and where are they being bred and who by?
As usual no substance to your input.
I take it you read the news? Admittedly this is from 2004 but last I heard from our contacts and as a member of Dogs Trust the situation if anything is worse because of the recession - more people trying to make cash by selling puppies, more people dumping dogs because of not being able to feed them or take them to their vet for medicines.
Up to you to believe what you will but these are the facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3908321.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3908321.stm)
-
moleskins you are not that far from sally but her man might object ;)
-
:thumbsup: Moleskins and SITN.
-
Sally, I don't know if it's me you refer to but I don't have an aversion to people breeding mongrels or crossbreeds.
What I have an aversion to is people breeding a pet bitch for bad reasons - i.e. it would good for her, I want a puppy from her, I want some money, my kids need to see a litter of puppies being born. It is not good for the bitch, it can put her life at risk, there is no need to take a puppy from your own bitch if her breeder has repeated the mating, or has siblings, it is not a valid reason to get more money,
I have an aversion also to people who think it is OK to breed a bitch - or a dog - without checking for hereditary diseases - for example in my breed as I have said before it's hip dysplasia, in Labradors it is Hip dysplasia and PRA and other eye conditions, in Springers it's DNA tests for eye and womb conditions, Annual eye testing, Hip scoring, and for my other breed Cockers it is much the same as Springers.
Here is the list - http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf)
And this is the KC's recommendations and explanation of their health schemes for Pedigree dogs, which I think should be extended legally to ALL dogs, whatever their breeding.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2145 (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2145)
One of my pals breeds Labradoodles - to order only, her bitch being the daughter of two Field Trial Champions, the sire being her friend's Champion Poodle, both of which have had full DNA and health checks and are clear. She keeps the pups till they have had both inoculations(10 weeks), and are vet checked before they go to their new homes. That is the sort of breeder I admire, and to which others should aspire.
-
I take it you read the news? Admittedly this is from 2004 but last I heard from our contacts and as a member of Dogs Trust the situation if anything is worse because of the recession - more people trying to make cash by selling puppies, more people dumping dogs because of not being able to feed them or take them to their vet for medicines.
Up to you to believe what you will but these are the facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3908321.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3908321.stm)
Daily Mail Today Page 22 - yes I read the news and it's not 8 years out of date.
Which dogs are being put down and why ???
-
Sally, I don't know if it's me you refer to but I don't have an aversion to people breeding mongrels or crossbreeds.
I know you don't Annie :-*, and you've said so on several occasions. :thumbsup:
-
Doganjo - that's a long list of "bad reasons" for breeding.
You say that wanting a puppy from your bitch is a bad reason ??? . My father bred from his bitches occasionally for that very reason. He field trialled/ worked / showed his dogs. He had a good bitch and would breed her to what he believed to be a good dog. Would he then be classed as an irresponsible breeder? :o
There is in my opinion a big difference between breeding constantly for no other purpose than money and the dog breeding that goes on on a small scale for many other reasons.
Think we have to be careful not to be too judgemental of other people and their reasons for breeding.
-
Yes there is a problem, and no I don't have the solution.
I just know I wouldn't bother faffing around with more qualifications and licences and paperwork - even if I could afford it. Does that make me less dedicated to my dog? Does that mean I love her and care for her any less? When she's ill, do I not drop everything and go to vet? Do I not sigh and clean up mud, blood, "accidents", hair...without anger? Do not try and make a dog a rich man's toy, often they are the only companion left when someone hits rock bottom.
How about something radical and more based on livestock work.
Culling ones who are "no good".
I see many many rescues with the best of intentions, but they are full of untrained street dogs, or biters, or overly anxious ones, and these difficult dogs are clogging up the system so that little Fido whose owner died cannot get a chance.
I think the time has come too accept our limits, albeit with a heavy heart, and simply say that after x number of weeks or months, depending on behaviour and health, that's that.
As for the puppies - regulation won't work in general. We already have consumer protection, trading standards, anti cruelty - these need to be applied before adding any more! We need to remove the demand, then it doesn't really matter what is legal/illegal.
How to do that? I'm not sure. Get in to schools, youth clubs, Sure Start centres...?
Discuss :)
-
Doganjo - that's a long list of "bad reasons" for breeding.
You say that wanting a puppy from your bitch is a bad reason ??? . My father bred from his bitches occasionally for that very reason. He field trialled/ worked / showed his dogs. He had a good bitch and would breed her to what he believed to be a good dog. Would he then be classed as an irresponsible breeder? :o
There is in my opinion a big difference between breeding constantly for no other purpose than money and the dog breeding that goes on on a small scale for many other reasons.
Think we have to be careful not to be too judgemental of other people and their reasons for breeding.
It's not THAT long - FOUR reasons?
If your father took consideration of all health testing available at the time for his breed, then no, he wasn't irresponsible. Are you saying that health testing should not be a consideration when breeding?
I am not being judgemental - I am being practical and supporting dogs in general.
They are not tools for money to be made from whether on a large or a small scale - I apologise for disagreeing with you but there is no difference between someone breeding one bitch than twenty in my eyes if they do not health test nor have good reasons for breeding - a proven working or showing record.
I am short of money just now, I have a bitch that is now over 8, I would not be allowed to register the pups with the KC, but they would be excellent working, rough-shooting dogs. And even unregistered would probably fetch about £400 each (Registered more like £700). She herself works well, has a lovely sweet nature, and has two Challenge Certificates, but I will not breed her again. I walk the walk as well as talking the talk.
-
You get a similar thing in the pony world. Some of those that show think the only reason for breeding is to make a show pony, and all homes that don't show such ponies are bad homes (for such ponies.) Whereas I weep for the ponies (not all show ponies! But some of them) stuck in stables and minimal grazing, only ever asked to trot in hand, only ever given attention when it's showtime.
And yes, Annie, I know you work your dogs and have chosen a breed which has to work in order to do well in the show ring - good on yer for that :thumbsup:
To me, I wish there were more breeding from reet nice bitches to reet nice dogs (with health checks, of course) to make reet nice pets. Working breeds frankly do not make the best pets, some working dogs make lousy pets who will be unhappy and make their owners miserable. And dogs from generations of showing stock are often not the best of pets, either. Whereas dogs from generations of breeding reet nice bitches to reet nice dogs (with health checks, of course) probably do make, on the whole, reet nice pups that make reet nice pets.
If it were made more 'cool' and acceptable to have a reet nice bitzer that's a reet nice family pet, I think you just might reduce some of the problems (reduce, not solve) that Annie enumerates.
-
I take it you read the news? Admittedly this is from 2004 but last I heard from our contacts and as a member of Dogs Trust the situation if anything is worse because of the recession - more people trying to make cash by selling puppies, more people dumping dogs because of not being able to feed them or take them to their vet for medicines.
Up to you to believe what you will but these are the facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3908321.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3908321.stm)
Daily Mail Today Page 22 - yes I read the news and it's not 8 years out of date.
Which dogs are being put down and why ???
The Dogs Trust, Britain's largest dog welfare charity, says animals were being put to sleep because owners could not be traced or no homes found for them.
"Every dog should be a wanted dog and Dogs Trust will continue to fight for an end to this unnecessary destruction.
"Nationally we can see that this problem is solvable and we are calling on the nation's dog owners to help us achieve this aim sooner rather than later."
The charity has called for owners to neuter and microchip their dogs."
-
The destiny of by far the majority of dogs is to be pets, so surely we ought to be planning our breeding on the understanding of what makes a good pet far more than we do on what makes a good show dog or working dog?
Otherwise all pets are, by definition, dogs who failed in the field or ring - not a good selection process for a family dog, in my view.
-
The destiny of by far the majority of dogs is to be pets, so surely we ought to be planning our breeding on the understanding of what makes a good pet far more than we do on what makes a good show dog or working dog?
Otherwise all pets are, by definition, dogs who failed in the field or ring - not a good selection process for a family dog, in my view.
Good point.
I tend to think that all dogs need a purpose/job, but that being a companion IS a valid purpose/job - so useful traits can be selected for. As said above - a reet nice dog!
-
The destiny of by far the majority of dogs is to be pets, so surely we ought to be planning our breeding on the understanding of what makes a good pet far more than we do on what makes a good show dog or working dog?
Otherwise all pets are, by definition, dogs who failed in the field or ring - not a good selection process for a family dog, in my view.
There is the Good Citizen Scheme - ANY dog, ANY owner can do that and there are training classes all over the country. The scheme teaches the owners to look after their dogs properly and responsibly. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/dogtraining/ (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/dogtraining/)
There is now also a Companion Dog Club - http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/companiondogclub (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/companiondogclub)
Proof, if it were needed, that the Kennel Club is not just for Show or Field Trial owners, it is for ALL owners of dogs. I can criticise the KC like anyone else but I feel praise is in order in these two cases, as well as for the Assured breeder Scheme.
-
I don't have the figures for how many dogs have 'forever homes' at the Dogs Trust because they are not suitable for living in a home environment, but I know it's not a small number.
I know that the Dogs Trust has as its core value that it never destroys a healthy dog. Laudable but maybe not practical. I do support the DT (financially as well as in word and deed), but in truth I would accept the destruction of unhomeable dogs and would prefer that they use the funds thus saved to home more of the dogs that will make nice pets for some family.
I myself rescued from one of the rescue charities (not the Dogs Trust), unwittingly, a dog that was not safe around children. It ended in my having the dog put down before he bit a child. (After much help and work trying to make him safe through training, exercise, occupation and environment.) I have never made as hard a decision in my life, and the whole experience haunts me still.
While the problem is of such a scale that logistics tell us there will be many dogs who won't get homed, no matter what we do, then there should be some triage, whereby dogs with serious problems are either shunted to charities specifically for such dogs (so we can all decide for ourselves whether we want to pay to keep such dogs alive) or are destroyed to make way for nice friendly dogs who will make nice friendly safe family pets to find their way to the front of the queue.
-
Doganjo, I can't make it any clearer
WHICH DOGS ARE BEING PUT DOWN
WHAT BREEDS ARE THEY
WHY ARE THEY BEING PUT DOWN
If you're suggesting that every dog deserves a home quite frankly you want to take your head out of wherever it is and take a look around. I certainly don't want my daughter to have a dog from a rescue centre that's been put there because it bites.
I've experienced dogs from rescue centres, one of them was in there because it continually poohed in the house, trouble was Grandma's failing eyesight meant its pooh got stood in so it had to go back.
I'm all for the idea of a good bitch and a good dog making a good pet.
PS thanks for the advert for the Dogs Trust.
-
Woww ... Doganjo!
Did I say that that I didn't think that health testing was important? ??? I don't think so. And yes, all the tests that were going at the time .... hips and eyes in the case of our breed.
Sorry, I didn't mean that YOU were being judgemental .... think I wrote WE. Should have made that more clear. As in ... if we brought in more legislation.
Some people who work/ show dogs have many litters in a year and they may carry out all health tests and conform to any new legislation but does that mean all their pups go to good homes? If someone breeds just one litter of cross bred pups is that so bad? .... they may go to more loving and permanent homes than "show" or "working" dogs.
-
Sally,
I'm gonna have to kiss you again, your post makes perfect sense.
-
I am firmly convinced that over regulation (and I am afraid I include compulsory licensing) will achieve nothing more than to cement the position of the puppy farmers, who will become totally entrenched as the main financial beneficiaries of puppy sales, and impoverish the genetic pool available to maintain our breeds.
We need to change the public perception of what is involved in producing a litter. That is never going to happen while the apparently vested interests continue to squabble. Anyone who cares about the welfare of dogs should have two main aims in mind namely the production of healthy puppies and the homing of those pups in stable loving homes. The greatest disservice ever done to the canine population in my view was perpetrated by the BBC so that views became polarised. Yes the Kennel Club was sitting on its rather smug posterior at the relevant time but that there are people now suggesting that only hybrids are healthy and or condemning all pedigree breeders as greedy and uncaring shows how the issue has now developed in a totally skewed and distressing way.
We are never going to change human nature but we can surely make the effort to inform the uninformed and educate people more than we are at the moment.
What I would love to see is organisations like the RSPCA and the Dogs Trust putting effort into informing people of the steps they would like to see taken before any bitch is bred from. Lets forget whether the aim is a show winning Pointer, a working dog, a fashion cross or indeed a mongrel. Surely the first question has to be the one that Blondie's breeder discussed with me when we were considering whether to spay or breed from her.
Would the world really be impoverished by her not having puppies? Can we justify the mating on the basis it is needed? And for a dog who stood fourth at Crufts but has some issues of her own (and not health issues) the answer was we decided No.
Next question Are you confident that even in a breed that may produce ten or more puppies you can find stable loving homes for all the pups? Do you already have a number of buyers in the pipeline?
Next question What health issues are there in your chosen breed or cross? Are you prepared to pay for the necessary testing to be undertaken?
Next question Are you prepared to take back any puppies that for any reason are not suited to their new owners?
Final question Do you realise that dog breeding can often be a loss making exercise. especially if things don't go as smoothly as you hoped? And as a consequence are you prepared for potentially huge veterinary bills?
I will clamber off my soapbox now but I really do believe that unless we stop trying to attribute blame and get on with educating people our dogs will be suffering for many years to come.
-
There is the Good Citizen Scheme - ANY dog, ANY owner can do that and there are training classes all over the country. The scheme teaches the owners to look after their dogs properly and responsibly. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/dogtraining/ (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/dogtraining/)
There is now also a Companion Dog Club - http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/companiondogclub (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/companiondogclub)
Proof, if it were needed, that the Kennel Club is not just for Show or Field Trial owners, it is for ALL owners of dogs. I can criticise the KC like anyone else but I feel praise is in order in these two cases, as well as for the Assured breeder Scheme.
See, now I've learned something! :D :thumbsup: I'd kinda heard about the Good Citizen training and the Companion Dog Club but never investigated because of my longstanding antipathy to the KC. However, encouraged by this discussion, I have now followed those links (thanks Annie) and was pleasantly surprised at the way the KC writes about other-than-pedigree dogs.
Good post, Fronhaul :thumbsup:
and thanks, moleskins, for the appreciation :-* I don't know what to make of this week - a :hug: from tiz, a :-* from moley... maybe I ought to buy a Lottery ticket... ;) :D
-
are you not all dancing round the questions and the issues here
the one that mentioned the old Grannie with the dog crapping on the floor well where the f*** else is it going to crap if old Grannie does not let it out dogs can be trained for the toilet you still have to take them out
not every dog has a placid nature especially round children pulling there ears and tails not to mention the odd kick in passing and hauling it about just because the little angel wants to
a dog can and does live a long life which one of you could have predicted the financial disaster that is hovering over Brittan 5 years ago this in part is to blame for the volume of dogs abandoned :farmer:
-
Can I just qualify that I blame neither pedigree or non-pedigree breeders alone for the state of dogs in the UK - its the irresponsible breeders of both! The number of pups born in the UK far outweighs the demand. Unwanted dogs are thrown out on the street - 325 per day are picked up in the UK by dog wardens. These are just the dogs that are reported for being a nuisance - there will be many more not picked up. Of those dogs some will of course be reunited with their owners, some get to rescues and rehomed, but one dog per hour of every day of every week is put to sleep just because it is unwanted. Many of these are staffies, other bull breeds, boxers etc but there are also lots of labs, collies, terriers, cross breeds etc. If anyone is unaware of the problem - google a rescue such as Homeless Hounds in Lancashire - follow their website for a few weeks and you will get an idea of the size of the problem. http://www.homelesshounds.org.uk/index.php/pound-dogs/ (http://www.homelesshounds.org.uk/index.php/pound-dogs/)
The following explains further:
http://petsbureau.com/security/the-uks-stray-and-abandoned-dog-numbers-for-2011-hit-an-11-year-high-2/ (http://petsbureau.com/security/the-uks-stray-and-abandoned-dog-numbers-for-2011-hit-an-11-year-high-2/)
Yes there will always be a criminal element to dog breeding - yobbos and puppy farmers - but does that mean we shouldn't bother with legislation? We have never managed to stamp out sheep rustling does that mean we should just make it legal? Of course not. Dogs need our protection - horses have passports, sheep have to have their every move and medicine recorded, yet could literally breed my bitch over and over till she died of exhaustion and no-one would arrest me.
I wish knew what the answers were - I look forward to any further suggestions and informed polite debate :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Anyone still not believing that the dog world is in crisis today in the UK - take a look down the dogs for adoption list on this site
http://www.manytearsrescue.org/ (http://www.manytearsrescue.org/)
-
i dont get the connection with an overabundance of dogs with sheep rustling :farmer:
-
sorry Robert - I get a bit ahead of myself sometimes! Yorkshire Lass posted that legislation wouldn't stop the yobbos breeding status dogs etc - I was trying to illustrate that just because some break the law doesn't mea[size=78%]n we shouldn't have a law.[/size]
-
sorry Robert - I get a bit ahead of myself sometimes! Yorkshire Lass posted that legislation wouldn't stop the yobbos breeding status dogs etc - I was trying to illustrate that just because some break the law doesn't mea[size=78%]n we shouldn't have a law.[/size]
But the laws are already there?
If my understanding is correct, anyone breeding more than 2 (?) litters per year should be licensed by local council - do they do any checks or is this a piece of paper?
Then, puppies are covered by consumer laws - being "fit for purpose" or words to that effect. In law, dogs are property, no?
There are animal cruelty laws.
There's no point adding more rules until these ones are enforced properly.
That'd be liking changing the speed limit on the motorway from 70mph to 60mph if everyone was doing 80mph anyway...i.e. makes sod all difference to the vast majority.
-
You only have to be a licensed breeder when you breed 5 or more litters per year. How much this is policed depends on the local authority in question. 5 litters could be 50 puppies per year!
May I ask what you would do to solve the problem? I'm not a lover of lots of legislation but I cannot think what else will work,
-
You only have to be a licensed breeder when you breed 5 or more litters per year. How much this is policed depends on the local authority in question. 5 litters could be 50 puppies per year!
May I ask what you would do to solve the problem? I'm not a lover of lots of legislation but I cannot think what else will work,
I don't have a magic answer sadly.
Five litters seems a lot. It would be reasonable to reduce that, to tweak existing law has to be more efficient that dragging new ones through (also new law is extremely slooooooow).
And education to remove the demand, but how you get through to people who don't want to know.... ???
I can see the situation getting worse, with the upcoming "bedroom tax" meaning lots of people trying to move house(rented) etc etc.
-
That's not strictly true. A breeding licence is authorised on payment of a fee, and under the regulations of individual councils. In Clackmannanshire the Animal welfare Officer checks licensed breeding establishments once a year. The rule here is if you have 3 or more bitches of breeding age - i.e. between 8 months and 11 years, and breed 2 or more litters in any one period of 12 months, you require a licence. I have no idea what other councils decide, and since it is not standardised this is another anomaly.
For Moleskins - I am not the only person who knows the truth of the matter -
Posted by: Shep Today at 08:24:33 PM
Anyone still not believing that the dog world is in crisis today in the UK - take a look down the dogs for adoption list on this site
http://www.manytearsrescue.org/ (http://www.manytearsrescue.org/)
-
the one that mentioned the old Grannie with the dog crapping on the floor well where the f*** else is it going to crap if old Grannie does not let it out dogs can be trained for the toilet you still have to take them out
Hmmmm, do you know Robert I'll bet they never thought of taking it out
-
For Moleskins - I am not the only person who knows the truth of the matter -
???
I don't think anyone has said there is not a problem?
-
As it happens this week there is an Efra select committee which is hearing evidence with regard to Dangerous dogs, compulsory microchipping etc.. I hope they can manage to see past the "dangerous dogs" bit and see the wider picture of puppy farming and irresponsible dog ownership in general.
-
For Moleskins - I am not the only person who knows the truth of the matter -
Posted by: Shep Today at 08:24:33 PM
Anyone still not believing that the dog world is in crisis today in the UK - take a look down the dogs for adoption list on this site
http://www.manytearsrescue.org/ (http://www.manytearsrescue.org/)
Am I totally missing something with you Doganjo, in the past we've agreed on a few points but now you keep having a dig a me for breeding a litter of pups. Despite me doing all the right things.
I've had a look, granted a quick one, at the link to Many Tears Rescue and every dog I clicked on was a 'retired' breeding dog, never lived in a house and had to be homed with another dog.
My point throughout is that breeding of dogs should not be just in the hands of 'breeders' and this website really only confirms what I've felt all along. Breeders are a large part of the problem, regulating breeding solely into their hands would scare the heck out of me, nothing I've seen gives me any confidence in them.
I posted the above then went back to the site - this is the next one I clicked on
22-08-12 Queenie is a 3 year old ex-breeding Westie. This dear little dog has very sore skin at the moment and will need regular baths to help this. She has an overshot jaw so we will monitor how she copes with eating her food. She is a nervous little girl, she cannot yet walk on a lead and has never lived in a house before, so she will need another kind dog to show her the way and help build her confidence.
FFS what is the breeder doing breeding from a bitch with two blindingly obvious faults !
13-08-12 Jamie is a 9 year old male Cavalier Spaniel. He has come to us from a breeder as he was no longer needed. He is nervous in his new surrounding and will try to run away from you at first but will come round with patience and gentle words. He doesn't know how to walk on the lead. He will need another dog to show him the way and give him confidence. He is looking for a home with kind and gentle owners who will shower him with love and give him time to settle. Jamie is by donation as he is an older gentleman and has a grade 4 heart murmur. This does not need medication at the moment but his new owners will have to monitor it with their vet. Jamie just needs a lovely home and a soft bed where he can curl up.
And another, breeder finished with him despite breeding from a dog with a heart problem then drop him on someone who will have to pay the vets bills, can someone, anyone explain any aspect of this that's right.
-
I agree with you - none of that is right, But I suspect they are puppy farmers not true responsible breeders. I really do not know ANYONE who would breed like that
This is the meaning of the word 'breeder' - 'someone who puts two animals together to mate with the expectation that they will reproduce.'
By that token YOU are a breeder, Robert is a breeder, many others on here are breeders.
I said that I thought you should have taken more consideration of health issues and suitable homes for pups prior to mating your bitch. I didn't say you shouldn't have done it at all.
"Dog breeding is the practice of mating selected dogs with the intent to maintain or produce specific qualities and characteristics. When dogs reproduce without such human intervention, their offsprings' characteristics are determined by natural selection, while "dog breeding" refers specifically to the artificial selection of dogs, in which dogs are intentionally bred by their owners. [1] A person who intentionally mates dogs to produce puppies is referred to as a dog breeder. Breeding relies on the science of genetics, so the breeder with a knowledge of canine genetics, health, and the intended use for the dogs attempts to breed suitable dogs.'
-
I said that I thought you should have taken more consideration of health issues and suitable homes for pups prior to mating your bitch. I didn't say you shouldn't have done it at all
I did.
What bothers me now is, if I'm a breeder, I'm technically in the same category as some of those *****
-
It's not just a breeder problem, hell i've had some cracking dogs from both breeders of pedigree and breeders of mongrels (i love my pedigrees but i love my mutts as much so always have a mix).
The problem is the minority of bad breeders i.e puppy farms etc coupled with the muppets who buy a dog, go down the pub see their mates dog and see pound signs flashing :idea: "lets breed our dogs call em a fancy name and flock em for £100's" they dont bother with health tests, temperament or anything else. Its just a way of making a quick buck!
It's too easy to get a dog these days and then worry about the consequences later, when the dog has behavioural problems through lack of basic training These people wont invest time and effort training it, they just send it to the rescue or take it for a drive and dump it.
Another example is the dog gets out and gets caught because "we couldnt afford to get it neutered"
"oh well let it have a litter we'll get rid of the pups somehow."
If you cant afford to get your dog chipped, vaccinated and neutered dont get the dog in the first place simple.
My idea re: licensing would hopefully get these idiots out of the system because its too much bother to invest in it. (i know it wouldnt work anyway as i said, but it is a nice thought).
-
My thoughts exactly Littlelugs :thumbsup:
SOMETHING has got to be done, it just can't be left to continue the way it is - too many dogs are existing in poor health/welfare conditions :o
It's clear that everyone who has posted on this thread is both compassionate & passionate about the subject - I DO NOT WANT FOLKS TO FALL-OUT OVER THIS! :sofa:
Yes - there may be differences in attitudes towards dogs - some are the "family pets" others "breeding animals" & others "working animals" - IMHO THIS REALLY DOESN'T MATTER - it's the welfare of the dogs that is central to this & it is clear that "voluntary regulation" is not working ...
-
OK
How's this for an idea, I've known of two breeders who were quite clearly just producing puppies without proper regard to the parents welfare or the quality of the pups.
Instead of trying to stop all breeding outside of a select few, which has problems of reducing the gene pool and excluding good dogs. And rather than starting a petition to try to licence all dogs and all breeding which wouldn't be a vote winner with any political party so almost certainly wouldn't happen.
Wouldn't it be better to have a campaign to wake the likes of me up, so that when I become aware of what is basically a puppy farm, in the hands of a fan of shows and the KC or just a 'bloke in the pub' - I report it to the appropriate people and get it stopped.
-
:thumbsup: completely agree moleskins, and i am sure people do. I know i would if i knew of one.
However what needs to be done is the people who are being reported to, need to act upon the information given in the first place. If people report these places and continualy see nothing being done they will give up reporting and we are back to stage one. :(
-
OK -
How's this for an idea, I've known of two breeders who were quite clearly just producing puppies without proper regard to the parents welfare or the quality of the pups.
Instead of trying to stop all breeding outside of a select few, which has problems of reducing the gene pool and excluding good dogs. And rather than starting a petition to try to licence all dogs and all breeding which wouldn't be a vote winner with any political party so almost certainly wouldn't happen.
Wouldn't it be better to have a campaign to wake the likes of me up, so that when I become aware of what is basically a puppy farm, in the hands of a fan of shows and the KC or just a 'bloke in the pub' - I report it to the appropriate people and get it stopped.
I'll try & do this, bit by bit (first time I've tried this so bear with me) if & just IF we had a model of Staged licences;
If' they'd tried to originaly apply for a Stage 3 licence, then they would have had to meet certain welfare conditions/health-checked parents BEFORE producing pups. They would have had regular inspections & any puppies produced would have been traceable - hopefully it would have put them off "breeding" in the first place!
I am certainly NOT advocating that it should be for the select few - I totally agree with you that it is PARTIALLY what has caused breed-related health problems in the first place! I also have no problems with "mongrels", but NOT "designer dogs" - just that the parents are healthy BEFORE being "bred" from.
I really wish it was that simple Moles, I really do - there's been masses of publicity over recent years - BBC aired Investigations, RSPCA drives, the KC launching the Accredited Breeder Scheme, Pedigree with-drawing from the sponsorship of Crufts etc. I think it's only those of us that are aware of the issues in the first place, honestly, take notice.
-
Oh phlew - that went wrong :o Sorry folks :eyelashes:
Now modified :relief:
-
It's not just a breeder problem, hell i've had some cracking dogs from both breeders of pedigree and breeders of mongrels (i love my pedigrees but i love my mutts as much so always have a mix).
The problem is the minority of bad breeders i.e puppy farms etc coupled with the muppets who buy a dog, go down the pub see their mates dog and see pound signs flashing :idea: "lets breed our dogs call em a fancy name and flock em for £100's" they dont bother with health tests, temperament or anything else. Its just a way of making a quick buck!
It's too easy to get a dog these days and then worry about the consequences later, when the dog has behavioural problems through lack of basic training These people wont invest time and effort training it, they just send it to the rescue or take it for a drive and dump it.
Another example is the dog gets out and gets caught because "we couldnt afford to get it neutered"
"oh well let it have a litter we'll get rid of the pups somehow."
If you cant afford to get your dog chipped, vaccinated and neutered dont get the dog in the first place simple.
My idea re: licensing would hopefully get these idiots out of the system because its too much bother to invest in it. (i know it wouldnt work anyway as i said, but it is a nice thought).
Totally agree, LL
-
Well, so what are the existing rules about puppy farms and multiple home breedings? As a member of the public who likes dogs but isn't into breeding or showing, I wouldn't know if someone was operating illegally - unless there were clear and evident welfare problems - and so wouldn't be reporting anyone.
So I do think there is mileage in moleskins' awareness campaign idea. But it needs to be aimed at me and people like me who do not breed and do not show, and not couched in language that only those who do breed and do show can comprehend.
It also needs clear and simple guidance to all the welfare charities, community police and dog wardens, expresed in their language, so that they are able to decide what they shoiuld do if something is reported to them. I'm guessing that at the moment, they'd be faced with having to do a bit of legwork to get to grips with what may constitute an offence and what they could and should do about it. Hence (one of the reasons, anyway) that any such reports are often filed and not acted upon.
-
My problem with all this licensing is it may do more harm than good.
For example, chap on a shoot has a brilliant dog, somebody says ' are you going to breed from it'?
Chap on the shoot thinks 'aye that's a good idea' until he finds out all this rigamarole he has to go to and then he doesn't bother.
Result, good breeding line lost.
Example 2 Chap in the pub finds out how he can earn a bob or two, there's a bit of paperwork to be done but he figures if he knocks out an extra litter or two it'll be worth it.
Result, we've got a worse situation than now.
Sally and I posting together there.
-
Moleskins - you are right to be appalled at the dogs up for adoption on Many tears - many are ex-puppy farm dogs, kept in small cages having litter after litter, many not fit to be bred from and passing their inherited defects to the next generation. This rescue must know where the dogs come from why are the police not involved to shut them down? They are clearly not inspected by the local authority to ensure their welfare as is supposed to happen. It gets me so cross :rant: :rant: :rant:
The general public have to be aware of puppy farms and try to avoid buying puppies from these places. However the puppy farmers are very clever at disguising themselves as "pet breeders"
This is the Dogs trust advice
http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/az/p/puppyfarming/default.aspx#.UFrxyLJlTmA (http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/az/p/puppyfarming/default.aspx#.UFrxyLJlTmA)
-
My problem with all this licensing is it may do more harm than good.
For example, chap on a shoot has a brilliant dog, somebody says ' are you going to breed from it'?
Chap on the shoot thinks 'aye that's a good idea' until he finds out all this rigamarole he has to go to and then he doesn't bother.
Result, good breeding line lost.
I understand your point, but not all is lost. His dog was maybe out of a litter of 8 - siblings may already have been bred from - maybe already 20 dogs out there from same line! If he did breed there is no guarantee that offspring will be as good as that dog, or that good working homes will be found so maybe talent will be wasted anyway. If said chap really likes his dog and wants another for himself to take over in years to come - I think he'd do the paperwork ;) .
-
I like your point about the Many Tears organisation must know where these dogs are from and why aren't they doing anything. Good question.
On your other post you raise the question of others from the same litter being bred from so the line is already preserved. Not so sure about this because surely the object would be to breed from the best of that litter as regards, health, temperament, ability etc.
I've met one of my bitches siblings and he was useless, and I can already see differences in character of the pups in the litter I have.
-
your last post moleskins is getting nearer the hub of the problem but not quite
temperament at 8 weeks old is hard to define put two dogs from the same litter in two separate homes and you could have a placid well manered one and the other a nut job because of how it is treated
i would be the first to admit that i do breed dogs but the same selection and skills are applied to my dogs as with the pigs and the sheep plus they are reared in the home environment
those dogs highlighted should never have been bred from the owners never allowed any animal again and the dogs are of no use to anybody a drain on there new owners and everybody concerned
if everybody were to be like me you would not be having this discussion :farmer:
which may be a good thing or not depends on which side of the fence you are on :farmer:
-
I like your point about the Many Tears organisation must know where these dogs are from and why aren't they doing anything. Good question.
On your other post you raise the question of others from the same litter being bred from so the line is already preserved. Not so sure about this because surely the object would be to breed from the best of that litter as regards, health, temperament, ability etc. At last we agree!
I've met one of my bitches siblings and he was useless, and I can already see differences in character of the pups in the litter I have.
Spot on, Moleskins :bouquet: It's the aim of every responsible breeder - 'to breed better than what you have now', and the best method to do that is called line-breeding. Breed your health tested bitch to the best health tested dog you can find that has common ancestors with your bitch. You have to be aware of the bad points as well as the good ones obviously, and you will find good and bad in every litter. They can't all be champions! But the better you get at honing your knowledge of pedigrees, and matching them, the closer you get to perfection.
-
It's the aim of every responsible breeder - 'to breed better than what you have now', and the best method to do that is called line-breeding. Breed your health tested bitch to the best health tested dog you can find that has common ancestors with your bitch. You have to be aware of the bad points as well as the good ones obviously, and you will find good and bad in every litter. They can't all be champions! But the better you get at honing your knowledge of pedigrees, and matching them, the closer you get to perfection.
Well, I have an emotional and very negative reaction to that, Annie. So, rather than explore that here in this thread, which is about legislation, I'll start another thread to gain some understanding of approaches to breeding and the strengths and pitfalls of each.
Here 'tis (http://www.accidentalsmallholder.net/forum/index.php?topic=27681.0)
-
If anyone ever knows of a puppy farm, report it to both the local council and the police. Round here I know they have worked together, prosecuted and closed such awful places down.
-
Well, I have an emotional and very negative reaction to that, Annie.
Lor', I've been told this sounded aggressive. Wasn't meant to, was meant to indicate that I am uninformed on this subject so my reaction to it is emotional, not logical. And that reaction is negative, so I am wanting enlightenment.
So, so, sorry Annie if I phrased this clumsily and upset you. Wouldn't want to do that for the world. :bouquet:
I am definitely never ever going to try to tell anyone else how to phrase anything unambiguously ever again! :D
-
...
I am definitely never ever going to try to tell anyone else how to phrase anything unambiguously ever again! :D
:roflanim:
-
I learned something from this thread, I didn't know that so many ex breeding dogs were got rid of, and I probably still don't fully appreciate the extent of the puppy farming problem.
As I just got out of the shower it occurred to me, if the 'Jims' of this world continue to have the odd litter they are playing a part in reducing the sales of farmed puppies and that must surely be a good thing.
-
I learned something from this thread, I didn't know that so many ex breeding dogs were got rid of, and I probably still don't fully appreciate the extent of the puppy farming problem.
As I just got out of the shower it occurred to me, if the 'Jims' of this world continue to have the odd litter they are playing a part in reducing the sales of farmed puppies and that must surely be a good thing.
Sadly, so many of them are Moles - once they're too old to have puppies, the "puppy farmers" just want rid of them.
I've known of a fair few who were just shot, because they were in such a state the owner didn't want to rehome them - didn't want folks to realise the conditions they were kept in. I spoke to the RSPCA about one "puppy farmer" at the time & they just didn't seem to care :o (these "breeders" had over 40 bitches of the same breed, plus 2 "stud dogs"). OK, this was over 20 years ago, but I don't get the feeling that much has changed since them ::)
-
I have mixed feelings about Many Tears. On the one hand they do some fantastic work. On the other they reject any potential owners regardless of their knowledge and commitment if they have entire dogs either male or female. So they exclude genuine and committed breeders who want to help and have the knowledge and skill to do so. There was a very considerable argument on the Pointer Forum a couple of years ago on the subject. And they sometimes with their no destruction policy seem to have a lack of realism.
Puppy farms aren't illegal if they are properly licensed. There is one near us that advertises extensively and while they stay within the regulations there is nothing that can be done except to spread the message that people should never buy from a puppy farm however sorry they feel for the puppies concerned. And that is where I am critical of the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and the like. They have the resources to spread the message about how to buy a dog. They have clear and proper guidance to those who can be bothered to look for it but I would like to see that message on radio and tv broadcast to those who aren't going to look on their websites or the KC website.