[Beewyched]

I've copied this post from another thread to start a new one - Moleskins "go for it", but be gentle with me please  I so agree with what you're saying here Annie - legislation needed 
If all dog owners had to micro-chip & register their animals then ... let me think    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 
 
 

[Moleskins]

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. 

[Beewyched]

Enjoy your brekki Jim 

[Old Shep]

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!!

[Beewyched]

...

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 

[doganjo]

Jim is the person we need to stop breeding!  By ANY means whatsoever.

[Moleskins]

Jim is the person we need to stop breeding!  By ANY means whatsoever.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why.

[doganjo]

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. 

[Moleskins]

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.

[HelenVF]

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

[Rosemary]

Normal service is resumed then?

[Beewyched]

Normal service is resumed then?

Eeek!!! what have I done 

[SallyintNorth]

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.

[Moleskins]

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.

[funkyfish]

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?