Dealing with ultimatums

Occasionally we get a call, from one of those types who thinks its great to breed their staffie without any thought as to what they will do with the puppies, and with no regard to simply abandoning them to a dog rescue.

They haven't been able to get rid of the pups. They tell us to have them, or they're dead. We make all the arrangements - finding potentials home, fosterers and kennel space, adding up the financial cost of inoculations and kennels fees; numerous phone calls and pleas. Finally everything is in place in the space of a few hours then we call them back to give the okay. They change their mind. They're going to keep them and try again to flog them. A few weeks go by then the call comes again. Still he has puppies left, still the threat of death hangs over them. What can you do? Ignore it and pretend it never happened and leave him to carry out his vile threat? Or do the right thing, no matter how long it takes or however many people you have to beg and borrow from again. Of course, you have to try the latter. In such emergencies you are thankful of good hearts and minds, for they are those that come to your aid. Kennels make room and time. Fosterers offer their time and home (again), and prospective new owners who had previously said yes, and then were left with nothing still honour their word.

Such is the life of a dog rescue. I'm sure its repeated over and over again by all sorts of animal charities across the country.

Ban puppy farms

I believe passionately in the need for stricter controls for the breeding of all animals. For this reason puppy farms or mills should be illegal. What would define a puppy farm or mill? It could be as simple as any place where more than a specified number of breeding bitches are present. This would be decided by discussion which inevitably would probably lead to too high a number.

Any breeder who has more than five breeding bitches is in my opinion a puppy farm. For me that should be limit.

We are often told by legitimate breeders that their purpose in breeding is not financial, but for the dogs and furthering strong pedigree lines. If the former does not apply, then the selective careful breeding should be limited to a minimum number of breeding bitches. Five breeding bitches producing up to 60 puppies a year is way too excessive for me, but I guess that would be a feasible limit to impose.

There is currently no desire to impose such legislation, other than that which is being discussed by the Welsh Assembly. Wales has a particularly problem not least because its great expanses of rural terrain and former farms allow perfect seclusion for the unsavoury savagery of puppy farming.

It is regrettable that today, in 2010 the UK has pet supermarkets and online retailers advertising puppies for sale. Those dumb enough to buy from these sources get what they get in dogs that are likely to have a higher chance of hereditary diseases, disabilities, behavioural problems and even present injuries otherwise hidden from view such as broken or fractured limbs.

It is time for the government to put forward a plan to eliminate these awful places of barbaric practice and in turn further limit the mass production of unwanted dogs.

Dog Breeding Act - the Database

As mentioned in previous posts, a new national, free to access, public database would be created to support legitimate breeders, legitimate buyers and the media to adhere to the Act and encourage the good sale of dogs.

Whatever form the database takes it need now be complicated, flashy or expensive. It simply needs to be a database that ANYONE can view, but that only registered and compliant persons can access to amend or add.

Local authorities who administer the licensing and registered will have access designated to certain staff. Veterinary professionals would be allowed one access point per practice. The police may be given access, and the registered animal/dog rescue charities should be given access as well.

Only the local authority would have the power to delete entries.

Access to the Database

Add
Local Authorities, Veterinary Professionals, registered animal/dog rescues

Amend
Local Authorities, Veterinary Professionals (subject to review and acceptance by Local Authorities)

View
Anyone free of charge but at designated times to allow for smooth operation and upgrades and amendments, perhaps between 10am and 4pm or whatever time is designated by the designers.

Delete
Local Authorities

The importance of the database is that it is quick and easy to use.

For example, a veterinary professional is asked to check a pregnant bitch. The dog is identified by her microchip and the dog is Registered Dog. The veterinary professional will then either access the database immediately, or record details on paper or other means so that he/she or another appointed person in the practice can input the information to the database later.

Lets look at it the long way round. The owner brings a dog in that has had a checked history with the vets, perhaps missing booster injections, not being micro chipped and obvious neutered. The vet has the owners details and the dog, name and breed.

They record the details of the pregnancy. They access the database. If the owner is not Licensed (in breach of the DBA) and the dog is not Registered (in breach of the DBA) they will make an entry. No penalty would be given to an owner in this circumstance because we would not want to discourage people obtaining veterinary advice, however they would be liable in the following tax year for the License and Registration.

The simple owner and dog details are entered, and the database undertakes an immediate match with any records held. If none are held the database will send an electronic notice to the local authority to follow up the information and ensure the License and Registration demand is issued in the next tax year, and that the fees are paid (subsequent penalties will arise for late or non-payment).

The Dog Breeding Act: summary

So what would be achieved by this proposed (fanciful) piece of legislation.

1. No breeder would be allow to produce more than four litters a year
2. Veterinary professionals would register on pregnant bitches they come across (the onus will also be on the owner to do so)
3. All puppies produced must be registered and micro chipped
4. Breeders will be legally responsible to ensure owners are responsible
5. Breeders must accept any unwanted pups back within four weeks of sale
6. The advertisement of any dog will be restricted only to those dogs registered, and those breeders licenses, or to animal/dog charities and rescues
7. The ban on the advertised sale of dogs would extend to all forms of advertising in the UK
8. The medium used to advertise the sale of dogs will be required to ensure the license and registration is in place and current
9. A free to access online database of licensed breeders and registered puppies will be provided by the government

Dog Breeding Act: Part 3 Control of Breeding

Dog Breeding Act
Part 3
Control of Breeding

The next aspect of legislation is to ban the puppy farm, or any mass production puppy mills.

The level at which a breeder becomes a puppy farm is open to discussion, but I think any person or persons, or any property that breeds more than five litters a year (interestingly this is the current point a which someone is simply classed as a breeder) should be classed as in the mass production puppy farming business.

Legitimate breeders tell us they are not in the breeding business for the money, and therefore are not actually in any business at all. It is a hobby or pastime, an interest to them. Such comments should therefore confirm that they would not oppose a limit on the number of litters produced each year.

Any registered licensed breeder would therefore be limited to four litters a year (from a minimum of four bitches). Above this amount and the breeder is breaking the law. What penalties would apply have to be strong enough to punish those that break the law, and to deter those thinking of it.

By bringing the veterinary industry firmly in with the registering of pregnancies, births and chipping reduces avoidance of the legislation. The openness of the online register encourages responsible buying, and the ban on the advertising for unregistered breeders control those that can breed legitimately.

Therefore the penalty has to be in the form of cash and seizure of dogs and a ban on future dog ownership for a set period of time.

Dog Breeding Act: Part 2 Sale of Dogs

Dog Breeding Act
Part 2
Sale of Dogs

The current problem with unscrupulous or 'hobby' breeders is that they can produce litter after litter, without the scrutiny of authorities by simply evading the current licenses and advertising the sale of their dogs in almost any medium available.

Common routes to advertise the sale of dogs include classified advertisements in newspapers and magazine, online advertising, internet forums and chat rooms, cards in shop windows, social networking groups, car boots, friends, family, the local pub and any other meeting place or networking arena.

This part of the 'Act' would limit where unregistered dogs are sold or rehomed but would not make it completely impossible to sell dogs. Pit bulls continue to be bred, bought, sold, imported and exported in the UK. However their activities remain underground and limited to those within that circle. It is not impossible to obtain a pit bull, but you would have to go out and try and find it first. Whereas, for almost any other breed it is simply a matter of checking the local classified ads and biding your time until the breed you want appears.

The Sale of Dogs therefore would prohibit the advertised sale or rehoming or any dog (it could cover any animal if necessary) in any medium in the UK unless from a registered bitch and licensed breeder or a registered dog/animal rescue organisation.

The ban would cover all forms of media - print and online, radio and television (however unlikely), forums, chat rooms, social networking groups, markets, shops, car boots, and so on. The onus of proof is on the advertiser, but the onus to satisfy the proof is on the medium. Therefore the breeder (the advertiser) must prove to the medium (for example the newspaper) that they are licensed (by provision of their license number) and the medium has a onus to satisfy the proof (by checking against a public online register).

The online public register will act as a tool for breeders to advertise their dogs free of charge (they will be paying for it through their license fees), and also prospective owners to source legitimate dogs. The freedom to access the register is essential to allow media and other avenues to quickly, easily and without cost check the validity of a customers request to advertise.

Such restrictions would apply to any source of advertising or sale. So a car boot, where dogs are sold would be the responsibility of the car boot operator to ensure those dogs are licenses.

The penalties for the media breaking this ban should easily exceed the revenue generated from the advertisement. As most adverts in newspapers are small classifieds costing less than £50 the penalty to the media should be in the region of £100 or twice the advertised rate for the space of advert. The penalty could be a fixed issue from a police officer or any authorised agent, including local authorities or designated charitable bodies and must be paid within 28 days to avoid a summons to court, whereby the penalties would rise steeply.

In an instant the unregistered breeder, the unscrupulous breeder and the hobby breeder would cut off from the most popular sources of selling their unregistered litters.

As mentioned above, this would not stop the breeding, or the sale of puppies, but it would limit the avenues people can use. Leaving them few options but to join the underworld associating with pit bull breeders, hidden chat rooms and secret social networking groups.

Dog Breeding Act: Part 1 Licensing of Breeders and Registration of Dogs

I have decided to call my proposal the Dog Breeding Act. I do not for one minute believe any species-specific legislation would ever be passed to cover breeding of domestic animals other than in an outright ban (Dangerous Dogs Act), so please humour me.

Dog Breeding Act
Part 1
Licensing of Breeders

The current process for licensing breeders is aimed squarely at the legitimate breeder*. Unfortunately the scope is far too weak. First off, it is generally used to describe breeders whose bitches produce a total of five or more litters a year. Many legitimate breeders do not fall into this category, and the hobby breeder is almost totally excluded (as was the intention of the misguided Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, amended in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999.

* I use this term to mean those breeders who currently breed dogs, in limited controlled numbers, who would accept an unwanted pup back in order to rehome it, and who are interested in the mental and physical welfare of the dog as opposed to the appearance-orientated requirements of the KC. These breeders would not abandon their bitches once they have passed their reproductive age, nor would they destroy puppies who did not fit the appearance stereotypes that some in the dog world insist on.

There are many good points in the current legislation. For example:

• Bitches are not to be mated until they are at least 12 months old.
• No bitch is permitted to have more than 6 litters in total.
• Bitches must not give birth to puppies within 12 months of producing a previous litter.
• All first time licences must involve the inspection of the premises by a vet and ourselves.
• Subsequent inspections may be by ourselves alone though we may call a vet if we feel the need to.
• A licensed breeder must not sell a dog to a member of the public if he/she believes that person will then sell the dog on to another individual.
• Dogs must not be sold under 8 weeks of age other than to a licensed pet shop.**

** this is plainly ridiculous, NO dog should be sold in a pet shop.

I believe that most legitimate breeders adhere to the above principles.

Therefore the scope of the existing Act needs to be expanded to include any and all dog breeder, even if it is a hobby breeder, accidental, or a one-off. Every single pregnant bitch must be Registered through their owner and the above criteria met (and expanded on).

The cost of the license varies widely from area to area, I have seen as low as £95 and as much as £270. These fees are however inadequate because they fail to take into account the number of dogs produced. I would introduce fees based on breeding bitches and dogs (those dogs that have not been neutered), and the number of puppies produced.

A basic annual registration fee of £100 for the License
£50 for each unneutered bitch ***
£25 for each male ***
£25 for each puppy born in the previous tax year. ***

*** this is the Registered nature of the dogs

Using the above example, a breeder with two bitches (assuming they use stud dogs) that each had a little with a total of 10 puppies produced in 2009/10 would pay £450 in 2010/11. If during 2010/11 they gave their bitches a rest, and no puppies were produced the license would fall in 2011/12 to £200 or they could simply allow their license to expire and not pay anything in 2011/12. The license would need to be tight to avoid people getting their bitches pregnant in one tax year, but only registering them in the tax year the puppies are born.

In addition to the criteria mentioned above the following should be added or amended:

• breeders are legally responsible for vetting prospective owners and keeping detailed contact information of those they sell their puppies too
• breeders are under obligation to accept a puppy back from the new owner if within four weeks the new owner wishes to surrender their dog (no refund necessary)
• all puppies produced must be microchipped by a veterinary practitioner
• veterinary professionals are legally required to add pregnant bitches and puppies to the database (mentioned below).
• a free public database will set up linking the breeder, the dogs, their puppies, the microchip numbers and the new owners.
• new owners will be traced via the microchips if their dogs are found, and will be charged any incarceration rates applicable, and should they decide to refuse to accept their dog back shall be liable for all kennel and related expenses up to that point, with an additional fixed penalty. Such payments being made to the authorities are then paid either to the local authority or charitable body caring for the animal. Such persons would also be liable to an immediate ban on buying animals (their details stored on the database).

A difference needs to be made between Licensed Breeder and Registered Dogs. The breeder must be licensed, paying the above fees. The breeder must all ensure their dogs are Registered, this encompasses all their adult dogs, whether owned for pleasure, business or hobby breeding or not AND all the puppies produced and available for sale or rehoming. Failure to comply with any of these measures would face a financial penalty, and possible cancelation of their license.

Now the biggest concern of this is non-compliance, but Part 2 of the Dog Breeding Act deals with this by ensuring that only registered licensed breeders can advertise the sale of dogs (other than dog rescues/charities) in ANY medium.

Could you realitiscally keep all your puppies if you could not sell them?

This was the wise poser raised on our Facebook page a few days ago. The poster raises a valid and interesting point. Only today we had a 'breeder' ring to ask if we could take a puppy off him - the owner had returned it, and it was not getting on with his "bitch".

When people face very real social economic problems that result in the reluctant surrendering of their dog, they will take priority over a arrogant and selfish breeder who cannot accept responsibility for the problem he has caused.

We therefore would decline help in this case. In fact, the only circumstance where we would help is if we received a financial contribution and the bitch being neutered. With over 100,000 stray and unwanted dogs (Animal Madhouse, Channel 4, November 3 2010) in the UK at the moment, and as many 40% of them Staffordshire bull terriers there can be no corner given to the unscrupulous breeder whose sole intention is to make money.

[I stress unscrupulous because I do want to separate those that breed wisely and in limited numbers, who are responsible with those they sell their puppies to, and who willingly accept and attempt to rehome (themselves) those puppies that are returned, from those that have led the recent explosion in Staffordshire bull terriers.]

So what is the answer? It is difficult to see a way of reducing unnecessary or unwanted breeding without tough measures, back by legislation, penalties and a strict licensing regime.

Over the next few posts I will put forward my proposal to control breeding, to allow legitimate breeders to continue to operate and to hopefully inconvenience those others to the point that it no longer becomes a financially beneficial process.

New dog legislation, more wind and red tape

The issue of dangerous dogs has reared itself again in recent weeks. It appears animals are rightly featuring as an issue in the coming election.

Regardless of party politics I do not think anything that any of the political parties are proposing will really make a difference.

What is necessary is a way of controlling the trash-breeders who breed from their bitches over and over again, selling their puppies at whatever price or dumping them on rescue organisations. These people care little where the puppies go, and rarely take them back if things don't work out.

The principle source of customers for these trash-breeders is the classified ad and the pet shop window. This is what should be stopped first. The only people who should be allowed to advertise the sale of any animal should a person licensed to do so (and the license is already there for reputable dog breeders, though it will need to be toughened up a bit), plus charities and rescue organisations. Dog breeders would be required as many of them already do to involve vets in the care of the bitch, chip the puppies and home check the potential owners. The chipping then becomes more effective as this can be linked to any proposed (though ridiculous) insurance database.

Good Breeders, Bad Breeders

I know there are plenty of good breeders. People who breed small quantities of pups and ensure that their new owners of thoroughly vetted. These breeders will even offer to take back an unwanted dog if it proves necessary.

Unfortunately as many of our local newspapers will testify the country is full of those people who should be called breeders. They are puppy farmers - and they do so not just in the farms across England and Wales but in council and privately rented houses up and down the country. Many of our towns and cities will have those individuals who see a dog solely as a money. They are not interested in breed standard, temperament, disease, socialising, etc. Only money.

We have had two dogs come in from an individual who claimed all manner of personal hardship. The violins were in full flow. We were new and fresh to this and bought the pathetic tale. The two dogs are beautiful but exhausted. They are in retirement now and await their loving new home knowing that their days of puppy-machines are over. This individual, who was so poor, broken and depressed took little more than 2 weeks before getting their next two puppies. Staffies of course. Money has to be made you see.

Only a properly regulated, and punishable system of breeding can stop this. There is neither the will nor the time to do so. The Animal Welfare Act is already proving ineffective despite its fanfare. A simple dog license is not the answer. Any legislation is only as good as its enforcement. If no one enforces the law gets broken.