Charities U turn on Puppy Trade

[zeta1454]

It is a sad day when those organisations dog lovers support and rely on to champion the cause of ethical breeding and responsible ownership fail to live up to their statements.

Marc Abraham of PupAid as reported in Our Dogs newspaper has been hugely disappointed and rightly so at the lamentable back tracking by four major charities on the need for puppy buyers to always see the mother with pups and the ban on third party sales. The RSPCA's Scrap the Puppy Trade campaign is described by him as "schizophrenic"

https://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/newsa.ph ... at_inquiry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jules]

Really interesting and insightful, however let down by the poor and inappropriate use of the word "schizophrenic".

My two bug bares Puppy farming and the hypocrisy that sits behind it and also unnecessary indirect/direct discrimination against mental health.

[zeta1454]

Really interesting and insightful, however let down by the poor and inappropriate use of the word "schizophrenic".

My two bug bares Puppy farming and the hypocrisy that sits behind it and also unnecessary indirect/direct discrimination against mental health.

Having a sister who developed schizophrenia from the age of 14, I can understand that the careless or inappropriate use of the word "schizophrenic" may be upsetting. I suspect it's use by Marc Abraham on this occasion was an indication of the frustration and despair felt by an individual who has fought tirelessly to get some meaningful action achieved to halt the mass import of puppies from abroad and the third party and online selling that bolsters up and feeds into the puppy farming business. When the organisations one would expect to support these aims seem to have lost their grip on reality - condemning the puppy trade on the one hand while promoting its continuance by calling for those engaged in it simply to be licensed, I can appreciate his desperation.

I had a similar concern over the utterly inappropriate comparison made by the RSPCA of living, sentient puppies to scrap metal, implying that somehow the trade in recyclable material was in any way an acceptable comparison with the profiteering puppy trade. A more appropriate comparison might have been made with human trafficking or the slave trade. I wonder if those individuals and organisations working years ago to push through legislation to abolish the slave trade would have thought the best way to achieve this would have been to licence the traders so that as long as someone had a human trafficking licence and the slaves were fed and watered no-one need worry!

Personally I find it really depressing that so many organisations who purport to be opposed to this vile trade are great at self publicity in proclaiming how terrible it is but fail dismally when it comes to actually doing anything meaningful to stop it. Many people would regard a ban on the wholesale import of puppies ( including those brought in by some rescues to supply the demand for "purebred" or "designer" pups) and making it illegal to sell living creatures online or through third party selling as exactly what the major animal charities would be fighting to achieve but in actuality they are simply wanting to set up a system whereby profits can be made by other organisations through a licensing system

This from the RSPCA's Scrap the Puppy Trade:

"Anyone selling a puppy must have a licence.
Strong penalties and fines for anyone caught selling a puppy without a licence.
A national database of puppy sellers (funded by licence fees) to aid enforcement.
All internet and offline advertisers (like Pets4Homes, PreLoved, Friday Ad) must display the licence number of the seller in order to list an advert.
Sellers must produce their licence when they sell a puppy."

As most UK based puppy farms are currently licensed and passed as acceptable by councils and the RSPCA, licensing will make not one bit of difference to the home based trade nor with legal or illegal imports where paperwork is regularly forged anyway. By all means, as happens with Assured Breeder Scheme, introduce mandatory inspections and certificate breeders but inevitably only the best breeders will comply and the worst will evade the system and continue to supply the demand for puppies from those unthinking, irresponsible and unsuitable potential dog owners who would never be able to obtain a puppy from a good breeder. For an inspection and licensing system where living creatures are concerned to have any credibility, those carrying out the inspection will have to be experienced, knowledgeable and have a deep understanding of the needs of those living creatures both those being used for breeding and their offspring and how they are raised and cared for. Effectively they will need at some time or in some way to have knowledge and experience of breeding I mean would you send a chef out to assess and licence a plumber or electrician? If, as happens now, inspections by the council are carried out by any official thought suitable at the time (from Trading Standards officers to Gypsy Liaison Officers ) is it any wonder the licensing of puppy breeding establishments is a total waste of time other than as a source of income to the council. The only possible benefit to the puppy buying public currently is that, as most councils require a licence for anyone breeding over four litters a year, if a breeder does have a licence, it can be an indication that they are a large scale breeder which may help puppy seekers avoid them!

Although the RSPCA has long lost credibility with many of the public and certainly anyone who breeds responsibly, as highlighted in their demands above, I have been hugely disappointed that the other major dog charities have backtracked on their stated position and in effect colluded with the puppy farming trade by their acceptance that it is perfectly fine for puppies to be sold through pet shops, from postcards in a window or over the Internet as long as the seller has a licence. It is a very sad revelation for anyone who cares about the welfare of companion animals

[BeeBee]

It serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever in any campaign to attack others who are fighting for the same cause. To do so in the way that Marc Abraham chooses to - ie in the media rather than by working behind the scenes is damaging and not at all what the dogs need.

Personally I find it really depressing that so many organisations who purport to be opposed to this vile trade are great at self publicity in proclaiming how terrible it is but fail dismally when it comes to actually doing anything meaningful to stop it.s

And there are those, me included who could share a few insights into those seeking self-publicity in this whole depressing cause. It would make plenty of people reassess how they read and understand what's being pushed and what agendas some have. Emails I've received from those who apparently care about the same thing I do are disgustingly unpleasant, yet I will not make them public for the reasons above. I care about the cause, the dogs and absolutely nothing else. For all the while the breeding dogs continue to suffer as a few noisy personalities promote themselves and not the real issues.

Spending the time I do on this single issue, I prefer to back the organisations who deal daily with the whole trade, and see the misery it entails from licensed, unlicensed, legal and illegal operations. And I look further afield and know what works and is likely to be accepted by this government and from that, can be built upon in years to come, as we're never going to have the perfect world we want to see. The campaigning will continue for a long, long time yet whatever steps and measures get brought in by this government. We have to make the best of what we can achieve for dogs whenever we get the political opportunity to do so and keep the pressure on for more, and more.

And at least 3 of the big organisations, Blue Cross, RSPCA & Dogs Trust, who Marc Abraham slams into in that article, issued rebuttals for how he presented their positions, I hope to see them printed in that magazine. Anyone can ask them for their positions and get the information.

[zeta1454]

The organisations referred to in the initial post have given responses published in Dog World newspaper, which do nothing at all to instil confidence that any of them have any understanding of the reality of the problem..

Some of the responses ( apart from waffle) are quoted here:

Ms Boyden from the Blue Cross: "We never suggested ‘legitimising a trade route’ between Eastern Europe and Great Britain; we firmly believe that the most radical solution to the illegal puppy trade would be an enforced ban on any puppy under six months old from entering Great Britain under the pet travel scheme,”

“Dealers are exploiting the UK demand for puppies, not dogs. A six-month-old dog would be far harder to sell once reaching the UK and in turn would remove the commercial desirability of this puppy trade. The intention of the age ban is not to ‘legitimise the trade’, quite the opposite; we believe it would radically cut it off."

( and of course puppy smugglers are well known for being honest about the age of the puppies they import )

A spokesman for Battersea said:

“Along with other charities, Battersea has successfully led calls for a system of registration for everyone selling pets both online and offline, for the closing of all loopholes that allow underage puppy sales and for the current licensing threshold to be lowered, so more breeders must face inspection. "


Alluding to Mr Abraham’s petition ( Where's Mum?) ...the RSPCA said that seeing puppies with their mothers would not ensure their welfare.

“We provide guidance for those wanting to buy a puppy which includes advice to see the pups with their mum, but, sadly nowadays this is simply not enough. As some of our recent court cases have shown, unscrupulous dealers have become wise to this and used ‘stooge’ dogs to pretend the mother is there or simply make excuses as to why the ‘mother’ can’t be there.

“....Banning the third party sale of puppies would not work; it would instead further drive the trade underground, with dealers continuing as they are – posing as ‘responsible breeders’ to trick unsuspecting buyers.

“We believe the focus must be on improving the system for selling and breeding puppies. We believe the entire trade must be licensed, regulated, and enforced to good welfare standards. At the moment it isn’t. Puppy dealers are slipping through the net as they don’t have to meet any welfare standards.

“We welcome any evidence to show that banning third party sales would work but to date none has been produced.”

The full article can be read here:

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/1 ... 3907e878da" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So the idea of asking to see the pups with their mother which was flavour of the month with anti-Puppy Farm organisations last year is now rubbished by the RSPCA as too easy to get round

They also maintain that there is no evidence that banning third party sales (pet shops / online etc) would work but are 100% sure that regulation and licensing
will solve the problem. Only a small proportion of breeders in the UK are currently licensed as most councils do not require licensing for those who breed fewer than four litters a year - they are utterly unable to police this small proportion having no experienced, knowledgeable inspectors and virtually no money to finance effective policing of licence holders. This from the Puppy Love website:

"Puppy farms in England, Wales and Scotland are licensed by their local council and are not illegal. The premises are inspected by the council who issue the license every year. The inspections focus on the premises and little attention is paid to the health and well being of the dogs. It is the responsibility of the licensing council to ensure dog breeding facilities in their area meet high welfare standards and in many instances they fail to do this"

Sadly the RSPCA and many other anti-puppy farm organisations are so blinded by hatred of anyone who breeds dogs that they would rather muddle the whole issue with red tape, rules and regulations ( which will not work as the trade will continue outside the law) than learn from those who know ( that is the best breeders) how puppies should be bred and raised and prioritising the education of the public into how to source and recognise a top class breeder when looking for a puppy. What puppy buyers need is positive, helpful guidance on avoiding poor quality breeders and simply hurling abuse at all breeders and showing endless images on social media, newspapers and TV of the tragic misery of the puppy farming trade is never going to achieve that. Actually I do not think it is that difficult to distinguish between the good and the bad breeders if people do know what to look for but there will always be some who will be taken in by the flashy websites of licensed breeders and no laws are going to make any difference there:

And a last comment from the Puppy Love website which pretty much sums up the effectiveness of licensing ( the great hope of the big 4 charities ) and the truth about third party sales ( which according to the RSPCA it would be pointless to ban):

"You are being mislead into thinking that LICENSED premises means dog are kept in humane conditions when nothing could be further from the truth. Councils inspect their licensed dog breeders once per year, at which point the breeders will clean up the mess and hide any sick dogs from sight. Every pet shop in the land buys its pups in from puppy farms. No decent breeder who cared for their dogs would sell a pup through a third party, they have too much care for their pups to do that. Almost every ad you see online or in newspaper will be selling farmed pups. Wake up, you are being duped! Dogs4us also say they give you a six month gauruntee as though thy are doing you a favour, wrong! you are covered by Sale of goods act which means if your pup is faulty in any way you are covered by law. Please be aware of your rights, you may need them."

[zeta1454]

A report issued by a coalition of organisations fighting the puppy farm trade, detailing their responses to the full question and answer session at the EFRA sub- committee on Animal Welfare- Domestic Pets is equally critical of the Big 4 Charities:

Our coalition of organisations campaign for higher standards of welfare for breeding dogs in general, and in particular, for the prohibition of puppy sales via licensed third party outlets (pet shops). This is the simplest and most effective means of ensuring transparency, accountability and thus responsibility for commercial dog breeders. To this end we function as campaigners, researchers and investigators and in these roles have amassed extensive knowledge and evidence of licensed breeding and pet shop establishments.
Having reviewed the evidence submitted by ‘The Big Four’, our coalition found itself asking the question ‘Did the dogs deserve more?’. We believe the answer to be a resounding, yes."

The full report can be read here:

https://cariadcampaign.files.wordpress. ... -more3.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BeeBee]

A report issued by a coalition of organisations fighting the puppy farm trade, detailing their responses to the full question and answer session at the EFRA sub- committee on Animal Welfare- Domestic Pets is equally critical of the Big 4 Charities:

That particular coalition changes regularly. Hard to know at any one time who's in it, and if you ask why, interesting answers follow. It's an interesting way to spend resources, both financial and time, picking apart the work of others who are fighting for the same end.

[zeta1454]

Sadly the RSPCA at any event is most definitely not working for the same end as those who are seriously working to prevent the sale of intensively bred puppies via shops and dealers. As stated in their own Scrap the Puppy Trade (sic ) campaign their aim is not to stop the trade but to licence puppy farmers and dealers and to support the sale of intensively bred puppies through licensed retail outlets and licensed third parties:

"Anyone selling a puppy must have a licence.
Strong penalties and fines for anyone caught selling a puppy without a licence.
A national database of puppy sellers (funded by licence fees) to aid enforcement.
All internet and offline advertisers (like Pets4Homes, PreLoved, Friday Ad) must display the licence number of the seller in order to list an advert.
Sellers must produce their licence when they sell a puppy."

As someone who is sickened by the misery and suffering of intensively bred puppies and the horrific existence of their parents, I find it baffling how any organisation or individual that has any care for dogs' welfare can seriously defend those who do not support a ban on the sale of puppies through pet stores ( thousands of puppies each year, every one of which has been bred in dire circumstances ) ; those who do not support a ban on the sale of puppies through third party sellers and dealers ( again all of which have been intensively bred ) and those who simply support the licensing of those who engage in this trade as though somehow the suffering is acceptable as long as it is licensed.

Somewhere along the line personal vendettas and political in fighting seem to have obscured the need to put the suffering of the dogs as a priority. While the issue of companion animal breeding as a whole may be a complex one, some aspects are far less so and would be simpler to address with a minimum of cost. Ban any retail outlet and third party from selling puppies - ban online selling sites from listing puppies - this is not complicated to demand nor to achieve and if that is not an objective of everyone who wants to start out on the road to tackling the puppy trade it certainly should be.

For anyone who wants some facts and figures on licensed third party selling of puppies in the UK should check this link:

https://cariadcampaign.files.wordpress. ... -20162.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And their inevitable conclusion:
"Licensing is regarded as a tool to protect animal welfare and consumers by ensuring that basic minimum standards are complied with. However, our study has shown that it is ineffective on both counts. The regulation itself is inadequate; it also has tremendous variation in application and enforcement. There is almost no deterrent for non- compliance and once granted, a licence may even serve to protect the licensee. We do not believe that the licensing system as it currently functions is fit for purpose. Rather than amending the basic parameters, a radical rethink of the entire process is required towards a system which incentivises the highest standards and will ensure that puppies are bred and reared to meet the expectations of those purchasing them.

Puppy buyers want to be able to confidently buy a puppy that has the best possible chance of being a happy and healthy companion. Businesses that sell puppies as family companions should have a legal duty to ensure as far as possible that the animals they are producing are fit for that purpose.

There is no way that selling puppies through licensed pet shops can meet this objective, because selling puppies from premises other than where they were born has an inherently negative impact on their welfare that cannot be neutralised."








Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BeeBee]

Banning the obvious pet shops is a simple thing the government should and could do at any time. Don't mistake my understanding of this and support of the organisations who understand the whole trade, not just a small part of it, for anything other than wanting an end to puppy farming, an end to all kennelled type of breeding and an end to all sales of puppies without their mothers being present. BUT...

While the issue of companion animal breeding as a whole may be a complex one, some aspects are far less so and would be simpler to address with a minimum of cost. Ban any retail outlet and third party from selling puppies - ban online selling sites from listing puppies - this is not complicated to demand nor to achieve and if that is not an objective of everyone who wants to start out on the road to tackling the puppy trade it certainly should be.

At last week's EFRA committee hearing where representatives from online selling sites Gumtree & Facebook, the group PAAG and Pup Aid gave evidence and were asked by MPs about this area, the issues of such apparently simple bans were thrashed out. Secret sites are a real problem and a ban would likely increase this, so that no-one would know what was going on or where the poor dogs are. This trade is lucrative and populated by criminal elements.

When asked how a ban on 3rd party selling would be enforced - there's no point in new laws if they are not enforced - Julia Carr who was representing Pup Aid (and by extension CARIAD as they're one and the same with their coalition) had to be pressed several times, and eventually her answer to enforcement was to rely on the 'self-motivation of breeders'. That was it. That's how the group that freely criticises others coming up with solutions and evidence are proposing a statutory ban on selling by 3rd parties will be enforced. Whereas, the organisations who directly deal with the dealers/puppy farmers/criminals etc etc, know that to tackle the massive problem, a robust system of statutory licensing, tied closely to welfare, enforced by those trained to do so, is a far more likely way of getting this under control.

Relying on 'self-motivation of breeders' is pretty much why we're in the mess we're in.

I am pleased that the main organisations who I hope have the ear of the government and who know what's needed are in the main agreeing with each other. This from the Blue Cross echoes much of what the RSPCA and Dogs Trust are saying and for anyone to suggest they don't know what they're talking about and have it all wrong, or are betraying the dogs is to me extraordinary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rachael ... 39522.html

[zeta1454]

Although this debate has been between just two of us on the Forum, I do find it a really interesting one in the different approaches to tackling the puppy farm issue that it has highlighted among those who want to see an end to large scale commercial breeding of dogs and I hope that it will give food for thought to puppy seekers as well as owners on the Forum and elsewhere.

From my viewpoint, as someone who would like to see a total ban on third party puppy sales, the issue of an outright ban on pet stores selling puppies hardly seems one that would require any different enforcement than e.g. the ban on smoking in public buildings. Pet stores are not hidden and can be closed down if they break the law. Every single puppy and kitten sold in a pet store is from a disreputable commercial breeder - every single one. They may not be the biggest source of all puppies and kittens sold but they provide ease of access for people to just walk in off the street and walk out with one or more and no thought given to these creatures' previous or future welfare.

From the Kennel Club website:

"Sales figures of puppies sold by pet shops and dealers: although only 2% of pet shops sell puppies (around 70 UK outlets), of the current dog population of around 9 million, 16% were sold via pet shops, equating to approximately 1.5 million dogs (2014 local authority survey and Kennel Club 'Puppy Awareness Week' (PAW) survey 2014). These dogs are most likely to have been bred by 'puppy farmers'. In total 41% of people who bought a puppy in the last year did not see the puppy with its mother and 53% did not see its breeding environment, meaning those puppies are highly likely to have been bred by puppy farmers and sold by third parties (2014 Kennel Club PAW survey).
Health of puppies sold by puppy farmers: 20% of puppies (four times more than the average) bought from pet shops or directly from the internet suffer from parvovirus, an often fatal disease which can cost up to £4,000 to treat (2014 Kennel Club PAW survey)."

A number of US and Canadian cities have already introduced this type of ban:
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2016/04/phil ... ll-dogs-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If third party sales via pet stores or via sites which include pet sales but are exclusively online were also banned, this may be harder to regulate certainly but by making them illegal ( as with banning sales through pet stores) it will serve to highlight to the general public that this is a disreputable and criminal trade whereas at present too many buyers think there is nothing wrong with obtaining a puppy from this source. Minor "celebrities" and their partners are currently happy to endorse businesses that sell puppies in this way which would presumably not be the case for an illegal activity and, while it may seem bizarre to the thinking public, there actually are some people who are keen to mimic the activities of their famous idols even in something that should require research and independent thought such as introducing a puppy into your family.


The fact is that no legal enforcement is ever going to be 100% effective with regard to any banned activity - child exploitation, slavery, domestic violence, and other illegal activities continue unabated in the UK despite legislation and the more domestic the environment in which these activities occur the easier it is for them to reman hidden. That does not mean that they should not be banned nor that they should be given legal legitimacy by licensing. Yes, illegal activities will continue as long as the demand for what they supply remains strong but at least banning them makes it harder ( in the case of puppy sales) for anyone to walk in to a premises and walk out with a puppy or two, and makes those looking for a puppy from hidden sources in no doubt that what they are doing is illegal, shameful and unacceptable.

It is certainly not impossible for major online selling sites to comply with legislation forbidding the sale of certain "items" . eBay UK, for example, has for many years had a ban on the sale of animals via their website.

I am also intrigued by some of the statements by Rachael Millar of the Blue Cross in the link given:

" We..... want to see mandatory codes of conduct applied to all sites advertising pets for sale, with each site required to educate owners before they buy to prevent impulse purchases and weed out bad breeders.......And....stricter welfare regulations that look to be easily enforceable alongside this - not to mention the appeal to government of additional sales tax entering the country's coffers ..."


Currently a number of the major pet selling sites already have " Codes of Conduct" clearly displayed on their web pages which do warn buyers regarding best practice but these sites remain the primary outlets used by dealers, puppy farmers and backstreet breeders to reach out to puppy seekers. How many people using these kind of sources for puppy buying are going to read "Codes of Conduct" on a web page and not just go straight to the cute puppy pictures of the advertiser? Realistically, how is an Internet selling site ever going to effectively "educate owners" or "weed out bad breeders". To believe it is even possible is naive in the extreme and what about 'weeding out' bad owners...or does that not matter? Champdogs which is one of the more discerning dog websites does require certificated evidence of (for example) clear eye tests for parents of miniature schnauzer puppies before they will allow a litter to be advertised as do a number of Facebook dog groups which allow advertising of litters but even this has limitations as regards reliability if someone was criminally inclined to defraud and is certainly not of itself sufficient evidence of overall good breeding practice in any event.

Considering that Rachael Cross finds a ban on pet shops selling puppies too difficult to reliably enforce, I would love to know her reasons for believing that licensing as a means of dealing with bad breeding practices will be far simpler to police and details of her strategy for making "stricter welfare regulations...easily enforceable" would be interesting.

The most telling part of her statement for me is actually " the appeal to government of additional sales tax entering the country's coffers" . When it comes down to it, money rules. When big organisations are involved suddenly it is financial concerns rather than welfare that drive their actions - just as with the current licensing system, extending it is simply a means of increasing revenue and precious little to do with actual animal welfare.

As the Panorama programme highlighted, current licensing requirements are minimal for dog breeders in the UK. This is from the government's web page re obtaining a breeder's licence:

"A vet or other inspector will visit and want to see that your dogs:

live in suitable accommodation
receive adequate food, water and bedding
get enough exercise
are transported in safe and comfortable conditions
are protected in case of fire or other emergency
are protected from the spread of disease"

The puppy breeding facilities shown on the Panorama programme were all licensed, inspected and legal premises. Council inspectors were happy to pass as "adequate" an establishment with up to 300 breeding bitches being kept in sheds, in boxes with drip feed water supply and dry food, some with no obvious access to natural light. So I would say, as in my previous post, that licensing is most definitely not working as a system of protecting dogs in breeding premises and is actually legitimising animal abuse. Under the RSPCA's proposed requirement that online selling sites would need to display the breeder's licence number, the breeders shown in the programme would be able to do so and those dogs and puppies in their barns enduring that hellish existence would be legally sold with the stamp of approval from the powers that be.

Currently only a small proportion of breeders are licensed in the UK. I wonder whether those who believe that licensing alone will even partially affect the puppy farm trade have any concept of the numbers involved when they talk about policing a licensing system which would apply to every household where dogs are bred. Last year, just short of 220,000 puppies were registered by the Kennel Club which is certainly not a complete reflection of actual numbers of puppies available for sale here since it only encompasses purebred dogs and not by any means all of those. Imported puppies, non KC registered puppies of any breed and cross breed puppies of all descriptions ( which are swiftly becoming the" must have" type of dog nowadays and are almost exclusively bred by puppy farms and backstreet breeders )are not included in that figure.

The Kennel Club Assured Breeder scheme as the only current UK scheme whereby breeders are inspected by those with training, experience, knowledge and understanding of companion animal welfare requirements is estimated to cost a minimum of £200 per inspection. In contrast to the council licence requirements stated above, the ABS requires among other conditions that members:

"Ensure that all breeding stock is Kennel Club registered and hand over the dog's signed registration certificate at time of sale.
Make health of breeding stock and puppies produced a particular priority and make use of health screening schemes, relevant to their breed.
Allow their premises to be inspected and assessed by a trained Kennel Club Assessor to ensure compliance with the scheme Standard.
Commit to operate to high standards and duty of care and comply with all relevant laws including the animal welfare act (2006) and microchipping legislation.
Only sell puppies bred by themselves and raised in their own safe and secure environment, which will meet all the requirements of the Assured Breeder Scheme.
Socialise the puppies and provide written advice on continuation of socialisation.
Take all reasonable steps to ensure that purchasers are able to provide a suitable home and that they are committed to caring for the dog for the whole of its life and provide reasonable after-sales advice.
Allow any purchaser to be able to view the puppies with their mother and siblings, in the environment that they were born and raised.
Commit to help, if necessary, with the re-homing of any dog that they provide within the scheme, throughout the dog's lifetime, for whatever reason.
Issue a Scheme Puppy Sales Wallet..for each dog sold containing up-to-date information."

At the very least this acknowledges that dog breeding welfare involves more than just provision of food, water and shelter in comparison to the local authority licensing requirements

I notice that Rachael Cross is no more helpful than your quote from Julia Carr on the practical implementation of her proposals, relying on faith rather than facts to substantiate her solution to the problem. She does not detail where the finance or expertise is to come from to provide the extensive contingent of inspectors to be trained to a sufficiently high standard to understand how companion dogs should be bred ( whelping facilities; feeding regimes; socialisation strategies) and to be able to discuss dog rearing issues with the breeder being inspected, assess Puppy Contracts etc etc . Nor how an effective policing of non compliance would be carried out as, while explaining how skilful the criminal dog selling fraternity are at duping the public, she then seems to rely on their skills failing them when it comes to evading licensing laws.

"What we need is a robust and efficient system where all sellers must register on a central database that can be easily checked by those wanting a family pet, and inspected by a trained workforce which is empowered to revoke or deny a licence on animal welfare grounds."

Sounds great on paper but what if none of the criminal / disreputable puppy breeders operating 'underground' register their details but continue to sell through third parties "under the radar ", who is going to root them out? What if licensing requirements are inadequate or poorly enforced? Welfare grounds alone are woefully insufficient when it comes to assessing standards of dog breeding - unless they also encompass
socialisation, breed specific health tests, knowledge and expertise in dog rearing, breed characteristics etc. Breeders would need to be assessed on their knowledge of the type of dog they are breeding, possible hereditary problems, exercise needs, grooming requirements, nutrition, be able to advise re immunisation, parasite control and training recommendations. They need to be able to discuss temperament and family characteristics of the mother ( and father) of the puppy being sold; they need to provide a comprehensive Contract of Sale; to be endorsing the puppies they sell against being bred from or exported; they need to be offering (via the sales contract) a commitment to the puppy for the rest of its life as regards taking it back if necessary at any time and providing a " lifetime of the dog" support and advice to puppy buyers. All this and more are offered by the best breeders and if laws are to be introduced to tackle poor breeding practice by licensing all breeders then unless the requirements encompass every one of the above, vague sentiments re "animal welfare" solving the problem of disreputable breeders are nothing more than that - vague and naive wishful thinking.

While council officials are currently restricting themselves to checking dog breeding premises simply to ensure that the animals have access to food, water and shelter, any reliance on a licence being revoked on "animal welfare grounds" means next to nothing as regards stopping puppy farming and backyard breeding. Unfortunately, too many animal welfare organisations are themselves ignorant of the realities of best breeding practice and therefore unaware of what people should be expecting from a breeder. Unless those opposing the intensive commercial and backyard breeding of companion animals do not seriously commit to understanding good quality, caring and responsible breeding and enthusiastically promote this to the puppy buying public, many of those people looking for a puppy will continue to make mistakes or feel lost in a minefield when it comes to finding their future canine family member.

As for the "hidden" underground breeding and sale of puppies, this will continue regardless of laws and licensing regulations for as long as there are people who want a puppy but want it cheap, want it immediately, and who will never be deemed able to provide an acceptable home for a puppy by a reputable breeder / rescue organisation. Laws could be used to make access to this disreputable supply more difficult by banning third party selling and thereby identifying this practice (whether through pet store or online) as illegal and unacceptable, while animal welfare organisations could be actively promoting meaningful and easy to understand guidance on how to source a well raised puppy from a reputable breeder ( or for those with the desire and experience to re-home a dog assist them in identifying the responsible and reputable rescue organisations).

The reason for my original post and for my defence of those who also feel betrayed by the reluctance of certain animal welfare organisations to embrace a ban on pet shops selling puppies - and other third party sales - is simply IMO to do so would quickly and easily send out the message to the puppy buying public ( despite the fact that some may choose to ignore it) that every puppy sold in the UK should be going to their new home direct from the place where they have been born and raised by the person who bred them, and that the puppy seeker has seen the puppy's mother and siblings interacting with them at that home. Nothing I have read or seen has swayed me from the belief that this should be the very first step on the road to combatting this shameful trade. Much more than that will be needed to distinguish the good breeders from the bad but every single puppy sold through third parties is from a disreputable source and this should be addressed as a priority.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Maty]

The debate may be between two members of the forum but it is making interesting reading for those of us that follow it.

I really don't understand why government won't ban the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops* as it would go a long way to stopping the battery farming of them. Once they have cut off that outlet it is time to move on to the online selling sites.

* Well maybe I do, as then questions would be asked as to why it is OK to sell other creatures such as rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, rats, fish...... But you do have to start somewhere ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BeeBee]

I really don't understand why government won't ban the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops* as it would go a long way to stopping the battery farming of them. Once they have cut off that outlet it is time to move on to the online selling sites.

* Well maybe I do, as then questions would be asked as to why it is OK to sell other creatures such as rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, rats, fish...... But you do have to start somewhere ;)

Shops(as in the usually understood sense) is a tiny proportion of the market, it will make a small, not big difference to the dogs suffering in the breeding factories. This government will do nothing that restricts business & trade without there being a serious monetary gain for the treasury. (Kate you must remember how depressed I was on the morning of 8 May 2015 when I realised we were in for 5 years of Tory rule as I voted for the animals & I knew what that meant for the dogs). I choose to recognise the reality, face it, realise we do not live in a perfect world & I'll probably spend my whole life pushing for better and better as each small step forwards is achieved. I will work with what might be possible, that will make a difference, and build on that. For me, that is an all-encompassing system of licensing that every single person who breeds and sells a dog has to come under. I see no reason anyone should be exempted, if people don't like it, the choice can always be not to breed.

I look at the reasons for opposing a reformed and overhauled system of licensing that's absolutely linked to welfare, inspected by people who are experts in this and the arguments against make no sense to me. I am not suggesting the current licensing system where situations like those seen in the Panorama programme are being licensed is what I want. It is not.

I also look at the backgrounds of some who oppose it (not here), and then I understand things in a different light (but, I do spend hours digging around, it's not a normal thing for anyone with an average interest in this to want to bother with). And again, I look at those who are proposing and/or supporting licensing, and they are the ones who I know, put dog welfare first. Many see close-up (and have done for years) the suffering (& I'm not only talking about the main organisations who are backing licensing), and I know that I'm supporting a better solution than a ban on 3rd party sales that nobody has yet come up with rational enforcement plans for.

But, to be absolutely clear, if a legally enforeceable ban on 3rd party sales was possible with no loopholes and it could be demonstrated that this would not drive the sales underground via secret sites etc online, then of course I will 100% back that. I want to see shops stopped from selling puppies (and every animal). No question, no doubt.

I don't think any puppy should be away from their mother when sold. Because I don't think in the current situation that a ban is workable, without a robust licensing system being in place, that does NOT mean I oppose a ban on 3rd party sales. I just know it won't work. Sadly, how choose to spin it, is that if you're not with us, you're against us - this is childish & unhelpful and distorts. Many people do not get the difference between a position of not actively backing a 3rd party ban and opposing it - there IS a big difference.

But, I'm bored now of going round in circles on it, so will leave it here.