A Tale of Two Breeders

Information on finding your puppy, the Assured Breeders Scheme, the Kennel Club and issues relating to breeding your Schnauzer are dealt with in this section.
Forum rules
Please do not discuss breeders or raise issues concerning breeders on the forum. This has created problems in the past and many breeders are not members and unable to defend any claim you may make.
Post Reply
User avatar
zeta1454
Moderator
Posts: 5136
Joined: 19 May 2011, 16:58
First Name: Leigh
Dog #1: Magic
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 20 Apr 2010
Dog #2: Trilby
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 15 Mar 2012
Dog #3: Pip
Born: 21 Feb 2014
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Location: North Yorkshire
Contact:

A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by zeta1454 »

This a long post but I felt compelled by a recent newspaper article to clarify some issues that can be seriously misrepresented.

A recent report conducted by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home stated that 88% of puppies bred in the U.K. are bred by "unlicensed breeders" and concluded that this lack of licensing is a significant reason for the problem of badly bred, abandoned and sick dogs ending up in rescue. The phrase "unlicensed breeders" with its connotations of neglect, abuse and shady dealings in backstreets and outhouses is to say the least misleading.

Currently, in most local authorities in the U.K. a licence to breed dogs is only required by those who breed four or more litters in a twelve month period.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/lic ... e-of-dogs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Therefore those small scale breeders who have less than four litters of puppies in that time span are not evading a law and the nature of their breeding and the welfare of their dogs may in fact be outstanding in all aspects of care. They may be experienced, knowledgeable owners of particular breeds taking the utmost care in the selection of adoptive families for the pups they breed and offering a lifetime commitment to ensure that none of the dogs they breed from (or the puppies they breed ) will ever end up in a shelter/rescue.

Below, I have done a comparison of two breeders based on actual (un-named) establishments:

Ms A the "unlicensed breeder

Ms A is a longstanding member of breed clubs; actively involved in breed health surveys and health testing for her dogs; member of the Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme ( her home, car, paperwork, knowledge of dog law, knowledge of nutrition, health matters, record keeping etc all checked and in some cases photographed in a 4 hour inspection by an experienced trained professional in dog care and training, plus all relevant contracts and paperwork submitted for external approval); attends regular seminars by canine health professionals to maintain and update her knowledge; is engaged with her dogs virtually 24/7 , some of whom have their own bedroom and others sleep on her bed at night.

All her dogs live in the home, are taken out on dog walks, to dog friendly venues, on family holidays and to training events. No more than two litters of puppies are bred from a bitch and the "mothers" stay in the family for their entire life.

When it is decided to breed a litter, from a bitch that is fit, healthy and has had clear health test results relevant to the breed, research is done to choose an equally fit, healthy mature sire with the relevant health tests. Temperament and pedigree are looked at in detail to ensure there is unlikely to be health and temperament issues with the puppies. All necessary preparations are made for the whelping- purchases of paper, bedding, heat pads, disinfectant cleaners, hand sanitisers etc

The heating in the home is set to 23C once the pups are born and remains at a constant temperature for the first 3 weeks of the pups' life. Also, throughout these early weeks, Ms A sleeps on a mattress alongside the whelping box so as to be there if needed for the pups or mother; to get up every four hours to feed the mum and to take her outside to toilet. The pups will never be left unsupervised throughout these first weeks. From 3 days of age, early neurological stimulation exercises are started to encourage brain development, help reduce stress response and stimulate muscle development. Once the pups' eyes are open and they can demonstrate a startle response ( show that they can hear) they are moved from the sitting room into a playpen in the kitchen where they will be able to see the other household dogs, television, noise from household appliances, meet visitors to the house etc. Over the next few weeks, Ms A embarks on a programme of puppy development exercises to encourage self confidence and physical fitness. The puppies are introduced to tunnels, balance boards, ramps, water containers, boxes, toys with different sounds and textures, different surfaces, indoor and outdoor play areas....and more. By seven weeks of age, the puppies are being taken out in a pet buggy or pet carrier to see and hear traffic, noises from school playgrounds, trees, birdsong, public transport and car journeys. At home, house training starts and the pups are introduced to a crate for overnight sleeping. Before they leave for their new homes, they will be microchipped and taken to the vet for a general health check and, if necessary, to a specialist vet for any screening for certain hereditary conditions in the breed.

The families who have been on a waiting list for a puppy ( often for a year or more) will have been selected for those who can offer a stimulating, loving and caring lifetime home, they will have had the opportunity to see the pups with their Mum, stayed for a meal with the family if they have travelled a long distance, and will have been provided with the opportunity of daily updates ( on a secret Facebook page for new puppy families) of photos and video clips of the puppies as they grew. Puppies are selected for particular families ( taking into account their preferences / environment etc) by Ms A on the basis of which puppy is best suited to that home and, if need be, puppies will be retained until a time when the family are able to devote a few weeks to settling in the newcomer. Puppies' registration documents are endorsed against breeding and export and a detailed Contract of Sale records this as well as all relevant details of the puppy, new family and breeder. If the family at any time in the future needs holiday boarding for that puppy/dog they can stay free of charge as part of their birth family and, if tragedy meant the family could no longer care for the dog adequately, s/he will be welcomed back into the birth home again.

Ms A is registered as self employed for tax purposes. Two litters (5 puppies) have been born in the period from January 2016. Total gross income for the year from the sale of puppies: £2,550
Costs relevant to the birth of these puppies ( Stud fees: £1,250, whelping supplies £200 approx; puppy information packs and bags £75 approx;
Health screening £88; KC registration of puppies £70; microchipping of puppies £45. Health check at vets before sale £50.
( excluding the costs of continuous heating, daily washing of bedding, extra food for mother and puppy food; petrol costs for travel to sire and for travel to vets):

Net income for the year - £722 all of which goes towards costs of canine related educational seminars and toys, clothing, bedding etc. for the family dogs.

Mr B - the "licensed breeder"

Mr B is a livestock owner, breeding and selling puppies and dogs bred on his premises and puppies imported from elsewhere. He is licensed by his local council as a breeding establishment and a pet shop.

He "specialises" in a range of popular pure breed, cross breed and "designer" puppies. Twenty different pedigree breeds are listed on the business website and ten different cross/ mixed breeds. The family business has been established for many years and employs permanent staff. They are open every day of the year and advertise pups available at all times online. Puppies can be chosen and paid for online by credit card or Paypal. They have a local authority licence for 200 breeding bitches and also have over 50 stud dogs.

To clarify the extent of the requirement for a breeding licence, it is as follows:
.
"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"

Mr B's premises are regularly inspected and regarded as adequate in the above requirements.

Mr B states he has paid well over £300,000 in tax and VAT over the past 4 years and has breeding kennels worth millions.

Mr B runs the kind of dog breeding establishment that local authorities, the Government, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the RSPCA and other well known animal organisations would like to see as the future of dog breeding in the UK. He makes money, he pays his taxes, he is good for business and he is a "licensed breeder ". It is far too complex and costly for any universal licensing system for all dog breeders to be administered and policed, taking into account the number of individuals who may only breed one or two litters ( with maybe only 2-3 puppies) in a year. The bigger the establishment, the easier it is for a local authority inspector to quickly tick the boxes as to provision of food, water etc. Rearing puppies in a caring home environment by those experienced and knowledgeable about the breed who can provide the vitally important start for a future family pet is of no importance to the big business charities; local authorities or the Government.

Charity representatives made it clear recently that they do not believe the size of a breeding establishment has a detrimental effect on welfare. As Battersea Dogs and Cats Home stated :

"You could have 100 or 1,000 breeding bitches and puppies produced in one property if you had enough people, enough land and enough resources to cater for their needs appropriately."

So forget about the Puppy Plan.
http://www.thepuppyplan.com/the-puppy-plan#.WC8juHTfWf0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

.. actually forget about rearing puppies in a home environment. The future is industrialised dog breeding and the powers that be support it X(

P.S. Of course, there are unscrupulous and criminal unlicensed breeders just as there are unscrupulous and criminal licensed breeders but to represent "unlicensed breeders" as the cause of the puppy trade nightmare is an appalling distortion of the truth. So the next time anyone denigrates "unlicensed breeders" just give a thought as to what being a "licensed breeder" means in comparison.
Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. ~Roger Caras

Magic - Silversocks Sharade at Darksprite
Trilby - Darksprite Rosa Bud


https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/C ... 916994967/
User avatar
mikegoodson1
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 31 Mar 2016, 11:52
First Name: Mike
Dog #1: Oscar
is a: Black Mini Dog
Born: 17 Oct 2015
Dog #2: Sasha
is a: B/S Mini Bitch
Born: 23 Sep 2017

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by mikegoodson1 »

A really interesting and thought-provoking article - thanks for clarifying (for me anyway) the clear distinction between licensed and unlicensed.

Fortunately for me (after carrying out research beforehand), Oscar came from an unlicensed breeder very much like Ms A.

However I would be interested to know actually too, how the 'Assured Breeders' are tested/vetted by the Kennel Club. I'm sure I read a post here some months ago that mentioned that because you are listed as an assured breeder, it doesn't necessarily mean that the care and attention of 'Ms A' (from your example) are followed. And that isn't meant as a criticism, more a request for balanced information :-)
User avatar
zeta1454
Moderator
Posts: 5136
Joined: 19 May 2011, 16:58
First Name: Leigh
Dog #1: Magic
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 20 Apr 2010
Dog #2: Trilby
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 15 Mar 2012
Dog #3: Pip
Born: 21 Feb 2014
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Location: North Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by zeta1454 »

Hi Mike - the Assured Breeder Scheme has evolved over the past years from a voluntary code of conduct with no inspections and a nominal fee for membership to a scheme accredited by UKAS with an annual fee of £60 and three yearly inspections.

The inspections are thorough in that they do not just involve a tour of the premises but require the breeder to be conversant with relevant laws on dog breeding and ownership; to comply with welfare, socialisation and enrichment protocols with their dogs and puppies; the inspector needs to see evidence of where and how puppies are raised, family dogs kept, daily routines, health and safety issues, how prospective puppy families are vetted and how breeding decisions are made with regard to in-breeding, choice of sire, compliance with relevant health testing schemes both mandatory and those recommended by the breed clubs. Paperwork such as the Contract of Sale and the comprehensive Puppy Information pack for new owners are taken away for independent verification via the Kennel Club and health screening certificates / vaccination schedules / titre test results etc are copied to accompany the Inspector's written report.

Full details of the requirements can be seen on the following link and verification of compliance with this is the purpose of the inspection:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/7 ... andard.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It may well be possible for a devious breeder to disguise a disreputable establishment from the inspector if they are determined to defraud but I would not think that nowadays so many will slip through the net as in previous years pre-inspection. The Kennel Club does rely on information given by puppy seekers or anyone else who becomes aware that a breeder is not compliant with the Scheme and they will (and have ) removed breeders who have failed to live up to the commitments of the ABS. However, from personal experience, we have found the inspections to be very thorough and not just a mere tick box compliance.

Many committed small scale breeders including some who choose not to join the ABS do devote the level of care and love to their dogs and pups as described above (Ms A) The Puppy Plan is promoted by the Kennel Club for breeders to follow and our most recent ABS inspector revealed that she was booked on the same seminar as myself next January hosted by Jane Killion of the Puppy Culture protocol which takes puppy rearing even further.
https://www.puppyculture.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So the inspectors are themselves well versed in best practice puppy rearing and dog training as well as breeding unlike the current situation with local authority inspectors who are more likely to be Trading Standards officers or other non dog related officials. I hope this has answered your question but do come back to me if not :)
Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. ~Roger Caras

Magic - Silversocks Sharade at Darksprite
Trilby - Darksprite Rosa Bud


https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/C ... 916994967/
User avatar
BeeBee
Member
Posts: 7576
Joined: 18 Dec 2010, 08:09
First Name: Janetta
Location: France
Contact:

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by BeeBee »

I look forward to the day that every one who breeds and sells puppies is required to be licensed under a robust and enforced licensing regime. Everyone. That way no-one will be able to denigrate licensed or unlicensed breeders merely on the basis of whether they're licensed. It'll be a level playing field. The EFRA report on animal licensing this week gives some hope this might be introduced, which is something most of the big organisations involved in welfare and combatting the problems in the lucrative puppy trade want. Although, as in everything, the devil will be in the detail of any legislation that's introduced.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Jasmine (RIP) Renae b.01.11.10, sister to Susie-Belle (RIP), Twinkle (RIP), Cerise & Albert Claude puppy farm rescues, my muses
Creator of Schnauzerfest a good thing made possible by 1000s of good people & dogs
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Susie-Be ... 0289434936
http://www.janettaharvey.com/
User avatar
zeta1454
Moderator
Posts: 5136
Joined: 19 May 2011, 16:58
First Name: Leigh
Dog #1: Magic
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 20 Apr 2010
Dog #2: Trilby
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 15 Mar 2012
Dog #3: Pip
Born: 21 Feb 2014
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Location: North Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by zeta1454 »

BeeBee wrote:I look forward to the day that every one who breeds and sells puppies is required to be licensed under a robust and enforced licensing regime. Everyone. That way no-one will be able to denigrate licensed or unlicensed breeders merely on the basis of whether they're licensed. It'll be a level playing field. The EFRA report on animal licensing this week gives some hope this might be introduced, which is something most of the big organisations involved in welfare and combatting the problems in the lucrative puppy trade want. Although, as in everything, the devil will be in the detail of any legislation that's introduced.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have no issue at all with a licensing scheme in theory but, as with the dog licensing scheme for dog owners and the legal requirement for all dogs to be microchipped, in practice universal licensing is impossible to effectively police. In 1987, when dog ownership licences were abolished, it was estimated that far fewer than 50% of dogs were licensed and there was neither the money nor the manpower to enforce the law. With microchipping, compliance rates of even lower than this have been estimated and, in both these cases, it will of course be the responsible owners and breeders who comply and the irresponsible who evade the law. As it is the irresponsible owners/breeders who are theoretically being targeted it is a naive and pointless suggestion to expect that, for example, the inexperienced and thoughtless people who randomly decide to have a litter with their pet are ever going to be caught out by a universal licensing law any more than it will catch the criminal puppy dealers who are expert at working outside the law. There is also the consideration that for the first class breeders, who currently are often supporting their passion for best quality puppy rearing with a pension, a partner's salary or a part time job, the additional £250 (current average) for a local authority licence is obviously going to be a far more significant financial "extra" when they have an income of less than £1,000 p.a. than it is to a puppy breeder earning hundreds of thousands from their business.

However, what concerns me most is that the big charities, local authorities and government seem to be working towards the industrialisation of dog breeding. By centralising dog breeding facilities in a few large scale breeding factories, requirements for size of pen, size of exercise area, feeding and cleaning can be standardised. It will be simpler to assess, far fewer inspectors will be needed and they will not need to have experience or understanding of dogs / breeding but can make a relatively straightforward agreement that the minimal welfare standards are met. The RSPCA have already made it clear they regard dog breeding as an industry comparable to the scrap metal trade and favour the same industry-type licensing scheme. Battersea Dogs' and Cats' Home state they are happy to see dog breeding facilities with 1,000 breeding bitches and the big charities in general see no problem with large scale puppy producing factories as long as they are clean, supplied with food and water and with health and safety issues complied with. I note that they have not put forward the idea that the number of breeding bitches should be no more than e.g. 10 . Why are licences issued at all for breeding bitches in three figure numbers?

Faced with the complexity and overwhelming cost of trying to introduce and effectively police a universal dog breeding licence, it is only natural that the powers that be are going to look at the most cost effective solution which is to encourage those money making concerns that bring in high tax revenue, employ staff and are a successful business supplying the market for puppies to the masses. Personally, I believe that the first few months of a puppy's life are critical as to how it develops in the future, physically and behaviourally. For puppies who will be going to live in a family home as a pet, this means they should be born and raised in a home with individual attention, careful socialisation etc. and the future families matched with a suitable puppy. However, clean and well run a large scale breeding establishment may be it will never provide the kind of start in life puppies need and, it is very sad to think the major rescue charities are blind to this :(
Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. ~Roger Caras

Magic - Silversocks Sharade at Darksprite
Trilby - Darksprite Rosa Bud


https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/C ... 916994967/
User avatar
Barbarauttley
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 25 Aug 2013, 12:16
First Name: Barbara
Dog #1: Billy
is a: P/S Mini Dog
Born: 08 Oct 2012
is a: P/S Mini Dog
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by Barbarauttley »

Over 50 years ago my first two dogs were from a pet shop and then a puppy farm. They were not good well rounded dogs but I loved them. In those days we did not seem to understand our dogs needs, and training was harsher! I think despite this I gave those two dogs a loving home.
Then in the seventies I read books and looked around for a suitable breeder, puppy training classes etc. From then on as each dog came along and information about welfare etc was more available I have been even more meticulous in my research and our dogs have been and are happy, healthy individuals, a joy to have.
What I am trying to say is that you have to educate the prospective dog owner and put out as much publicity as possible about the horrors of puppy farms and bad dog breeders.
It is down to the prospective buyer not to purchase from these places, then they would soon go out of business.
Unfortunately it is the sad fact that there would not not be enough puppies to go round if it some of it wasn't commercial!
I feel for the bitches doomed even n a good commercial kennel to this lifestyle!
User avatar
zeta1454
Moderator
Posts: 5136
Joined: 19 May 2011, 16:58
First Name: Leigh
Dog #1: Magic
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 20 Apr 2010
Dog #2: Trilby
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 15 Mar 2012
Dog #3: Pip
Born: 21 Feb 2014
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Location: North Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by zeta1454 »

Barbarauttley wrote:Over 50 years ago my first two dogs were from a pet shop and then a puppy farm. They were not good well rounded dogs but I loved them. In those days we did not seem to understand our dogs needs, and training was harsher! I think despite this I gave those two dogs a loving home.
Then in the seventies I read books and looked around for a suitable breeder, puppy training classes etc. From then on as each dog came along and information about welfare etc was more available I have been even more meticulous in my research and our dogs have been and are happy, healthy individuals, a joy to have.
What I am trying to say is that you have to educate the prospective dog owner and put out as much publicity as possible about the horrors of puppy farms and bad dog breeders.
It is down to the prospective buyer not to purchase from these places, then they would soon go out of business.
Unfortunately it is the sad fact that there would not not be enough puppies to go round if it some of it wasn't commercial!
I feel for the bitches doomed even n a good commercial kennel to this lifestyle!
I agree with you that attitudes to dogs generally and understanding of how to raise and where to source good puppies has changed over the years. Many people were quite unaware of what went on in some of the places where pups were bred and many pets were purchased from pet stores...and there were of course people like yourself who still gave great love and care to these dogs for their lifetime.

I think it is vital that the reality of poor breeding practice and puppy farming is well publicised but it is just as important, if not more so, as you say to educate people to raise their awareness of how the best breeders raise their pups and care for their dogs so that prospective owners have an expectation of what to look for from a breeder and not just what to avoid.

Those running even the best quality rescue/shelters are often themselves ignorant of how a responsible breeder raises their puppies and, as such, base their judgement on those worst cases whose dogs end up in their care. Similarly, I was shocked recently when one of our vets ( a lovely, caring professional vet) said she had never before seen puppies born naturally. She was present at the birth of one our pups and really moved by the experience.

Attitudes are shaped by experience and, if those who have the best interests of dogs at heart are going to close their eyes and minds to the opportunities to learn about the best way of raising and caring for dogs, they are inevitably going to be unable to effectively guide prospective puppy/dog owners as to how to distinguish between the responsible breeders and those who deliberately set out to mislead or are upfront large scale commercial suppliers. It is certain that not all families are able to take on rescue dogs and that, unless good breeding practice is solidly supported, there wil only be commercially bred pups available whether direct from suppliers or via rescue.

Sadly it is also true that, as you say, there will always be those families who should not own a dog or who cannot get a well bred puppy and they will use whatever route they can to find a puppy elsewhere.
Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. ~Roger Caras

Magic - Silversocks Sharade at Darksprite
Trilby - Darksprite Rosa Bud


https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/C ... 916994967/
User avatar
Grice
Member
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 10:58
First Name: Melanie
Location: West Midlands

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by Grice »

Very interesting thread. Why would a rescue want puppies to be commercially bred in a 'clean' puppy farm?! Surely they'd want well bred puppies and less saturation of the market so more dogs ended up staying in their homes? Or maybe it's in their best interest to have more badly bred puppies ending up in the rescue system to keep them needed? I hate thinking cynically, but I can't think of any other reason.
I want a puppy from breeder A any day of the week. I dread to think what will become of our dogs if the commercial breeding is enforced!
User avatar
BeeBee
Member
Posts: 7576
Joined: 18 Dec 2010, 08:09
First Name: Janetta
Location: France
Contact:

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by BeeBee »

Grice wrote:Very interesting thread. Why would a rescue want puppies to be commercially bred in a 'clean' puppy farm?! !
No-one Im in touch with - which is a lot of people with varying backgrounds, experiences and understanding thinks this. But it does suit some in all corners of the puppy breeding world to suggest this to be the case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Jasmine (RIP) Renae b.01.11.10, sister to Susie-Belle (RIP), Twinkle (RIP), Cerise & Albert Claude puppy farm rescues, my muses
Creator of Schnauzerfest a good thing made possible by 1000s of good people & dogs
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Susie-Be ... 0289434936
http://www.janettaharvey.com/
User avatar
zeta1454
Moderator
Posts: 5136
Joined: 19 May 2011, 16:58
First Name: Leigh
Dog #1: Magic
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 20 Apr 2010
Dog #2: Trilby
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 15 Mar 2012
Dog #3: Pip
Born: 21 Feb 2014
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Location: North Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by zeta1454 »

BeeBee wrote:
Grice wrote:Very interesting thread. Why would a rescue want puppies to be commercially bred in a 'clean' puppy farm?! !
No-one Im in touch with - which is a lot of people with varying backgrounds, experiences and understanding thinks this. But it does suit some in all corners of the puppy breeding world to suggest this to be the case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Several of the big name charities were called on to give their input at a recent EFRA select committee looking at commercial dog breeding. A large number of issues were discussed and, as reported in Dog World,

" Charity representatives did not believe that the size of the breeding establishment necessarily had a detrimental impact on welfare. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home said: “You could have 100 or 1,000 breeding bitches and puppies produced in one property if you had enough people, enough land and enough resources to be able to cater for their needs appropriately.

The full article can be read here:
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/1 ... _says_efra" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The same quote is confirmed in the published Parliamentary Report of the EFRA committee meeting paragraphs 43 and 44:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 17/117.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I would be glad to hear Battersea DCH confirm that this was not what they said and to hear that any or all of the big name charities are actively and wholeheartedly opposing the licensing of any large scale breeding establishments. IMO it is impossible to raise puppies to the highest standards to be happy healthy family pets in any situation other than a loving, caring home by knowledgeable responsible breeders who are not running a commercial business but are passionate about the welfare of their dogs and puppies from birth onwards throughout their life. To my mind, dog breeding should be carried out (licensed if need be) by those who breed no more than four litters a year and yet I have never heard or read anywhere that any of the big name charities have suggested or actively supported a maximum number of "breeding bitches" or a maximum number of litters from a breeder as a requirement of obtaining a licence. Anyone who has read through an example of the requirements for a licence will be in no doubts as to the commercial nature of the establishments it applies to. Check out this link for a dog breeding licence in Derby ( chosen at random :) )

http://www.derby.gov.uk/media/derbycity ... itions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interestingly, Battersea DCH also say in their own 2015 booklet on "Licensed Dog Breeding in Great Britain ":

"There is a real need for a regulatory system that both encourages dog breeding businesses into the licensed market while also providing sufficient safeguards for dogs and consumers"

Now, to most people I would imagine, a "business" is an enterprise that has a reasonable prospect of making a profit and providing a means of income rather than something that occupies someone intensively for three to four months of the year, rarely makes any money at all, actually regularly operates at a financial loss, needs alternative financial support as it will never provide a living income but is carried out because it is something which gives joy, interest and satisfaction to someone who has a passion and wants to share it. So to talk about encouraging "dog breeding businesses into the licensed market", sounds very much like an encouragement to large scale breeders and not the responsible, experienced "hobby" breeder who breeds once or twice in a year.

It was this very booklet by Battersea DCH which initiated my post since it came as a real shock to me to read this albeit flawed "report" sadly short on understanding of breeding or statistical analysis with its overriding implication that "unlicensed breeders" were the root cause of dogs ending up in rescue and yet there was not one statistic produced to support this.

So it is not people in the "puppy breeding world" who have suggested that the big name charities favour clean, well managed large scale dog breeding enterprises but the statements and actions of the charities themselves which reveal their views (whether or not all the actual supporters of these charities agree).
Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. ~Roger Caras

Magic - Silversocks Sharade at Darksprite
Trilby - Darksprite Rosa Bud


https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/C ... 916994967/
User avatar
zeta1454
Moderator
Posts: 5136
Joined: 19 May 2011, 16:58
First Name: Leigh
Dog #1: Magic
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 20 Apr 2010
Dog #2: Trilby
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Born: 15 Mar 2012
Dog #3: Pip
Born: 21 Feb 2014
is a: P/S Mini Bitch
Location: North Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by zeta1454 »

Grice wrote:Very interesting thread. Why would a rescue want puppies to be commercially bred in a 'clean' puppy farm?! Surely they'd want well bred puppies and less saturation of the market so more dogs ended up staying in their homes? Or maybe it's in their best interest to have more badly bred puppies ending up in the rescue system to keep them needed? I hate thinking cynically, but I can't think of any other reason.
I want a puppy from breeder A any day of the week. I dread to think what will become of our dogs if the commercial breeding is enforced!
It certainly is hard to understand why animal welfare charities can come out with statements such as that of the Battersea DCH or the views of the other charity representatives who did not consider the size of a "breeding establishment " to necessarily be detrimental to the welfare of the puppies and their parents. I can only surmise the reasons behind this attitude as it does seem incomprehensible to anyone who really cares about the way dogs ( or any animal) are bred and reared.

Some possible reasons:

Large charities nowadays are run as businesses and, as a result, employ well paid executives and business people at the highest ranks in the charity who need not have any connection with animal welfare and whose expertise lies in managing finances and making profits. Their closest connections are with government and big business not the front line of animal welfare and this inevitably is is going to have an impact on their outlook. Of course, the larger the "breeding establishment" the greater the profits it will generate - bringing in tax revenue to the government, providing jobs for staff...maybe even more "executive" positions.

http://legalrecruitment.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ghest.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/rspca-prom ... le/1388902" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The statements made by the charities' representatives was at a Select Committee into dog breeding and the charities are in favour of a universal licensing system to be put into place for every single breeder and seller of puppies as a means of stamping out poor breeding practice and improving animal welfare. This simplistic idea, although attractive in its very simplicity (somewhat like Donald Trump's proposal to stop illegal immigration by building a wall between the US and Mexico) in practice would be such an overwhelmingly complex and costly enterprise to administer and police that it is doomed to failure from the outset. However, if the multitude of small scale home breeders were to be eliminated from the equation and breeding primarily carried out by large scale breeding facilities, administration and costs would be significantly reduced, licensing requirements could be updated rather than totally re-written and training of local authority inspectors would also not need the financial and educational input that would be needed if licensing and inspection was required for the number and multifarious types of dog rearing that happen currently.

And, of course, as I mentioned before, organisations which are dealing with horrific abuse and traumatic situations, can find themselves having a very jaundiced view of humanity in general and, in the case of dog breeding, of all breeders. While their eyes are closed to the amazing work being done by the most dedicated breeders, and while they themselves run facilities where dogs are housed, cared for, and possibly at times bred, effectively in captivity, they may feel that this restricted life is not that much of an issue compared to the worst scenarios of dog breeding and that it does not matter if puppies are intensively bred as long as they are well looked after.

Your "cynical " explanation may also have some justification sadly too given that the charities are now effectively big businesses who presumably do not plan to undermine the need for their existence.
However, ultimately only those who made those statements on behalf of their charities will know what they believe and why.
Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. ~Roger Caras

Magic - Silversocks Sharade at Darksprite
Trilby - Darksprite Rosa Bud


https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/C ... 916994967/
schnauzerfan
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: 14 Sep 2009, 22:50

Re: A Tale of Two Breeders

Post by schnauzerfan »

Thank you for this and for taking the time to write it all.
When I was looking for my first dog back in 2000, I went to Discover Dogs and met - I think - Eric at which point I was committed to mini schnauzers! The interesting comments from the different breed breeders was 'don't buy from the KC list, buy from the club lists'. I had already a KC list and when I compared it to the schnauzer club list there was no overlap.

I don't understand how anyone can think factory farming of puppies is going to produce the home socialized puppies that people want (if they actually know what they want). Indeed it sounds like the dog production of Romania.

I take heart that after exposing RSPCA and British Heart yesterday for their disreputable behaviour, it may be that charities lose so much money that they begin again with an ethical basis.

I put my trust in our club on the basis they are brave enough to run the health surveys, that some breeders have 'fessed up to eye problems and it has not been the subject of a Panorama programme.

In all seriousness, I have always behaved with the greatest integrity and hope that the many thousands of people my work involved me with were affected by this. By the same token, it is for the schnauzer breeders and club to set the gold standard for breeding and caring for our pets.
Post Reply