To think that the answer to getting rid of puppy farms and thus millions of unwanted dogs is to ban the buying and selling of dogs for money?

[wannaBe]

We see thread after thread on here about people who inadvertently, and sometimes not so inadvertently buy puppies from unscrupulous breeders who are only in it for the money. The trade in designer mongrels crossbreeds is big business, with people paying sometimes up to £1500 for a dog just because it looks cute, and the breeders raking in the cash from their several bitches which they breed to the point of exhaustion before getting rid of them.

And even the breeders who only breed a litter or two still make money from the exchanges. And let's not pretend that just because someone is KC registered they aren't in it for the money.

There have been all sorts of suggestions as to how this can be resolved, make breeders be registered/only allow them to breed certain numbers a year being just a couple. But in truth there is no way to police this and once a dog is pregnant there is no way of doing anything humane about it, after all, no-one would advocate destroying a fourth litter when the breeder had already bred three that year, for instance?

For me the answer is simple. If it was simply illegal to buy and sell puppies then the puppy farms would have no incentive to exist. If the law was very clear that by advertising dogs for sale you were breaking the law, no-one would actually pay money for puppies, and the sites like gumtree would not be allowed to advertise them.

The exception could be made for e.g. The cost of vaccinations/micro chippinG so that genuine breeders wouldn't be out of pocket, but actually, if you were breeding for the good of the breed the food etc would still be the breeder's responsibility.

Take the prophet out of puppies and the need to breed so many of them would no longer exist.

A simpler version might Polter.
I think with farm animals this had to be brought in for traceability, and all movements (in trailers to marts and other farms etc) have to be meticulously recorded, which is an absolute ball ache, but this level of traceability wouldn't be necessary with dogs.
The same system of chipping puppies as soon as possible and registering to a central body could work.

Adish

The issue with the compulsory chipping is many vets have openly admitted they don't scan every new dog that comes though the door, so the only time it would be found out is via being picked up by a dog warden which if people cannot be bothered to chip they certainly won't be paying release fee's instead they will go and buy another cheap as chips byb pup.

Another issue I've had recently with chips is a letter from my chip company nicely telling me that one of my dogs may well have been given a faulty chip that stopped working anywhere from 1 week after being implanted... That dogs now 6 but they are only just telling me now.

*with

If a license was £100 there would surely be more money to back random checking by a dog warden.

You would hope it would work out that way. But i agree with you I can't see any government backing any of this, as they won't be interested. it wont happen.

Wannabe I agree with you about no-kill rescues. If a dog can't even be walked without an experienced handler it is very unlikely to be successfully rehomed, and permanent kennel life must be psychologically damaging in itself.

i agree with this too. Some people struggle with the idea of PTS these types of animal due to some notion of "the dog has done nothing wrong it doesnt deserve to die". PTS isnt a punishment. It should only be used if it is the best interests of the animal and an animal as you describe is in a permanent state of distress whilst alive. It isnt a punishment to end that distress. It is the kindest thing you can do for it.

More owners also need to be made aware that bitches can be given a version of the morning after pill and that you can carry out an emergency spay on a pregnant bitch. It's not just a case of oh crap she's pregnant... Oooohhh puppies.

Honestly YABU. It could never be regulated, it's not regulated properly as it stands. Being a KC reg breeder doesn't mean a lot (to clarify I mean the assured breeder scheme not the registration of pups).

Legitimate breeders need to make money in order to buy in dams and sires from different blood lines to widen the gene pool. Plus carrying out any relevant health tests. Councils need to check who they're giving breeder licences to though, an awful lot of puppy farms that have been uncovered have actually had dog breeding licences issued by the local council.

Sashh your idea isn't unreasonable (I'd be happy to pay) but it isn't always advisable to spay/ neuter your bitch/dog. As you can from the screen name I own Saints. I have no plans whatsoever to breed but spaying my bitch could bring on a whole host of health issues. Which, given her short lifespan anyway I would rather avoid.

Those who want a pedigree puppy need to talk to breed clubs as well as looking at sites like champ dogs or the kennle club. While initially steering clear of sites like Pets4home. To make sure they're buying ftom someone who will give a lifetimes support.

Yes Rudeelf, the dog definitely doesn't deserve to die, but it doesn't deserve to live such a limited life either.

Has a big massive house and six un neutered badly trained dogs that are a nightmare

Do not punish those on lower incomes who have trained, neutered, vaccinated, chipped. Punish the ones who haven't regardless of income.

If licences were pricey enough it could fund proper enforcement (not the RSPCA). The guy with the massive house and 6 dogs could be reported and the report would be followed up on. Paperwork/chips etc would be checked and a warning given. If dogs still an issue would.be confiscated and rehomed or destroyed and owner given a hefty, legally enforceable fine.

If people are too poor to afford food/insurance etc then they shouldn't afford a dog. The annual license cost should be linked to the cost of owning a dog responsibly, if you can genuinely afford a dog, then you could afford a license. As someone who trained/chipped/neutered/vaccinated your animals you wouldn't be subject to any other penalty.

Oh, and also agree with those that said their should be additional cost/licensing implications for owning an un-neutered dog.

Incidentally re chipping. Do get your vet to check your animals chip at every visit. They have been known to move/become unreadable over time so can need replacing

I think there is a massive problem with badly bred and puppy farmed puppies.

However, I think a much bigger onus should be placed on puppy buyers. It seems many people do more research on there next car then a prospective family member for 10-15 years!

If you do any research at all you will quickly learn that pre loved/ epupz/ gumtree et al are not the sort of place respected breeders would ever sell their puppies. You would quickly learn the very best people to contact is the BREED CLUB, of which there are many for the popular breeds. There they will be able to give you a realistic view of what living with that breed is like- bit a candy coated sales pitch. They will be able to explain the health testing required for the breed- this is not a quick vet check, a, 'yep! They're healthy dogs, go ahead!'. These can involve multiple genetic tests to British Vetonaty Association reviewed X-rays.

Most decent breeders will have a long waiting list before puppies are born. You cannot decide on a Saturday afternoon you want a well bred puppy of X breed, even something popular like a lab, and have it by dinner time!!!

Also I just want to make it crystal clear, the KC reg is NOT a guarantee of health or a good breeder! It is simply a register my body to confirm your dogs pedigree.

The KC are trying to do more to educate the general public and make it easier to spot a good breeder, such as the KCABS scheme. It's not fool proof by any means, but between that and speaking to the breed club it's a bloody good place to start.

If I wrote the rules:

Only registered breeders
Only a limited number of bitches and limited number of litters
Breeders are responsible for the care of the bitch after her breeding days, not passing them on to charities like "Many Tears"

They should sell the puppies and include a large surcharge for neutering (say £100) which the dog's owner gets refunded when they provide the evidence that their dog is neutered

If the new owner cannot keep the dog, the breeder should rehome it (but not reimburse unless there is a legal reason to return the dog/puppy)

And while there are 100000s of dogs in the UK in rescue who will die waiting for a home that doesn't materialise WHY are dogs being rescued and imported from Romania etc??

One thing about a higher charge for non spayed and neutered dogs.

Personally I think if someone had to pay that because they did not want to spay would become more likely to breed as a way of getting their money back.

In my breed a well bread health tested pup goes for around £650-£850, and they give big litters so an easy 8+ puppies very easy to be a byb and cover £100-£200 fee for not spaying per year.

70

Most good breeders pretty much have those terms apart from the spaying part.

A good breeder will keep retired stock (or possibly rehome to retired couples etc after spaying), will take back any dog they have breed regardless of its age and keep/Rehome. All KC puppies should leave with a breeding endorcment which means the new owner cannot register any pups breed (most breeders will lift this providing you meet the criteria set out when purchasing the pup eg, health testing/do well showing/working, be assessed as being worthy for breeding from) I would be wary of any KC pup leaving without that restriction.

There is only so much breeders can do to encourage sensible buying/breeding but until the purchasers grow up about what their buying things won't change.

I would like to see a change in animal laws that relate to after sale contracts as at the moment there not worth the paper they are written on apart from the endorcement one which is only because KC control that one. The breeder can state currently you MUST return the dog to them if you cannot keep it but in the eyes of the law regardless of if you signed it once you have paid and got possession of that dog the contract means nothing and you can sell/give it away to anyone.

More owners also need to be made aware that bitches can be given a version of the morning after pill

I had no idea that existed! Perhaps vet surgeries could have it on a poster beside the "neuter your dog" ones. Or maybe that would discourage neutering?

"The issue with the compulsory chipping is many vets have openly admitted they don't scan every new dog that comes though the door"

I see your point, chatty, however (as a group) vets tend to be very good at adhering to legislation. When passporting then microchipping legislation was introduced for horses, I found vets (I know a lot) to be very conscientious in examining passports, writing up passports and checking chips. I really don't think the veterinary profession will be the weak link in all this.

I think the weak links will be where legislation must be followed through. Where authorities are not given sufficient powers to implement, where fines or licencing charges for unchipped and/or unneutered dogs are too low or not incurred at all, and (to use your example) where there isn't massive legal penalty for selling unchipped puppies. I think a whole chain of legislation has to be in place, in order for any of it to be effective.

As to your dog being given a faulty chip (I hope they replaced free of charge) ... it happens. Also, sometimes the chip moves from the original site of implant, to a part of the body where it's less detectable. Very occasionally, they have even been known to 'fall out'. It happens.

I hope for something like that to go undetected for six years (as it did in your case) will become a thing of the past. There are already one or two places in some areas where you can get your animal's chip checked free of charge. I would hope that such facilities will become more readily available, in which case I think the onus should be upon the owner to ensure that their dog's chip is checked annually.

Yup you can also now give your male dogs a vasectomy rather than completely removing his balls (show dogs must have their testicles to be allowed to show)

Sadly a lot of vets still do the whole "yeah she should have 1 litter before we spay her she's fit and healthy so go for it"

The thing is, unless micro hopping legislation is policed properly and strictly it will be entirely pointless. Most responsible owners have had their animals chipped for years and years. They are also the sort more likely to train and care for them properly. Those who don't bother should be fined with the new legislation but I don't see how it will be policed/enforced. It would be the same with a dog licence. The well behaved majority would cough up, and those most likely to have problem animals will carry on as they have done. I wouldn't mind I theory paying a dog licence of the legislation had teeth and was backed up, but it won't be, so it would irritate me to pay out and jump thru a rather pointless hoop.

Also, regarding all breeders even 'good' ones raking it in.... I would say that (depending on breed, I appreciate there are some that need little or no recommended health tests) to breed a litter PROPERLY is a VERY expensive business.

For example last year, after much thought and discussion we decided to go ahead and have a litter with our bitch. We jumped through all the hoops, re health testing, becoming members of the KCABS, being mentored by two v exp breeders, travelling a large distance to the stud dog who was the best match, idexx testing to make sure she was ready, best quality food during the pregnancy, scans and vet check ups... By the time she was 5 weeks pregnant we had spent about £2000 on pregnancy related costs.

Devestatingly at 5.5 weeks she developed a pyometra. Sadly 'one of those things' according to vet. She had an emergency out of hours spay. Pleased to say she recovered really well and is very much enjoying her puppy free life!!!

But I could easily see us having clocked up an extra £1000 in costs over the rest of the pregnancy, 8 weeks of the puppies lives in terms of extra heating and electricity (they make a LOT of mess, washing machine always on), premium quality food for mum and pups, wormers, microchips, toys etc etc. That's if the birth went to plan at home and didn't require a section or any complications requiring the vet.

If we had had the breed average of 6 puppies, then we would have a profit of approx £3600.... So about 600 for 8 weeks of 24/7 looking after puppies (can't leave them alone at all when small, then poo machines when a bit bigger) and enough stress and worry to give you grey hair.

"One thing about a higher charge for non spayed and neutered dogs. Personally I think if someone had to pay that because they did not want to spay would become more likely to breed as a way of getting their money back."

Well, that is certainly one way some people may view it.

However, on the plus side, it is an extremely viable way of aiming to ensure that every breeding bitch and dog is recorded and monitored. Maybe even the only viable way.

It further opens up the possibility of introducing further legislation, to prevent bitches being used for multiple litters.

Not to mention opening up back street breeders to the tax system!

But who is going to enforce the chipping of litters of puppies? And how?

So I go down the road and buy a cocker and a poodle, bring them home, take them for walks, they're essentially my family pets but as soon as they're old enough I put them together and a litter of adorable cockerpoo's Emerges. My kids mention to their friends at school that we have puppies and before too long there are a number of people wanting to own one. So they come round, look at the puppies, and give me £600 each for them. They go home with a puppy, and I pocket the cash. No questions asked.

They take their puppy to the vet, it turns out it isn't micro chipped, and then what? They can get it chipped in their own right, but there's still none of this traceability which people speak of. And absolutely no way to enforce it.

But if you e.g. look at kittens, while there are certainly many in rescue now and they do breed out of control, this has more to do with neutering than deliberate breeding, because reality is that most people won't pay £££ for a kitten, even though people advertise them for sale on gumtree and the like for upwards of £150 for your average moggy.

But almost everyone I know who wants a kitten will go to a rescue. Most people I know wouldn't go to a rescue for a dog because A, most dogs in rescue have behavioural problems plus are older so potential owners can't be sure of their issues e.g. If rehoming with children, B, even with younger dogs most rescues make it virtually impossible for most people to rehome any dog, thus actually fuelling the demand for puppies which the rescue rejectees go out and buy instead.

... They take their puppy to the vet, it turns out it isn't micro chipped, and then what?

Well, surely if there is legislation in place to deter people being 'back st. and 'have a go' breeders, and to stop people buying from them, then this is the exact point that it will kick in.

I don't know how ... maybe the vet will say 'why isn't this dog micro chipped?' owner will say 'i got it from bla bla', or refuse to say. Vet will advise the owner that they are obliged to immediately report concerns about unlicenced buying and selling of dogs to the authorities. As such the new owner gets reported too.

"And while there are 100000s of dogs in the UK in rescue who will die waiting for a home that doesn't materialise, why are dogs being rescued and imported from Romania etc??" oh, I absolutely agree with this, and actually this is one thing that it is very easy to do something about. The import of dogs is still heavily regulated because of the pet passport scheme, so banning the importation of dogs from rescues should absolutely be enforced. Yes, very sad and all that that there are these dogs in other countries who need new homes, but really, there are dogs in this country who need new homes, and ultimately, we're talking about dogs here, not human beings. If there are dogs in this country who are in rescue then those should take priority over strays from God knows where else. Rescues in the UK are overflowing with unwanted dogs. We absolutely shouldn't be importing more.

One thing about a higher charge for non spayed and neutered dogs. Personally I think if someone had to pay that because they did not want to spay would become more likely to breed as a way of getting their money back.

You could make them pay license fee for each pup born from a litter. £100 a pup x 8/9/10/11 pups might be enough of a deterrent? Or would that just be added onto sale price of pup? Possibly if it was achievable for that breed but £100 extra might not always be worth it for the buyers.

I live in a semi rural area with a lot of dog walkers. It would be so easy to monitor microchipping legislation. There are several dog walking hubs within a five mile radius for eg, all you would need is the dog warden/police/whoever is tasked with enforcing, with a scanner in the main car park scanning each dog as they go past. Without exaggeration, at busy times eg 8-10am you would literally scan 100+ dogs easily.

Then would come the hard job of getting the money out of non compilers but I guess if it's a legal requirement, on the spot fines could be followed up with heavy handed tactics eg ccjs?

Although I don't think the above will really put an end to badly bred and too many dogs, I think traceability and accountability for your dog can only be a good thing

I'd imagine they would just add it to the sale price of the puppy. And given people are already prepared to pay upwards of £1k for puppies I'd imagine another £100 wouldn't make much difference. Plus if they're unscrupulous enough they simply won't register all the puppies.

i think youre right wanna

It really all boils down to enforceability. There are some brilliant ideas on this thread (and around the net) but they are all as useless as NI's current compulsory dog license unless they are given full government support and funding to kickstart. Which wont happen.