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.

"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." do you really think that the public will be willing to be stopped and scanned every time they take their dog for a walk? There is absolutely no way the public would be on board with that, which in turn would make the job of the enforcer impossible. Back in the day dog licensing did mean your dog had a tag it wore on its collar, and this would obviously be visible, but there would still be no way to enforce the law against those who didn't comply.

IIRC it's a criminal offence to have unregistered livestock. That wasn't always the case, so at some point tagging and registering from birth was put into place. Of course there were big agencies (DEFRA? MAFF?) in place to make sure this was done efficiently and smoothly.
No farmer could or would buy in an unregistered animal, or have one on their farm, neither could they sell one.
If no chip in a puppy at their first vet visit meant a swift report to the useful-RSPCA-alternative which could mean hefty fine/removal of puppy, then prospective owners would hopefully be more proactive at choosing more responsibly bred puppies.

From 6th April 2016, it will be required by law for all dogs over the age of 8 weeks in England and Wales to be microchipped. Quite who is going to police this is beyond me, I won't hold my breath. If authorities can't keep track of the substantial population of banned breeds that should have ceased to exist in the UK years ago, I don't think they'll be checking every dog for a microchip!

Agree with a few factors already mentioned on here:

• The importing of rescue dogs from Greece, Romania etc. is becoming an utter madness. We are putting thousands of dogs to sleep each year because there are no homes for them, why on earth would we import more? Sadly it seems it's no longer good enough to have a rescue you got from the kennels down the road, they have to be foreign!

• Only changing the 'demand' (i.e. how people buy dogs) will change the 'supply' (how people breed them). If puppy buyers would rather have a cheap puppy and don't care that the poor mother has probably never seen daylight, and will have had litters from puberty until she is virtually dead, then shame on them. It's the reality of puppy farms, no matter how good some of their 'front of shops' are.

• GOOD breeders rarely make any money ... it's an expensive business. Unfortunately for the supply and demand argument above, good breeders are also extremely choosy about where their puppies go, so most of the general public would not pass muster and are then left with other sources to buy from.

a scanner in the main car park scanning each dog as they go past.

Unlicensed owners would just avoid the place and go elsewhere.

You're using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Where I am, dogs are licensed and they pay dog tax, which can be steep.

Simply license all the dogs and breeders, and charge a tax on each dog incl puppies.

Wannabe,

It wouldn't be every walk would it, you would have your local council doc warden rotating visiting dog walking hot spots every 6 weeks or so, thereby hopefully casting a wide enough net that even those who wouldn't scan if left to their own devices did, on the basis that being caught without a chip was a big risk.

If it is the law- all digs must be microchipped - then as much as people might not like it, tough shit. I don't really like having to faff about at customs and immigration at the airport, but I appreciate I need a passport to legally travel and so law enforcement has a right to check I'm abiding by the rules.

I'm pretty sure most normal, decent dog owners would have absolutely no issue with a quick sweep of the scanner in passing. I certainly wouldn't.

Equally I like Philphil's idea

TBH, I think a lot of dogs are hardly ever walked anyway...

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

This is one (of the many) issues that concerns me. If the micro-chipping legislation is not implemented with enough 'teeth' in it (and cash behind it) to give the power and opportunity to implement, then it's not going to change a whole lot (and in my opinion, the April legislation has neither teeth nor cash).

However, if the legislation did come with (or develop) the sun-legislation to fully implement, and with appropriate funding (via substantial licence fees and fines) then we might have a chance.

So, to take your example, wannaBe ... sure ... you could easily take your pet cocker and poodle, put them together and pan the resulting offspring off on your kid's mate, for a substantial wad of cash. And ... sure ... no-one would be any the wiser.
Except (just off the top of my head) if the system had real teeth, it might not only be illegal to sell/pass on an unchipped puppy, it might be equally illegal to buy/obtain an unchipped puppy. So your poor unsuspecting kid's mate might get to the vet with their pride and joy, already lighter of the £800 that was in your back pocket, and find they had three options.

1. Get fined £1000 for buying an unchipped puppy.
2. Tell a lie, by saying they found it, only to find that the lost the puppy (which went into the rehome system) and lost the wad of cash you'd taken.

or

1. Filling in an retrospective application to chip, the positive outcome of which was dependent on the pup's breeder being successfully traced by the animal inspectorate (in other words, they'd have to drop your ass right in it, to save their's).

In your kid's mate's shoes, which would you do.

So, they's drop you in it, and you would find yourself facing a £1000 fine for selling an unchipped pup (not to mention the £600 licence fees you'd be paying annually to keep the original two entire canines)!

Anyway ... I'm dropping into the realms of fantasy here because the reality will not only be a lot less toothsome than that, I anticipate the new legislation will bring with it hardly any power or implementation funding at all.

Ah well, I can but dream!

I think some posters are being a bit optimistic about the powers of vets to enforce microchipping legislation - they can neither seize dogs nor be responsible for reports which my result in fines, surely. The latter isn't exactly conducive to repeat custom and the former will probably involve someone having their head stoved in...

"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.

Absolutely do not agree with this. Sadly many rescues in the UK are overflowing with a certain kind of dog. In our area they are predominantly staffies, greyhounds or huskies. If you're looking for a different kind of dog then they are few and far between. Either that or the rescues have such rigid & inflexible rehoming policies that many UK rescue dogs are not an option (for example we were accepted as possible adopters of a dog in the UK but only if the whole family could travel from central Scotland to South Wales with 2 days notice). We rescued our boy from Romania where he had been abused and tortured in a way very few dogs in the UK will ever have been. Our adoption of an overseas dog has had absolutely no impact on the UK shelter population.

Sorry, to clarify, rotating different areas constantly, so only visiting the same area every 6 weeks or so. If you are visiting enough random places frequently enough then you are bound to catch the majority of offenders. Yes there will be those that slip through the net, but we have the same with police spot checks for MOT/ insurance etc. Hopefully those that slip would then be flagged at the vets as per phil's post. Baring in mind that chipping us done for a tiny tiny sum- it's been £10 per dog at our local vets since we moved there in 2007, that most people would rather play by the easy rules than risk £500 fine or whatever.

The fines collected could pay for the extra dog warden/man power.

Dogs in Australia have had to be licenced for years.

There are dog catchers who go round picking up dogs, and take them to the pound. If you collect your dog there is a fine. If your dog is unlicensed, there is a larger fine for that, and you need to license them to take them away.

Dogs which are not picked up can be rehomed after a period of time.

Often, people will take your dog in for you, if it gets out, and call you to collect the dog, to save you the fine.

I'm not sure if it's now changed, but you used to have to have a special licence if you wanted more than two dogs.

This means that breeders can still breed, but not just anyone can set up as a breeder.

I don't know if this works better than in the UK, though, or if it's cost effective.

DrunkenUnicorn If you are fiend by the courts (and pay) the fine will go to into the Consolidated Fund - it will not be earmarked for particular expenditure. the Treasury call that "hypothecation of revenue" and will fight it all the way. The only time it ever happened was the Road Fund Licence in Twenties and within a few years the Treasury had started spending some of that on things other than roads. It has not been called the Road Fund Licence (except by the AA and other road-campaigners) for decades.

Don't kid yourself that fines levied on errant dog-owners will be spend on more dog wardens. They won't.

That's FINED by the courts although the typo is rather pleasing.

I think some posters are being a bit optimistic about the powers of vets to enforce microchipping legislation - they can neither seize dogs nor be responsible for reports which my result in fines, surely.

Legislation would be put in place to allow vets as well as other agencies to confiscate dogs. Obviously the vet should not be put at risk, and if the owner kicked off then the police would be involved.

Hopefully, after time this would become less neccesary as dog owners would become aware of, and in the main, obey the new laws.

No vets absolutely would not have the power to confiscate unchipped dogs/puppies. And given the number of dogs which are already in rescues across the country, where on earth do people think these dogs are going to be held pending rehoming to ... Um, where was it again? Given the rescues already don't rehome to most people?

I think this has actually come full circle and that the answer really is that there is nothing that can be done other than to change the attitudes of society towards owning and wanting to pay a fortune for the right kind of dog, thus creating the end of the supply and demand chain.

The reality is that most people wanting a dog want it as a family pet. And the reality is that for most dog owners, having a dog is a joyful, and largely stress-free experience. So it still comes down to the price that most of those dog owners are prepared to pay, and let's be honest, a lot of people do believe that money equals quality, so that if you're paying £££ for a dog it probably comes from a decent breeder, when actually it might not.

Equally though, and this may be controversial, there are backyard breeders of mix breed dogs who have potentially ended up with an accidental litter but who do absolutely have the welfare of their puppies at heart. Perhaps what needs to happen is that people absolutely need to be discouraged from buying a dog which they can collect at the service station on the m4 between Cardiff and Bristol, but that if they are looking for a dog on pets4homes etc they need to look at certain criteria, and no, I don't necessarily agree that a waiting list is one of those, if it' scan accidental litter. Those dogs need homes as well, and it is surely far better that they go to loving homes rather than into rescue.

I'm not in the market for a puppy, but if I was, I wouldn't dismiss a dog if I could see it with the parents and litter mates etc, and I wouldn't dismiss a mixed breed either, but equally I wouldn't just accept that certain breeds are only available to the deserving and that I should pay £1k upwards for one.

It's difficult. There are puppy farms everywhere, but these have arisen due to the increasing costs of puppies.

Andrew, that's very interesting, something I had no idea of... Although ultimately slightly depressing

I don't have a problem with people making money by breeding dogs - it's time consuming hard work - why shouldn't breeders be paid for the service they are providing?

However I think anybody selling a dog should be licenced, similarly to other professions where you need a licence or qualification in order to practice.

At the moment it's difficult for an average first time dog owner to know who to trust. The kennel club doesn't really meet the needs of the average buyer whose priority is animal welfare and health, but not necessarily breed standards. (Not saying kennel club doesn't care about health and welfare, just that those aren't their only priorities and afaik they don't cover non-pedigree dogs and the non-pedigree market needs to be regulated.)

No vets absolutely would not have the power to confiscate unchipped dogs/puppies.

I can't see why not, in the same way that retailers are required to try to confiscate dodgy cards, or that cars get impounded etc.

And given the number of dogs which are already in rescues across the country, where on earth do people think these dogs are going to be held pending rehoming to ... Um, where was it again? Given the rescues already don't rehome to most people?

Sadly, in the short term there would be a lot of dogs destroyed. In the longer term the shelters should be far emptier than they are now.

If there was a hefty financial penalty I would hazard a guess that "accidental" litters would become less common.too.

I think this has actually come full circle and that the answer really is that there is nothing that can be done other than to change the attitudes of society towards owning and wanting to pay a fortune for the right kind of dog, thus creating the end of the supply and demand chain.

I think that if people knew that there was a qualification or standard that breeders needed to have, they would be less likely to blunder into buying dogs from a puppy farm claiming to be a family home.

The type of people who buy from the backyard breeders are the type that want a status symbol, not a dog. They have badly behaved animals because they can't be bothered with them, (their children are the same) It will never be stopped until animals are no longer a "thing" like a fancy handbag. This is the type of thing - www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrific-100million-puppy-farm-trade-6636045.
I just hope that bitch suffered in prison. They are not fit to live, or to be called human

A veterinary practice with the power to seize dogs and issue fines would be out of business within a week. Staff absolutely would be at risk in that brief, eventful period too!

I can't see why not, in the same way that retailers are required to try to confiscate dodgy cards, or that cars get impounded etc.
Because animals are living beings, not things. They need food, shelter, etc.

I would happily pay £100 a year to not have my Bitch neutered. I've had German Shepherds for 30 years (and longer if you count family dogs), we've never had an accidental mating and only one planned litter, whose puppies were all wanted by the family.

There is mixed opinion on neutering, so much so that it would be difficult to get this passed as law.

The royals and some working dog owners, don't neuter, this Bill would get powerful opposition.

I also used to Foster GS. I'm glad that they died out of fashion as a breed, because there was some very sorry looking GS bought to use as a guard dog, from over bred Bitches.

""If people are too poor to afford food/insurance etc then they shouldn't afford a dog""

Food yes, but not insurance, the PDSA provides a excellent training ground for Vets.

You can't legislate poor people out of dog ownership.

The lads on my HA estate, are good dog owners, their dogs are well looked after and trained, but I doubt that they would pass a tick box list.

When I wanted another cat from a rescue, they wouldn't rehome in my Post Code.

The Police in my area can't manage, Crops, Guns, Drugs, or Scrambler Bikes, they aren't going to be able to Police this and they won't fund the protection that those checking home breeders would need.

It also depends on the critera for breeding.

I don't like the assumption that most RSPCA prosecutions are towards people on benefits.

If you look at the pathetic fines/sentences handed out to Horse cruelty cases and shocking animal abuse cases, then it's very unfair to penalise poorer, but good dog owners.

There is a big gulf between buying from the kennel club and deliberately buying a status symbol without knowing or caring about the dog's welfare.

plenty of people who buy cross breeds from ads in news agent's windows love dogs. However the middle ground is entirely unregulated.

you might never be able to wipe out back street breeders, but better regulation would help the majority of people who just need more guidance.