Feb
At Last! Puppy Farmers are Unmasked (Thanks to the Bateson Report)
Well, the dust has settled on the hotly anticipated Bateson report in to dog breeding.
Regular readers may have noticed, I’ve been pretty quiet since its publication – the reason? Well, it seemed logical to me to take the time to digest both it and the responses to it from the people who are in position to actually do something on the back of its findings. Whilst I don’t want to use this column to speak about the Bateson report in general detail, I do want to focus on an element that I believe has gone largely unnoticed, and certainly received little attention – Professor Bateson, finally, gave us all a definition of what, precisely, a puppy farmer is in terms we can all understand.Hidden away in the definitions section of the Bateson report is a little, as yet unlit, stick of dynamite.
For years now, this magazine has asked ‘What exactly IS a puppy farmer?’
Is there a magic number at which point someone goes from being ‘responsible breeder’ to ‘puppy farmer’?
Well, it would seem there is!
The Kennel Club has been vocal in criticising puppy farming. Rightly so. Puppy farms are a disgrace and the very fact that they appear to show no signs of decline suggests we have much work to do in terms of ending their vile existence.
As we’ve pointed out before, the Kennel Club, whilst vocally opposing puppy farming, actually takes money from the very people who profit from this sick trade.
It points to its Accredited Breeder Scheme as the ‘best’ place for people to go if they want to avoid the puppy farmers.
So, it may come with a sting to have learned – if anyone actually noticed – that the good Professor, the man the Kennel Club (and Dogs Trust) empowered to conduct the report in to dog breeding has actually given us that magical number that now enables us to label a breeder as a stone cold puppy farmer.
By now, you’re probably wondering what the figure is?
How many litters – per year – do you need to be breeding before you tip the scale from ‘responsible’ to ‘dog farmer’.
And here it is. Written in to the definitions of the Bateson report:
Dog farm: Any establishment breeding dogs which, by virtue of the numbers of bitches/ litters involved, falls under the licensing provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Act.
Ahhh. So, not quite got that EXACT number yet.
Not to worry…
Under the Breeding of Dogs Act, a person falls under the licensing provisions if:
(3) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, where—
(a) a person keeps a bitch at any premises at any time during any period of twelve months; and
(b) the bitch gives birth to a litter of puppies at any time during that period,
he shall be treated as carrying on a business of breeding dogs for sale at the premises throughout the period if a total of four or more other litters is born during the period to bitches falling within subsection (4) of this section.
(4) The bitches falling within this subsection are—
(a) the bitch mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (b) of this section and any other bitches kept by the person at the premises at any time during the period;
(b) any bitches kept by any relative of his at the premises at any such time;
(c) any bitches kept by him elsewhere at any such time; and
(d) any bitches kept (anywhere) by any person at any such time under a breeding arrangement made with him.
So there we have it. Black on white.
According to the Bateson report, the definition of a’dog farm’ / puppy farm is any breeder who produces four or more litters per year.
Let’s put that in big letters – for clarity:
Any breeder who produces four (or more) litters per year is defined as a dog farm / a puppy farmer.
Now then, thanks to the Kennel Club’s own commissioned report – if you breed four litters (or more) we finally have the definition we’ve been looking for all these years.
And, thanks to this definition, we can now begin to examine the data to see just how many ‘dog farmers’ are putting money in to the Kennel Club’s coffers each year. Oh, and might we expect to find some accredited breeders who also produce ‘four or more’ litters per year?
Hmm. I think we might.
Thank you Professor Bateson (and the Kennel Club and Dogs Trust) – the puppy farming definition has been elusive. But now we have it.
It’s time for action. Puppy farming must end and it must end NOW.
Yes Ryan ,I did notice Professor Bateson’s Comment,and mentioned it on a Cavalier Forum.
The Silence from Cavalier Breeders was Deafening .
Bet Hargreaves
I read it as being five or more. A person who keeps a bitch and breeds a litter from her then who breeds four or more OTHER litters in that year…
The only legal definition of a puppy mill I have found in the United States is one that says when standards of care are not provided in order to maximize profits. (I’m paraphrasing here.) Numbers DO NOT define a substandard kennel. That is just totally irrational. We in the US have seen regulations for ‘kennels’ with numbers all over the place, from 5 intact dogs, 25, 50, 100, only intact bitches, intact bitches AND dogs, and including puppies over 4 months old, puppies over 6 months old. It’s just insane to try to define a puppy mill with numbers. The old wonderful kennels had lots of intact dogs and multiple litters with people backed up on their waiting lists. All kept in spectacular conditions and health. We would label them as puppy mills (puppy farms in the UK) today. We MUST concentrate on standards of care, not numbers. It is the only fair method. I really hate these terms to begin with, puppy mills/puppy farms. To me a breeder/kennel either meets standards or doesn’t. It is that simple.
HE was referencing a law on the books this is not a definition. Also, when you limit responsible breeders who doing so to improve the breed then you are damaging the breed. The difference between a responsible breeder and puppy farmer has nothing to do with numbers but with the ultimate care given to the dogs. Some people have the ability to care for more and others don’t. This is so animal rights gibberish.
If you read this entire report you will realize that it is done from the animal rights philosophy whose ultimate goal is to end all use of animals. That means no more pets. One way to do that is to make dogs so expensive that most people cannot afford to buy one. How to do that is to restrict all breeding by lowering the numbers below the gene pools necessary to keep a healthy line going and secondly to make the number of litters count rather than the number of puppies. Some breeds only have two puppies in a litter. This is not enough to ensure a healthy gene pool. This so called study is a sham animal rights study that takes as its premise that we should not have pets. So lets make it impossible for people to have pets.
It is even more clear from the study’s language that the authors did not do the correct job because they do not understand genetics or even the differences between breed litter numbers. This is not science or a proper study this is political hype and nothing more.
With all due respect Mrs Hargreaves the forum you speak about does not allow breeders a voice! it’s membership is primarily pet owners, with the exception of one or two! those who were members, if they do make a comment regarding their peers, they are removed!!!!!
If I may be allowed to reply to some of the above comments,in the Bateson Report .
DOG FARM
Any Establishment Breeding Dogs which ,by virtue of the Numbers of Bitches/Litters involved ,falls under the Licensing provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Act .
A Breeder who Breeds 5 Litters a Year is Termed a Commercial Breeder .
Do those Breeders come under the Breeding of Dogs Act. ?
Do they have to be Licensed and be Inspected by their local County Councils?
My next Comment from Professor Bateson’s Report ,is about In-Breeding.
In the Cavalier Breed ,to get the Cavalier Breed Established in the 1930′s Mother was Mated to Son ,Father to Daughter, Brother to Sister .
Unfortunately the 2nd World came about 5 years later when this In-Breeding was carried out,but this In-breeding was on top of the Original In-Breeding.
The Founder of the Cavalier Breed , Mrs.A. Pitt, mentioned in Cavalier Club Magazine in 1957,that no thought had been given by the Breeders as to the Future of the Cavalier by the In-Breeding.
There was also in the 50′s -60′s -70′s In -Breeding being done by Cavalier Breeders.
Even in the 1980′s there was Half Brother to Half Sister matings taking place.
It is now Claimed because of this In-Breeding in our Cavalier Breed,that there is now no Genetic Variation ,this is so important ,that even if To-day’s Cavaliers are not being In-Bred ,this does not matter ,because there is No Genetic Diversity in the Cavalier Breed.That the Breed now has a Very Narrow Genetic Base.
Has this resulted in 50% of Cavaliers having a MVD Heart Murmur at
5 years of Age,and as was Recently said at the Cavalier Club AGM by the Cardiologist at the AGM, this is no better than it was 18 years ago.
Bet Hargreaves