11/16/13

Rescue vs Breeders

There are a lot of people who love dogs. They may express this love in many different ways: some people own many dogs, some people make donations to important dog causes, young children may adorn their lockers with images of dogs, others may find their joy in training dogs for specialised tasks. While this expression of love is wildly different, there is no denying the central thread: a love of dogs. This love makes up the dog world.

But there’s division in the dog world.

There is a perpetuated myth that dog lovers who engage in dog rescue are some how more experienced, or compassionate, or just better than people who breed dogs.

There is a theme: the dog rescuer versus the dog breeder.

Sometimes the expression of this phenomena is not even subtle:

During Facebook discussions, I see people describe themselves as a ‘rescuer’ or as a ‘breeder’, and therefore differentiate themselves from others in a conversation. Like this:

As you can imagine, the term ‘breeder’ is sometimes used interchangeably with offensive terms like ‘greeder’, or ‘producer’, and then these are also used to delegitimise the experiences of the breeder in hand.

Like the rescue group below (another screen shot from Facebook, in regard to ‘Desex the bad ones!‘):

It’s frustrating when I criticise proposals like the Select Committee Recommendations in SA, or the Breeding and Rearing Code in Victoria, to be told that my biased because, as a breeder, the recommendations would influence my ability to make a profit. Anyone reading my blog would find that I object to many government recommendations for a variety of reasons – not one of them is “because it’ll be harder and more expensive for me to breed puppies”.

This divide in the dog world is not just seen online and on Facebook. I have blogged before on The Sin of Breeding Dogs and the judgement I receive for being a breeder when out and about.

Let me share a secret: No one wants to see dogs euthanised in shelters.

When talking about ‘rescue vs breeders’ on Facebook, Allie, from Maggie’s Farm, said:

I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to talk about “breeders” and “rescuers” because it kind of presupposes two homogenous groups, which isn’t the case. Among some breeders, “rescuers” are “animal rights” people, which to them is like a dirty word. And to some people in rescue, breeders are terrible, selfish people who make more dogs, when they are already dogs needing homes. And implying that there’s some zero sum game here, where a breeder bred and bought dog means a shelter dog dies. It’s not that simple. I think people who fall into both groups can be guilty of alienating the other, because it’s easy to have someone to blame and dislike.

Allie is of course right. There’s not just two groups in the dog world – the dog world is an amazing assortment of people with differing interests and passions. It is this very stuff that unites us.

What unites the dog world?

Comments and images, like those used above, are made like there is no glue in the dog world – and no potential for cohesion. It builds up a divide and splits the dog world into different sides. Our compassion and passion for dogs and their welfare unites the dog world, and this similarity should be embraced, not diminished.

The fact is, there are many in the dog world that bridge both sides. For example, I worked at a shelter for 3 years, have fostered about 45 animals in the last 5 years, and yet I also breed dogs. These roles aren’t in contradiction. I actually really like dogs, in all forms, and so fill up my life with them.

But, in conversations like that above, the dog world is polarised – between rescue problems, morals, and ethics and those of breeders. Between ‘the rescuers’ and ‘the breeders’. As Allie pointed out, it’s not as simple as that – the groups aren’t homogenous.

This terminology stops rescues and breeders being united and does nothing for animal welfare.

The divide impacts upon animal welfare

Rescuers and breeders have different skills and expertise. They have a lot to offer one another. I think it is important for us to recognise how animal welfare could be improved if we were to work more tightly together.

Rescues are often key in finding purebred dogs in rescues and returning them to their recognised breeder. Sometimes, without ethical rescues, ethical breeders would never have the chance to get their dog back. This is a win for rescue, too: one less dog in the rescue system as ethical breeders will take back dogs in need.
Breeders are an excellent knowledge base for rescues, especially when it comes to matters concerning newborn puppies, or when it comes to breed specific knowledge. As a personal example, when my bitch Clover whelped a singleton litter, she then fostered 9 day old rescue puppies as well. My knowledge as a breeder was important to these puppies as they arrived emaciated, dehydrated, and practically dead. On the flip side, because rescue entrusted me with these puppies, I learnt a lot that I didn’t already know.
Breeders often have a list of people interested in dogs, and receive puppy and adult dog enquiries on an ongoing basis. Letting breeders know about dogs locally who are somewhat ‘like’ their breed (in looks or temperament) may mean that breeders can refer enquiries to rescues.

Currently, breeders criticise rescue and rescuers criticise breeders. This is not good for anyone. Having a reciprocal relationship is, obviously, much more desirable. Quite simply, by not tapping into shared passions and shared resources there is a risk of opportunities being lost.

Celebrate those uniting factors

Guess what?

Both rescuers and breeders love dogs.

Both rescuers and breeders want to see animal welfare improved.

Neither breeders or rescues want to see shelter euthanasia at its current level.

Both want to keep dogs out of pounds and rescues to start off with.

There is a lot in common that we can use to our advantage, moving forward.

How can breeders work with rescue?

If you’re a breeder, you can:

Contact your local rescue group and see what areas they need help.
Provide breed-specific advice to rescue groups or adoptive families.
Foster or kennel dogs in need.
Donate information that you’ve designed for your puppy packs.
Make a monetary donation.
Offer to groom rescue dogs.
Offer to transport rescue dogs (especially if you’re travelling interstate to dog show events or for servicing a bitch).
Share your local rescue group’s dog for adoption, including with those that enquire wanting a purebred – their perfect dog may just be in the local shelter.
Make efforts to stay in touch with your puppy buyers to ensure that your puppies stay out of the rescue system.
Educate yourself on the rescue and sheltering system.
Congratulate and support those who choose to adopt a dog.
Do not take a ‘breeder’s side’ by default – recognise the diversity among breeders and feel free to criticse unethical breeders, as well as celebrating ethical rescues.

How can rescues work with breeders?

If you’re a rescue, you can:

Contact breeders to see if they can help with boarding or fostering rescue dogs.
Ask breeders to share rescue dog’s availability with puppy enquirers.
Avoid posting breeder-slamming content (like that on the right) on social media (or anywhere else).
If you can identify the breeder of a dog in care, please contact the breeder – it’s their baby, too.
Utilise breeders as a resource – especially when it comes to rearing baby puppies or breed-specific advice.
Becomes informed on what ethical breeding practices look like, and support ethical breeders.
Support those who choose to purchase a dog from an ethical breeder.
Don’t take the side of ‘rescue’ by default – criticise unethical rescues as well as celebrating ethical breeders and other ethical rescues.

Moving Forward

When I asked about this topic on Facebook, one of my friends said,

There are ethical and unethical people on both sides, reasonable and unreasonable. I believe the ethical and reasonable can effectively work together in the best interest of dogs, the other side there isn’t much you can do about it.

Only those who are ‘reasonable’ and ethical will understand what this post is getting at.

Overall, we need both rescue and breeders to promote ethical places to acquire dogs from:

From a registered breeder
From a private rehoming
From an ethical rescue

We are all passionate about dogs and their welfare. So; Let’s focus on the dogs, and not each other.

Further reading:

Our dogs are our beloved companions 98% of the time (written by a breeder)

I love dog breeders.

Patricia McConnell on Breeders Versus Rescues (Responsible breeding – an oxymoron?).

It’s become fashionable to hate dog breeders.

I hate dog breeders.

04/27/13

Companion Animal Taskforce in NSW – Feedback

Screenshot from Companion Animal Taskforce I actually think we have pretty good legislation in regard to companion animal welfare. NSW is no exception – they have the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that is simple, but effective. You can’t be cruel to animals, you have to give them food, water and shelter, you have to give them vet treatment if they need it, you can’t just abandon them, you can’t fight them, you can’t sell dying animals.

Then there’s the Companion Animal Act. It requires that pets are idenitified with a microchip and collar and tag, registered, and keep those details up to date. Your dog can’t escape. You can’t have your dog offlead (except for off lead areas), and you can’t have your dogs near food areas or kid areas. Some breeds have to be muzzled (boo). Your dog can’t attack people or animals. You have to pick up your dog’s poo in public. And then what happens if you’re bad and you let this stuff happen.

All pretty simple stuff, but all stuff that makes total sense and is very easily enforceable.

But recently, across Australia, there has been justifiable concerns about the number of animals that are killed in pounds. In SA, we are still waiting for the report from the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare (Dogs and Cats). In NSW, they created the NSW Companion Animals Task force (brief summary of the process and players) and they had recently released a report to the Minister for Local Government and and the Minister for Primary Industries. (Oh, sorry, they went off course and made two reports, in fact, another on dangerous dog legislation.)

Basically, this is a big breeder crackdown. Somehow, the Taskforce is under the impression that breeder regulation will improve shelter euthanasia rates. However, the regulation allows backyard breeders to keep breeding with no penalty. They want their breeder’s code (which I has previously criticised) to be enforced from standards through to guidelines. They want anyone breeding to have Certificate II in Animal Studies.

The also say that a pet owner license system would “be onerous for cat and dog owners”, but it seems like this is a logical group to target when considering the shelter impound and euthanasia problem. Generally, owners surrender pets to shelters – not breeders.

Indeed, the Taskforce puts blame on breeders for the killing that pounds do. The report is dismissive of no kill and no kill legislation, but this is the only way to stop shelters from killing our pets. The Taskforce fails to acknowledge any obligation on pound facilities to ensure animals in their care aren’t euthanised.

There’s some good bits. They want breeders to be linked to animals they breed through their microchip – something I suggested way back in 2010. Rescued and desexed animals would also have cheaper registration fees – an excellent incentive to spur people to adopt. The Taskforce wants to make it easier for people to rent with pets. A few good bits in an otherwise disappointing report.

Unfortunately, you can’t do much about it but fill in a form on their website. But you may as well, it doesn’t take very long: Fill in their feedback form. NOTE: You must fill this form in quickly after you load the page, otherwise your session will ‘expire’ and you will lose all your selections. Unfun!

At the end of the form, there’s a section where you can submit less than 2000 characters. I chose to focus on the most prominent issues in this field, as obviously space was limited!

This report neglects to note that animal shelters are where animal euthanasia actually takes place. Considering this, implementing legislation that obligates shelters to undertake best practice may be beneficial in reducing euthanasia rates. This could include mandated strategies to increase reclaims, “Oreo’s Law”, or mandating minimum times for animals to be available for adoption.

When animals are reclaimed, this means they are not at risk of being euthanised. Shelters should be required to post impounded animal photos online, and there be a required process in using microchip information. Furthermore, they should be open at convenient times (for example, 8am-8pm) so working people can reclaim their pets.

“Oreo’s Law” would prevent shelters euthanizing animals where they have rescue group alternatives. In other words, pounds would only be able to destroy animals when it is really ‘the last option’.

Additionally, companion animal welfare would benefit if facilities were obligated to have animals available for adoption for a minimum period. This means that ever animal is given a minimal period to be removed from the facility by another party, and so escape euthanasia.

If we were to determine that breeder-licensing scheme was in the best interest of animal welfare, then the code of practice’s standards and guidelines are not. The code practically obligates animals to be raised in sterile conditions that are not conducive to the psychological interests of animals. This is particularly true of puppies, which have a critical socialisation window where they are required to interact with a range of new stimuli to be well-adjusted adult dogs. Ironically, ‘dangerous dogs’ are often dogs with inadequate socialisation experiences, which is what the code of practice practically obligates breeders to abide by. Any breeder code needs to focus on breeders’ producing pets that are physically and psychologically sound, which is clearly lacking in the current code.

Obviously, there is a lot more that could be set, but space is paramount, and so focussing on the critical issues is most important.

We can only hope that all recommendations, particularly regarding the breeder code, don’t get through. It’s up to us to provide sensible feedback to inform their decisions. Lets hope that logic wins out.

Further Reading:

DogzOnline’s call to action

SavingPets has written on the Companion Animals Taskforce:
Same, Same & Not at All Different - on the Taskforce’s willingness for pounds to continue their killing
RSPCA NSW Announces Support for Companion Animals Task Force - on the unsurprising reaction from RSPCA

And what I have written on companion animal welfare legislation in the past:
Clean and Kenneled: The Future of Dog Breeding – on how the breeder code in NSW puts puppies in kennel environments
What is the Answer? (To puppy farms) – on microchipping being linked to breeders
My submission to the Select Committee on Companion Animals

04/22/13

Clean and Kennelled: The Future of Dog Breeding

Many animal welfare groups call for legislation that defines what ‘best practice’ is for breeders. They state that their goals are to eradicate any suffering of animals used for breeding. While I, too, am concerned about the wellbeing of animals, this concern extends to all dogs, and not only those used for breeding practices. Because of this, I advocate for animal welfare legislation to be upheld nation-wide. While I certainly want to discourage individuals motivated solely by profit and romantic ideals from breeding dogs, I do not want to see committed, knowledgable and ethical breeders removed from their hobby.

However, this is exactly what dog breeding legislation seems to be doing in Australia.

Puppies, on grass, with two adult dogs: Sin! According to Australian breeders legislation.

Nationally, here are two significant pieces of legislation regarding dog breeding, though both are only applicable to certain areas. There is the Gold Coast’s “Breeder Code of Practice” which targets anyone with entire dogs, and, in NSW, there is the “Breeding Dogs and Cats – Code of Practice“, which targets anyone breeding animals. These codes seem to have been developed in consultation with one another, because they are very similar in a lot of ways. Significantly, both codes have ‘standards’, which are enforceable, and ‘guidelines’, which are just recommendations on breeding animal husbandry.

Commercial Breeding Establishments Only

Both the Gold Coast and NSW document is written in a way that obligates people to keep their animals in kennels and concrete enclosures. They define breeding establishments as being purpose built (NSW), the floor as being ‘non-porous’ (GC), that needs to be disinfected weekly (NSW & GC), and run off into a sewage system (NSW).

I know what this is trying to do – it’s trying to stop people with a large number of dogs running in muddy and faeces-laden runs. However, this legislation targets anyone who breeds dogs (NSW) and anyone with an entire dog (GC). This means that people who keep and raise dogs and puppies in their home are effectively illegal.

For example, my puppies are raised in the dining room – an excellent place for puppies to socialise to general household ruckus. However, my dining room was not purpose built for puppy rearing, it is not disinfected weekly (though it is cleaned daily when housing puppies), and it doesn’t have a drain, let alone a drain to a sewage system. This means I wouldn’t, legally, be able to raise puppies in a home environment while in NSW or the Gold Coast. To follow legislation, my puppies would have to be raised in a purpose built enclosure outside or in a shed, something I think is hugely undesirable and indeed detrimental to the psychological development of puppies (it would produce what Ian Dunbar calls ‘Lemon Puppies‘).

Effectively, both these pieces of legislation have made-illegal the practice of raising puppies in a home environment. The alternative is raising puppies in a kennel environment, and that just doesn’t make sense considering what we know on the importance of puppy socialisation. However, considering the NSW legislation also says that puppies “must not be separated from their mother until 7 weeks”, it seems that the legislation has zero interest in producing amicable, sociable, independent, and well-rounded puppies.

Dogs Can No Longer Be Crated

Both schemes specify minimum sizes for animal enclosures. The Gold Coast calls for the dog to be able to move away from its bed to urinate and defecate. This legislation pretty much means that crates cannot be used, as they are smaller than the minimum enclosure sizes specified. Considering the benefits of crate training, why would legislation be introduced to delegalise it?

The minimum enclosure sizes increase for the number of puppies, which makes sense, except it doesn’t define an age. This means they require a bitch with puppies to be housed in a minimum area of 3.5 metre square area (NSW). I often lock a bitch in a 1 metre square area with their puppies during the first week or two, because otherwise I find bitches neglectful of their puppies. It, of course, depends on the individual bitch, but with legislation such as this in force, I can’t make decisions based on these individuals. I am serious when I say that not locking Clover in with her puppies would almost undoubtly have resulted in puppy death – but this would be contravening the legislation in NSW that requires bitches to be able to escape their young. How is that in the best interest of animal welfare?

Co-Habitation of Animals is Foggy

Both pieces of legislation are a bit unclear, but seem to suggest that animals should be isolated from one another. The Gold Coast Scheme asks for enclosures to be “disinfected between animals”, which implies that two animals may not share a run. The NSW legislation requires bitches in season to be “isolated from other animals”, a truly bizarre request. I wonder if the writers of the legislation realise that bitches require an entire and fertile male dog to get pregnant, so can run with any dog that doesn’t fit that description and avoid pregnancy?

In kennel situations, having a dog companion is important to enriching the day-to-day life of that dog. Furthermore, for young puppies, having dog-dog play is important for developing bite inhibition. And, again, for the hobby breeder at home, running dogs together is a natural part of dog ownership. It doesn’t make sense that people with two or more pet dogs can run them together, but having two or more breeding animals means that this is no longer an option.

Elements of Mandatory Desexing

I have already discussed the implications of mandatory desexing schemes, and both these schemes stink of mandatory desexing. The Gold Coast scheme even says “A permit condition may require the holder of the permit to desex an entire female animal which the holder of the animal has retired from breeding”. Yuck! This comes back to considering the well being of individual animals (is desexing really in their best interest?).

Arbitrary Limits for Animal Welfare

Both schemes have, with no real basis, decided that numbers determine bitch welfare. For example, in the Gold Coast, a bitch is clearly compromised if she has more than 4 litters, and if she is older than 6 years old. In NSW, a bitch can’t be mated on their first cycle, regardless of their age. Of course, I wouldn’t advocate breeding a bitch at 6 months, but many bitches don’t come in until they’re 18 months or older. What hazard does pregnancy in a bitch’s first cycle cause? While these strange numerical scales are probably good guides in general, they are by no means indicative of animal welfare.

Double Standards

I find it ironic that the Gold Coast scheme says that “Euthanasia of cats and dogs is only acceptable for the relief of incurable illness, chronic pain, and suffering”, yet the RSPCA of QLD euthanises 30% of dogs and puppies that come into their care and 44% of cats and kittens (according to their 2011/2012 annual report). Why are breeders, whose ‘job’ is to breed animals, held to a higher standard than shelters, who’s job it is to shelter and protect them? Furthermore, the scheme calls for secure enclosures, yet the RSPCA QLD admits to having 15 dogs escape throughout the course of the year (again in the 2011/2012 annual report). Can you say “what the”?

Weird Inclusions

Some parts of the scheme are just plain weird. In the Gold Coast you are allowed to tether animals (known to increase aggression in dogs), but you can’t microchip them before 8 weeks of age…

In NSW, breeders need to record keep everything, have emergency procedures for evacuation documented, and have functioning fire righting equipment. All very excessive for a home, hobby breeder.

Puppy on grass! Legislation wants this banned!

So what does this mean?

While animal welfare groups who push for breeder standards have good intentions, so far, no legislation has been produced that does anything other than legitimise the practice of kennelling dogs and raising puppies in kennel environments. While I would not argue that all kennel environments are ‘bad’ for dogs, they certainly fall short of socialisation that can be achieved in a home environment, and so fall short of producing the best puppies that they can.

Breeders have a responsibility to care for the wellbeing of their animals – but disinfectant, concrete floors, and isolated animals isn’t necessarily indicative of animal welfare. Dog welfare is as much as the psychological aspects of keeping and raising good dogs: Selecting appropriate parents with good temperaments, providing enriching environments, socialisation and toilet training of puppies, and monitoring their dogs for life.

If socialisation was mandated, I would be all for it. If breeders were responsible for their animals for life, that would be awesome.

Making breeders keep their animals in kennels instead of houses is just backwards to everything we know about dog welfare.

Further Reading:

Can Breeders Breed Better?

The Sin of Breeding Dogs

The Fallacy of Mandatory Desexing

What is the answer (to puppy farms)?

01/14/12

The Sin of Breeding Dogs

I’m in the process of socialising my puppy. We’ve attended various places and am asked a number of questions. But the question I dread is, “When did you get her?”

My reply is, “I actually bred her litter.”

I’ve seen a number of faces go hard and critical when I make this declaration. You can see their brains turning… They think about RSPCA ads about puppy factories, they think about shelter ads telling them animals are dying in pounds, they think about how irresponsible I am to own entire dogs.

When did dog breeding become such a sin? Continue reading →

Blogging on all things dogs, particularly dog science and dog politics.

Tag Archives: dog breeders

Companion Animal Taskforce in NSW – Feedback

Clean and Kennelled: The Future of Dog Breeding

The Sin of Breeding Dogs