Reading the minutes of the meeting was informative and enlightening concerning dog breeding.
However one comment by James Yates (RSPCA) made me want to scream and it went something like this:
The RSPCA have done a lot on puppy farming and has been the main force in tackling this as well as other issues of cruelty that Marc mentions. But if we do not receive a complaint about an issue we are not authorized to investigate it, so Marc please let us know if you have specific cases as we are then able to investigate it. WOW!!!
http://www.apgaw.org/images/stories/6th_December_2011_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
When have the RSPCA 'done a lot on puppy farming'? They are not in a position to enter a licensed dog breeders premises, even if a concern of animal welfare is raised by the general public. The RSPCA passes all complaints on to the Council to attend and will only attend themselves if invited to do so by the Council. They call it the joined up approach to working - a working partnership. Which in effect achieves nothing.
But I will remember James Yates words and quote them next time I have reason to contact the RSPCA, maybe rather than ignore emails sent someone may respond. Please take note Mr Hubbord (RSPCA) I am still waiting for a reply to my last emails.
Friday, 30 December 2011
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Welsh Assembly Government Consultation on Dog Breeding
Here is a link to the latest consultation paper issued by the Welsh Assembly Government.
http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/environmentandcountryside/breedingdogs/?lang=en
There is the opportunity to comment.
http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/environmentandcountryside/breedingdogs/?lang=en
There is the opportunity to comment.
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Planning Application - Penparc, LLangynin, St Cleares, Carmarthenshire SA33 4BA
URGENT NOTIFICATION
PLANNING APPLICATION Number W/25841
RETENTION OF USE OF FORMER AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AS DOG BREEDING KENNELS. PENPARC, LLANGYNIN, ST CLEARES, CARMARTHENSHIRE, SA33 4BA.
Carmarthenshire County Council Planning Department, Application Number W/25841.
Here is a link to Carmarthenshire planning department where you can view the plans.http://online.carmarthenshire.gov.uk/eaccessv2/PlanningAppRefSearchResults.aspx
Objections to this application must be received by Carmarthenshire Planning Department by the 10th January 2011. The planning officer is Jonathon Locke who can be contacted on 01267 224867 email: jglocke@carmarthenshire.gov.uk
The retrospective planning application submitted by the Elizabeth M Roberts of Penparc is for dog breeding kennels, they are already licensed by Carmarthenshire Public Protection Department for 107 breeding bitches and 17 stud dogs and have been for the past few years, yet planning permission was neither applied for by the applicant or asked for by the licensing officer when granting the licence. An Enforcement notice was served on the applicant Number W/ENF/05396 resulting in the applicant submitting the planning application.
The applicant E M Roberts also has a working sheep farm at the same premises with 750 sheep as well as the dogs numbering 124 in total in addition litters of puppies. The litters of puppies it is stated in the application are not sold direct to the public but are sold as trade on a wholesale basis with their transportation taking place once a fortnight. As well as the applicant there are two part-time workers employed on the site. The12 month dog breeding licence (renewed annually) is current until August 2012.
The dog breeding kennels can be viewed on the application plans, they are agriculture buildings, made of concrete and brick , the upper walls and roof with asbestos sheeting and profiled metal sheeting. The one window in Unit 1 is of brown PVC, and is reliant on artificial light, there are some sky lights for natural light but doors are solid and swing type, there are some exercise runs to be seen in photos. Unit 2 the whelping unit has 4 doors with a mesh grid on top of doors for natural light.
The applicant replied on the application form when asked - 'Trade effluents and waste, as NO ' this should be answered with yes as some waste from dog breeding premises is classified as hazardous waste and needs to be disposed of correctly.
Remember objection to be effective need to be on planning issues as welfare issues are only a consideration and not a reason for refusal for a planning application. Never the less it is important to place objections to these applications to enable Councils to see that the general public are not accepting of the commercialization of large scale dog breeding and the selling of puppies through dealers and pet shops. Therefore it important to highlight and make objections to the Council when these applications are submitted by dog breeders.
Thank you for your co-operation.
Patricia
email: puppyalert@btinternet.com
Thursday, 8 December 2011
When rescue is a step too far.
Originally I did not intend to write about rescue on this blog because most operate efficiently doing a brilliant job but there are the occasions when something catches my eye and I feel justified in commenting and asking the question, is this just one step too far?
Some rescues concentrate solely on dogs and puppies and in particular dogs from puppy farms and pounds, which in itself should not really raise alarm bells in my thoughts. After all to rescue a dog from an atrocious situation in a puppy farm or to take dogs on death row must be so rewarding and I have much admiration for those in rescue that tackle the task of neglected and unwanted dogs and puppies. But this must be responsibly undertaken with care and integrity by those who rescue the dogs and are responsible for their aftercare.
The details I am referring to are on public view on their own rescue web site, therefore one must presume they are comfortable with public awareness of their decisions and actions taken in response to the dogs and puppies that arrive in the centre. Transparency, unfortunately, may also at times bring with it criticism if the public does not feel comfortable with what they are reading.
My concern relates to an 9 year old female dog, a breeding bitch who was offered for fostering on the 30th November 2011 and this is what followed, taken from their web site.
05-12-11 UPDATE
Poor sweet Jelly!!!! She came to us an older lady and rather thin. We got a little weight on her and sent her to our vet to spay. She was opened up only to find she has at least 3 pups in her tummy. They are already large and well formed so she has been closed and will get a high quality food and a whole lot of love to help her. Jelly does however need a wonderful foster home - one who is savvy and able to cope with mum dogs in this condition and whelping them.
The rescue after 5 days of getting a little weight on this dog she was sent to be spayed, only for the vet to find that after opening her up, she had at least 3 large well formed puppies inside her. Now whether the rescue or vet were unable to determine if the dog was in pup prior to being opened because the puppies could not be felt or ultra sound equipment was not available it does not say. But should the rescue, in view of this dogs age (nine years) not have ensured she was not in pup before being prepared for spaying? Due to this poor dogs age and numerous previous litters, would it have been advisable for the vet after removing the puppies for them to be humanely euthanized and the vet to continue with spaying the bitch? Would this have been a better decision than opening up this dog, stitching her back again and leaving the puppies to go full term? Which has left this dog with a fresh wound, stitches which maybe still in when having to give birth in the very near future and suckle puppies or stitches out but a tender wound by the time of the birth, followed yet once more by an operation and spaying?
Another incident caught my attention written on the owners blog, which was as follows.
I am aware that a closed pyometra is very difficult to detect but they can be diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs, which include time of season (often within a month) increased drinking, off colour, and raised white blood cell count. Furthermore as the uterus is generally distended with pus, this distension can often be detected by x ray or ultra sound.
The rescue said in the blog 'the dog had just been given to me'. Therefore has the rescue contacted the RSPCA? Because if this is a case of neglect by the owner of the dog they should be made responsible under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for failure to get veterinary treatment for their dog, instead of handing it into a rescue and the resulting consequences.
This rescue undertakes a massive task of rescuing dogs and puppies but I do wonder if it does go a step too far in its eagerness to rescue all at all costs. Does the rescue take in too many dogs and distribute them too quickly into a foster homes which are situated, I understand, all over the country, without giving themselves adequate time to assess the dogs properly in the rescue beforehand? Most dogs have very little time in the actual rescue before spaying takes place and then moved from the centre into a foster home which could be hundreds of miles from the rescue in Wales this is sometimes within hours of being operated on and having travelled hundreds of miles to reach the centre from Ireland in the first place. I have to ask is this acceptable from an animal welfare point of view? Everything happening at this rescue appears to be too hurried, too fast in the eagerness to rescue as may dogs at all cost, regardless.
At one time the breeding bitches from the puppy farms in Wales were the priority for this rescue (sometimes they ae still taken) but it appears of late they have ventured into fresh pastures and Ireland is favoured more. But where ever they take dogs from I sincerely hope the rescue will report what they find and see in the premises they visit and not close their eyes to what is happening around them for fear of not being allowed to continue to take the dogs, leaving the unwanted ones to languish in misery until next time...when really these premises should be closed down. But they will not be unless the authorities have the evidence, the evidence that rescues have if they are involved in taking dogs in from breeders but while people keep quite and say nothing, the vicious circle of over breeding and the rescue of the neglected and unwanted will continue. We must all do more to stop this happening it is not the answer to continue to rescue and say nothing it is perpetuating the problem of the over breeding of dogs and the production of too many puppies.
Some rescues concentrate solely on dogs and puppies and in particular dogs from puppy farms and pounds, which in itself should not really raise alarm bells in my thoughts. After all to rescue a dog from an atrocious situation in a puppy farm or to take dogs on death row must be so rewarding and I have much admiration for those in rescue that tackle the task of neglected and unwanted dogs and puppies. But this must be responsibly undertaken with care and integrity by those who rescue the dogs and are responsible for their aftercare.
The details I am referring to are on public view on their own rescue web site, therefore one must presume they are comfortable with public awareness of their decisions and actions taken in response to the dogs and puppies that arrive in the centre. Transparency, unfortunately, may also at times bring with it criticism if the public does not feel comfortable with what they are reading.
My concern relates to an 9 year old female dog, a breeding bitch who was offered for fostering on the 30th November 2011 and this is what followed, taken from their web site.
05-12-11 UPDATE
Poor sweet Jelly!!!! She came to us an older lady and rather thin. We got a little weight on her and sent her to our vet to spay. She was opened up only to find she has at least 3 pups in her tummy. They are already large and well formed so she has been closed and will get a high quality food and a whole lot of love to help her. Jelly does however need a wonderful foster home - one who is savvy and able to cope with mum dogs in this condition and whelping them.
The rescue after 5 days of getting a little weight on this dog she was sent to be spayed, only for the vet to find that after opening her up, she had at least 3 large well formed puppies inside her. Now whether the rescue or vet were unable to determine if the dog was in pup prior to being opened because the puppies could not be felt or ultra sound equipment was not available it does not say. But should the rescue, in view of this dogs age (nine years) not have ensured she was not in pup before being prepared for spaying? Due to this poor dogs age and numerous previous litters, would it have been advisable for the vet after removing the puppies for them to be humanely euthanized and the vet to continue with spaying the bitch? Would this have been a better decision than opening up this dog, stitching her back again and leaving the puppies to go full term? Which has left this dog with a fresh wound, stitches which maybe still in when having to give birth in the very near future and suckle puppies or stitches out but a tender wound by the time of the birth, followed yet once more by an operation and spaying?
Another incident caught my attention written on the owners blog, which was as follows.
I have had highs and very lows. Yesterday a very low. A dog that had only just been given to me died on our vet's table. She was full of infection. The vet needed to operate to save her. Even as she put the towel clamps on her pus broke out of her skin. The whole of her insides were full of this and she was poisoned by it. She had Pyometra that is what's called a Closed Pyometra. This is an infection in the womb that never showed itself instead manifested inside and made her body septic. We could not save her. She had barely any time in her many years of love and she did not even recognize that. She was cheated and me also of knowing and helping her. If she had been spayed it would have never have happened. Maybe a lesson for those of you who tell me you love your dogs far too much to spay them. Maybe the question is do you love them far too much to kill them? I must say a huge THANK YOU to Jo our vet and the vet nurses this week, for they too have lived my sadness's as we all shed tears together. Never have I met a vet with such love compassion and kindness. I pray she will stay working for our dogs and our sakes. End
I am aware that a closed pyometra is very difficult to detect but they can be diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs, which include time of season (often within a month) increased drinking, off colour, and raised white blood cell count. Furthermore as the uterus is generally distended with pus, this distension can often be detected by x ray or ultra sound.
The rescue said in the blog 'the dog had just been given to me'. Therefore has the rescue contacted the RSPCA? Because if this is a case of neglect by the owner of the dog they should be made responsible under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for failure to get veterinary treatment for their dog, instead of handing it into a rescue and the resulting consequences.
This rescue undertakes a massive task of rescuing dogs and puppies but I do wonder if it does go a step too far in its eagerness to rescue all at all costs. Does the rescue take in too many dogs and distribute them too quickly into a foster homes which are situated, I understand, all over the country, without giving themselves adequate time to assess the dogs properly in the rescue beforehand? Most dogs have very little time in the actual rescue before spaying takes place and then moved from the centre into a foster home which could be hundreds of miles from the rescue in Wales this is sometimes within hours of being operated on and having travelled hundreds of miles to reach the centre from Ireland in the first place. I have to ask is this acceptable from an animal welfare point of view? Everything happening at this rescue appears to be too hurried, too fast in the eagerness to rescue as may dogs at all cost, regardless.
At one time the breeding bitches from the puppy farms in Wales were the priority for this rescue (sometimes they ae still taken) but it appears of late they have ventured into fresh pastures and Ireland is favoured more. But where ever they take dogs from I sincerely hope the rescue will report what they find and see in the premises they visit and not close their eyes to what is happening around them for fear of not being allowed to continue to take the dogs, leaving the unwanted ones to languish in misery until next time...when really these premises should be closed down. But they will not be unless the authorities have the evidence, the evidence that rescues have if they are involved in taking dogs in from breeders but while people keep quite and say nothing, the vicious circle of over breeding and the rescue of the neglected and unwanted will continue. We must all do more to stop this happening it is not the answer to continue to rescue and say nothing it is perpetuating the problem of the over breeding of dogs and the production of too many puppies.
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Dogs4Us
In the recent week Dogs4 Us were highlighted by the media, Manchester Evening News who wrote about Manchester United footballers who in recent years purchased puppies from the Dogs4Us pet store. Manchester Evening News should not be proud of highlighting celebs and footballers buying puppies from a pet shop, it only shows a lack of knowledge and awareness by the footballers and celebs in the correct way to purchasing a puppy.
Pet shops and dealers in puppies are not the ideal way to purchase a puppy because it is not possible to see the puppy interacting with the dam or to speak personally with the breeder. It is very important to ask the breeder about health screening (that reputable breeders undertake) in conjunction with the Kennel Club and BVA screening schemes for known hereditary conditions in pedigree breeds of dogs and the prospective purchaser to view the premises where the puppies were born. This is not possible when buying puppies from pet shops and dealers, a very valid reason why they should be avoided.
Having looked at Dogs4Us web site it appears they cannot make their mind up as to whether they purchase from licensed or unlicensed breeders as the contradict themselves. But regardless of this, if a pet shops source of puppies is from Wales, it is unlikely to make any difference, due to the poor conditions found in both licensed and unlicensed premises, something that has been highlighted through the media and campaigning groups, the connection between irresponsible commercial dog breeding, dealers and pet shops. If Southern Ireland is the source then as yet there is no requirement for the licensing for dog breeders so I will leave that to your imagination as to the conditions and the plight of the dogs and the puppies they produce. N Ireland like S Ireland have some exceedingly large commercial dog breeders who have hundreds of dogs in agriculture sheds (just like Beili Bedwi and many others in Carmarthenshire,Wales) selling all their puppies to dealers and pet shops. A commodity on a conveyor belt system of mass produced puppies from weary dams and sires who are used repeatedly to serve the needs of the buying public. This is the sickening puppy trade.
If Manchester Evening News had any concern for animal welfare it would not be highlighting celebs and footballers cuddling their puppies purchased from a pet shop but would engage an undercover investigator to trace the source of where the pet shops and dealers buy their puppies from. They may get a rude awaking to the reality of the pet shop puppy and the plight of the breeding dogs instead of glitz and glamour of celebs holding puppies and cute puppies displayed inside glass fronted cages in pet superstores, it would be dark sheds, stench, deprivation and suffering. This is not what the public sees (unless anti puppy farm groups highlight through the media) and it certainly will not be what the dealers and pet shops want the public to know when they charge massive over inflated prices for a cute puppy. The public are getting duped and it is time they realised it.
Maybe publicly Dogs4Us may like to explain what does their vet actually check when the vet examins the puppies, when they say 'good physical condition' and '6 month guarentee'? The vet can only give a very basic health check such as heart, eyes and ears of the puppy. The 6 month guarantee is meaningless because anyone purchasing a puppy from a seller who is in the business of selling puppies is covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 the same as it they had purchased any other commodity such as TV, car of washing machine.
What is the 7 day settling in period they offer? The consumer has the right to return, replace or repair under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, therefore what are they offering other than what is the consumers right under consumer law with or without their guarentee?
If the purchaser does not receive details of health screening of the dam and sire of the puppy because they have not been screened under the BVA, KC schemes.
The purchasers does not receive a pedigree or registration document that can be authenticated providing the puppy purchaser the assurance that the puppy they purchased was bred by the named person on the paperwork. This means they also cannot always check where the puppy was bred and by whom therefore they only have the sellers word that the puppy they are purchasing was not bred on a puppy farm.
What is a puppy farm? There is no legal definition of a puppy farm. A puppy farm can only be described by an individuals interpretation of what they envisage a puppy farm to be. A puppy farm as far as my own interpretation is that it is a dog breeding establishment that breeds for commercial gain and sells puppies to dealers and pet shops, they maybe licensed or not licensed it does not make an difference, they are mass producing puppies for the puppy trade.
Dogs4Us on their site say 'a very small percentage of people in the UK are trying to discredit our good name by linking us with puppy farms. This is utter nonsense and does not represent what Dogs4Us is about'. Then maybe Dogs4Us need to explain when they buy in and resell puppies where they actually do purchase their puppies from that can offer them a constant supply of puppies 365 days of the year if it is not the puppy farmer/commercial dog breeder?
Pet shops and dealers in puppies are not the ideal way to purchase a puppy because it is not possible to see the puppy interacting with the dam or to speak personally with the breeder. It is very important to ask the breeder about health screening (that reputable breeders undertake) in conjunction with the Kennel Club and BVA screening schemes for known hereditary conditions in pedigree breeds of dogs and the prospective purchaser to view the premises where the puppies were born. This is not possible when buying puppies from pet shops and dealers, a very valid reason why they should be avoided.
Having looked at Dogs4Us web site it appears they cannot make their mind up as to whether they purchase from licensed or unlicensed breeders as the contradict themselves. But regardless of this, if a pet shops source of puppies is from Wales, it is unlikely to make any difference, due to the poor conditions found in both licensed and unlicensed premises, something that has been highlighted through the media and campaigning groups, the connection between irresponsible commercial dog breeding, dealers and pet shops. If Southern Ireland is the source then as yet there is no requirement for the licensing for dog breeders so I will leave that to your imagination as to the conditions and the plight of the dogs and the puppies they produce. N Ireland like S Ireland have some exceedingly large commercial dog breeders who have hundreds of dogs in agriculture sheds (just like Beili Bedwi and many others in Carmarthenshire,Wales) selling all their puppies to dealers and pet shops. A commodity on a conveyor belt system of mass produced puppies from weary dams and sires who are used repeatedly to serve the needs of the buying public. This is the sickening puppy trade.
If Manchester Evening News had any concern for animal welfare it would not be highlighting celebs and footballers cuddling their puppies purchased from a pet shop but would engage an undercover investigator to trace the source of where the pet shops and dealers buy their puppies from. They may get a rude awaking to the reality of the pet shop puppy and the plight of the breeding dogs instead of glitz and glamour of celebs holding puppies and cute puppies displayed inside glass fronted cages in pet superstores, it would be dark sheds, stench, deprivation and suffering. This is not what the public sees (unless anti puppy farm groups highlight through the media) and it certainly will not be what the dealers and pet shops want the public to know when they charge massive over inflated prices for a cute puppy. The public are getting duped and it is time they realised it.
Maybe publicly Dogs4Us may like to explain what does their vet actually check when the vet examins the puppies, when they say 'good physical condition' and '6 month guarentee'? The vet can only give a very basic health check such as heart, eyes and ears of the puppy. The 6 month guarantee is meaningless because anyone purchasing a puppy from a seller who is in the business of selling puppies is covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 the same as it they had purchased any other commodity such as TV, car of washing machine.
What is the 7 day settling in period they offer? The consumer has the right to return, replace or repair under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, therefore what are they offering other than what is the consumers right under consumer law with or without their guarentee?
If the purchaser does not receive details of health screening of the dam and sire of the puppy because they have not been screened under the BVA, KC schemes.
The purchasers does not receive a pedigree or registration document that can be authenticated providing the puppy purchaser the assurance that the puppy they purchased was bred by the named person on the paperwork. This means they also cannot always check where the puppy was bred and by whom therefore they only have the sellers word that the puppy they are purchasing was not bred on a puppy farm.
What is a puppy farm? There is no legal definition of a puppy farm. A puppy farm can only be described by an individuals interpretation of what they envisage a puppy farm to be. A puppy farm as far as my own interpretation is that it is a dog breeding establishment that breeds for commercial gain and sells puppies to dealers and pet shops, they maybe licensed or not licensed it does not make an difference, they are mass producing puppies for the puppy trade.
Dogs4Us on their site say 'a very small percentage of people in the UK are trying to discredit our good name by linking us with puppy farms. This is utter nonsense and does not represent what Dogs4Us is about'. Then maybe Dogs4Us need to explain when they buy in and resell puppies where they actually do purchase their puppies from that can offer them a constant supply of puppies 365 days of the year if it is not the puppy farmer/commercial dog breeder?
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Facebook groups fight over battery dog farm
Here is a link to this mornings online report focusing on Beili Bedw. Will write more later.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/11/facebook-fight-over-puppy-farm-91466-29398168/
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/11/facebook-fight-over-puppy-farm-91466-29398168/
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Councillor suggests more farmers should plough their money into dog breeding
My goodness what is the matter with Welsh Councillors, why do some feel that farmers should diversify into dog breeding to put money back into their farm? This was one Councillors (County Councillor Linda Davies Evans) thoughts when asked by the media to comment on the retrospective planning application for Beili Bedw.
Every one is entitled to have their opinion, I do not dispute that but why would someone wish to encourage battery dog farming? http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Defiant-campaigners-vow-continue-puppy-farm/story-13280410-detail/story.html
Beili Bedw is the largest licensed dog breeding establishment in Wales, there are more not too far behind in numbers of dogs on the premises. Surely to suggest that others and the vast majority are, like the owners of Beili Bedw, farmers, is Councillor Davies Evans seriously suggesting that others follow in the footsteps of Beili Bedw? Is it right that so many dogs and so few staff should be contained in a couple of farm sheds day and night without human contact. Who will attend to a whelping bitch if in need, who will attend to the puppies when weaning and need four meals a day and grooming, is there time for grooming, exercise and daylight, do the dogs ever see daylight and have a free run? Who will have time to take an unwell dog to the vet, does it even happen? What do you think with 196 dogs and few staff?
It is very easy to put two dogs together and allow them to mate to produce a litter of puppies to sell to dealers this is what these battery dog farms do. They do not select a male and female dog carefully ensure that they are screened for known health issues in the pedigree breed, by using the Kennel Club and BVA health screening schemes - that costs money and takes profit away from the business. These dog farms are businesses, what else can they be called? I always used the word puppy farms but that conjures up a pretty picture of puppies, frolicking like lambs in springtime on green grass, when of course the reality is quite different many puppies will never see daylight, just bare walls usually grey concrete with a heating lamp and often no bed just something basic on the concrete floor. As for the puppies mother she will be provided the same, a cow mat or bread pallet, if lucky a plastic bed but invariably no bedding, some pregnant bitches have nothing but a concrete floor to give birth on, mostly alone and often in darkness. Do not think comfort, warmth and careful rearing for the puppies or extra nutrition for the dam, more often that not veterinary care is not given, in fact very rare if anything extra given to the dogs other than the bare necessities to keep them alive and produce puppies every season. The breeders will say they breed every other season which is once in 12 months how without irrefutable identification of the dogs and accurate record keeping can this be proven, it cannot, because they do not keep accurate records. The inspecting officers know this but they do nothing even though it is a breach of their licence conditions. I could and will write much more later ...
Every one is entitled to have their opinion, I do not dispute that but why would someone wish to encourage battery dog farming? http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Defiant-campaigners-vow-continue-puppy-farm/story-13280410-detail/story.html
Beili Bedw is the largest licensed dog breeding establishment in Wales, there are more not too far behind in numbers of dogs on the premises. Surely to suggest that others and the vast majority are, like the owners of Beili Bedw, farmers, is Councillor Davies Evans seriously suggesting that others follow in the footsteps of Beili Bedw? Is it right that so many dogs and so few staff should be contained in a couple of farm sheds day and night without human contact. Who will attend to a whelping bitch if in need, who will attend to the puppies when weaning and need four meals a day and grooming, is there time for grooming, exercise and daylight, do the dogs ever see daylight and have a free run? Who will have time to take an unwell dog to the vet, does it even happen? What do you think with 196 dogs and few staff?
It is very easy to put two dogs together and allow them to mate to produce a litter of puppies to sell to dealers this is what these battery dog farms do. They do not select a male and female dog carefully ensure that they are screened for known health issues in the pedigree breed, by using the Kennel Club and BVA health screening schemes - that costs money and takes profit away from the business. These dog farms are businesses, what else can they be called? I always used the word puppy farms but that conjures up a pretty picture of puppies, frolicking like lambs in springtime on green grass, when of course the reality is quite different many puppies will never see daylight, just bare walls usually grey concrete with a heating lamp and often no bed just something basic on the concrete floor. As for the puppies mother she will be provided the same, a cow mat or bread pallet, if lucky a plastic bed but invariably no bedding, some pregnant bitches have nothing but a concrete floor to give birth on, mostly alone and often in darkness. Do not think comfort, warmth and careful rearing for the puppies or extra nutrition for the dam, more often that not veterinary care is not given, in fact very rare if anything extra given to the dogs other than the bare necessities to keep them alive and produce puppies every season. The breeders will say they breed every other season which is once in 12 months how without irrefutable identification of the dogs and accurate record keeping can this be proven, it cannot, because they do not keep accurate records. The inspecting officers know this but they do nothing even though it is a breach of their licence conditions. I could and will write much more later ...
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Beili Bedw Planning Decision
Going away I missed the site inspection on 30th August and the decision made by the Councillors on the planning committee of Carmarthenshire County Council for the retrospective planning application for the change of use of an agriculture shed as dog breeding kennels at Beili Bedw, Llanllwni, Pencader, Carmarthenshire, SA39 9DP.
There was no surprise to hear that all but two of the Councillors followed the Head of Planning recommendation for approval. Here is a link to the minutes of the planning meeting
Having read the minutes it is very easy to spot where the fault lies and why a situation such as this has developed. Firstly, there has been no attempt since 1994 (planning permission for 9 dogs) by the owner of the farm to to apply for planning permission for dog breeding even though he had increased the numbers of dogs on the premises to 196 (number licensed for). Neither has there been any question asked by licensing, they have just allowed the numbers of dogs to increase and at times more than the figure given on the licence.
The application last year to increase the size of this agriculture shed which did not require planning permission due to the application stating for agriculture use for sheep and agriculture implements but this shed was very quickly adapted and fitted out with panels and automatic feeding and drinking vessels for dog breeding. One surely has to question whether this was the intention all along. Fortunately, it was noted and planning enforcement were advised but they lacked the will to enforce legislation and chose to request the owner to submit a planning application, not content with one application another planning application for the original barn was sneaked in too for change of use.
It is stated in the minutes that the applicant accepted that the failure to obtain planning consent was an error on his part as he believed the licence to be sufficient. The words of a farmer, a business person, with a wife working for the local authority, it is difficult to take this explanation and excuse for none compliance seriously.
So what is the situation now, sadly very little different than before for the dogs. However for highlighting the premises through the media and the operation of dog breeding on this massive scale at least enlightened the public of their involvement in batttery dog farming, breeding of dogs and producing puppies on a conveyor belt system to supply to dealers. The irresponsibility of Councils in allowing premises to grow to this size knowing that they have inadequate staff to maintain a high level of animal welfare. In the last inspection report animal welfare concerns were noted but that was a matter for licensing , of course that may have to wait until the next yearly inspection as it is unlikely that any attention has been given in the mean time, just another case filed away.
But more eyes have been opened and the people of Wales are beginning to be aware of this and other clandestine operations involving dog breeding in Wales, the supply of puppies to dealers and pet shops. Not all believe that this type of diversification is justifiable. Puppy Alert was responsible a number of years ago for halting the grant funded scheme through Farming Connect to provide farmers with grants for kennelling to go into dog breeding. Thankfully the scheme was halted after only two grants were given oddly enough to two farmers already involved in dog breeding, which should never have been considered as diversification.
With so many more eyes watching and listening, we will be aware and ready if it is thought justifiable to oppose a planning application or a renewal of a dog breeding licence. Attention will be paid to the renewal of these premises licence. Hopefully new legislation which is yet to reach the statute book may discourage some breeders when they have to employ staff, these premises will need at least eight full time members of staff and more with whelping bitches and puppies.
There was no surprise to hear that all but two of the Councillors followed the Head of Planning recommendation for approval. Here is a link to the minutes of the planning meeting
Having read the minutes it is very easy to spot where the fault lies and why a situation such as this has developed. Firstly, there has been no attempt since 1994 (planning permission for 9 dogs) by the owner of the farm to to apply for planning permission for dog breeding even though he had increased the numbers of dogs on the premises to 196 (number licensed for). Neither has there been any question asked by licensing, they have just allowed the numbers of dogs to increase and at times more than the figure given on the licence.
The application last year to increase the size of this agriculture shed which did not require planning permission due to the application stating for agriculture use for sheep and agriculture implements but this shed was very quickly adapted and fitted out with panels and automatic feeding and drinking vessels for dog breeding. One surely has to question whether this was the intention all along. Fortunately, it was noted and planning enforcement were advised but they lacked the will to enforce legislation and chose to request the owner to submit a planning application, not content with one application another planning application for the original barn was sneaked in too for change of use.
It is stated in the minutes that the applicant accepted that the failure to obtain planning consent was an error on his part as he believed the licence to be sufficient. The words of a farmer, a business person, with a wife working for the local authority, it is difficult to take this explanation and excuse for none compliance seriously.
So what is the situation now, sadly very little different than before for the dogs. However for highlighting the premises through the media and the operation of dog breeding on this massive scale at least enlightened the public of their involvement in batttery dog farming, breeding of dogs and producing puppies on a conveyor belt system to supply to dealers. The irresponsibility of Councils in allowing premises to grow to this size knowing that they have inadequate staff to maintain a high level of animal welfare. In the last inspection report animal welfare concerns were noted but that was a matter for licensing , of course that may have to wait until the next yearly inspection as it is unlikely that any attention has been given in the mean time, just another case filed away.
But more eyes have been opened and the people of Wales are beginning to be aware of this and other clandestine operations involving dog breeding in Wales, the supply of puppies to dealers and pet shops. Not all believe that this type of diversification is justifiable. Puppy Alert was responsible a number of years ago for halting the grant funded scheme through Farming Connect to provide farmers with grants for kennelling to go into dog breeding. Thankfully the scheme was halted after only two grants were given oddly enough to two farmers already involved in dog breeding, which should never have been considered as diversification.
With so many more eyes watching and listening, we will be aware and ready if it is thought justifiable to oppose a planning application or a renewal of a dog breeding licence. Attention will be paid to the renewal of these premises licence. Hopefully new legislation which is yet to reach the statute book may discourage some breeders when they have to employ staff, these premises will need at least eight full time members of staff and more with whelping bitches and puppies.
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Beili Bedw - Planning site meeting
When Carmarthenshire County Council held their planning meeting to discuss the retrospective planning application from change of use agriculture to dog breeding, it was requested by one of the Councillors for a site meeting. This will take place in private at 10.30am at Beili Bedw Farm, on the 30th August 2011 followed by a meeting at 11.30am by the planning committee when a decision will be made to approve or disapprove the planning application.
It would be good if common sense was used in coming to a decision but I fear that will not be the case as little if any consideration will be given to the animal welfare aspect of running such a large dog breeding establishment of 196 dogs without ensuring the premises are adequately staff. At the present time there is just the owner, a wife working, with one and half employees to look after 196 dogs and a sheep farm. It is an impossible task to carry out all the tasks efficiently that are required in caring for so many dogs, whelping bitches and puppies as well as look after such a large number of sheep and more in the future according to the application.
A business venture which this is, has to prove that it is sustainable in planning legislation and 'emerging policy is a relevant consideration' if that is the case then surely the proposed legislation for dog breeding for Wales must be a consideration when making a planning decision on a dog breeding establishment. If the legislation is passed in the autumn requiring all dog breeding premises to employ staff then these premises must be prepared to employ at a minimum of 10 members of staff (20 dogs one employee) and more if there are whelping bitches and puppies. This is a question that must be asked by the Councillors on the planning committee, agreed and complied with by the applicant prior to planning permission being considered.
But one has to ask why has it taken until now for the question to even be raised? The premises should not have been granted a licence in the first place for so many dogs and no staff. I cannot understand why Carmarthenshire County Council are so lacking in common sense when issuing dog breeding licenses. They must know how much attention dogs need daily and at night too with whelping bitches and puppies but it is obvious it was never a consideration to the licensing department in the past and unlikely to be a consideration in the future even if planning is agreed on the 30th August 2011.
It would be good if common sense was used in coming to a decision but I fear that will not be the case as little if any consideration will be given to the animal welfare aspect of running such a large dog breeding establishment of 196 dogs without ensuring the premises are adequately staff. At the present time there is just the owner, a wife working, with one and half employees to look after 196 dogs and a sheep farm. It is an impossible task to carry out all the tasks efficiently that are required in caring for so many dogs, whelping bitches and puppies as well as look after such a large number of sheep and more in the future according to the application.
A business venture which this is, has to prove that it is sustainable in planning legislation and 'emerging policy is a relevant consideration' if that is the case then surely the proposed legislation for dog breeding for Wales must be a consideration when making a planning decision on a dog breeding establishment. If the legislation is passed in the autumn requiring all dog breeding premises to employ staff then these premises must be prepared to employ at a minimum of 10 members of staff (20 dogs one employee) and more if there are whelping bitches and puppies. This is a question that must be asked by the Councillors on the planning committee, agreed and complied with by the applicant prior to planning permission being considered.
But one has to ask why has it taken until now for the question to even be raised? The premises should not have been granted a licence in the first place for so many dogs and no staff. I cannot understand why Carmarthenshire County Council are so lacking in common sense when issuing dog breeding licenses. They must know how much attention dogs need daily and at night too with whelping bitches and puppies but it is obvious it was never a consideration to the licensing department in the past and unlikely to be a consideration in the future even if planning is agreed on the 30th August 2011.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Carmarthenshire County Council condoning excessive dog breeding rises concern for animal welfare.
Carmarthenshire County Council are failing to control dog breeding or enforce adequately, existing legislation in their County. This was vividly highlighted this week when a Carmarthenshire Planning Officers report recommended approval for 'a change of use from agriculture to dog breeding' for an agriculture barn for 96 dogs at Beili Bedw Farm, Pencader, the final decision will be made at County Hall, Carmarthenshire on the 18th August 2011 by 21 elected Councilors on the planning committee.
It was only in January 26th 2010 that the applicant Dylan Jones of Beili Bedw Farm, Pencader, Carmarthenshire submitted a planning application for 'extension for this existing agriculture barn for agriculture use (sheep) and ancillary agriculture equipment'. This was decided on the 3rd February 2010 and listed as Agriculture Determined, meaning its sole use would need to be for agriculture use, such as sheep.
However, by the end of summer/autumn 2010 unauthorized work had taken place within the agriculture barn, which consisted of a complete refit to the barn, the purpose, to accommodate 96 dogs. As dog breeding is not considered agriculture use the owner was in default of the permission granted only a few months earlier and during this period did not seek change of use for the agriculture barn through planning. By November 2010 planning enforcement were advised and were monitoring the situation with a view of enforcement if no planning application for change of use was submitted to them. This was eventually received in March 2011.
Beili Bedw Farm (owned by Dylan Jones) was granted planning permission in 1994 for the use of another barn on the farm for dog breeding for 9 breeding bitches. In a rather sneaky move on the 13th July 2011 an application was submitted to Carmarthenshire Planning department for 'a variation of condition to regularize the correct use of the building housing 100 dogs' this was approved under delegated powers on the 8th of August 2011. Giving very little notice or time for objections to be logged. Was this a move by the applicant and planning to ease the way for the other agriculture barns change of use?
The earliest period that Carmarthenshire Council can produce the dog breeding licence records for these premises appear in 2001, for 21 breeding bitches, this number has gradually increased year after year until the latest figure (2010) of 196 dogs, when Carmarthenshire Council during their annual inspection agreed to their licence number.
The Councils planning report states dog breeding premises are inspected by a vet but Carmarthenshire Councils policy is a veterinary inspection only for new applicants, when together with a Council inspecting officer a decision is made on the numbers of permitted dogs on each premises. It is not the Councils normal practice for a vet to visit premises for each yearly inspection.
The report submitted to planning is misleading, as the Council yearly inspection reports for these premises during the period 2006 to 20011 (FOI) make no reference to a vet, in fact when the owner was asked on the latest inspection report 'does a Vet regularly inspect dogs? It was left blank. Therefore on who's advice or authority did the Council decide that 196 dogs used for the purpose of breeding would be permitted on their dog breeding licence? Who decided that they should still renew the licence even though two years running inspection reports have mentioned no fire extinguishers in some barns and no smoking signs, placing all dogs at risk.
Common sense is also very lacking within Carmarthenshire County Council if the following questions never arose or were not discussed before granting the renewal of the licence each year and now planning for the premises. Did the council not ask themselves the following?
Can we the Council ensure the licence holder is competent in his duty of care to operate this dog breeding establishment efficiently by giving adequate care to the large numbers of breeding and whelping bitches, stud dogs and puppies together with their farm stock consisting of 800 ewes and 200 followers, when they have inadequate staff, employing just one full and one part time?
Are we as a Council by allowing this large number of dogs without staff encouraging poor practice and is this not detrimental to animal welfare and in contravention of the Animal Welfare Act?
Should we as a Council limit the number of dogs on these premises to a reasonable number that can ensure the dogs welfare is not compromised by inadequate staff, instead of licensing for 196 dogs? If these question were discussed by the Council then surely they could not have agreed to licence this large number of dogs with inadequate staff to care for them.
If the Council acted in the best interest in animal welfare, by using integrity they would have known it is an impossible task to take proper care of so many dogs which ultimately must result in none compliance of the current legislation such as the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (welfare) Act 1999 and the Animal Welfare Act resulting in the risk of animals suffering.
Carmarthenshire Council Public Protection responsible for licensing dog breeders say in the planning report that they have received no complaints against the premises regarding noise or welfare of the dogs. This is not surprising as all puppies from Beili Bedw Farm are sold to dealers and pet shops. Therefore if a person has purchased a puppy from a dealer or pet shop and have reason to complain about the condition of the puppy their redress will be against the the dealer/pet shop and not the breeder (puppies when sold as a business are classified as a commodity). For this reason Carmarthenshire County Council can easily say there have been no complaints because the breeder has no further responsibility towards that puppy once it is sold to the dealer/pet shop. The Council is unlikely to be made aware of the complaint due to puppy being sold hundreds of miles from the area it was bred. Puppies bred on Beili Bedw Farm are all sold to dealers, they are not advertised for sale to the general public and the public do not visit the premises. The breeding bitches and litters of puppies are not seen by the public and the breeder does not advertise their sale.
Regarding noise, the noise assessment carried out at the farm was low according to the report this is not surprising due to the time the assessment was undertaken mid-day and midnight but it is known factor that dogs contained in barns, devoid of human interaction and company, frequently become 'flat' and depressed, lack the motivation of expressing normal behaviour, such as barking unless disturbed by someone entering the building. That is why when the noise assessment was taken at 12 midday and midnight that the noise levels were low. The daytime level in dog boarding kennels would have been very different because dogs would display normal behaviour by barking.
From the period 1994 the premises have operated without intervention from planning or permission to increase the numbers of dogs from 9 breeding bitches in 1994 to the current figure of 196. That is 17 years, yes, 17 years!! Was no Council official on visiting or inspecting these premises ever ask questions of this business operation and its unauthorized expansion during these 17 years? If they did why was it not acted upon until pointed out to them by an outside body that they were operating a business without proper planning permission?
Carmarthenshire Public Protection were aware that dogs were kept in a number of units (stated on the yearly inspection reports) when a head count of the dogs are taken. They knew that both in licensing terms, because of the increase of number of dogs at each yearly inspection, and in planning terms they were operating illegally. Does one department not feel it important enough to communicate with the other on a matter such as this when someone is operating such a large dog breeding establishment a business that is expanding yearly within their County?
With a dog breeders licence already granted at the premises since 2001 with ever increasing numbers of dogs Carmarthenshire Council planning were/are unlikely to not grant planning permission for fear of the applicant appealing against the decision and incurring the Council in Court fees. It is rumoured that Councilors generally have been advised not to vote against the planning officers recommendations due to the risk of an appeal and Court costs. Democracy has little chance in Carmarthenshire if the rumour is true and what of the 730 plus objections received by Carmarthenshire Planning against the change of use, a great many of the objections valid in planning terms, will the Planning Committee not consider them relevant? Had the application for the other barn (original barn for 9 dogs) not come into the public domain so quickly (for 100 dogs) and a decision made under delegated powers by the planning officer giving little time to be contested by the public this would have received equally as many objections.
How much more evidence is needed that there is coercion between Welsh Councils and large scale dog breeders, not just with this application but others too (this is the largest licensed dog breeding premises in Wales) to grant licenses and planning permission? Proving yet again that Councils are in favour of dog breeding on this scale and are prepared to grant licenses and planning permission to allow the business operation of a large number of breeding bitches, a mass production of often poorly bred puppies to meet the demand of the pet trade without ever ensuring that it is not detrimental to animal welfare.
The Councils refer to this as diversification, even the local Community Council Llanllwni, covering the area of this breeding establishment has raised no objection to large scale dog breeding (battery dog farming) within their boundaries, likewise local member County Councillor L Davies Evans, stating one of the reasons why she did not object was as 'important to farm diversification'.
Battery dog farming on this large scale and selling puppies to dealers and pet shops is as far from ethical dog breeding where breeding bitches and stud dogs are screened for known hereditary conditions, receive regular veterinary treatment, a person at hand for whelping and puppies sold direct to the purchaser which is reputable and moral. Dogs such as those on this application are living in confinement, devoid of human contact, lacking in veterinary care, left to whelp alone, given inadequate beds and bedding and their puppies transported hundreds of miles by vehicle to be sold by a dealer or pet shop, is not ethical and is morally wrong but this is considered the normal practice for the majority of dog breeders in Carmarthenshire, this one being no exception.
It is becoming obvious that Carmarthenshire County Council does not agree and to encourage large scale dog breeding premises is now unacceptable but are not prepared to take into account public opinion or make changes by placing a sensible ceiling on the numbers of dogs each licensed premises are allowed to keep. But by groups such as my own and others encouraging the public to object to this application, it has forced Councillors to face and appreciate the lack of support applications such as this receive by the public at large. Councils such as Carmarthenshire County Council and their elected Councilors on the planning committee should they agree on Thursday 18th August to accept the planning officer recommendations must also realise they condoning lax animal animal welfare standards for our companion animals that are forced by their decisions to often live in deprivation, isolation and lack the adequate care they need and deserve.
Shame on you Carmarthenshire for remaining the catalyst for puppy farming by both unlicensed and licensed breeders supplying the pet trade with poorly bred puppies.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Council Inspection Reports - Dog Breeders. What do they tell us? Cont:
Cont: The inspection reports for dog breeding premises in Wales do clarify the number of units used and the type of construction used for dog breeding. This refers to the internal structure in the areas close to the dogs, often stating block and render. They fail to indentify what the actual construction that accommodates the dogs actually is or what it was previously used for. One may imagine that the dogs and puppies are living in a purpose built kennels block something similar to the ones seen on TV, for example those belonging to The Dogs Trust, specially built and fit for purpose.
In most cases this is far from the truth because one only has to look at planning applications, (although many
dog breeders have not applied for planning permission) to see that they are not purpose built kennels. Neither it is a question that seems to occur to Carmarthenshire Public Protection department to ask an applicant 'do you have planning permission' before granting a dog breeder a licence. For those breeders that have applied for planning permission the application is enlightening as one can read that the building is unlikely to be a purpose built kennel block but an redundant agriculture building or a barn previously used for agriculture use, with pens for sheep or calves, even a pig sty was the description given for more than one application and a poultry shed for another. I cannot say that an old building is never suitable, if properly adapted, equipped, with attached exercise runs which enable the dogs to have free exercise, to hear and see life outside their sleeping areas, human contact as well as shelter from the elements with raised beds and bedding. This could in some cases suffice providing the dogs are allowed to run and exercise in an enclosed outside area a good part of the day.
But this is not the case, without adaption these barns and agriculture units were used for agriculture, farm animals. The farmer would provide the cattle and sheep with straw for bedding, regular feed and water and care given when lambing or calving. A must because the farmers are regulated by Defra, all their cattle and sheep are identifiable and inspected by Defra vets a necessity for traceability because the animals are reared for the food chain. But when farmers diversify and go into dog breeding it is different matter, most seem to have the mindset that what was good enough living accommodation for the cattle and sheep is good enough for the dog, forgetting that a dog is a companion animal with very different needs. This is where Councils in Wales granting a dog breeders licence to dog breeders living on farms fail miserably to see the difference and accept what is good for one is equally adequate for the other, which is irresponsible and foolish because many farmers that breed dogs continue to adopt the same policies for their breeding bitches, stud dogs and litters of puppies as they did/do for their sheep and livestock, when their needs are so varied and different.
It maybe acceptable for a farmer to keep his sheepdogs (an invaluable asset to any farmer) who with the farmer will be active, often hours at a time, then when work is done for the dogs to live in a barn is common place and is not detrimental to its well being. But it is totally different when a farmer decides to make dog breeding a sideline by breeding from 20 to 196 breeding bitches and selling dogs to dealers and pet shops.
To use the same building as those used previously for farm animals without Councils ensuring before granting a licence that the building is renovated and fit for purpose with planning permission is unacceptable. More often than not there are no attached individual exercise runs which means that the dogs are confined in little concrete cells 24 hours each and every day. The inspection report will ask about exercise for the dogs and often the reply is 'dogs are exercised in the yard' in most cases this is far from the truth the dogs never see daylight. They live in solitude and in silence.
This failure by both the Councils and the dogs breeders/farmers to recognize the difference and ensure that the needs of companion animals cannot be compared with farm animals now means that many premises are accommodating between 20 and 196 or more dogs, breeding bitches in unsuitable buildings, which is the root of many of the problems, especially in the litters of puppies reared in these premises and for the breeding bitches and stud dogs that can spend a lifetime isolated from human company, other than briefly at feeding times and mating.
Going into agriculture farm building in winter it is freezing in summer the humidity is high if the barn is enclosed, a comment that is often referred to on inspection reports is, ventilation, if it was a summer inspection and flies.
The dogs are not always provided with a bed, those that are mostly have no or inadequate bedding. bakers trays, wooden pallets, cow mats are all that is usually provided. Not all according to the inspection reports have adequate whelping or isolation facilities, yet they have breeding bitches and dogs living in close proximity to each other. Hygiene and cleanliness is often questioned on the inspection reports indicating that some premises are not in compliance with their licence conditions.
Not all dog breeding premises have fire fighting equipment I would a have thought as matter of course before licensing premises they would need to have to have a fire inspection. But on speaking to the Fire Safety Officer covering an area in Wales a request by the Council has never been made for them to inspect before licensing. Many inspection reports state no fire extinguisher or the box not ticked, placing all dogs at risk in case of fire. Again not acceptable.
What of the dogs themselves that is another interesting matter? To be continued.
In most cases this is far from the truth because one only has to look at planning applications, (although many
dog breeders have not applied for planning permission) to see that they are not purpose built kennels. Neither it is a question that seems to occur to Carmarthenshire Public Protection department to ask an applicant 'do you have planning permission' before granting a dog breeder a licence. For those breeders that have applied for planning permission the application is enlightening as one can read that the building is unlikely to be a purpose built kennel block but an redundant agriculture building or a barn previously used for agriculture use, with pens for sheep or calves, even a pig sty was the description given for more than one application and a poultry shed for another. I cannot say that an old building is never suitable, if properly adapted, equipped, with attached exercise runs which enable the dogs to have free exercise, to hear and see life outside their sleeping areas, human contact as well as shelter from the elements with raised beds and bedding. This could in some cases suffice providing the dogs are allowed to run and exercise in an enclosed outside area a good part of the day.
But this is not the case, without adaption these barns and agriculture units were used for agriculture, farm animals. The farmer would provide the cattle and sheep with straw for bedding, regular feed and water and care given when lambing or calving. A must because the farmers are regulated by Defra, all their cattle and sheep are identifiable and inspected by Defra vets a necessity for traceability because the animals are reared for the food chain. But when farmers diversify and go into dog breeding it is different matter, most seem to have the mindset that what was good enough living accommodation for the cattle and sheep is good enough for the dog, forgetting that a dog is a companion animal with very different needs. This is where Councils in Wales granting a dog breeders licence to dog breeders living on farms fail miserably to see the difference and accept what is good for one is equally adequate for the other, which is irresponsible and foolish because many farmers that breed dogs continue to adopt the same policies for their breeding bitches, stud dogs and litters of puppies as they did/do for their sheep and livestock, when their needs are so varied and different.
It maybe acceptable for a farmer to keep his sheepdogs (an invaluable asset to any farmer) who with the farmer will be active, often hours at a time, then when work is done for the dogs to live in a barn is common place and is not detrimental to its well being. But it is totally different when a farmer decides to make dog breeding a sideline by breeding from 20 to 196 breeding bitches and selling dogs to dealers and pet shops.
To use the same building as those used previously for farm animals without Councils ensuring before granting a licence that the building is renovated and fit for purpose with planning permission is unacceptable. More often than not there are no attached individual exercise runs which means that the dogs are confined in little concrete cells 24 hours each and every day. The inspection report will ask about exercise for the dogs and often the reply is 'dogs are exercised in the yard' in most cases this is far from the truth the dogs never see daylight. They live in solitude and in silence.
This failure by both the Councils and the dogs breeders/farmers to recognize the difference and ensure that the needs of companion animals cannot be compared with farm animals now means that many premises are accommodating between 20 and 196 or more dogs, breeding bitches in unsuitable buildings, which is the root of many of the problems, especially in the litters of puppies reared in these premises and for the breeding bitches and stud dogs that can spend a lifetime isolated from human company, other than briefly at feeding times and mating.
Going into agriculture farm building in winter it is freezing in summer the humidity is high if the barn is enclosed, a comment that is often referred to on inspection reports is, ventilation, if it was a summer inspection and flies.
The dogs are not always provided with a bed, those that are mostly have no or inadequate bedding. bakers trays, wooden pallets, cow mats are all that is usually provided. Not all according to the inspection reports have adequate whelping or isolation facilities, yet they have breeding bitches and dogs living in close proximity to each other. Hygiene and cleanliness is often questioned on the inspection reports indicating that some premises are not in compliance with their licence conditions.
Not all dog breeding premises have fire fighting equipment I would a have thought as matter of course before licensing premises they would need to have to have a fire inspection. But on speaking to the Fire Safety Officer covering an area in Wales a request by the Council has never been made for them to inspect before licensing. Many inspection reports state no fire extinguisher or the box not ticked, placing all dogs at risk in case of fire. Again not acceptable.
What of the dogs themselves that is another interesting matter? To be continued.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Council Inspection reports - Dog breeders. What do they tell us?
Carmarthenshire yearly inspection reports make interesting reading. Under FOI and data protection Councils now remove the names of the breeders and premises and the inspecting officer/s or vet if it is a new application.
Well what do the inspection reports tell us? It is possible to be made aware of how many dog breeders sell their puppies to dealers and pet shops, how many sell to both and how many sell privately. Dog breeders were asked if a vet visits the premises. How dog breeders remove waste created from running a dog breeding establishment. How many breeding bitches, stud dogs, other dogs and litters are seen on the day of inspection. The basic conditions for the dogs offered by the dog breeder such as food, water supply, heating and cleanliness. The type of construction of the units and numbers of units on the premises including isolation unit. Fire extinguisher and main entrance notice and licence displayed. Records of breeding bitches records of puppies and who sold. Identification of puppies if sold to dealer or pet shop. On the face of it reading the inspection reports the uninitiated may think, not too bad over all, boxes are ticked and on some the word good is written often.
But what are the facts behind the written word and what do they tell us? Well, from the 84 dog breeders inspection reports from February 2010 until March 2011 it is clear that 35 dog breeders sell litters of puppies to dealers, 20 dog breeders sell to both dealers and private purchasers and only 25 sell only to private purchasers often using free ads and the Internet. So roughly three quarter of all breeders in Carmarthenshire are supplying dealers and pet shops with litters of puppies.
How many dogs live on licensed dog breeding establishments in Carmarthenshire? At this count there were 2,418 breeding bitches, 476 stud dogs, 422 other dogs and 354 litters of puppies seen on the day of inspection.
It appeared that 41 dog breeders when asked could name a veterinary practice that they could use, it did not indicate they were registered with a local vet but some did say to check the puppies before sold and in some cases to vaccinate but only a few mentioned their breeding bitches or stud dogs. What of the other 44 dog breeders are we to presume they just have not answered the question or the inspector failed to complete the form or in the worse scenario which is the most likely to use the services of a vet is highly unlikely.
With so many licensed dog breeders in one County (this does not count the unlicensed ones which is thought to equally as many again) owning and rearing so many litters of puppies, how do they dispose of the waste created by dog breeding? From the information it appears they use varios methods, some are illegal due to the classification of some waste from dog breeding premises as hazardous.
Industrial/Trade Waste 4, Farm Waste, 16, Slurry Pit, 20, Farm Muck/Dung Heap 19 (one said ploughed into the land) Cess Pit 3, Septic Tank, Incinerator (some Defra Approved) 6, Burnt 5, Composted/recycled and some Inspectors left the question blank.
So who is advising the dog breeders of the correct methods to use and more to the point who is ensuring they do so before we have another environmental catastrophe. Is the Environment Agency not active in ensuring this hazard does not reach the watercourses within Carmarthenshire? Has Carmarthenshire Public Protection who are responsible for licensing dog breeders ever discussed this issue with the Environment Agency? This is important as we wait the decision of Carmarthenshire Planning on the change of use from agriculture to dogs breeding on one licensed premises that has 196 dogs! This dog breeders reply to the question of methods used for waste disposal was pit, taken to mean slurry pit?
I will continue with this later .......
Well what do the inspection reports tell us? It is possible to be made aware of how many dog breeders sell their puppies to dealers and pet shops, how many sell to both and how many sell privately. Dog breeders were asked if a vet visits the premises. How dog breeders remove waste created from running a dog breeding establishment. How many breeding bitches, stud dogs, other dogs and litters are seen on the day of inspection. The basic conditions for the dogs offered by the dog breeder such as food, water supply, heating and cleanliness. The type of construction of the units and numbers of units on the premises including isolation unit. Fire extinguisher and main entrance notice and licence displayed. Records of breeding bitches records of puppies and who sold. Identification of puppies if sold to dealer or pet shop. On the face of it reading the inspection reports the uninitiated may think, not too bad over all, boxes are ticked and on some the word good is written often.
But what are the facts behind the written word and what do they tell us? Well, from the 84 dog breeders inspection reports from February 2010 until March 2011 it is clear that 35 dog breeders sell litters of puppies to dealers, 20 dog breeders sell to both dealers and private purchasers and only 25 sell only to private purchasers often using free ads and the Internet. So roughly three quarter of all breeders in Carmarthenshire are supplying dealers and pet shops with litters of puppies.
How many dogs live on licensed dog breeding establishments in Carmarthenshire? At this count there were 2,418 breeding bitches, 476 stud dogs, 422 other dogs and 354 litters of puppies seen on the day of inspection.
It appeared that 41 dog breeders when asked could name a veterinary practice that they could use, it did not indicate they were registered with a local vet but some did say to check the puppies before sold and in some cases to vaccinate but only a few mentioned their breeding bitches or stud dogs. What of the other 44 dog breeders are we to presume they just have not answered the question or the inspector failed to complete the form or in the worse scenario which is the most likely to use the services of a vet is highly unlikely.
With so many licensed dog breeders in one County (this does not count the unlicensed ones which is thought to equally as many again) owning and rearing so many litters of puppies, how do they dispose of the waste created by dog breeding? From the information it appears they use varios methods, some are illegal due to the classification of some waste from dog breeding premises as hazardous.
Industrial/Trade Waste 4, Farm Waste, 16, Slurry Pit, 20, Farm Muck/Dung Heap 19 (one said ploughed into the land) Cess Pit 3, Septic Tank, Incinerator (some Defra Approved) 6, Burnt 5, Composted/recycled and some Inspectors left the question blank.
So who is advising the dog breeders of the correct methods to use and more to the point who is ensuring they do so before we have another environmental catastrophe. Is the Environment Agency not active in ensuring this hazard does not reach the watercourses within Carmarthenshire? Has Carmarthenshire Public Protection who are responsible for licensing dog breeders ever discussed this issue with the Environment Agency? This is important as we wait the decision of Carmarthenshire Planning on the change of use from agriculture to dogs breeding on one licensed premises that has 196 dogs! This dog breeders reply to the question of methods used for waste disposal was pit, taken to mean slurry pit?
I will continue with this later .......
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Councils Failings
Councils are responsible for licensing dog breeders, dealers and pet shops premises, yet many dog breeders operate commercially and licensed but do not have planning permission, whilst many others operate unlicensed and without planning permission. This is particularly noticeable in Wales.
When licences are granted some Councils fail to ensure that dog breeders, dealers and pet shops adhere to their licence conditions, even when matters of concern relating to animal welfare are drawn to their attention. Failure to use their power of enforcement and allowing dog breeders to continue to operate, leaves dogs and puppies to suffer in poor conditions. Many Councils are lacking in controlling the numbers of dogs allowed for dog breeding on the premises, this results in many dogs living in inadequate conditions to rear and raise their puppies, which again causes suffering. Premises are allowed to operate, often with just a husband and wife team, without Councils ensuring that extra staff are employed to care for the dogs as well as raising litters of puppies which is often an impossible task when the number of dogs far exceed the numbers of hands available particularly at whelping time.
Some Councils even fail to ensure that dog breeders, dealers and pet shops comply with current legislation such Breeding and Sale of Dogs (welfare) Act 1999, Animal Welfare Act and the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended 1991).
When licences are granted some Councils fail to ensure that dog breeders, dealers and pet shops adhere to their licence conditions, even when matters of concern relating to animal welfare are drawn to their attention. Failure to use their power of enforcement and allowing dog breeders to continue to operate, leaves dogs and puppies to suffer in poor conditions. Many Councils are lacking in controlling the numbers of dogs allowed for dog breeding on the premises, this results in many dogs living in inadequate conditions to rear and raise their puppies, which again causes suffering. Premises are allowed to operate, often with just a husband and wife team, without Councils ensuring that extra staff are employed to care for the dogs as well as raising litters of puppies which is often an impossible task when the number of dogs far exceed the numbers of hands available particularly at whelping time.
Some Councils even fail to ensure that dog breeders, dealers and pet shops comply with current legislation such Breeding and Sale of Dogs (welfare) Act 1999, Animal Welfare Act and the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended 1991).
Dog Breeding Licences
Have read with interest the Blog by Safe Pets UK on the subject of dog breeding licences and the numbers of dogs a person should be allowed to be licensed for. They asked, shouldn't there be a ceiling on the number of dogs a person can be licensed for, and the suggested figure was 50 breeding bitches. Why the figure of 50 should be redeemed acceptable I cannot imagine, as a person with 50 breeding bitches would still be considered a commercial breeder, possibly selling puppies to dealers and pets shops as they do now. If commercial dog breeding is to be better regulated as it must, then the main purpose behind the owning of a large number of dogs for breeding must be banned. Most breeders (but not all) that own a large number of dogs for breeding do so to to supply puppies to dealers and pet shops. Therefore us, as campaigners must persistently provide Governments with good, factual, sound evidence that animal welfare is seriously compromised by allowing the puppy trade to continue.
A statement written by the blogger of Safe Pets UK blog said the following and I quote:
'We are just finishing Freedom of Information enquiries regarding the issue of dog breeding licences by various councils around the country. It has long been thought that the majority of the puppy farmers are in Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion, Wales and thousands of sick, fearful and aggressive puppies are sold from there all over the UK. Our study aims to prove for the first time that the problem in those areas is real. End of quote
My goodness, 'Our study aims to prove for the first time that the problem in those areas is real' this information is not news and to say it is the first time is incorrect, those of us that have campaigned for years as far back as 1991 with Puppy Watch and in recent times the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Puppy Love Campaigns, Hope UK, Spec, Animal Aid, Nature Watch, the Kennel Club, Puppy Farming Aware and Puppy Alert have all sang from the same hymn sheet and saying that Wales is the centre of the puppy farming supply trade of irresponsibly bred puppies followed by Eire. Puppy Alert and Puppy Love Campaigns have for years received information under FOI confirming this fact and have written about it often. But unfortunately whilst Governments and MPs, AMs place their heads in the sand and quote the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, the Pet Animals Act 1951/91 and Animal Welfare Act as being adequate to control the excesses of dog breeding and the selling of puppies from pet shops, rather than accepting the visual and factual evidence supplied by campaigning groups both large and small as proof nothing will change.
We all have a voice including Safe Pets UK who hopefully will continue to highlight the puppy trade. We must all work with one aim in mind to prevent the sale of puppies from dealers and pet shops thus reducing the need for large commercial breeding establishments to operate.
A statement written by the blogger of Safe Pets UK blog said the following and I quote:
'We are just finishing Freedom of Information enquiries regarding the issue of dog breeding licences by various councils around the country. It has long been thought that the majority of the puppy farmers are in Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion, Wales and thousands of sick, fearful and aggressive puppies are sold from there all over the UK. Our study aims to prove for the first time that the problem in those areas is real. End of quote
My goodness, 'Our study aims to prove for the first time that the problem in those areas is real' this information is not news and to say it is the first time is incorrect, those of us that have campaigned for years as far back as 1991 with Puppy Watch and in recent times the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Puppy Love Campaigns, Hope UK, Spec, Animal Aid, Nature Watch, the Kennel Club, Puppy Farming Aware and Puppy Alert have all sang from the same hymn sheet and saying that Wales is the centre of the puppy farming supply trade of irresponsibly bred puppies followed by Eire. Puppy Alert and Puppy Love Campaigns have for years received information under FOI confirming this fact and have written about it often. But unfortunately whilst Governments and MPs, AMs place their heads in the sand and quote the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, the Pet Animals Act 1951/91 and Animal Welfare Act as being adequate to control the excesses of dog breeding and the selling of puppies from pet shops, rather than accepting the visual and factual evidence supplied by campaigning groups both large and small as proof nothing will change.
We all have a voice including Safe Pets UK who hopefully will continue to highlight the puppy trade. We must all work with one aim in mind to prevent the sale of puppies from dealers and pet shops thus reducing the need for large commercial breeding establishments to operate.
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Mathew & Patricia Whelan together with daughter Brenda Whelan O'Brian
Mathew and Patricia Whelan together with their daughter Brenda Whelan O'Brian were banned from keeping and owning dogs for 5 years after a Judge at Luton Magistrates Court described the 'chaotic puppy farm as woefully inadequate'. They all were found guilty of the charges bought against them. The whole article in the local press can be read here.
http://www.dunstabletoday.co.uk/news/local/chaotic_puppy_farm_trio_given_dog_ban_order_1_2856770
They were breeding unlicensed and selling puppies that became sick after purchase. Some of you reading this may recall that they were previously licensed by S Bedfordshire Council as a pet shop (but selling puppies from their home) and advertising on the Internet as PupsonLine.
http://www.dunstabletoday.co.uk/news/local/chaotic_puppy_farm_trio_given_dog_ban_order_1_2856770
They were breeding unlicensed and selling puppies that became sick after purchase. Some of you reading this may recall that they were previously licensed by S Bedfordshire Council as a pet shop (but selling puppies from their home) and advertising on the Internet as PupsonLine.
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
N Kesteven Council - Willow Farm Kennels
Have now received a long awaited response from N Kesteven Council regarding the selling of a puppy from Willow Farm Kennels that died within days of purchase of suspected distemper or leptospirosis both diseases and one a zoonosis.
When the Council were asked what their policy was when advised that a puppy was sold from a licensed premises (pet shop licence) in their area? They replied with 'N Kesteven Council does not have a specific policy when a puppy has been sold that has later died of of a possible outbreak of distemper or leptospirosis, each incident is dealt with as appropriate to the individual circumstances'.
N Kesteven Council were contacted on the 26th May 2011, I understand they spoke to the owner of the premises Willow Farm Kennels the same day but failed to make a visit to the premises until the 10th June 2011. Followed by another visit on the 22nd June 2011. Why did it take N Kesteven Council 15 days to visit the premises when they were notified by the purchaser that their puppy had died from a suspected contagious disease?
The Council said they had no concern for the premises, yet on reading inspection reports under FOI it appears that since 2008 the Council licensing officer has requested and noted on the inspection reports that wood panels and doors needs replacing on the areas where the puppies are kept. Why is N Kesteven Council allowing this to continue and renewing their licence each year when the owners are failing to comply with their licence conditions? The Council are failing in their duty of care too as wood is porous and a known source of spread of disease in kennel areas. The pet shop licence holders excuse for not replacing the wood with metal was 'money is tight', that was in 2008 and 2009 and still the work has not been undertaken.
The puppy that was sold from Willow Farm Kennels according to N Kesteven Council was from an unlicensed breeder, and they have contacted the Council for the area where the puppy was bred.
The questions that remain unanswered are what happened to the other puppies in this litter if they too were delivered to Willow Farm Kennels, were they sold or did they die too? Did the Council contact purchasers of puppies on the premises at Willow Farm at the same time as the puppy suspected of carrying these diseases was there, advising them of this contagious outbreak? It appears not.
This is not acceptable practice on behalf of the owner of the premises nor N Kesteven Council, they have failed in their duty of care on animal welfare and to the consumer who purchases puppies from these premises. The Council says they have few complaints, yet looking at the review online of WillowFarm Kennels there appears to be many disgruntled purchasers of sick puppies. I can recall complaints as long ago as 15 years.
My advice would be to anyone who has purchased a sick puppy from these premises to contact N Kesteven Council they may not be so willing on re-issuing the licence next year if complaints are received. If more people complained about pet shops selling sick puppies then perhaps 'money is tight' will be a real reality for the owners of these premises selling puppies forcing them to close.
When the Council were asked what their policy was when advised that a puppy was sold from a licensed premises (pet shop licence) in their area? They replied with 'N Kesteven Council does not have a specific policy when a puppy has been sold that has later died of of a possible outbreak of distemper or leptospirosis, each incident is dealt with as appropriate to the individual circumstances'.
N Kesteven Council were contacted on the 26th May 2011, I understand they spoke to the owner of the premises Willow Farm Kennels the same day but failed to make a visit to the premises until the 10th June 2011. Followed by another visit on the 22nd June 2011. Why did it take N Kesteven Council 15 days to visit the premises when they were notified by the purchaser that their puppy had died from a suspected contagious disease?
The Council said they had no concern for the premises, yet on reading inspection reports under FOI it appears that since 2008 the Council licensing officer has requested and noted on the inspection reports that wood panels and doors needs replacing on the areas where the puppies are kept. Why is N Kesteven Council allowing this to continue and renewing their licence each year when the owners are failing to comply with their licence conditions? The Council are failing in their duty of care too as wood is porous and a known source of spread of disease in kennel areas. The pet shop licence holders excuse for not replacing the wood with metal was 'money is tight', that was in 2008 and 2009 and still the work has not been undertaken.
The puppy that was sold from Willow Farm Kennels according to N Kesteven Council was from an unlicensed breeder, and they have contacted the Council for the area where the puppy was bred.
The questions that remain unanswered are what happened to the other puppies in this litter if they too were delivered to Willow Farm Kennels, were they sold or did they die too? Did the Council contact purchasers of puppies on the premises at Willow Farm at the same time as the puppy suspected of carrying these diseases was there, advising them of this contagious outbreak? It appears not.
This is not acceptable practice on behalf of the owner of the premises nor N Kesteven Council, they have failed in their duty of care on animal welfare and to the consumer who purchases puppies from these premises. The Council says they have few complaints, yet looking at the review online of WillowFarm Kennels there appears to be many disgruntled purchasers of sick puppies. I can recall complaints as long ago as 15 years.
My advice would be to anyone who has purchased a sick puppy from these premises to contact N Kesteven Council they may not be so willing on re-issuing the licence next year if complaints are received. If more people complained about pet shops selling sick puppies then perhaps 'money is tight' will be a real reality for the owners of these premises selling puppies forcing them to close.
Friday, 1 July 2011
Updates
Another day has passed and the waiting continues. Carmarthenshire planning department are still waiting for further information relating to the retrospective/change of use planning application for Beili Bedw. In the meantime 196 dogs languish in these barns, remember the premises, with just the owner (wife works for the Authority) to look after 1,000 sheep as well as 196 dogs and litters of puppies.
What is the thinking behind Carmarthenshire licensing department when they have re-issued a dog breeders licence each year for these premises when they know there is only one person responsible for so many dogs? Common sense appears to be none existent. Many breeding bitches will be expecting puppies, others rearing a litter and some puppies requiring weaning. Without the everyday basic tasks of feeding, watering and cleaning of the dogs living and sleeping quarters. Where can the time be found to check the health condition of every dog, grooming and exercise, there is not any time and for this reason animal welfare has to be seriously compromised.
When all the relevant information is received by the planning department what will their decision be? Will they take account of the 900 plus objections to this planning, change of use application or will they (because the licensing department have already licensed the premises) be swayed by this irresponsible decision and accept that one person can care for 196 dogs, litters puppies and 1,000 sheep by giving planning permission too? We all wait in anticipation and fear for the welfare of the breeding bitches and their puppies confined in this large battery dog farm. Carmarthenshire County Council have as yet not shown that animal welfare takes a high priority, can we really expect this to change? I certainly hope so, these premises are one step to far and if agreed will set a precedent for even more battery dog farms (as if there are not enough with large numbers of dogs already) operating in Wales. I despair of the lack of integrity of those who are responsible for making decisions that allow premises such as this to exist.
What is the thinking behind Carmarthenshire licensing department when they have re-issued a dog breeders licence each year for these premises when they know there is only one person responsible for so many dogs? Common sense appears to be none existent. Many breeding bitches will be expecting puppies, others rearing a litter and some puppies requiring weaning. Without the everyday basic tasks of feeding, watering and cleaning of the dogs living and sleeping quarters. Where can the time be found to check the health condition of every dog, grooming and exercise, there is not any time and for this reason animal welfare has to be seriously compromised.
When all the relevant information is received by the planning department what will their decision be? Will they take account of the 900 plus objections to this planning, change of use application or will they (because the licensing department have already licensed the premises) be swayed by this irresponsible decision and accept that one person can care for 196 dogs, litters puppies and 1,000 sheep by giving planning permission too? We all wait in anticipation and fear for the welfare of the breeding bitches and their puppies confined in this large battery dog farm. Carmarthenshire County Council have as yet not shown that animal welfare takes a high priority, can we really expect this to change? I certainly hope so, these premises are one step to far and if agreed will set a precedent for even more battery dog farms (as if there are not enough with large numbers of dogs already) operating in Wales. I despair of the lack of integrity of those who are responsible for making decisions that allow premises such as this to exist.
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Clay Hall Puppies
This week my attention was drawn to Clay Hill Puppies, a dog breeder granted a licence by S Norfolk Council for 21 breeding bitches. Why, because of the very odd and obscure names they are calling their designer puppies, Beafies, Ba Shar, Jackahuahua, Jackapoo, Springador, Norfolk Mountain Dog!!! For goodness sake, what is the matter with breeders that they must make up silly names for cross breeds, breeds that do not in my opinion always make a good mix. Is the thinking behind the weird names to attract the buying public into thinking they are purchasing something really special over and above the normal pedigree dog? The price asked for a fashionable cross breed puppy is usually at a premium and people appear willing to pay the asking price for reasons that I fail to understand. Especially if the breeder has not even bothered to health screen under (KC and BVA screening schemes) the dogs they intend using for breeding prior to mating for known hereditary conditions of each of the pedigree dogs used. There really is no excuse for failing to do this.
Having looked at the forum on the web site of the above breeding kennels it is clear that some purchasers have experienced problems with their puppies. Entropion and skin problems are both known conditions in the shar pei one of the breeds used when crossing with another of their pedigree breeds. Have to question why they continue knowing that the purchaser is likely to experience problems with their puppy resulting in an operation and vets fees.
Purchasers should not be fooled into purchasing puppies with fancy names however cute the name may sound, unless they have checked the natural characteristics of both breeds and the hereditary conditions they are prone too before purchase.
I am not against cross breeds, in fact have owned one myself a cross golden retriever/labrador retriever, both gun dog breeds of reputable parentage. But when breeders intentionally choose to breed from two incompatable pedigree dogs, to produce puppies that they can place a designer label on for monetory gain, without health screening is in my opinion detrimental to animal welfare.
If you are thinking of buying a puppy, please do all the necessary research before leaving home. If you have been unfortunate enough to have purchased a puppy with a hereditary condition or in other words in the eyes of consumer law a 'faulty puppy' you are covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, details of what action you can take for redress against the seller can be found by googling Consumer Direct.
Having looked at the forum on the web site of the above breeding kennels it is clear that some purchasers have experienced problems with their puppies. Entropion and skin problems are both known conditions in the shar pei one of the breeds used when crossing with another of their pedigree breeds. Have to question why they continue knowing that the purchaser is likely to experience problems with their puppy resulting in an operation and vets fees.
Purchasers should not be fooled into purchasing puppies with fancy names however cute the name may sound, unless they have checked the natural characteristics of both breeds and the hereditary conditions they are prone too before purchase.
I am not against cross breeds, in fact have owned one myself a cross golden retriever/labrador retriever, both gun dog breeds of reputable parentage. But when breeders intentionally choose to breed from two incompatable pedigree dogs, to produce puppies that they can place a designer label on for monetory gain, without health screening is in my opinion detrimental to animal welfare.
If you are thinking of buying a puppy, please do all the necessary research before leaving home. If you have been unfortunate enough to have purchased a puppy with a hereditary condition or in other words in the eyes of consumer law a 'faulty puppy' you are covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, details of what action you can take for redress against the seller can be found by googling Consumer Direct.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Willow Farm Kennels
Recently an email arrived in my inbox asking my advice, a person had purchased a puppy that had died within eight days of purchase from Willow Farm Kennels, Lincs who are in possession of a pet shop licence allowing them to buy in and resell puppies. The email advised that the puppy according to the vet report when first seen, was small for its supposed age of 10 weeks and the vet thought more likely to be 6/7 weeks of age. The puppy was suffering from a respiratory cough, bloody stools and was prescribed medication. Three days later the owner felt concern for the puppy who displayed difficulty eating and breathing, become listless and weak. The puppy was rushed to the emergency vets, placed on emergency therapy of fluids and anti-biotics overnight with syringe feeding. According to the owner the vets report stated that, 'the puppy was anaemic, pyrexic and making abnormal resporatory sounds. Overnight the puppy deteriated became jaundiced and died the following morning. The owner declined a post mortum but bio-chemistry results and haematology performed on bloods taken confirmed severe anaemia, a bacterial infection and liver damage. The vets report stated we expect she was possibly suffering from leptospirosis, canine distemper virus (COV), canine infectious hepatitis or bacterial cholangiohepititis. Given the clinical history of this puppy it is highly likely that she contacted this disease before comming into the **** household'.
Both the puppy purchaser and myself contacted N Kesteven Council advising them that a puppy was sold from Willow Farm Kennels suffering from a contagious disease, one of which was a zoonosis. I was assured that contact would be made with the kennels. Eventually, two weeks after the Council were notified, they decided they would make a pre-arranged inspection visit to the kennels on the 9th June 2011, I emailed the visiting officer for an update but the email has not been replied to. I have now requested the last three years inspection reports and licensing conditions under FOI.
Common sense has not been forthcomming from the Council, a puppy was sold from these premises suffering from a contagious disease which has placed all other puppies on the premises at risk and possibly humans too. Yet they failed to see any urgency in visiting the premises to check the records of where this puppy was bred, to contact the breeder of the puppy and if licensed the Council covering the area the puppy was bred or any other purchasers sold puppies from the premises. When I requested to know of the Council area the puppy was bred, I was verbally advised 'there are no records'. What is going on? Pet Shop Licence holders have to keep records under their licence conditions for this very reason - disease and the traceability of puppies bought into the premises and sold if they later suffer from a contagious disease. What action are the Council going to take if any? Watch this space for further updates.
Willow Farm Kennels have sold a sick puppy that was under age, not vaccinated, the purchaser was I am advised just given paperwork to say the puppy was vaccinated and wormed but there was no proof that could be verified, such as a vet signature or sticker from the vaccine phial. The puppies purchase price was £525 which Willow Farm Kennels has now refunded but there are extra expenses outstanding.
Pet shops have a responsibilty to ensure that puppies when sold are healthy but this was certainly not the case in this instant. That is why it is inadvisable to purchase puppies from a third party, puppies are very vulnerable, succumb easily to disease sometimes from their breeding premises, during transportation or from other puppies whilst waiting to be sold.
Purchasers of puppies when sold as part of a business are covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and can ask for reimbursement. But that still does not take away the trauma and heartache of having a puppy die within a few days of purchase.
Both the puppy purchaser and myself contacted N Kesteven Council advising them that a puppy was sold from Willow Farm Kennels suffering from a contagious disease, one of which was a zoonosis. I was assured that contact would be made with the kennels. Eventually, two weeks after the Council were notified, they decided they would make a pre-arranged inspection visit to the kennels on the 9th June 2011, I emailed the visiting officer for an update but the email has not been replied to. I have now requested the last three years inspection reports and licensing conditions under FOI.
Common sense has not been forthcomming from the Council, a puppy was sold from these premises suffering from a contagious disease which has placed all other puppies on the premises at risk and possibly humans too. Yet they failed to see any urgency in visiting the premises to check the records of where this puppy was bred, to contact the breeder of the puppy and if licensed the Council covering the area the puppy was bred or any other purchasers sold puppies from the premises. When I requested to know of the Council area the puppy was bred, I was verbally advised 'there are no records'. What is going on? Pet Shop Licence holders have to keep records under their licence conditions for this very reason - disease and the traceability of puppies bought into the premises and sold if they later suffer from a contagious disease. What action are the Council going to take if any? Watch this space for further updates.
Willow Farm Kennels have sold a sick puppy that was under age, not vaccinated, the purchaser was I am advised just given paperwork to say the puppy was vaccinated and wormed but there was no proof that could be verified, such as a vet signature or sticker from the vaccine phial. The puppies purchase price was £525 which Willow Farm Kennels has now refunded but there are extra expenses outstanding.
Pet shops have a responsibilty to ensure that puppies when sold are healthy but this was certainly not the case in this instant. That is why it is inadvisable to purchase puppies from a third party, puppies are very vulnerable, succumb easily to disease sometimes from their breeding premises, during transportation or from other puppies whilst waiting to be sold.
Purchasers of puppies when sold as part of a business are covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and can ask for reimbursement. But that still does not take away the trauma and heartache of having a puppy die within a few days of purchase.
Beili Bedw - Retrospective Planning Application - Objections Please.
URGENT - your help is needed
Retrospective Planning Application, dated 8th March 2011. Agriculture Shed to Dog Breeding at Beili Bedw Farm, Llanllwni, Pencader, Carmarthenshire, SA39 9DPOn the 28th January 2010, the Local Planning Authority confirmed that a shed could be erected. The application stated that the shed was for agriculture use for sheep and agriculture machinery. This did not require the need for a specific grant of planning permission as the operation would be permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.
This resulted in the shed being erected, but within a short period of time it was bought to the attention of Puppy Alert that dogs were being kept within the shed and it was fitted out with tiled walls and floor for the purpose of dog breeding. Planning enforcement were advised accordingly and a visit to the premises was made, the consequences of which the applicant was advised to submit a planning application for change of use from agriculture to dog breeding.
Background: The premises were granted change of use of calf pens into dog kennels for up to 9 dogs in 1994. This required the applicant to request written approval for any intensification of the business, this was never applied for.
From 1994 to date the dog breeding business has intensified to 140 dogs but in the latter few years to 180 (in recent months the dog breeding licence was renewed by Carmarthenshire County Council for 196 dogs), although allegedly the figure for dogs kept on the farm was far in excess of either of these numbers and is likely to be so in the future with or without a licence if this application is approved.
The premises are a working farm with 850 breeding sheep and 200 followers, with 120 acres owned and 100 acres rented and more envisaged in the future. Plus of course the dogs, which incidentally do not appear to have any exercise areas attached to any of the units (livestock sheds) that are used for keeping the dogs 24/7. The applicant is said to employ one full and one part time staff. How can they possible ensure high animal welfare standards for the dogs when they have 196 dogs and 1,000 sheep and land to care for too?.
Puppy Alert will object to this application and is asking that others if they feel concerned too to do likewise. The plans can be viewed here. The planning application number is W/24449
http://www.ukplanning.com/carmarthenshire/findCaseFile.do?appType=planning+folder&appNumber=W%2F24449&action=Search
Please send your objections for the attention of the Planning Development Officer, Stuart Willis
email: planningconsultations@carmarthenshire.gov.uk
Planning can only take into account objections on planning issues, such as highways, noise, hazardous waste etc. However the volume of objections to a planning application can be important too, including personal opinions. Please look at the application, read the planning agents report, the latter comments are just his written opinion as to the reasons that change of use from agriculture to dog breeding should be given planning permission. If you do not agree with the agent that dog breeding is an agriculture pursuit then write an objection and say why you are against this application and feel it should not go ahead.
Remember the premises are now licensed for 196 dogs Carmarthenshire County Council appears to be indifferent to animal welfare, public opinion and those of Puppy Alert that to accommodate 196 dogs (with the possibility of more) on a farm premises that has the responsibility for a thousand sheep and few staff is totally irresponsible. Dogs are companion animals requiring human company, socialization and exercise, not isolation and deprivation. They are not livestock and should not be treated as such, their needs are entirely different. To accommodate so many dogs in one area places a higher risk of disease spreading. The mass production of irresponsibly bred puppies from non health screened parents should never be condoned – neither should the fact that these mass produced puppies are destined for sale by dealers and pet shops. Stop puppy farming, battery farming and the indiscriminate commercial breeding of dogs by writing and objecting to this application. You have a choice the dogs and puppies do not.
Thank you
From 1994 to date the dog breeding business has intensified to 140 dogs but in the latter few years to 180 (in recent months the dog breeding licence was renewed by Carmarthenshire County Council for 196 dogs), although allegedly the figure for dogs kept on the farm was far in excess of either of these numbers and is likely to be so in the future with or without a licence if this application is approved.
The premises are a working farm with 850 breeding sheep and 200 followers, with 120 acres owned and 100 acres rented and more envisaged in the future. Plus of course the dogs, which incidentally do not appear to have any exercise areas attached to any of the units (livestock sheds) that are used for keeping the dogs 24/7. The applicant is said to employ one full and one part time staff. How can they possible ensure high animal welfare standards for the dogs when they have 196 dogs and 1,000 sheep and land to care for too?.
Puppy Alert will object to this application and is asking that others if they feel concerned too to do likewise. The plans can be viewed here. The planning application number is W/24449
http://www.ukplanning.com/carmarthenshire/findCaseFile.do?appType=planning+folder&appNumber=W%2F24449&action=Search
Please send your objections for the attention of the Planning Development Officer, Stuart Willis
email: planningconsultations@carmarthenshire.gov.uk
Planning can only take into account objections on planning issues, such as highways, noise, hazardous waste etc. However the volume of objections to a planning application can be important too, including personal opinions. Please look at the application, read the planning agents report, the latter comments are just his written opinion as to the reasons that change of use from agriculture to dog breeding should be given planning permission. If you do not agree with the agent that dog breeding is an agriculture pursuit then write an objection and say why you are against this application and feel it should not go ahead.
Remember the premises are now licensed for 196 dogs Carmarthenshire County Council appears to be indifferent to animal welfare, public opinion and those of Puppy Alert that to accommodate 196 dogs (with the possibility of more) on a farm premises that has the responsibility for a thousand sheep and few staff is totally irresponsible. Dogs are companion animals requiring human company, socialization and exercise, not isolation and deprivation. They are not livestock and should not be treated as such, their needs are entirely different. To accommodate so many dogs in one area places a higher risk of disease spreading. The mass production of irresponsibly bred puppies from non health screened parents should never be condoned – neither should the fact that these mass produced puppies are destined for sale by dealers and pet shops. Stop puppy farming, battery farming and the indiscriminate commercial breeding of dogs by writing and objecting to this application. You have a choice the dogs and puppies do not.
Thank you
Monday, 20 June 2011
Cefn Cloch (Ace Kennels) asks for permission to continue breeding dogs.
Hefin Davies the owner of a large, licensed, commercial dog breeding kennel in Meidrim, Carmathanshire, Wales, is asking Carmarthenshire County Council Planning Department to allow him to continue with his dog breeding activities. He has submitted a retrospective planning application and requested to be granted a 'certificate of lawfulness' for an existing use of outbuildings and yards as dog breeding kennels. The dogs are kept in a steel and timber framed kennel building and yard and the dog breeding business is enclosed by a ring fence of buildings with dogs having a free run in the centre.
In March 2010 the premises were granted planning permission to convert a barn at the farm into an office and dog showroom. Did a planning officer not consider it appropriate at the time of receipt of the application for the dog showroom and office or when inspecting of the premises consider checking the history of the premises to verify if planning permission was ever granted or requested for all the buildings used for dog breeding on the farm?
Surely the owner of the premises, himself once a dairy farmer, now switched to dog breeding (they call it diversification) must we aware that since the premises were licensed in 1998 for just 8 dogs that if the numbers of dogs are increased, at some stage over the years, (when a dog breeding sideline becomes a commercial business) that planning permission is required. Did he make enquires with the planning department? Was change of use from agriculture to dog breeding not a consideration, if buildings now used for dog breeding were previously used to house dairy cattle on this once active dairy farm?
What role has Carmarthenshire Public Protection Department played in this fiasco? They are responsible for licensing the premises and in 1998 they licensed the premises for just 8 dogs! What has happened since 1998? Did the owners notify the Council that they wished to change the conditions of their licence due to increasing the numbers of dogs on the premises every year to today's figure of 142 dogs? Did the licensing officer whilst carrying out their yearly inspections questioned the large number of dogs on the premises over and above 8 dogs listed in 1998? Many questions that remain unanswered but here is record of the licence figures.
2003 - 78 breeding bitches 1 dog 9 stud dogs
2004 - 58 breeding bitches 4 dogs 11 stud dogs
2005 - 98 breeding bitches 5 dogs 9 stud dogs
2006 - 88 breeding bitches 6 dogs 12 stud dogs
2007 - 81 breeding bitches 10 dogs 16 stud dogs
2008 - 89 breeding bitches 14 dogs 3 stud dogs
2009 - 95 breeding bitches 9 dogs 16 stud dogs
2010 -113 breeding bitches 4 dogs 4 stud dogs
2011 - 95 breeding bitches 33 dogs 14 stud dogs - Are these figures correct? Why have 33 dogs appeared, they are not listed as stud dogs but just dogs, are they perhaps breeding bitches placed in the wrong column?
The questions that need answering are:
Why has planning permission not requested by the owners or asked to be applied for by the Council until now?
Where are the exercise runs for the dogs? These should be attached to but separate from their sleeping quarters, it is not acceptable for Councils to licence premises on the assumption that dog breeders will allow free exercise to their dogs as appears to be the case here. It is well known that many do not and dogs live their life in confinement.
Why doesn't Carmarthenshire County Council place a ceiling on the numbers of dogs they allow a dog breeder to own and breed from on each breeding establishment?
Does Carmarthenshire Council ascertain before and at each yearly inspection whether adequate staff are employed and suitably qualified in animal welfare?
Why does Carmarthenshire Council allow these large commercial dog breeding establishments to operate without ensuring that all dogs used for breeding are screened under the BVA, KC screening tests for hereditary conditions known in each pedigree breed?
Not all of these questions are asked on the Council inspection reports but Councils can place extra conditions on a Dog Breeders Licence, providing it is expedient to the purpose of the Act. Therefore they should encourage good practice and introduce extra conditions that are beneficial to animal welfare on each of the premises they licence.
In March 2010 the premises were granted planning permission to convert a barn at the farm into an office and dog showroom. Did a planning officer not consider it appropriate at the time of receipt of the application for the dog showroom and office or when inspecting of the premises consider checking the history of the premises to verify if planning permission was ever granted or requested for all the buildings used for dog breeding on the farm?
Surely the owner of the premises, himself once a dairy farmer, now switched to dog breeding (they call it diversification) must we aware that since the premises were licensed in 1998 for just 8 dogs that if the numbers of dogs are increased, at some stage over the years, (when a dog breeding sideline becomes a commercial business) that planning permission is required. Did he make enquires with the planning department? Was change of use from agriculture to dog breeding not a consideration, if buildings now used for dog breeding were previously used to house dairy cattle on this once active dairy farm?
What role has Carmarthenshire Public Protection Department played in this fiasco? They are responsible for licensing the premises and in 1998 they licensed the premises for just 8 dogs! What has happened since 1998? Did the owners notify the Council that they wished to change the conditions of their licence due to increasing the numbers of dogs on the premises every year to today's figure of 142 dogs? Did the licensing officer whilst carrying out their yearly inspections questioned the large number of dogs on the premises over and above 8 dogs listed in 1998? Many questions that remain unanswered but here is record of the licence figures.
2003 - 78 breeding bitches 1 dog 9 stud dogs
2004 - 58 breeding bitches 4 dogs 11 stud dogs
2005 - 98 breeding bitches 5 dogs 9 stud dogs
2006 - 88 breeding bitches 6 dogs 12 stud dogs
2007 - 81 breeding bitches 10 dogs 16 stud dogs
2008 - 89 breeding bitches 14 dogs 3 stud dogs
2009 - 95 breeding bitches 9 dogs 16 stud dogs
2010 -113 breeding bitches 4 dogs 4 stud dogs
2011 - 95 breeding bitches 33 dogs 14 stud dogs - Are these figures correct? Why have 33 dogs appeared, they are not listed as stud dogs but just dogs, are they perhaps breeding bitches placed in the wrong column?
The questions that need answering are:
Why has planning permission not requested by the owners or asked to be applied for by the Council until now?
Where are the exercise runs for the dogs? These should be attached to but separate from their sleeping quarters, it is not acceptable for Councils to licence premises on the assumption that dog breeders will allow free exercise to their dogs as appears to be the case here. It is well known that many do not and dogs live their life in confinement.
Why doesn't Carmarthenshire County Council place a ceiling on the numbers of dogs they allow a dog breeder to own and breed from on each breeding establishment?
Does Carmarthenshire Council ascertain before and at each yearly inspection whether adequate staff are employed and suitably qualified in animal welfare?
Why does Carmarthenshire Council allow these large commercial dog breeding establishments to operate without ensuring that all dogs used for breeding are screened under the BVA, KC screening tests for hereditary conditions known in each pedigree breed?
Not all of these questions are asked on the Council inspection reports but Councils can place extra conditions on a Dog Breeders Licence, providing it is expedient to the purpose of the Act. Therefore they should encourage good practice and introduce extra conditions that are beneficial to animal welfare on each of the premises they licence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)