Puppy Farms

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:36:04 GMT

I would be more hopeful, if WAG had not previously given grants for farmers to diversify into dog-breeding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Utlendigur — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:47:19 GMT

Promising news, maybe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8353736.stm

Re: Puppy Farms

Clive Ansell — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:29:09 GMT

I have to say I have never experienced that. In all cases i've been involved with the defence veterinary surgeons have all been totally fair and professional. In most cases though, the evidence usually makes a guilty verdict a foregone conclusion, and the defence vet makes little or no difference.

Any professional witness being less than honest should be more worried about a charge of perjury than facing a RCVS DC hearing, it can carry a hefty prison term!

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:51:23 GMT

The only other occaision when I would have liked a defence veterinary surgeon to be disciplined was when someone tried to claim that a flock of sheep in which a high % were suffering foot-rot and fly-strike were not neglected !!!!! The vast majority of veterinary surgeons who appear for the defence are fair, it is only some who shame our profession by attepting to gain an aquital at the expense of scrupulous honesty. These are the ones who should be disciplined

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:38:30 GMT

Laurence It just didn't occur to me to report the other veterinary surgeon, and I suppose we all have a reluctance to be seen to be tale-bearers

Clive There have been other cases, both b4 and since this one, when other veterinary surgeons have appeared for the defence, and there have been no hard feelings, as their evidence has been strictly fair. I don't mind a different viewpoint, I do mind a veterinary surgeon saying absolute nonsense, especially as I was told by the owners of the livery stables who boarded the pony, that she had never even examined it !!!! She just turned up in court, and spouted a lot of nonsense, which was totally inapplicable to a Shetland. Part of the trouble is the entire prosecution eveidence, including the veterinary statement has to be supplied to the defence. The defendant is cautioned that if he/she withholds evidence during questioning, that they later rely on for defence, it may harm their case, but that is as far as it goes. If the defence veterinarian is questioned about the prosecution veterinary evidence, and says something as frankly idiotic as this one did, then court procedure makes it impossible to refute it. That's the reason I am so cross about this one case, and it still rankles after 10 years !!!!!

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Clive Ansell — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:04:38 GMT

I doubt the evidence given by the defending veterinary surgeon was wrong, just a different viewpoint to be considered by the court, who in the end decide what to believe the most. In any event I thought each side had to make the other aware of all the facts and disclose statements before the hearing?

When writing witness statements I always try to indicate some form of time frame that a disease or a lesion has been present. That may sometimes be difficult, and very vague, for example a slow growing ulcerated infected tumour the size of a grapefruit may have been present for anything between 2 and 18 months, but certainly not less than 24 hours.

I would always support the case with laboratory work where possible too; histology for a tumour, and routine blood work for a neglected starved animal to exclude any other causes, and certainly to close any shortcomings in the case that a defence may spot. Always cross the t's and dot the i's.

The prosecution has to show in all probability that unnecessary suffering has been caused, and being able to give a length of time helps the case.

Re: Puppy Farms

Laurence Webb — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:34:28 GMT

If you believe another veterinary surgeon's testimony to be so wrong that it risks bringing the profesion into disrepute can't you file a complaint to the DC yourself?

I've never been called to attend court for either prosection or defence, but I'm not sure I want to live in a state where the automatic result of appearing as a witness in court is a disciplinary hearing! Were you suggesting that only defence witnesses should be disciplined or those who act as witnesses for the losing side?

Re: Puppy Farms

Cat Henstridge — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:35:43 GMT

I found this petition, if we all signed it and added our qualifications and a comment on our experiences , it could really make a difference.

Cat

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/ban-puppy-farming/sign.html

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:41:35 GMT

Evelyn The problem with leaving it to the prosecution to challenge dodgy evidence is that the prosecution evidence is given 1st, and unless the prosecution witnesses are remanded on oath, so cannot discuss the case with anyone, including the prosecution lawyer, cannot be recalled Usually, the prosecution witnesses are released following their evidence

One particular case that comes to my mind, is a horse-tethering case involving a Shetland. The pony had been seized by the RSPCA in winter (you all know how thick a Shetland's coat is in mid-winter ) Anywhere but Swansea, a tethering case would be an automatic guilty, but Swansea magistrates are so used to seeing horses on tethers on waste ground, that they see it as normal, so we had to fight every inch of the way. The tether had cut through the hair, and skin, and had caused a deep wound, sufficiently old, that a live horse stank like a dead one, and he was named Lynx when he was taken to the rescue stables, because of his smell. I gave evidence 1st, and then was discharged. A veterinary surgeon who appeared for the defence made a big thing of how thin a horse's skin was , so that a tether could have cut through in less than 24 hours. If I could have gone back into the witness box, I could have utterly ridiculed this absurd suggestion , in respect of a Shetland (did she think it was a TB or didn't she care as long as she earned a fee !!!!!! ) Court procedure did not give me the chance to do this

I would have been more than happy to defend my evidence b4 DC I very much doubt if she would have been

Ian I agree with you about the NI tail docking situation

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Ian Mostyn — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:27:58 GMT

The right to a fair trial is enshrined in English (& Welsh), Scottish & N.Irish law and has been the cornerstone of our judiciary since the days of King Alfred. Trial by jury was established before the time of the Norman conquest and you have the right to defend yourself by providing an expert witness. We already have the Perjury laws to stop people (vets or otherwise) lying under oath and don't need to resort to the lower authority of the RCVS unless a court convicts a vet of perjury.

There are two sides to any argument, not necessarily 100% contradictory eg Which is the best washing up liquid? Fairy or Persil? Arguments each way but you can't say that people who prefer Persil are wrong just because Fairy is the most popular. Dodgy example but unless there is perjury, a person is entitled to ask a vet to put their side of the argument. Very dangerous territory, Wynne. On a related note, I think Nick Griffin of the BNP has some abhorrent views but as long as his party is legal, as long as he is an elected representative (by coincidence he is one of my MEP's), I will defend his right to free speech. Our legal system is something we should be proud of.

One puppy topic that I am more interested in is the importation of docked dogs from Northern Ireland where tail docking is still legal. I had a Dobermann pup in the other day, docked in Londonderry perfectly legally but imported into England deliberately by the owner to avoid English law. The NI assembly wants to close this loophole but why was it not done at the same time as England, Wales & Scotland?

Ian

Re: Puppy Farms

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:06:53 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]However, if veterinary surgeons who appeared for the unsuccessful side knew they were guaranteed to be summoned b4 DC to account for every word said in the witness box, and with the possibility of striking off if they could not clinically defend their statements b4 other veterinary surgeons,[/quote]

Fair enough I guess as long as every veterinary surgeon who appeared for the successful side were also thus automatically summoned.

It's a free country and everybody accused of a crime is entitled to the best defence they can give. If a veterinary surgeon gives some dodgy evidence in defence it's up to the prosecution to challenge it. We are not in Burma or Russia or China, and defence lawyers and defence witnesses are not criminals.

Let me get this right: you want to scare off defence witnesses in order to save money for that self-appointed private organisation the RSPCA?

Come off it Wynne, you sound like the Sun going on about paedophiles.

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:12:39 GMT

Clive. Like you I have appeared as a prosecution witness many times, and yes, the maximum penalty is never imposed-not even with the evil Jamie Grey. However, if veterinary surgeons who appeared for the unsuccessful side knew they were guaranteed to be summoned b4 DC to account for every word said in the witness box, and with the possibility of striking off if they could not clinically defend their statements b4 other veterinary surgeons, then there would be far fewer defended cases, a huge saving of resources to the RSPCA, and a better chance of influencing magistrates to impose deterrent sentences

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Clive Ansell — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:16:34 GMT

I have in the past appeared as a professional witness in court many times on behalf of the RSPCA involved in animal cruelty and neglect cases.

The maximum fine or prison is almost never imposed, except in the most severe cases. I have seen many cases where only a £30 is handed out (going 38mph in a 30 zone nets a £60 fine!). The weight of the law is just not there.

Yes, there are vets who appear for the defence, but we are innocent until found guilty, and everyone is entitled to a fair trial and to be repesented in court.

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:41:56 GMT

Not even accurate, because the fine is 20K and the length of imprisonment 51 weeks. The main difficulty is getting evidence for a prosecution in the 1st place, then there are "hired guns " amongst the veterinary profession, who are prepared to appear for the defence !!!!!. Also most councils do not require a veterinary input (from an independant VS ) but rely on EHOs for licensing

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Cat Henstridge — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:30:01 GMT

Hi Arlo,

Just thinking out loud really but adding the veterinary professions voice in some way to the protest is likely to add more weight.

I found a petition at the Governments petition site but it has now closed, below is a copy of the response to it. It is just government retoric and clearly the legislation is not working;

"Thank you for your e-petition.

The Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, which amended and extended the provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991, already provides protection for dogs used in breeding establishments. Under this legislation, any person who keeps a breeding establishment for dogs at any premises and carries on at those premises a business of breeding dogs for sale must obtain a licence from the local authority. Those people who are not in the business of breeding dogs for sale, so called “hobby breeders”, and produce less than five litters in any period of 12 months do not need to obtain a licence.

The local authority has the discretion whether to grant a licence and, before doing so, must satisfy itself that the animals are provided with suitable accommodation, food, water and bedding material; are adequately exercised and visited at suitable intervals; and that all reasonable precautions are taken to prevent and control the spread of diseases amongst dogs. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the legislation. In addition to ensuring that dogs are kept in suitable accommodation, the law also places limits on the frequency and timing of breeding from a bitch. Bitches cannot be mated before they are a year old, must have no more than six litters in a lifetime and can only have one litter every 12 months. Breeding records must be kept to ensure that these requirements are adhered to. Puppies that are produced at licensed breeding establishments can only be sold at those premises or a licensed pet shop.

In addition to the specific law on dog breeding there is also the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which places on those who own or are responsible for animals a duty to ensure their animals’ welfare. This includes owners and keepers of dog breeding establishments. Failure to provide for the welfare of an animal could lead to a fine of up £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment.

This duty of care will help those who enforce the law, such as local authorities and the RSPCA, to take action when an animal is being treated contrary to its welfare needs, even though it is not immediately suffering. The duty means that all domestic or captive animals, including dogs kept at breeding establishments, must be cared for in accordance with the best animal management practices. It enables those responsible for enforcing animal welfare standards to work with the owners and keepers to raise standards and, in cases where the owner or keeper is not prepared to provide the care that the animal requires, to take action through the courts."

Cat

Re: Puppy Farms

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:07:11 GMT

My comments about my breeder were meant to agree with you that vets should be having a useful and essential input - and I certainly wouldn't agree to vaccinate, (or supply vaccines - which I never do), to a puppy farm I had no personal knowledge of. I just think that puppy farms as a whole shouldn't be banned - but I'd agree that the vets helping the bad ones should be held to account.

Re: Puppy Farms

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:55:39 GMT

[quote user="Cat Henstridge"]should vetsurgeon.org start a petition?[/quote]

Who do you suggest VetSurgeon petitions, and what would be the wording of the petition?

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:01:03 GMT

HEAR HEAR !!!!!!

The veterinary profession should definitely make it's voice heard-and what about RCVS fulfilling one of it's stated objectives, and "acting as a source of informed opinion "

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Cat Henstridge — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:45:46 GMT

Hi Gillian,

The socialisation window for a puppy is well established and closes at around 12 weeks old. This is not to say that any experiences they have after this are not useful, continued training is vital but the more they experience at a young age the better. Those anywhere in a home are likely to hear the noises of the house and come into contact with more, and different, people than those in a shed.

However, we are somewhat veering off topic. You have obviously found a puppy farm that it is better than average, it is not ideal, but as you say, this can be true of a lot of breeders. My issue is with those in Wales, and they appear to be concentrated there, which don't care about the dogs or their quality and produce cheap, sickly animals. How can we stop these? Should vets get behind some of the public campaigns, should our representative bodies, BSAVA, BVNA, SPVS ect issue some press releases, should vetsurgeon.org start a petition? I hoped this thread would start the debate.

Cat

Re: Puppy Farms

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:08:33 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]If you do some behavioural CPD you will find the prime socialisation period for puppies is 5 to 8 weeks[/quote]

Really? In whose opinion? I really doubt anyone would say that a dog has only 3 weeks to become socialised for life......

Obviously the more experiences a puppy is subjected to the better - I spend hours and hours with new puppy owners telling them NOT to avoid 'scary' situations! But I don't think that being reared in a healthy commercial environment, left with mum and siblings until 8 weeks and then sold with appropriate advice does any harm. Obviously the bitch should have an excellent temperament to pass on. I have lots of private breeding clients that have dogs that have horrible temperaments - aggressive and even pure evil! My commercial breeder would not be prepared to breed from that dog.

I am not passing judgement on the best way to breed dogs - every situation is individual. That is why ANYONE can be asked to get a license for breeding if the council feels they should have one - the rules are very broad. But I just feel that some large breeders can do a good job - and that some family dogs are used as a breeding machine for money. We shouldn't generalise.

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:09:21 GMT

If you do some behavioural CPD you will find the prime socialisation period for puppies is 5 to 8 weeks

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:29:40 GMT

I think your image of puppies in the home environment is idealistic - most of the times I have had reason to visit litters in people's houses they are confined to a large cupboard, bedroom or corner of the kitchen - having a litter of puppies running around your lounge just isn't practical. They are unlikely to become accustomed to anything!

I also feel that as the socialisation period lasts till 4/5 months old, it isn't important at the stage most puppies are sold that they have seen a TV. The majority of socialisation and habituation problems I see happen after they are sold - not before - and are due to them being isolated and cosseted!

IMHO 'puppy farms', done properly, are no different to any other farm. And they should be subject to the same welfare codes. Not vilified.

Re: Puppy Farms

Cat Henstridge — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:10:49 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]As far as to how I feel about dogs in sheds? Actually, I think puppies may be a lot happier in a shed where they can run and play and socialise than after they get purchased, taken to a plush new home and then kept isolated from other dogs and shouted at constantly for making a mess and 'just being a puppy'. Dogs really don't care about the aesthetics of their environment![/quote]

It's not the aesthetics of the shed, it is that in a home environment a puppy is exposed to sights and sounds (TVs, washing machines ect) that it will have to cope with for the rest of its life.

I absolutely agree puppy farms should be regulated (in fact I would love it if all breeders of pets had to be licensed - but that really is a pipe dream!) and as strictly as possible, by vets ideally. But accepting them as inevitable is not the way forward.

Cat

Re: Puppy Farms

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:09:16 GMT

Cat It doesn't sound to me as though the medical needs of the 1st 2 puppies you mentioned were taken care of ! There are several problems. Some of the worst are unlicensed and therefore illegal, the local authority EHOs are responsible for licensing, and often their inspectors don't care, the veterinary surgeons (some of them ) don't want to lose customers, and anyway need to get permission from RCVS b4 reporting anyone

Wynne

Re: Puppy Farms

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:50:51 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]There's more than enough poor, unwanted dogs in rescue shelters to go around[/quote]

I am fully aware of that - I have 4 rescued pets at home. But it is just a fact that most people want a puppy - and where there is a demand........

I absolutely agree that in an ideal world, all dogs would be bred in the family home - but as this isn't going to happen, we have to deal with the fact that large breeding establishments will exist. Therefore their licensing should be controlled and conditions monitored.

As far as to how I feel about dogs in sheds? Actually, I think puppies may be a lot happier in a shed where they can run and play and socialise than after they get purchased, taken to a plush new home and then kept isolated from other dogs and shouted at constantly for making a mess and 'just being a puppy'. Dogs really don't care about the aesthetics of their environment!