Last week in OUR DOGS you had two news stories about dog breeders who had been banned from keeping dogs for five years because they had mistreated their dogs.
One was a Dachshund breeder, clearly a puppy farmer, who was obviously keeping these dogs so that he can sell them on and make a profit. They were imported dogs from Hungary and this chap obviously did not care at all for his dogs.
The other story concerned a Whippet exhibitor who failed to get the adequate veterinary care for her dogs but I assume she wasnâ€™t trading the dogs for profit.
Both of them had their dogs taken away from them and were fined for their misdemeanours.
Now animal cruelty is animal cruelty whether you are a puppy farmer or a dog exhibitor. If you are mistreating dogs then you should be punished. That is right, isnâ€™t it?
Only, surely there is a difference between a heartless puppy farmer who doesnâ€™t really care if his dogs live or die and an older lady who has not taken her dogs to the vets, isnâ€™t there?
As I say if dogs are suffering then who is to say there is a difference. Yet one seems more heartless than the other.
According to your report the lady with the Whippets was a very successful exhibitor so she should have been able to take her dogs to the vets to make sure they get the care they need.
In fact, her crime is probably worse because she is supposed to care for her dogs whereas the puppy farmer never pretended to be a dog lover in the first place.
Interestingly, you also reported that Carmarthenshire Council is to bring in new dog breeding standards and crack down on puppy farmers.
Obviously this is to be welcomed, especially when you consider the awful reputation they have in Wales for puppy farming. I hope it is a success but it struck me that this was a typical government knee jerk reaction following the BBC Wales documentary that showed how lamentable the authorities are when it comes to policing puppy farms.
Hopefully, when it comes in to force, Lucyâ€™s Law will bring puppy farms to an end and you will have to find other things to write about.
The devilâ€™s job!
I WAS most interested to read the findings of the JCF in last weekâ€™s issue.
I, like many others, find that the jcf has good and bad points, and one of my main concerns was always the potential loss of decent, older judges who have come up through the ranks, in what I consider to be the best way. I also think that with the JCF, some perhaps not so good judges could pass through with flying colours, with lots of box ticking but no real knowledge.
However, I have to applaud Ronnie Irvingâ€™s astute analysis of the survey (and this could be said for surveys in general), being slanted to garner the â€˜correctâ€™ answers.
When a survey begins by singing the praises of whatever the topic is, you know full well itâ€™s going to be the devilâ€™s own job to make it sound anything other than good.
Not only were the most attractive answers the first options, but some of the questions almost dared you to answer in the negative!
I hope that the review Panel, which is a great idea, can take the answers with these thoughts in mind, and perhaps read between the lines a little. Many answers were a long way off what the general concensus has been over the whole thing, so something needs to be done.
I shall be keeping a close eye on my OUR DOGS in the coming weeks, but wont be holding my breath!
Name and address supplied
Click the buttons below to toggle between issues
Go to Index