Understanding proportions

Posted January 31, 2020 by davidcavill
Categories: pedigree dogs

The idea of freedom has more to do with my freedom to do what I want than your freedom to do what you want – Douglas Adams

In a recent post on Facebook Our Dogs’ Breed Feature Editor, Helen Davenport Willis, posted this picture of a Bernese Mountain Dog

and wrote ‘Proportions here are incorrect on this Bernese Mountain Dog which is too long in the back and too short on the leg. The whole picture is totally unbalanced; the top line is clearly sagging. Worryingly, there are many like this in the show ring. Bernese proportions should be 9 to 10. That is 9 high to 10 long. Essential to excellence in breed type has to be the correct proportions.’

I replied , I am afraid rather pessimistically, ‘I established the Judging Diploma in 1980 and have been a Kennel Club Accredited Trainer since 2000 so, along with many other thoughtful and knowledgeable columnists and commentators from the UK and North America (Robert Cole in Canada and Curtis Brown in the USA), I have spent 40 years of making exactly this and other comments on structure in seminars, articles, presentations on the Internet and for the last 25 years, in Speakers’ Corner in Our Dogs. Unfortunately, despite all our efforts (and this includes the Kennel Club’s welcome and increasing emphasis on judges’ education) they do not appear to have made a scrap of difference and although some breeds have maintained their standards and there have been improvements in in head structure in Chows and some of the brachycephalic breeds, the conformation and overall shape of many others breeds is simply wrong and totally at odds with their standards.’  I indicated I would try again despite my experience of brick walls and heads and shortly afterwards my mood was lifted with a further post from Nancy P Melone, a retired university professor and Bernese Mountain Dog enthusiast from the States who replied, ‘Intelligence and (most importantly) motivation are not uniformly distributed throughout the population … but there are pockets scattered here and there. We can and do teach the pockets … and for our efforts, those students are deeply appreciative’.

Of course, what she says is quite true and she reminded me of two important points: that the joy of teaching is that you make a difference in the long term (as a student I remember a discussion I initiated on the basis that we were educating for 100 years hence and not tomorrow) and, as I know from my own correspondence, there are many who are as frustrated as I am by the often narrow-minded focus of some breeders and judges who continue to ignore the fundamental conformation of a dog because they like its head, its coat or its tail set.

To begin at the beginning

I should begin by saying that there are many wonderful show dogs and it is one of the great pleasures judging when you see their grace, style and appeal: so, as with the brachycephalic breeds, we know that excellence is achievable.  Unfortunately, the terms ‘breeder’ and ‘high profile’ when applied to breeders do not necessarily correspond: one would wish that they did for it is the high profile breeders who all too often have the greatest influence with judges and novices coming in to a breed. A friend, who had a high profile until 20 years ago when they stood back from the pressures of the show ring, was studying the Our Dogs Annual in January and told me they were horrified at the number of dogs which were distinctly way out of kilter from what their breed standards demanded.

As Helen makes clear, the proportions of her breed is the key element of the criticism of so many dogs in the ring today and this applies to far too many: you do not have to spend very many minutes on canine, show related social media to see evidence of this fundamental distortion. I have no problem in people showing pictures of their dogs but it does concern me that so many people then pile in with their congratulations and confident comments about the quality of dogs which are too often genuinely awful examples of their breed.

But back to the thread – I would like to discuss what in my opinion are the two major problems from which many breeds continue to suffer.  If they could be resolved we could focus on soundness and breed characteristics – the other aspects of excellence.

As noted by Helen the first is ‘proportion’: if a breed is described in the standard as ’square’ then if it is not square it cannot be typical however closely it conforms to its other breed characteristics.  If, as with Bernese Mountain Dogs, the proportions are 10:9, so it is slightly longer than tall, however good the rest is  I would suggest that this is a fundamental flaw.  Of course, the judge must balance the good features against those that are less good but ‘proportion’ is central to whether the dog looks like its breed. In passing I would mention that a note for prospective puppy buyers has been added to all breed standards on the Kennel Club webpages which I had not noticed before.  It says, ‘Size – the Kennel Club Breed Standard is a guide and description of the ideal of the breed; the Size as described does not imply that the dog will match the measurements given (height or weight). A dog might be larger or smaller than the Size measurements stated in the Breed Standard’.  I mention this because I think it proves my point for although we can, I think, comfortably accept that dogs may be slightly smaller than desirable or up to size, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be such a note which says that it could be expected that the proportions of any given breed might not be the same as that described in the breed standard.

Structural balance compromised

The next is the question of ‘structural balance’.  We have seen the damage that can be inflicted on a breed when its structural balance is compromised as in the German Shepherd Dog and, should you be interested, I refer you to my Web Log at http://www.davidcavill.wordpress.com for my series of articles on this subject.  We continue to see structural balance being compromised by the fashion for the hind-quarter strength of some breeds being bred (consciously or unconsciously), with very long second thighs taking the back feet significantly behind the point of maximum stability as seen even in the Kennel Club videos for judges describing conformation and movement.  Now, there are some breeds where a little greater hind angulation is acceptable (not longer second thighs) because they are designed to move most efficiently at the double suspension gallop. Breeds such as Greyhounds, Whippets and Salukis will have this tendency although one would not want to see it taken to the extremes we see all too often. But why such outlines are considered elegant in some guarding, shepherding, mastiff, and gundog breeds (which include poodles) I have no idea but many believe such an outline to be not just acceptable but desirable.

All suggestions as to how to get these vital concepts over to breeds and exhibitors effectively would be very welcome.  Do not hesitate to contact me at mail@davidcavill.co.uk.


Do not panic about the General Data Protection Regulations

Posted January 16, 2020 by davidcavill
Categories: pedigree dogs

Data is a precious thing – Tim Berners-Lee (creator of the Internet)

On 26th February 2018 the Kennel Club published a press release about the new General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) which come into effect on the 28th of May.  One paragraph states, ‘It is important for clubs and societies to be aware of the way in which data must be handled in line with the requirements under the GDPR. Whilst it may seem complex, there are some relatively straightforward immediate steps which will help clubs to get in shape for GDPR’.  This release was clear and accurate as far as it went but it would appear that Clarges Street has had a number of queries from secretaries of canine associations since then for there has been a further press release designed to ‘clarify’ what clubs need to do and a further ‘guidance sheet’ both of which, it has to be said, has done little more than provide a layer of confusion.  May I bring some clarity to the situation?

But to begin at the beginning: few associations will still have a formal hand written members register or card index.  Occasionally snail mail might be used but the vast majority of communications between secretaries, committees and members is likely to be via email using easily readable/printable attached files and records of members will be on a spreadsheet.  However, the details held have usually been simple and practical.  The original Data Protection Act was not much interested in small organisations that just held names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses on a database for most of the information was in the public domain but as from May 28th, 2018 this is no longer the case and any data held in whatever form (even on a card index) is subject to the new General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).  You will no doubt have received many letters over the last few weeks from almost every government and commercial organisation which holds data about you explaining what data they hold and why they hold it and given the pages of small print it is is not surprising that those who are responsible for the data held by canine societies might be beginning to worry that they may fall foul of the bureaucratic nightmare which appears to be approaching.  The Kennel Club’s intervention will not have helped ease their minds.

Don’t Panic

Do not panic: although everyone responsible for data held on behalf of any organisation is subject to the act the vast majority if not all breed or general canine societies do not even have to register.  The reason is that data held for a not-for-profit organisation is exempt.  If you need evidence then you only need to go to https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/register/self-assessment/ and complete the short and simple questionnaire.  It is a simple survey at the end of which you are informed whether or not you need to register – and if you do, you can go directly to the registration page.  Even when you get there it only takes about 15 minutes to complete so it is quick and certainly not complicated.   However it is unlikely you will be required to register and you will be presented with information:

‘If your organisation was established for not-for-profit making purposes and does not make a profit or your organisation makes a profit for its own purposes, as long as the profit is not used to enrich others. You must:

  • only process information necessary to establish or maintain membership or support; 
  • only process information necessary to provide or administer activities for people who are members of the organisation or have regular contact with it; 
  • only share the information with people and organisations necessary to carry out the organisation’s activities. Important – if individuals give you permission to share their information, this is OK (you can still answer ‘yes’); and
  • only keep the information while the individual is a member or supporter or as long as necessary for member/supporter administration.

If you can answer yes to all those questions you do not need to register but you are informed that you may voluntarily register if you prefer.

Voluntary registration

If you think about it, data protection is all perfectly straightforward and reasonable and the aim is sensible: it is to allow individuals to stay in control of their personal information and to ensure that those organisations that hold personal data protect it, use it responsibly and do not sell it or distribute it without your permission.  As I have explained, registration will not apply to your club under normal circumstances but if, say, an insurance company suggests perfectly reasonably that they pay your club a fee to circulate all the members with a special offer, and you accept you would immediately find yourself in the data protection minefield so it would be wise to refuse such requests whether you are registered or not.

Your committee may feel they should register voluntarily even though your society fulfils all the criteria above but either way your organisation has a duty under the regulations to keep your data safe and the following summarises what you need to do.

Your committee should first identify one person within your society that is going to be responsible for data protection.  This does not automatically have to be the secretary.  It will not be an onerous role and it would make life easier for secretaries if they had someone on the committee (it could be the chairman, treasurer or any other member) to whom they could refer when they were communicating with members if it was not in the normal course of the society’s activity.  This is likely to happen very seldom for the circulation of minutes, AGM notices, newsletters and the like would carry on exactly as usual.  However, it is important to ensure whoever it is thoroughly understands what is required of them.  There are fines for not fulfilling the role properly but again there is no need to worry.  The director of the DGPR has made it quite clear that all monitoring activity will be proportional, registration is voluntary in any case and the likelihood of any canine society seriously misusing the data of its members is pretty remote.

What you need to do

The next stage is for you to list all the data about your members which you actually need.  I totally approve of this requirement because I get extremely irritated with those intrusive requests for information such as my age, education and ethnicity, whether it is from government or any other source.  You may find that you are, without realising it already asking for more detail than you need.   Name, address, telephone numbers, email address and contact details is all the personal information you should need about members. What you do not need and must not keep, are details of their peccadillos: in fact you are now not allowed to keep personal notes about anyone on a database for which you are responsible (‘always “picky”- handle with care’ or ‘hates X with a vengeance’ are not acceptable however useful they may be as a memo for you or a future secretary) and as you are duty bound to provide all the information you hold about a member on request it is probably not wise in any case!

Many societies now may include details of judges, litters, potential puppy owners and extensive databases regarding health which also requires the asking of legitimate questions but this is all still within the bandwidth of a ‘not-for-profit’ organisation so falls within the definition of ‘normal activity for a not for profit organisation’.

Safety and security

All data must be held securely so your computer must have a password, filing cabinets or card indexes holding data must be locked and keys kept safely and, registered or not, you should also be very careful about allowing others access to your database.  It may well be that your treasurer or newsletter editor has a perfectly good reason to have a copy but they, too, must understand that it may only be used for the precise reason they need it and the same security and safety measures that you, as the holder of the data, should be in place.

The fact that someone has ‘joined’ your association means that by definition, they are happy to receive information from you about it and its activities but if you want to circulate your members with commercial advertising, charitable or other material then you should make arrangements for any of your members who do not wish to receive such information to opt out.  This is not likely to be a very common occurrence and is easy to do if you are going to email them all: you simply include an ‘opt out’ clause and you should make sure that anyone who does so does not receive such emails in the future.

You should inform your members about what data you are storing and why.  There is nothing complicated about this you can just send them an email.  To help I have put form together which should be sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the Act.  I have tried to include all the points demanded by the legislation so you do not have to keep any other records of what you do and how you do it.  ‘Keep it Simple’ has always been my mantra and just because the legislation seems complicated does not mean we have to do any more than absolutely necessary. I have included ‘marketing activates’ for completeness but if you are not going to do this you can simply delete the italicised lines.

Data Protection Notice and Permission to hold contact details for all members of (insert association’s name)

To comply with the current legislation on data protection we must tell you what personal data we hold about you, why we hold it and have your permission to retain it.  We securely store data about members to ensure we can contact them by mail, telephone or email:

  • in an emergency
  • about the activities and meetings of the club, reminders of closing dates for shows and events, requests for assistance at club events
  • our regular newsletter
  • any special offers we believe will be of interest to you

You can opt-out of any marketing contacts if you wish by informing the secretary.

Any data we hold will not be provided to any other person or business except as required by law.

  • You may request to see all the personal data we hold on you (we are allowed 30 days to provide it)
  • We only keep your data for the reasons outlined above
  • We destroy your data if we have had no contact with you for (x) years
  • For the smooth and efficient running of our association we need to keep a record of
    • Your name
    • Your Address
    • Your landline and mobile telephone numbers
    • Your email address
    • Contact details of another responsible person in case of emergency

______________________________ (Insert name, telephone number and email address of the person responsible for data protection within the Association)

PS: I have researched this article thoroughly  and I will be taking my own advice but please note I am not a lawyer and the information should not be regarded as a formal legal opinion.

Breeding – the impact of Breeding Licensing Regulations on Dog Breeders

Posted April 9, 2019 by davidcavill
Categories: pedigree dogs

The Animal Care College – caring for people caring for animals

            As a result of continuing concerns by the Kennel Club and the National Register of Pedigree Dog Breeders about the way in which licensing officers were interpreting the new Animal Licensing Laws (The Animal Welfare (Licensing of activities involving animals) (England) Regulations 2018) which became law on 1st October 2018, and in association with Holly Conway of the Kennel Club, David Cavill FRSA designed a survey to make public the extent of the problem and, particularly, the impact it was making on ‘hobby breeders’.  (For the record, ‘hobby breeders’ have been defined as ‘an owner who breeds from a bitch because they would like to have another puppy to take part in the canine activities with which they are involved, whether that be to show, to train for agility obedience or any other reason. That reason could be extended to include that they have another companion when one of their current dogs dies. The key issue is that they are not breeding specifically to sell dogs as a regular part of their annual income. Such hobby breeders are likely to have surplus puppies which they will want to find good homes for and they are entitled to advertise them and sell them. A reasonable ‘test’ for hobby breeder is that they will (usually) be retaining one or more of any litter to pursue their hobby.  Those who breed more litters than two each year may still consider that they are a ‘hobby breeder’ but will, of course, require a breeding licence.)

There has been much hearsay on social media and anecdotal evidence from breeders who have been affected but there has been very little hard data.  Survey has now closed but it addresses those problems. It is particularly interesting and important to note that those who replied were by no means all breeders of pedigree dogs.

Defra has said that at 1st October 2019 there were approximately 600 breeders licensed by local authorities under the old regulations.  The Kennel Club and Our Dogs were therefore very pleased that the survey generated 1,500 replies which clearly showed that breeders were taking responsible action by recognising that they were subject to the new laws disappointed with the revelations about the extent of the problem.  The Kennel Club has now completed its analysis of the responses and provided them to Defra who, we understand, were taken aback by the range of the misunderstandings by licensing officers and have indicated, though not promised, to take action.

Key Statistics

  • 75% of respondents get their information about dogs and breeding from the KC;
  • 89% of respondents consider themselves hobby breeders.
  • 85% did not have a dog breeding licence prior to October 2018. 50% breed less than 1 litter per year and 37% breed 1-2 litters per year;
  • 27% are ABS members – 90% for more than 3 years. ABS membership counted towards compliance history for less than 60% (59%) and as a result they achieved a 4-5 star rating. For 41% it did not and they received a 1-3 star rating;
  • One third had to comply with conditions such as planning permission; companies house registration; public liability insurance; implementing noise reduction measures; applying for business insurance and paying for business refuse collection prior to being issued a licence;
  • 65% do not rely on advertising pups for sale because they have waiting lists. Only 17% advertise on commercial websites and 25% on their own website. Over 80% use non-commercial websites such as KC’s find a puppy service (https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/findapuppy) or the National Register of Pedigree Dog Breeders (www.ibreedpedigreedogs.uk)
  • Of those breeders who have been inspected by a local authority nearly half (46%) were not confident or not at all confident that their inspector was knowledgeable about dog breeding; almost half (48%) were not confident or not at all confident that their inspector understood the different between a business and a hobby breeder and over 40% (41%) were not confident or not at all confident that they understood or had applied a business test proportionate to their circumstances.

Survey Responses

The Kennel Club’s analysis and comments provided by respondents runs to 16 pages many of which repeatedly emphasise local authority officers’ lack of understanding of the concept of a ‘hobby breeder’, but we hope that this brief summary will provide readers with an understanding of the main features.

Most comments related to local authorities not recognising hobby breeders and advising any breeder who breeds even one litter to apply for a licence. This is a widespread misunderstanding which these Kennel Club believe needs to be addressed.  For instance Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Council do not appear to be taking any account of ‘hobby breeding’ as an exemption for requiring a license and take a very strict view that if anyone is selling a puppy for any money at all, it counts as a commercial operation. They refused to apply the ‘hobby breeding’ rules are breeder in the Shropshire Council area said she was told that she had to have a licence as she has an intention to breed’.  There were over one hundred similar statements one of which was that Birmingham City Council is actively looking for and even buying puppies to catch hobby breeders with the intention to prosecute them for having a litter and not being licensed.

The Business Test

There were similar misunderstandings about the Business Test. Over 40% of respondents were not confident or not at all confident that licensing officers understood or had applied a business test proportionate to their circumstances.  And the Kennel Club have concluded that ‘there is a systemic problem with the business test which was evident in numerous comments received’. This included Telford & Wrekin using the £1000 turnover business case, so they say that anyone breeding a bitch must have a license as even the sale of 2 cross breed pups will be more than £1000 and Bassetlaw Council saying that anyone selling puppies for more than £1000 will probably need a license.

Almost more worrying is that a third of respondents were expected to comply with conditions such as planning permission; companies house registration; public liability insurance; implementing noise reduction measures; applying for business insurance and paying for business refuse collection prior to being issued a licence.  The KC say that many breeders are clearly being treated as commercial businesses and being requested to jump through excessive hoops in order to receive a licence. This is resulting in many ceasing breeding altogether. The most commonly cited additional requirement breeders had to apply for was public liability insurance. There are however many others.              For instance, one respondent said that planning issues stopped her from applying and Durham County Council also expected to take DNA from every dog because they said they ‘wanted a dog DNA database in order to catch people who left faeces lying around’. A licensing officer in Kent said anyone with more than 3 breeding dogs had to be in commercial premises so in effect. They are advocating puppy farming while trying to close down home breeders.

One respondent reported ‘I have so far been prevented from applying for a licence as the local council insisted that I needed Planning permission for change of use. Architects drawings, planning application, acoustic survey and £7000 later they turned down the application on ridiculous grounds so this has now gone to appeal!’ And the

Throughout the survey it was clear that there was considerable confusion about precisely what was required of breeders by licensing officers and some appeared not to have read the guidance at all. The Kennel Club and say that this seems to be a  ‘one size fits all’ approach so that however small the breeders’ business, the red tape, bureaucracy and paperwork is what one would expect of a large business or even a commercial kennels housing many dogs.

One respondent said ‘I have re-homed most of my dogs since new regulations came out because I simply could not cope with the ridiculous rules and mountains of red tape’. Another wrote, ‘I applied for my Licence in November 2018. I received a phone call from the council asking for £435 before an inspection date could be booked. I received another telephone call a couple of weeks later making an appointment for two licencing officers and a vet to attend my property on 10th January 2019. When they arrived, the inspectors handed me their Guidance Notes for the application, the first time I had seen it. The inspection then took around four hours, working through 36 pages of the application form. About 10 days later I received a call from North Devon District Council to say that they had recommended my application for refusal, although I would have the chance to put my case forward to a committee meeting at a future date to be agreed. I was emailed a 49 page report, outlining the reasons for refusal. Since then it has taken approximately 35 hours to work through the report in order to supply NDDC with the information they require, mainly in written Standard Operating Procedure format. I am still working through the form but to date have put together over 50 pages of response. I do not employ any staff. On a personal level, I have found my experience to date with NDDC very stressful. They clearly have no experience of dog ownership on any level, and stated to me at the outset, they are licencing officers and are only interested in applicants meeting the licence criteria.’

Some local authorities appear to have no knowledge of the new regulations at all. A respondent in Bradford tried to apply for a licence and was met with blank stares while others say that the appropriate forms are not available while giving out conflicting information.  The Kennel Club have made it clear to Defra that it is not acceptable for any local authority to not have any indicators on their websites that the legislation has changed (many have incorrect and outdated information). Further it appears many are unaware of updated regulations even when breeders contact them.

Assured Breeder Scheme membership

According to the Guidance, ABS membership should count towards compliance history so that the star rating awarded (which affects the length of time the licence is allowed to run) should take that into consideration. In fact licensing officers were only prepared to acknowledge ABS membership in about 60 % of the cases where a four – five star rating was applied but worryingly, for 40%, membership, compliance history was ignored.

The Kennel Club has made it clear to Defra that ABS could not only save a local authority time and money but encouraging ABS membership provides the puppy buying public with a pool of responsible breeders. Disregarding the only UKAS accredited scheme undermines the intention of the regulations – which is to improve the welfare of puppies being bred and ensure puppy buyers purchase dogs from responsible breeders.  For instance North Devon District Council quote in their application form: ‘It must be noted the Kennel Club requirements and assessments are not as in depth and complex as this assessment’. Given that the criteria are actually based on the ABS this is clearly a total misunderstanding by the council.  In the instance quoted they wanted to see the ABS Inspection Report but it was not considered or taken into account in their decision making process.  Another respondent reported that their licensing officer did not accept ABS membership and they said, ‘We received a ‘0’ rating and were told that no star will be given till after 2020 even though we have been assured breeders since 2005.

In the Kennel Club’s opinion some local authorities have so misunderstood the regulations it could be damaging to the puppy buying public. They say, ‘If local authorities are not issuing star ratings, or issue only 1 star ratings for a good breeder then puppy buyers may be less likely to buy a puppy from that breeder – even though if rated by another local authority that breeder would be likely to achieve a much higher rating. This inconsistency is detrimental to the puppy market as it fails to assist people looking for good breeders’.  For instance Breckland Council have a policy of not giving stars to anyone and other local authorities have a policy of only giving a one year licence when the Guidance makes it clear that well-established breeders who fulfil the criteria for higher standards should be given a star rating which reflects the quality of their service.

There are also serious concerns about the licence fee.  One respondent reported,  ‘The fee is suddenly five times what it was last year and even though I was given 5* rating they will only grant a 12 month licence which means that in a year’s time I will have to pay a further £1400’.

Fundamental disagreements with minimum standards

There were several issues which responsible breeders fundamentally disagreed with specific criteria for the highest standards.  The result is that they are unable to gain a higher star rating. This shuts out a good source of puppies from the market and undermines the intention of the regulations, for good breeders to breed healthy dogs and for puppy buyers to know where to source them. In their submission to Defra the Kennel Club put forward a number of specific case studies to demonstrate the misunderstandings which are already beginning to appear endemic

North Devon

An ABS breeder applied for a licence with North Devon District Council. They had the inspection and were told they would get a 1 star rating providing some areas were dealt with – including vaccinations & labelling the fridge. They have been a member of the ABS since 2008 with no issues.

South and South West Local AuthoritiesLocal authorities in this area are advising breeders that they will require a licence if they breed and sell even one puppy and are taking no account of membership of the ABS.


An ABS breeder applied for a licence from Teignbridge District Council having joined the ABS in 2013 and having had two ABS inspections resulting in a satisfactory outcome. She is a hobby breeder, who normally breeds two litters per year from home. She was advised however that she would receive only a 3 star rating because she has not undertaken an OFQUAL qualification and had been told that it was essential to complete this at a cost of £900 (there are a number of distance learning colleges which can assist breeders at considerably less than £900 Ed) in order to achieve a 5 star rating. However this is an ‘optional’ requirement of the local authority licensing conditions, intended for breeders who employ staff (which she does not). Further, the local authority informed her that they were not taking compliance with the ABS into account which is causing her to consider leaving the scheme and even stop breeding.

East Riding

East Riding Council informed an ABS member that their ABS history does not count towards their compliance history and as such the ABS member will not achieve any star rating until 2020.

Mid Devon

The Kennel Club have had four complaints regarding Mid Devon District Council as they are not taking into account ABS membership with regards to proof of compliance history and are insisting anyone who breeds even one litter (even if they keep some puppies from the litter for themselves) must be licensed and inspected annually – even if they only have a litter every 3-4 years. Moreover, they are not implementing the scoring matrix at all and so it is unclear as to how they can be issuing an accurate star rating.

Adur and Worthing


Adur and Worthing Councils launched a consultation on the AAL shortly after the new regulations were introduced. The AAL is intended as a prescriptive document. It is not open for consultation. What is more, they stated at the time they would adopt the new regime in ‘early 2019’ and so missed the implementation date of October 2018.


Guildford Borough Council also issued a consultation on its licensing policy. Within this they stated: “Proof of the planning permission required for the relevant activity on the premises should also be provided”. This is additional red tape for low volume hobby breeders who will already have to declare their income to HMRC and provide public liability insurance.


Chichester District Council wrote to us following communications they had been having with an Assured Breeder regarding whether they would require a licence. They stated in their correspondence to them that the majority of dog breeders would now require a licence because breeding and selling dogs with a view to making a profit or earning any commission was now licensed. However this is just one marker in HMRC’s badges of trade and so is not the case.

Defra were contacted regarding this particular conversation and wrote to our Assured Breeder to state:  “The key thing to focus on here is the operation of business as being the determining factor in cases where less than three litters are bred per year. This is where the business test comes into play, which will help differentiate those who are legitimate hobby breeders and those who are actually operating a business….. The business test is not stating that anyone who makes a sale or takes a commission is automatically in scope…”


Selby District Council has been in contact by one of our KC Assured Breeders in relation to their licence and subsequent complaint upon being told they would only be issuing a 1 year licence initially. The reasons given are:’As this is new to all of us, for the first year only we will issue one year licences only. This will give you time to ensure that you are meeting all of the required standards, ready for the next years renewal and give us the chance to see what additional work, if any is required to enable us to get our fee setting correct.’  It is worth pointing out that this one year licence came at a cost of £556.10. Furthermore, this breeder has been a member of the Assured Breeder Scheme, without issue, since 2008 and has been the only licensed breeder within this local authority area for some years now.

New Guidance?

It is unlikely that the current Guidance will be updated in the near future but Defra has suggested that they are prepared to circulate a Briefing Note in the near future which bring some of these problems to the attention of local authorities.  We can only hope that they read them but in the meantime it is hoped that guidance will be made available to breeders so that licensing officers can be shown it as and when necessary.


Breeding – Background to the survey on the impact of licensing on breeders

Posted April 3, 2019 by davidcavill
Categories: pedigree dogs

The Animal Care College – caring for people caring for animals

Compromise is the best and cheapest lawyer – Robert Louis Stevenson

I created a survey for Our Dogs and the Kennel Club launched in February on the impact of the new Animal Licensing Laws on breeders. Like most of the previous attempts to legislate and/or control pet animals by introducing legislation to control breeders and dangerous dogs it is once again evident, however benevolent the intention, that our lawmakers find it very difficult to achieve what should be quite clear objectives without making the whole framework too complex for anyone to fully understand what is required or, as far as local authority licensing officers’ are concerned, creating chaos and confusion where non should exist.

Under the circumstances, it is therefore not surprising that the greatest legislative success in this sector by any government was almost by accident.  With the environmental Protection Act 1990 and the ensuing Environmental Protection (stray dogs) Regulations 1992 and the Control of Dogs Order 1992, the responsibility for stray dogs was transferred from the police to local authorities as an addendum, for the original Act was almost entirely about the disposal of waste and the definition of statutory nuisances. Almost overnight, stray dogs disappeared from our streets and those of us involved (Angela and I were then senior managers with The Dogs’ Home Battersea) were delighted to see that the numbers of dogs having to be destroyed dropping like a stone.  Nothing is perfect (and the whole framework surrounding dangerous dogs remains an appalling abuse both of dogs and the law) but since then we have had Control of Dogs Orders, the insistence that all dogs should be micro-chipped and a government moving forward on Lucy’s Law (the banning sale pets by a third party) too.

What is happening now?

But to return to the new ALLs:  It is not only breeders who have been impacted by this legislation and although it seems to me that most of the major concerns are around dog breeding, there has also been much discussion and concern about kennels and catteries, home boarding and day care centres.  The area which has seen the least upset are those pet shops which sell small pet animals such as hamsters and rabbits, reptiles and fish (most high street pet shops do not sell puppies or kittens) but it remains to be seen how the market will react to the future restrictions on third-party sales of puppies and kittens sold from trading kennels (which require a licence to sell animals) and large breeding establishments (which require a breeding licence) which currently supply those trading kennels.

My view has been for some time that in the future, trading kennels will begin to breed their own puppies while those large breeding establishments which we so often referred to as ‘puppy farms’, will begin to sell direct to the public.  We have already seen this happening in that T & S Four Paws in Barton under Needwood was raided by Trading Standards and Environmental Health Officers in East Staffordshire a year ago (the situation is current because the owners, Tina Paris and Stuart Ward, have just been fined well over £1000 each and to do 100 hours unpaid work as well as being ordered to attend sessions to improve their reading and writing skills – I assume that part of their defence was that they did not understand the documentation). They have also been disqualified from having or obtaining a Pet Shop Licence or a Breeding Licence for two years. What did they do? Their premises had a pet shop licence for selling dogs but they did not have a licence for breeding them. After a complaint about a puppy, licensing officers visited the premises and found that they not only did not comply with the licence conditions but they had begun breeding their own puppies without a breeding licence. This offence took place before the new regulations were introduced but demonstrates my point about commercial businesses taking what they see as sensible steps to stay within the law.  We can only hope that the new standards being applied will ensure that the quality of care and socialisation will be to acceptable standards but this is entirely dependent on the good sense of those employed by local authorities.  In the above case, and I suspect many others, they behaved impeccably but there is no doubt that, given the results of the survey, some leave a great deal to be desired in the extent of their understanding, knowledge and experience.

Red lines and grey areas

Many years ago I was a member of the small committee that wrote the Model Licence Conditions (MLCs) which were published in 1995 which have been in force for kennels and catteries for over 30 years.  As with any new guidance it took some time for all those involved to understand the more stringent requirements but there is no doubt that the quality of both service and environment has significantly improved over that time.  But I remember well having a long and protracted discussion with environmental officers in Cambridgeshire about what was then a brand-new and very beautiful cattery which had been built by a very experienced and sensible owner.  Her husband was a builder so it was built on sound foundations, of brick and was a courtyard style with a lovely garden and a beautiful pond in the centre.  The new MLCs required a sleeping area of X by Y but the block had been built (with underfloor heating which came on automatically when the temperature dropped below a certain level) with an area of X-1 (inch) by Y-2 (inches).  The argument went backwards and forwards for months with me saying that the space allotted fulfilled the requirements of the 1963 Act (which then defined the statutory requirements) and that the MLCs were not statutory and were advisory while the Environmental Health Officer concerned responding that if dimensions were included they had to be adhered to. As I remember, the issue finally went to court (this was before the current appeal process was in place) and I am pleased to say that the cattery is still there and continues to have a superb reputation.

This demonstrates how important it is that any statutory demand should allow for sensible judgement.  If the dimensions had been seriously inadequate or the cattery in question had also been characterised by poor care, inadequate paperwork or other physical shortcomings then the precise area would sensibly be one of the factors in refusing a licence.  As is was the only shortcoming some latitude should have been allowed.

Current problems

In the last few months I have been made aware of a number of difficulties faced by well-established premises that have fallen foul of the new regulations and the question of areas is now even more pertinent because the regulations are statutory.  For example Michelle Render of Elmsall Kennels tells Kennel and Canterbury Management, ‘Turmoil has been caused by the new legislation for kennels like mine that cannot be modified to the required sizes.  Although there has never been a complaint in our 14 years of trading we have therefore been given a low star rating’. (Just to recapitulate, the statutory regulations are quite basic so Michelle’s premises fulfil the criteria but licensees can only get a ‘star’ rating if they fulfil further, higher standards.)

Frankly, I am surprised that the Pet Industry Federation which has a section devoted to boarding kennels and catteries (the UK Kennel and Cattery Association) and the Association of Licensed Kennels (ALIKA) have not written and launched their own survey to see how the ALLs are working in their sector given that Defra have been impressed and appreciative of the Kennel Club/Our Dogs survey.  Perhaps it is time to create another especially for kennels and catteries. Back to several hours on Survey Monkey for me I think.  (NB:  This survey was launched in March 2019)


An unnecessary proposal which will discriminate against some owners of assistance dogs

Posted October 5, 2018 by davidcavill
Categories: pedigree dogs

I have found that when you are deeply troubled, there are things you get from the silent devoted companionship of a dog that you can get from no other source – Doris Day

Under the Equality act of 2010 you are considered disabled if you have a physical or mental impairment that has ‘a substantial and long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities. ‘Substantial’ is more than minor or trivial so, for instance, if it takes much longer than it usually would to complete a daily task like getting dressed is not classed as ‘minor’ or ‘trivial’. ‘Long-term’ means 12 months or more.  You automatically meet the disability definition under the Equality act from the day you are diagnosed with HIV infection, cancer or multiple sclerosis and there is also a classification regarding progressive conditions (those which get worse over time such as a breathing condition which develops as a result of a lung infection): All can be classed as disabled conditions.

If you are disabled you have rights to protect you from discrimination and you have these rights in almost every public aspect of your life including employment and education.  One area that is not included is travel because the complexity of making discrimination illegal as far as aircraft, buses and trains is simply too complicated. Many transport companies are making an effort to help disabled people but as demonstrated by a report in Which? Magazine recently there is still a very long way to go simply because of the technical difficulties involved in wheelchair users getting on and off almost all modes of public transport.

For well over 100 years it has been recognised that dogs can be not just helpful but often essential in assisting those who are disabled to cope with their disability.  During this time and particularly during the last 30 years, many organisations have been set up to specially train dogs for those people who would like a dog (not everyone wants to have a dog if they are disabled) and for whom a dog would be an asset. Guide dogs, hearing dogs for deaf people and support dogs for those who are wheelchair-bound are often seen on our streets and they are identified by their jackets which clearly indicate their role.  As I explained in a recent Speakers’ Corner, a number of those charities have come together to share expertise and to represent their interests and the interests of their users under the banner of the charity Assistance Dogs UK (ADUK) whose director, Peter Gorbing has become a powerful figure as far as disabilities issues are concerned as he has been an effective spokesman on behalf of disabled people. This has some disadvantages as there are some who feel that his approach appears to be especially protective of ADUK and this has inadvertently, although some affected say deliberately, complicated disability issues for a number of disabled dog owners.

Disability comes in two basic forms, those which are obvious and those which are hidden.

Less recognised disabilities

Physically disabled people who are wheelchair-bound or find difficulty in walking are clearly distinguishable from the able-bodied. Not being able to hear or see are ‘hidden’ disabilities to some extent but ones which are universally recognised and are well supported by dogs.  But there are a wide range of other hidden disability issues and these include: epilepsy (medical detection dogs can indicate if an epileptic fit is imminent); support dogs (for those with mental health problems including panic attacks); respiratory illnesses and those with cancer, HIV infection and multiple sclerosis where a dog can provide stability, comfort, companionship, emotional and sometimes practical support.

But for the present there are no well-heeled charities set up to provide canine services for those who feel they would be helpful and therefore no public recognition of the role that they play. For many people in this position they have dogs which they themselves have trained but which are not ‘officially’ recognised as support dogs by employers or schools and colleges which, in theory, they have a duty to do.

When this was brought to the attention of the Office for Disability Issues (based at the Department of Work and Pensions) a working group was set up to try and address these problems. I am told by the gentleman who was tasked with organising the working group that he knew very little about working with assistance dogs but made every effort to contact all those groups likely to be involved or affected and I am happy to accept his assurances – but as so often significant stakeholders were omitted (the Pet Education, Training and Education Council of which I am the chairman for one). There is an understandable tendency for government to look for advice from the most forceful and often well-funded groups (who naturally can not only afford to employ clever and intelligent PR people but have the resources to send them to such meetings) and this certainly appears to have happened in this case.  I am not for a moment suggesting that those clever and intelligent people do not have the best interests of those they represent at heart but as soon as government is involved the whole process becomes far more complicated (and expensive) than it needs to be.

Keep it simple – bureaucracy can be avoided

The solution being proposed by the working group appears to be to allow the setting up of a completely separate structure monitored by the Office for Disability Issues which would mean that both dogs and owners in the unfortunate position of not having currently ‘recognised’ disability where the ownership of an assistance dog would be helpful, be subjected to an external test of their and their dogs’ suitability.  I have had the opportunity to examine the test and its accompanying rubric and it is my opinion that it is unnecessarily complicated, poorly constructed and likely to be expensive. It would also greatly increase the stress being placed on owners who have more than enough problems to cope with anyway.

The original suggestion was that this test would be administered by just one non-statutory organisation who would exclusively train some of its members interested in taking part (follow the money ladies and gentlemen) and that, in their words, ‘as the character of dogs changes over the years’ the test would have to be repeated several times during the dog’s life.  It is not just the structure that is wrong, the foundation upon which it is built, is on sand not on sense. But there is some good news: the first is that nothing has yet been finally decided so there is still the opportunity to deconstruct the whole proposed edifice and the second is that those on the working group have sensibly decided that if any training of owners and dogs is to take place then it should not be confined to one exclusive group of trainers.  This would mean, in the sad circumstances of this solution going forward, that at least some competition will be introduced into the scheme.

But there is a much simpler solution which would take it away from government and the associated bureaucracy, is pragmatic, and fits in with the current structure of the charitable sector involved with assistance dogs. I believe that what should happen is that a separate charity should be set up (hopefully supported by the others already working in the field and ADUK) to train dogs and help owners who are affected by these specific and complex issues. It would automatically have the same status of the other charities and be able to flexibly and pragmatically solve the problems of those affected (and provide its own ‘approved’ badged jackets for the dogs) without being burdened by unnecessary administration.

Some stakeholders on the working group have asked that I become a member and I have been accepted. I will keep you informed as to progress.

Don’t Panic about the new Data Protection Act

Posted April 24, 2018 by davidcavill
Categories: pedigree dogs

The Animal Care College – caring for people caring for animals

Data is a precious thing – Tim Berners-Lee (creator of the Internet)

I have long believed that for a small business (and most kennel businesses are small) the need to computerise everything is minimal.  The footfall of the average kennel is unlikely to be much more than 30 each week unless you have associated activities such as a grooming room or shop, although of course, there is a tendency for everyone to turn up at once so it sometimes seems much busier than it actually is.  Under those circumstances it is much easier to provide a new client with a printed card on which they write all the details which can then simply be dropped into card index drawer than for the receptionist, whoever that may be, to turn to the computer and painstakingly insert a dozen fields while three or four owners are waiting to either deliver or collect their pets.

It is often suggested that computerisation gives you access to a range of useful reports and this is true but, frankly, how many kennels need to print out a list of medication when any owner or member of staff worth their salt will know the dog or cat well enough to remember what it needs and, in any case, a board with each dog’s details in the kitchen area is more than enough to ensure that each pet is looked after properly.  If you think about it a diary, a website, an email address, a telephone number and a simple spreadsheet to calculate income and expenditure is really all that is necessary.  However, using a computer has gradually become a symbol of modernity and we seem to use them whether or not they provide the best process in any given set of circumstances.

If this is the way your kennel and/or cattery has been administered then you did not need to have any concerns about the first Data Protection Act of 1998 for it only applied to a limited extent and it has been generally recognised that information such as name address and telephone number was generally part of the public record so not regarded as ‘personal’.   In fact, even if that basic information was held on computer and included an email address it was still not regarded as a problem.  However as from May 28th, 2018 this is now longer the case and any data you hold in whatever form is subject to the new General Data Protection Regulations.

Don’t Panic

Do not panic: it is not as bad as it sounds.  If you think about it is it all perfectly straightforward and reasonable but you do need to comply because by its very nature the Internet is an open source for information and the same techniques used by Facebook, Amazon and the rest to track you to bring you advertisements which they feel will be of interest to you are likely to be used to measure your activity online and will highlight those who are not registered or not complying.  So I recommend that you apply for the aim is sensible: to allow individuals to stay in control of their personal information and to ensure that those organisations that hold your personal data protect it, use it responsibly and do not sell it or distribute it without your permission.

If you are already registered you will have received details of how to update your registration.  Otherwise the first thing to do is to register.  You will almost certainly need to do so but you can check by going to this link and answering the questions posed https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/register/self-assessment/ .  At the end of the short survey you are told whether or not you need to register or not and if you do, you are licked directly to the registration page.  It takes about 15 minutes to complete so is not onerous or complicated.   However, please note you will be asked to identify one person within your business who is going to be responsible for data protection.  In most businesses it will be the proprietor but in larger organisations that responsibility may fall to Human Resources or a senior manager.  You will also see that business owners have a responsibility to ensure whoever it is, thoroughly understands what is required of them: there are fines for not fulfilling the role properly.

Remember that if a separate business uses your premises then they will have to register too.  For instance, some kennels lease their grooming room and others have a field that they let out to a training club – just direct them to the link above even if they are a not-for-profit club or society.  If such activities are part of your business then one database is sufficient of course.

What you need to do

The next stage is for you to list all the data about your clients which you actually need.  I totally approve of this requirement because I get extremely irritated with those intrusive requests for information such as my age, education and ethnicity whether it is from government or any other source.  You may find that you are, without realising it already asking for more detail than you need.  Name, dogs/cats owned (you will need their details), address, telephone numbers, email address and contact details of a responsible person who can be contacted in an emergency is really all you need for any client.  What you do not need are details of their peccadillos: in fact you are now not allowed to keep personal notes about clients (‘always ‘picky’, handle with care’) and as you are duty bound to provide all the information you hold about a client on request (for free – you may not charge for so doing so) it is probably not wise in any case.

All data must be held securely so your computer must have a password, filing cabinets or card indexes must be locked and keys removed and kept safely when the office is unattended.  You should also instruct any staff with access to personal data of the importance of keeping them safe.  Mentioning staff – their stored data falls under the GDPA too so must be secure and held safely.

Next you must inform your clients about what data you are storing and why.  You do not need to contact them them but after 28th May you should have a leaflet/form to hand to each client for them to complete. I have created an example for you to amend and use. If you sign up to the National Register of Boarding Kennels and Catteries (www.iboarddogs.uk – it is free to join you can download an editable word processing copy which you can amend to your own requirements.

Within the data protection notice I have tried to include all the points demanded by the legislation so you do not have to keep any other records of what you do and how you do it.  ‘Keep it Simple’ has always been my mantra and just because the legislation seems complicated does not mean we have to do any more than absolutely necessary. Incidentally, if you do contact clients with any marketing or general advertising, you need to ensure there is an opt-out button within the mailing.

Data Protection Notice and Permission to hold contact details for all clients of (insert business name as filed with the General Data Protection Register)

To comply with the current legislation on data protection we must tell you what personal data we hold about you, why we hold it and have your permission to retain it.  We store data about clients to ensure we can contact them by mail, telephone or email:

  • in an emergency
  • about booking reminders
  • our regular newsletter
  • any special offers

You can opt-out of any marketing contacts if you wish by ticking the appropriate box on the form below.

Any data we hold will not be provided to any other person or business except as required by law.

  • You may request to see all the personal data we hold on you (we are allowed 30 days to provide it)
  • We only keep your data for the reasons outlined above
  • We destroy your data if we have had no contact with you for (x) years
  • For the smooth and efficient running of xxxx kennels we need to keep a record of
    • Your name
    • Your Address
    • Your landline and mobile telephone numbers
    • Your email address
    • Contact details of another responsible person in case of emergency
    • The details of your pet/s
    • The name and telephone number of your veterinary surgeon

For us to be able to hold these records we need your permission so please complete this form and hand it to our receptionist.

Your full name: ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_____________________________________

Your email address: __________________________________

I agree that ( xxxx kennels) may contact me, my veterinary surgeon or my named emergency contact as necessary

In an emergency

To remind me of appointments/bookings

Our Newsletter*

About offers and services which may be of interest to me*

*I understand I can opt out of further marketing contact at any time on request.

Signature ___________________________________

Clients must tick the first two boxes.  Ticking the subsequent boxes is optional


David Cavill is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and of the Institute of Directors, Studies Coordinator of the Animal Care College (www.animalcarecollege.co.uk) and wrote the College’s Diploma of Kennel Management.  He has managed a very large boarding kennels and cattery and owned a small kennel and cattery too.  He edited, revised and finally rewrote Sheila Zabawa’s Running Your Own Boarding Kennels, published by Kogan Page now, in its fourth edition.  He administers a series of information sites for the pet industry which include http://www.iboarddogs.uk, www.igroomdogs.uk, http://www.itraindogs.uk  and http://www.ibreedpedigreedogs.uk



Will the new restrictions on Dog Breeders be effective?

Posted March 20, 2018 by davidcavill
Categories: pedigree dogs

The Animal Care College – caring for people caring for anmals

All human progress depends on over-reaction – Libby Purves

On the other hand you may also like to consider the relevance of:

Many a good argument is ruined by some fool who knows what he is talking about – Marshall McLuhan

As chairman of the Pet Education, Training and Behaviour Council (PETbc) I am a member of the influential Canine and Feline Sector Group (CFSG) which brings together the main participants in the pet welfare quadrille who have provided the foundations of the largely excellent animal care and welfare legislation in the United Kingdom.  The CFSG includes all the major charities including the Kennel Club and the Governing Council of the Cat Fancy among other smaller players.

You will no doubt have noticed in reading that first sentence carefully that there is a touch of scepticism embedded within it.  I should therefore make clear that the ‘excellent animal care and welfare legislation’ phrase is accurate.  The UK has led the world not just in pet animal care but, largely through the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), in the welfare of animals used in scientific research too.  By and large the rest of the world has played ‘catch up’ so however much the charity lobby groups press for further reforms it is not for lack of achievement.  At the same time I use the reference to quadrille (an old and well-choreographed dance) because almost all these ‘stakeholders’ have their own focus and agenda, one aspect of which is to ensure there is enough money coming in through charitable donations to pay their staff (some senior staff are very well paid) and keep the organisation afloat.  They therefore come into the political arena with trolley loads of baggage from their trustees (and the committed senior officers – whom the trustees have appointed) which often makes agreement on the direction of progress a battle between different factions.

In some instances one might come to the conclusion that the legislation which has been passed by government has been in spite of rather than because of the commitment of the major players.  At the same time, the vast majority of smaller organisation live very much ‘hand to mouth’ so that the large ones, just like large companies, tend to mask the competition and through their superior marketing and advertising generate income at the expense of the smaller charities.  This means their views, and the views of individuals, hardly get a look in.

So although much progress has been made – the 2006 Animal Welfare Act which has resulted in the secondary legislation currently being introduced and which should be in place by the end of 2018 is an excellent example – there have been spectacular failures, particularly in in the legislation surrounding dangerous dogs and the various attempts to formally regulate the breeding of dogs.  Leaving the question of dangerous dogs aside for the moment (those of us who believe we may have some answers have never been listened to either by the stakeholders or by the government), the question of breeding and puppy sales has been the subject of immense media interest since Michael Gove, the responsible minister at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) announced that the new statutory regulations being brought in later this year will finally solve all the problems.

I am afraid that it will not.  To complicate matters many Stakeholder experts and lobbyists have convinced both many MPs and the media that the legislation is much too complicated and while this is certainly true the simplistic answer they are putting forward, Lucy’s Law (the idea that third-party sales of dogs would be illegal), is unlikely to work either.  Incidentally, the Kennel Club supports Lucy’s Law and has signed up to the criteria for the new statutory legislation.

It must be stated categorically that the objective of both sides should be commended and supported, for its aim better protection for puppies and bitches.  No one disagrees with the aim; it is just that in practice, neither will be effective.  Incidentally, Mr Gove also announced that Defra was ‘exploring’ the question of a ban on third-party sales and has called for evidence: I would be prepared to make a substantial bet that this is a sop to the lobbyists and will simply not happen.

An argument built on sand

A pro-Lucy’s Law barrister, Sarah Clover, has argued very cleverly in its favour but unfortunately she has built her foundation on previous effective legislation controlling smoking and, to a lesser extent, drinking.  Her view is that the banning of third-party sales of puppies would have similar support but apart from her opinion she has no evidence for it and in any case, the circumstances are quite different.  Unless they smoke, most people dislike smoking so lighting up in a restaurant or any other public place is immediately frowned upon by the majority of people who are affected: peer pressure is what has ensured the success of the smoking ban.  People who come into contact with those who drink too much do not generally approve either: their comfort zone is being invaded and they have general support for the law regarding drunkenness and underage drinking.  In public, both situations are offensive but this is simply not relevant for somebody buying a puppy.

Buying a puppy is not offensive: in fact the vast majority of people love puppies.  Buying a puppy is a positive and emotional process which is fundamentally integral to the lives of many families and as most people are not disturbed by barking, fouling or biting (for most dogs behave remarkably well) then they would view Lucy’s Law as interfering and irrelevant: they would simply not report it.  Think about it – why would they?  Her other contentions also do not stand up to scrutiny because all that would happen if  Lucy’s Law were implemented is that the current ‘puppy traders’ who buy from ‘puppy farmers’ would simply change tack and become a ‘puppy breeders’.  We might also find that the current rescue organisations might even take the same route, as Lucy’s Law would almost certainly result in a considerable shortage of puppies to satisfy the current demand of approximately 750,000 every year.  As I have already implied, it is all about the money.

Three of the major stakeholders, BVA, Blue Cross and Dogs Trust support Lucy’s Law in principle (as do I) but recognise that its implementation is much more difficult than its supporters imagine and that the licensing system proposed by Defra has a better chance of achieving its objectives.

Are you ‘in the business of breeding dogs’?

Frankly, although I think that improvements will gradually occur as a result of this legislation in the long term it will not be fundamentally any more effective than previous attempts.  The main reason is that of complexity and omission.  For instance you may have noticed that in statements and rubric the government always use the phrase ‘in the business of breeding dogs’ and never ‘dog breeder’.  The reason for this is simple and straightforward: a breeder will not be considered to be ‘in the business of breeding dogs’ unless they breed three or more litters in a calendar year.  I have urged stakeholders to consider the idea that the criteria should be based on the number of puppies rather than the number of litters because three litters of Labradors may easily result in twenty or more puppies whereas three litters of Pomeranians may only result in six, so the ‘business’ is in no way comparable.  Not that it would make any difference in my opinion – but it would be more rational.

The criteria demanded of breeders ‘in the business of breeding dogs’ is very demanding and there is no doubt that even the most law-abiding amongst us will be tempted to try and avoid having to register.  This they will do.  In the same way as they avoid the Kennel Club regulation that a bitch should not have any more than four litters in her lifetime by occasionally adding an ‘extra’ bitch to a litter, they will register their bitches to the addresses of friends and relatives, only keeping and formally registering with the Kennel Club the ones that they wish to show or breed from.

Defra have also made it clear that they are not going to fund any of the extra work that is involved in in granting and checking licenses on the basis that the fees charged by the local authority will cover the costs.  If experience is anything to go by many local authorities will simply not bother and others will only pay lip service to the extra work involved.  It is relevant here to remind you that after a freedom of information request to a local authority recently, it responded that they had no licensed dog breeders in their area.  On examination there turned out to be over forty KC registered Assured Breeders, several of which bred a number of different breeds and should certainly have applied for a licence.

I very much hope that the raised profile of the importance of breeding sound dogs which has flooded the media in recent weeks will have an impact on the public’s perception of buying a puppy and particularly that they become more aware of the problems which occur in some Brachycephalic breeds which persist in those that supply the pet market despite the hard work that has been done by so many clubs and so many breeders.

It may be that I am becoming cynical in my old age but I am not holding my breath.