I thank the Chairman. My presentation is on the Canine Breeders of Ireland, CBI, and its role in the industry. With over 600 members representing an industry estimated to be worth over €300 million annually to the economy, we consider ourselves the largest organisation of our kind. At present our membership is mostly made up of commercial dog breeding establishments. We have been overwhelmed by the interest from breeders, politicians and the media and we hope to launch our website in the very near future. This is expected to boost membership significantly and to bring up many more topics about which breeders are concerned.
We intend to use the CBI to promote a code of ethics which members must abide by and, through engagement with dog breeders, we will improve our industry and make it more open and acceptable to the public. Currently, if a dog breeder wishes to become a full member of the CBI he or she must have his or her kennels certified by a veterinary surgeon. The CBI has met extensively with relevant groups and enjoys the support of both the IFA and the Irish Kennel Club, IKC.
The term "puppy farmer" is a derogatory term. It has been interpreted for us by a leading charity worker as meaning "an ongoing and serious abuse of animal welfare" and operators have been characterised as being "unscrupulous exploiters of animals". The same source has said "puppy farming is an abuse of animals for profit". We hope the committee members will understand that they are not meeting puppy farmers and that we find this term offensive. As dog breeders, we rely on our dogs to feed our families. It is ridiculous to suggest that one can abuse animals and run a successful, profitable kennel. Like many others, we detest animal cruelty and wish to see prosecutions where possible. We do not appreciate media stories which further the causes of animal rights activists but do serious damage to the image of Irish dog breeders. Trial by media is not justice. The public is of the opinion that our country is littered with puppy farms where animals live in squalid conditions and that dogs should be purchased not from licensed breeding establishments but rather from what we would term "hobby breeders". This is a nonsense and we intend, together with the media, to dispel that myth.
There is a perception that it is wrong to breed a dog for profit. However, we regard it as one of our fundamental rights to be able to breed a dog and sell the offspring. Breeding a dog should not have a negative effect on its welfare. The vast majority of dogs produced are bred in commercial breeding establishments where operators specialise in dog breeding. These are people with expertise and experience who know how to breed dogs well. The latest protocols are used and our members are at the forefront of quality dog breeding. Increasingly, dogs in the general population are neutered and are domestic pets that are not bred, nor would their owners know how to breed them. Pet production is being centralised to breeding establishments where animals are bred to meet the market's needs. This is the correct course and better regulation would ensure a more professional industry with fewer problems for the public from amateur breeders.
While many breeders already keep their animals and their premises to a high standard, it would be helpful to have broad guidance so that a breeder can move forward with his or her business secure in the knowledge that he or she is acting properly. Many kennel owners throughout the country are preparing for new legislation but have no guidance as to what this might mean. In the meantime they can only use best practice. With a lead-in time of three months, we have serious concerns. The 2005 report by the working group on dog breeding establishments stated:
The group recommends that the new dog breeding registration system be introduced on a phased basis using an improvement notice model to avoid the creation of a surplus of dogs caused by the closure of substandard dog breeding establishments. This lead-in time would allow dog breeding establishments to meet the necessary standards and avoid the problem of having to dispose of a number of unwanted dogs.
This seems like common sense but the Minister has chosen to ignore it.
Many industries are supported and regulated by the Government and we question why we are treated differently. Our members have built an industry with little or no input from Government. Licensed premises could be assisted with improvements to marketing, kennelling, veterinary and isolation facilities which would benefit the welfare of the animals. Surely this is an area where grant funding would be both deserved and appropriate.
The surplus of strays reported is something which causes surprise among our members. There is no surplus of pedigree or desirable dogs. There is a ready home for quality pets and they have a residual monetary value. We question the figures presented for strays in Ireland. Are these figures taken from solely Government-owned and run kennels? We are aware of a massive movement of dogs between different charity and rescue organisations. When charities release figures for the numbers of dogs rehomed, do they also count those which they sell on to other charities? Which breeds of dogs are most likely to be euthanised in dog pounds? From our own experience, it seems predominately to be mongrels, collies and greyhounds. These are dogs with a very low or no monetary value which are not bred commercially.
With a dog population of 690,000 and an average lifespan of 13 years, that leaves 50,000 Irish dogs dying of old age every year. The Government figures tell us that 10,000 dogs were euthanised in Ireland in 2008 in both Government and charity-run kennels. Many dog owners use the dog warden service as a cheap way of disposing of unwanted or old dogs. We have included a table in our document setting out the Government figures. I draw members' attention in particular to the figures for dogs surrendered and collected and for those put to sleep.
The number of dogs reported as being destroyed each year is abhorrent. Given a dog population of approximately 700,000, 10,000 dogs being destroyed is one dog in every 70 annually. Dogs Trust in Ireland must be particularly commended on its excellent work in rehoming suitable dogs. Its policy of no euthanasia is an excellent one and the CBI hopes to work with such groups in the future.
Commercial dog breeders do not accept responsibility for Ireland's strays. Our dogs have a monetary value throughout their lives and if they are unlucky enough to find themselves in a dog pound, they are usually very quickly rehomed. In 2006, Mr. Mark Beazley of the ISPCA stated, "Another problem is that with working dogs, owners are often hoping to breed the perfect sheep dog, though of course that doesn't happen, and I would estimate that 70% to 80% of those that end up in pounds are collies or crossbred pups".
The island of Ireland has a population of some 6 million compared with a population of 60 million in Great Britain. It is entirely logical that we would meet the demand created by such a volume of people. Britain does not breed enough of its own dogs to supply its markets. We have a rural economy particularly well suited to dog breeding and it is in the best interests of the Irish economy that these exports continue not only to the United Kingdom but worldwide. Charities freely admit shipping dogs to the same market, that they receive funding for same and that there is a shortage of dogs in Britain. By our estimates, Britain needs 500,000 puppies per year to maintain its existing dog population. We have estimated commercial dog exports from both Northern Ireland and the Republic to be around 45,000 annually. This does not count those exported by charities and sanctuaries.
The market in Great Britain is supplied by several sources. There are home bred dogs which in many cases are sold with endorsed pedigrees at a premium price. Our main competition is from Welsh dog breeders. The Welsh Assembly Government saw fit to advise farmers to diversify into dog breeding with the result that Wales became a main centre for dog kennels. This may be where the term "puppy farmer" originated. We supply home bred dogs to licensed premises throughout Britain and we face tough market conditions at every stage. We demand better regulation and thus protection so that we might advertise our dogs with some sense of pride about the country in which they are bred. If we do not supply these dogs, someone else will. We would like to openly state that our dogs are bred in Ireland and that this would be a strong selling point.
Dogs are living animals and puppies are baby animals. The CBI has been looking into figures showing the percentage of problems in puppies sold to the public from commercial kennels. By our estimates, problems range from 0% to 5%, 5% being the top end of the scale. By contrast, a Queen's University study showed 53.7% of dogs had an ailment after being bought from the USPCA. It is clear who the professionals are. We have circulated these reports along with our presentation. Dogs bred by our members are not bred for show but for health and functionality, so abnormalities are not bred into the stock. That function is to be a healthy and happy pet.
We cannot spend enough time explaining the issue of protectionism and discrimination to the committee. Many dog breeders in Great Britain are territorial about breeding dogs. They sell dogs at a premium and endorse pedigree papers. Our exported dogs sell on quality and on price. When our dogs are offered for sale in an area they will usually bring freedom to the market, allowing the public to obtain pets on much more reasonable terms. However, existing breeders who have enjoyed a free rein prior to this usually become very militant and protectionist, demanding of local authorities that these imported dogs be removed immediately, that they must have been mistreated and are cheap and therefore interior. This is a nonsense. It is not that the incidence of problems in exported dogs is any greater than in locally-bred dogs but that these breeders cannot take the competition. They are assisted in this by many media-friendly charities which dovetail across the Irish Sea and also compete with us to supply dogs, both adults and puppies, to the British market.
Dogs have been exported from Ireland for generations. There is nothing wrong with breeding and exporting dogs provided suitable welfare standards are applied. Never in our history has this job been harder. We can only sell dogs based on our own reputations. Once a dog is identified as coming from Ireland it is immediately labelled as a cheap and inferior import. This was not always the case. At one time it was a major selling point that a dog was bred in Ireland. We as an industry are being constantly damaged at home and abroad by charities and animal rights activists who highlight the failures of a few while damning an entire industry and obtaining donations and legacies as a result of the media storm created. Due to this perception, many of our breeders are hesitant to reveal their occupations. The vast majority of commercial dog premises are operated under strict veterinary guidelines but this fact is often ignored. While there have been cases where poor standards have been applied and bad practice used, this is an extremely small minority which has been used by our competitors to tarnish an entire industry.
We desperately need support and guidance on how to proceed. We must bring dog breeding out of the shadows and ensure it is recognised as a legitimate business and an honest and respectable profession. The Government should support our exports and support a business which pays tax, provides employment and is a source of revenue throughout the economy. We are proud of our produce and we want everyone else to feel the same.
At present, breeding establishments are inspected by dog wardens and county vets from the local councils. In some cases wardens do a very good job but most seem to be thoroughly under-qualified and overwhelmed. To be asked to police both a pet owner with one dog and a commercial establishment with possibly hundreds of dogs is unreasonable. We have heard reports of some wardens coming to inspect licensed premises accompanied by the local charity worker. This is totally unacceptable as charity workers have no role on Government-licensed premises and most are fundamentally opposed to the breeding of dogs for profit.
Some wardens are openly activists and this is a major issue for members of the Canine Breeders of Ireland, CBI. We expect and deserve a fair and even approach throughout the country. Dog wardens must be trained and must not be allowed to further the agendas of animal rights activists. The CBI regards the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as the only appropriate authority to effectively regulate commercial dog breeding. The Department's unbiased veterinary surgeons are the only people whom the CBI recognises as being qualified to advise or testify on animal welfare issues. We recommend that Department veterinary surgeons be made ultimately responsible for breeding establishments.
The Department has these vets in every county office throughout Ireland. The system needs to be in place where they can be called on to attend licensed premises where there is a question over welfare or where prosecution is necessary. We do not need to explain to the committee how the livelihoods of entire families depend on these decisions. We recommend that when a kennel applies for a licence, the application and kennels must be certified by a veterinary surgeon just the same as our CBI membership. This would vastly simplify the process and instil confidence in dog breeders.
Improvement notices are a very good idea but it is understood that in some cases seizure may be necessary. It is unacceptable that the same charity which decides to seize animals also gets paid for their kennelling and can then proceed to sell them and keep the money. This is a severe conflict of interest. Animals when seized or rescued need to be placed in the care of an approved licensed kennel. The Department must regulate these kennels and its representatives must be able to visit any kennels, licensed or otherwise, 24 hours a day without notice. This must include animal shelters. We need licensed premises to tender for kennelling of dogs and transportation of dogs. These animals must stay in these kennels and responsibility must lie with the kennel owner in whose care the animal was placed.
As we have stated, Department vets must be involved. Breeding establishments must have a licence certificate which carries weight in the eyes of the public and which gives protection to our dogs. We want to restore public confidence. Improvement notices are welcomed but notices must be reasonable, justifiable and issued by a competent person such as a Department veterinary surgeon. We suggest a licensing system for dog exporters, guidelines on how to transport dogs, inspection and approval of vehicles for transporting dogs.
The CBI fundamentally opposes an increase in the licence fee for breeding establishments. It is obvious that there are thousands of breeding establishments in Ireland but the Government only licensed 440 in 2008. Raising the fees will not make these kennels obtain a licence and open up to regulation, instead it will drive them further underground. Fermanagh is a great example of an effective system. In that case, a premises with three unsterilised bitches becomes a licensed breeding establishment and the licence fee, which is currently £12.50, is reasonable. The Minister responsible for these matters has carried out consultation and proposes to raise the fee to £32. The dog warden hunts down and licenses kennels which are then open to inspection and regulation. This one small county has 55 licensed breeding establishments. The proposed fees of the Minister, Deputy Gormley, are going to be the highest in the world.
Fines are necessary but we are staggered at what is being proposed with €100,000 and five years in prison. Muggers, robbers and rapists do not receive such penalties. The Minister runs the risk of dog breeders being so intimidated by the system that they may decide not to engage at all. There can be no exemptions as a dog is a dog regardless of where it is held, be that a breeding kennel, boarding kennel, hunt kennel or rescue kennel. Its welfare needs do not change because of location or ownership.
It is agreed by the CBI and its membership that microchipping is good practice and that it should be a licence requirement. Most CBI members have already microchipped their dogs for their own records. They microchip puppies on a regular basis and it would seem good practice to extend this to all dogs. We agree with the Government that if done properly, microchipping would simplify the stray dog issue. The CBI is somewhat mystified as to why it is proposed that only "authorised implanters" can perform this simple and inexpensive task. The Irish Kennel Club has already tried this and found dog breeders were exploited and overcharged by veterinary surgeons in private practice.
We are fearful of what impact microchipping will have on dog exports and the knock-on effect on the home market. We suggest that a microchip should be a requirement of a dog licence and that this will ensure all dogs in the population are both chipped and licensed. It has been suggested by one of the CBI directors that a logbook system should be used to maintain the legal ownership of a dog. This would work like the logbook for a car, with legal ownership being in the name of the registered keeper, which should be held on a national database maintained by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
According to the official figures, 220,000 individual dog licences were issued in 2008. This leaves 470,000 dogs which were not licensed, a massive shortfall in revenue of over €5 million. It would seem natural that councils would work with dog breeders to ensure puppies sold from licensed premises are licensed by their new owners. It seems shocking that this is not addressed in the new legislation. There should be incentives to neuter and licence reductions for those on benefits or the elderly.
There are a number of items in the proposed legislation which we believe will cause major welfare problems. By arranging licence fees subject to the number of dogs there is a constant pressure on kennels to euthanise or hide dogs and it will prohibit the expansion of successful kennels. By making those with five or fewer bitches exempt, it encourages the hiding and further abuse of dogs and by licensing a four-month-old puppy as a breeding bitch it is encouraging what would be a very serious abuse of animal welfare. In attempting to limit litter numbers and frequency the Minister has shown a lack of basic knowledge or veterinary advice on this issue. We suggest reasonable breeding guidelines which can be overwritten only by veterinary advice on an individual animal basis.
The CBI and its membership are not against charity and we commend the massive body of good work done by charitable organisations. Good sanctuaries and rescue shelters have an essential role to play throughout Ireland and the UK. We would relish the opportunity to work in partnership with welfare charities and hope that through the work of the CBI this would be possible in the future. We see our role as improving the welfare of animals, the standards of breeding kennels and the organisation of dog breeders so that our industry can be regarded as something of which to be proud.
We thank the committee for its patience and for meeting us to discuss these complex issues. We feel these matters need urgent attention and we thank the committee for recognising this. We will be making ourselves available to discuss the presentation. We have a document with proposed amendments which we would be happy to discuss with the committee.
