It's good to talk...

I am in hospital, but I'm starting to feel a bit better. (I'm wearing a coloured wrist band, so it feels like I'm at a rather basic all inclusive holiday.)

I feel very lucky being so well looked by the NHS especially there being a pandemic. Having your pain managed is just brilliant.

I am also feeling blessed that I have my laptop and wifi so I can productively fill some of the hours between the various tests, drugs, meals and cups of tea.

No one else here seems to have the urge to be working (apart from the medics obvs), but I can't help it, I really do love what I do!

So. This Thursday at 7.30pm I will probably be doing my first ever Facebook live from St Peter's Hospital - unless by some miracle I get discharged before then, or, it clashes with the tea trolley coming around. Nothing can get in the way of the tea trolley.

It's a very important and time sensitive subject so the Facebook Live must go on!

It's with the brilliant Rebecca Walters, she who has invented the first ever level 3 qualification in dog breeding. I really can't wait.

So what's the Facebook live all about and why am I intent on still doing it?

From February onwards there are new guidelines for dog breeding licenses in England and I've been staying up late reading the 34-pages.

I have been asking Defra if they can help clear up some of the biggest ambiguities. I really do hope they can. Here are just some of the burning issues.

(I was tempted to ask why there were so many references to fish and horses in the dog breeding guidelines... but didn't want to rub them up the wrong way.)

The updates (seem to) change how many dogs are included on your license

The guidance reveals that non breeding dogs will now being counted in the total number of dogs on the license. Previously, retired dogs or neutered dogs were not included.

This change will potentially have a horrible impact on small ethical breeders who regard dogs as family members and not breeding stock.

This guidance tweak has probably been brought in to discourage puppy farmers from dishonestly claiming that a percentage of breeding dogs in kennels are infertile/past breeding age so they can have many more dogs than they are licensed to keep. But this attempt to close a loophole has a negative consequence for very good breeders that we as a society should be treasuring.

The methods these great breeders use are superior from?from both a welfare perspective and a puppy buyer's perspective - yet compliance for them is often proportionally much more difficult and often it seems the legislation was designed with a dogs kept in a remote kennel being the norm.?

This change to the guidance appears to normalise thinking of dogs as commodities. Those who love their dogs as sentient companions would not consider rehoming them in old age and certainly wouldn't want to be forced to choose which of their beloved dogs to cast out. To small ethical breeders, each dog is very much more than breeding stock.

Should and could the breeding legislation be much fairer towards the small caring breeder?

If the huge scale breeders can't be trusted, then maybe a different license should be devised for them and another one deigned for small that reflects and encourages best practise for both.

Counter-intuitively, the cost of the licensing is very much higher per pup for small scale breeders than large. And much of the language in the guidance doesn't seem relevant to these modern, ethical, small scale dog breeders. Some of the revisions appear to be attempts to counter uncaring large scale breeders bending the rules - but these measures have unintended consequences on the well behaved small breeder who loves their dogs as family.?

Could home breeders be made a special exception from this part of the guidance ny giving them the option to prove that their pets that are outside of the license are exempt. Could Tailwise breeders perhaps also have a voice when revisions are being considered as the license ideally should encourage and protect small, ethical breeders and encourage the public to move towards genuine people for whom breeding has a consequence.

Another burning issue, can there be any?clarification about?what is an out of scope?breeder. or at least acknowledgement that LA (local authorities) are currently drawing different interpretations from the guidance.

Some are telling callers that if they are having fewer than three litters a year they are out of scope and they don't need a license. But others advise anyone advertising a single puppy online that they need to be a licensed.?Which is correct? Please can it be made clearer?

Another ambiguity, it's unclear if?all license holders?now have to hold an?Ofqual level 2?or is it only those who have 10 or more dogs? Breeders have interpreted the guidance both ways, which is correct?

With regards to?dogs kept in sometimes unmanned kennels rather than at home, is it correct in the guidance that it is only?optional?for the breeders or staff to check in on the dogs overnight? And that could be by CCTV? Is it possible to be?licensed without any overnight checks??(It is noted that if a litter is present it says the check must be in person. But is just once a night really sufficient?)?

In contrast, small caring breeders usually sleep next to mum before the pups are born and for a few weeks afterwards. Could perhaps these breeders get a higher rating for this behaviour?

The protocol for dealing with difficult dogs (ie the provision of?muzzles?and?dog catching devices) seems very incongruous for someone who has two Cavalier King Charles Spaniels who live in their home? ?Small and large are in many ways very, very different.

Part B?of the guidance mentions that license holders can still?sell?pups to owners of?pet shops in Wales. Is this a misprint??

The licence is quite specific with regards to?registration?of the pups and adult dogs. For example Tailwise has a wonderful breeder in one LA being told that they can never achieve a?higher rating?as Labradoodles are not recognised by the Kennel Club.

These breeders go above and beyond in every way and have extensive health checking and record keeping and calculate COI. If all LAs interpreted the guidance in the same way pretty much every Cockapoo and Doodle breeder would be unable to get the highest star rating. This seems very unfair and damaging to the license.?Is there any way to appeal a LA's interpretation of the guidance?

We are aware that breeders in some LAs can achieve higher star rating as their LA will accept other methods of registration - for eg the KC Activity Register. Could the guidance clearly specify exactly what type of registration is acceptable so the license will be applied fairly in all areas?

More broadly, instead of measuring great breeders against standards seemingly designed primarily for large scale inferior and sometimes unmanned kennel owners (ie puppy farmers), why not make another license built to test the small breeder - one that better fits them and is more fairly calculated?

Small ethical breeders give advice and provide a safety net for the whole of their pups' lives, meaning those pups would never end up unwanted in a council pound.

We should aim for all dogs to be bred this way.

The Facebook Live event is free to attend and is on next Thursday at 7.30pm. We would love someone from Defra to attend and as many small good breeders as possible to express your wishes and show Defra how many of you there are.

https://fb.me/e/1DaVn9vKB

(update: Still in hospital been in here for a long time. Had my procedure to remove the gall stone lodged in a duct that was making my liver very unhappy, but sadly our ward is now quarantined and we are not allowed to leave the ward - so we've delayed the Facebook live by a week. )