The evidence would have to be that they refuse, in writing, to take back a dog, and as I stated before, FACT has to be proved and no unethical breeder is going to return a form saying they are refusing to take back a dog, it would get ignored most likely.

And it's Libel, not Slander.

Because the fact is, there are Ethical breeders and Unethical breeders, regardless of what either calls themselves.

Instead of causing confusion over 'so-called' ethical breeders, it makes more sense to stick to the facts, and that is that some are ethical and some are unethical.

It could also be in the form of a recorded call, providing they are made aware that it is being recorded.
Libel and slander come under the same catergory (civil).
Either way if the evidence is there then theres no case to put in front of the court, and a sol's should tell thenm so if they considered it.

I really believe there is only one way to stop the problem or at least slow it to a trickle - zero tolerance enforcement of the following :

Every dog to be registered, chipped and dna tested,

All dogs intended for breeding to have every relevant health test, with a license issued when all that is in order

Any failing health / other suitability tests, [ which Breed clubs could monitor/oversee ? ], to be neutered to prevent `accidents` including deliberate `accidents`
**exemption for those for whom the op would be too risky on other health grounds

Stiff penalties - and I mean stiff - for non-compliance

No more `designer dog` breeding - accidental or otherwise

Breeders to pay for upkeep of any dogs they have bred which end up handed in to rescue [ until rehomed ], if unable / unwilling to take them back - perhaps introduction of compulsory `breeder insurance policies` to provide funds if breeder unable to pay due to unforeseen circumstances - one policy per litter bred.

Minimum and maximum age for breeding narrowed and maximum number of litters per bitch lowered - humungous penalties for non-compliance

Potential owners to have to do general animal care course / test plus research test on the breed they wish to own, and be issued with licence when passed - revokable should it become necessary.

All of which is just a pipe dream and will never happen so its all just a `hypothetical, in a perfect world` muse

Unless I become a world dictator in which case all the above would be implemented

Was just going to say that. Theres no such think as so called ethical. If they dont stick to the criteria ie health checks etc there not "so called " ethical there unethical.

No it's not see my posts below........







My first post on this thread made a very clear distinction between good and bad breeders - Not tarring them all with the same brush.

Actually Libel and Slander are both Tort Law, one relates to Orated, the other to Written

Libel is the easiest to prove as it's written wrongs that are sued for. Slander is the hardest to prove.

However both are costly to defend and something Rescues could not afford to do if they were wrong about a breeder.

As I said 'Evidence' has to be proved. I dont think a puppy farmer would agree to being recorded on a phone call somehow !

QUOTE=Patch;1192191]I really believe there is only one way to stop the problem or at least slow it to a trickle - zero tolerance enforcement of the following :

Every dog to be registered, chipped and dna tested,

All dogs intended for breeding to have every relevant health test, with a license issued when all that is in order

Any failing health / other suitability tests, [ which Breed clubs could monitor/oversee ? ], to be neutered to prevent `accidents` including deliberate `accidents`
**exemption for those for whom the op would be too risky on other health grounds

Stiff penalties - and I mean stiff - for non-compliance

No more `designer dog` breeding - accidental or otherwise

Breeders to pay for upkeep of any dogs they have bred which end up handed in to rescue [ until rehomed ], if unable / unwilling to take them back - perhaps introduction of compulsory `breeder insurance policies` to provide funds if breeder unable to pay due to unforeseen circumstances - one policy per litter bred.

Minimum and maximum age for breeding narrowed and maximum number of litters per bitch lowered - humungous penalties for non-compliance

Potential owners to have to do general animal care course / test plus research test on the breed they wish to own, and be issued with licence when passed - revokable should it become necessary.

All of which is just a pipe dream and will never happen so its all just a `hypothetical, in a perfect world` muse

Unless I become a world dictator in which case all the above would be implemented [/QUOTE]

YOU GOT MY VOTE PATCH MAYBE DOGSEY MEMBERS SHOULD TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND PUT IT TOO RIGHTS

"so called" "unethical" whatever you want to call them, they pretend and come across as ethical breeders but in-reality are not. The public and genuine ethical breeders should be made aware of these individuals when they're caught out.

ALL breeders come accross as Ethical to puppy buyers. Unless you openly know a few puppy farmers that would openly admit they are puppy farmers !!!!

That's my point.

The ones that aren't ethical are Unethical, full stop !!