Dogs for Sale Adverts

Discodog

We all complain about adverts on online sites regarding dogs for sale. So what do you think that classified sites could do to improve animal welfare ? I am referring to both online & paper advertising. If there was going to be a code of practice for these sites & publications what would you like to see in the code ? Do you think that they should vet advertisers & if so how ?

In order to comply with Boards rules please do not mention any sites or publications & do not link to them. Please comment in general, & not in specific terms linked to any particular site.

WolfgangWeisen

I don't think that online (or paper) classifieds should be allowed advertise the sale of live animals. It is letting puppy farms and irresponsible backyard breeders, and breeders of other animals, reach audiences that they otherwise would have difficulty in doing.

Unfortunately, these sites and those advertising on them are preying on the laziness and "I want it now!" attitudes of a lot of people who get it in their heads they want a dog (or other animal). Why bother researching a breed and the associated issues they have, finding a reputable breeder and then waiting for a litter, when you can just think "I want X breed, they're cool!" and log on to X site and find a litter bred in someone's backyard (the product of accidental breeding of family pets, of course and buy one this week?

It won't change until people's attitudes change however a good step in forcing change would be to stop the advertisement of live animals on classified sites. People, no matter how little they care for animals, aren't so quick to recommend puppy farms in person.

Realistically, long term, what we need is a real regulatory body with "authorised" breeders and real licensing for dog owners. I won't hold my breath though.

Discodog

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

I don't think that online (or paper) classifieds should be allowed advertise the sale of live animals.

But the reality is that they exist. It would be useful to get people's thoughts as to how they could be better.

planetX

I'm finding it hard to think of anything other than not allowing the ads - not so realistic as it would probably have to be imposed by law. Other than the obvious taking down of multiple ads from the same person, I don't know. Maybe to require a verified name, address and phone number, like newspapers do with letter writers.

dirtyghettokid

maybe having to prove you are a breeder by putting a breeder license number in, or something like that. that way you could do your background check..
i don't know. i do think it's awful that there's so many dodgy people selling dogs on the internet.

I think there is a bigger issue behind all this about policing and enforcing the law and our incapability of doing this. Just banning these adds will not work. It will make it harder to find dogs yes. but only for a short time until there is a loophole found. Another thing, you would see do theft soar.

baords dyslexic

So exactly how are you supposed to advertise puppies and how exactly are people that want to buy a puppy going to find one?

If you can tell us that then maybe you have the bones of a code.?

westkryveggirl

i think the idea is that if you are looking for a dog, you seek one out at a shelter who would otherwise be killed.
There are too many pets without homes already, we dont need to be breeding more!
Also, its really sad that dogs are seen as a commodity/money makers...thats how many people see them...they have the dog have pups so they can make a bit of money off selling the pups, etc.

Calhoun

I dont believe that going the direction of banning the purchase of new dogs and forcing people into shelters is sufficient, when acquiring a new pet some folks have certain breeds in mind ect or may want a puppy ect.

Stepping away from that land mine as this is not what this thread is about i would ask, is it solely the responsiblity of the classified provider to police this?

The only thing i can think the service provider could do is to keep a record of the transaction from certain individuals but it should be up to the goverment ect to police the welfare of the animals. So perhaps combining suspicious purchasing of add space with the goverment could yield tips to go do spot checks on animal welfare.

Final point is do you really want to drive people selling animals underground? at least when they advertise today there is the ability to find out who is doing what but if this gets outlawed and goes completely underground it could be much worse situation.

dmg10

I don't see the problem with using online advertising, especially in the age we live in now. But as long as there are protocols in place by the service provider to eliminate multiple posters who would appear to be puppy farms (although how does a provider prove this?).

While I understand the push to look first at shelters and this will suit the majority of families looking for a pet, I don't necessarily agree that you should be made feel bad because you didn't take a dog from a shelter. I didn't but nor did I go to a breeder or a puppy farm. And it'll be the same when I'm looking for my next pup. If I find what I'm looking for in a shelter, well and good, if not, as long as it's not from a puppy farm and is in need of a good home, then I'll take one when I find one that suits what I'm looking for and I won't be made feel bad for it!

I wonder to the animal welfare officers (unsure of correct titles) browse the sites regularly and when they find suspicious adverts, notify the service provider? I'm sure they probably do? Hope so anyway.

Discodog

dmg10 wrote: »

I wonder to the animal welfare officers (unsure of correct titles) browse the sites regularly and when they find suspicious adverts, notify the service provider? I'm sure they probably do? Hope so anyway.

There are only SPCA Inspectors & they are way to busy to do this.

In the UK an organisation was set up that liaises with Pet classified operators & they have drawn up a code of conduct. For example all puppy adverts must be for pups no younger than 8 week & the advert must state that puppies have been be vaccinated. There are signs of a willingness to do the same here. It would really help if people could post suggestions rather than getting into the dogs for sale debate.

Hellrazer

westkryveggirl wrote: »

i think the idea is that if you are looking for a dog, you seek one out at a shelter who would otherwise be killed.
There are too many pets without homes already, we dont need to be breeding more!
Also, its really sad that dogs are seen as a commodity/money makers...thats how many people see them...they have the dog have pups so they can make a bit of money off selling the pups, etc.

Keep on topic please--The thread is about certain websites advertising dogs and a more appropriate way to do so--the whole rescue verus buying is for another thread.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

So what do you think that classified sites could do to improve animal welfare ?

Firstly stop advertising ALL dogs for 2 months either side of Christmas.I spent weeks last year with emails back and forward with one of them trying to get them to stop--it all fell on deaf ears to be honest.

If there was going to be a code of practice for these sites & publications what would you like to see in the code ? Do you think that they should vet advertisers & if so how ?

A landline only for advertising dogs.Apparently some dodgy breeders are using "pay as you go" type phones to advertise multiple breeds and disguise the fact that they are puppy farms.A land line would be easier to vet...you cant get multiple landlines that easy.

Cherry Blossom

1. Free ads site/newspapers are the worst, up the cost of placing an ad for the sale of a live animal - hell make it €50

2. For websites - increase functionality of the site to allow public comment/questions to appear under the ad (e-bay style). If they wish they could set up a facility that involves filling in a detailed registration form and a monthly subscription to allow people to comment, this would facilitate people who are generally concerned and deter muppets from commenting on everything.

Zapperzy

Hellrazer wrote: »

Firstly stop advertising ALL dogs for 2 months either side of Christmas.I spent weeks last year with emails back and forward with one of them trying to get them to stop--it all fell on deaf ears to be honest.

A landline only for advertising dogs.Apparently some dodgy breeders are using "pay as you go" type phones to advertise multiple breeds and disguise the fact that they are puppy farms.A land line would be easier to vet...you cant get multiple landlines that easy.

+1 for a landline (except for the people like me who no longer have a landline), I used to go through ads on a certain website and was able to pick out loads of advertisers who used different names and numbers on ads but were clearly the same person.

Isin't there a website who only allow advertisers who health test and show? I know at the back of the dog's today magazine they only allow advertisers who health test. Only thing I would wonder about is people faking health tests. A lot of dodgy ads already just throw out the statement health tested, or hip scored without even giving results which I wonder about.

Cherry Blossom

Zapperzy wrote: »

Isin't there a website who only allow advertisers who health test and show? I know at the back of the dog's today magazine they only allow advertisers who health test. Only thing I would wonder about is people faking health tests. A lot of dodgy ads already just throw out the statement health tested, or hip scored without even giving results which I wonder about.

General classifieds folks don't have the specialist knowledge required to put something like that into operation. The KC website in the UK throws up a wealth of info to anyone who types a dogs registered name into a box (including who the owner is), the IKC are miles away from anything remotely similar.

WolfgangWeisen

baords dyslexic wrote:

So exactly how are you supposed to advertise puppies and how exactly are people that want to buy a puppy going to find one?

Good breeders don't need to advertise their litters. People who want to buy a puppy should be made go through the loops that everyone else who buys responsibly go through - researching the breed, researching legitimate, reputable breeders and then getting in touch with the breeder and putting your name on a list for the next litter.

That wouldn't suit most people buying puppies though, they want a puppy and they want it NOW. The very reason that the shelters don't allow dogs to be re-homed on the weekend.

Calhoun wrote: »

Final point is do you really want to drive people selling animals underground? at least when they advertise today there is the ability to find out who is doing what but if this gets outlawed and goes completely underground it could be much worse situation.

Live animals aren't cigarettes or booze. The success of puppy farms is dependent on impulsive decisions made by people who suddenly get the idea that a dog would be a good idea. They don't research the breed, they don't consider whether they can provide the necessary support for the puppy, they just want a puppy and they want it NOW.

The rest of the business that finds its way to puppy farms is from people who want X breed but are too cheap to put the money together to buy through a reputable breeder. They buy from a backyard breeder or puppy farm and then spend their time trying to discredit legitimate breeders and the prices they charge, to justify the risks they've taken...all to save a few quid.

Banning the advertising of live animals would remove a lot of the impulse behind puppy purchases. Not being able to advertise would most likely destroy the business of a lot of puppy farms, simply because they couldn't reach a wide enough audience and most would not be happy to recommend an illegitimate breeder to someone seeking a puppy.

The "driving it underground" argument simply does not hold weight in this regard. It is already an "underground" industry, but has its head popped up in online advertisements, using disposable phone numbers and preying on people who are making irresponsible purchases driven by impulse and impatience.

Zapperzy wrote: »

+1 for a landline (except for the people like me who no longer have a landline)

...really?
"I want a rule, but it shouldn't apply to me". Ffs!

The key lies in licensing - both for breeders and for dog owners. Inexperienced and non-caring people should not be allowed to breed animals, let alone advertise them and sell them for profit. Similarly, inexperienced and irresponsible people shouldn't have the access to go out and home a breed that has been dumped on the "restricted breed" list as their first dog.

The only real answer is significant changes to legislation. In the mean time, all we can do is campaign the sites in question to implement some of the mentioned measures (landlines only, higher listing fees, no advertising near christmas, etc).

Zapperzy

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

Zapperzy wrote: »

+1 for a landline (except for the people like me who no longer have a landline)

...really?
"I want a rule, but it shouldn't apply to me". Ffs!

Calm down! I'm not a breeder, I own 1 neutered male xbreed! I wrote it quickly and it was meant tongue in cheek. We got rid of the landline about 4 or 5 years ago as its too expensive. I'm as much against puppy farming as the next person so you can ease off on the agro.

WolfgangWeisen

Zapperzy wrote: »

Calm down! I'm not a breeder, I own 1 neutered male xbreed! I wrote it quickly and it was meant tongue in cheek. We got rid of the landline about 4 or 5 years ago as its too expensive. I'm as much against puppy farming as the next person so you can ease off on the agro.

You missed the point. You supported a proposed rule, the rule that people selling live animals online should be made use landline numbers only, and immediately suggested a rather significant exception, those who "no longer have a landline", which entirely negates the support for the rule proposed as your exception would undoubtedly, nay, predominately, be used by the very people the original rule was proposed to target!

Calhoun

Zapperzy wrote: »

Calm down! I'm not a breeder, I own 1 neutered male xbreed! I wrote it quickly and it was meant tongue in cheek. We got rid of the landline about 4 or 5 years ago as its too expensive. I'm as much against puppy farming as the next person so you can ease off on the agro.

You make a valid point though, what company would want to limit folks to landline only.

If any changes are to be made on this the solution has to be reasonable, combined with education and statuary regulations governing selling of dogs. Coming at this from an aggressive condescending approach just makes people switch off , folks in this forum will tolerate because they love animals but they aren't the target market.

Anyway not like it would make a difference the state the countries in not enough man power to deal with regular stuff and let's face it an Ireland ban night drive people to the sites outside of Ireland and I know not everyone will make that effort but there are still other channels

Whispered

Do those publications give a list of guidelines when buying? If they don't it might help.

I'm sick of the amount of people not educating themselves to be honest. In the last week alone I spoke to someone who bought a dog "it's great it was cheap because it doesn't have papers", heard of someone who bought 2 english bulldogs and now wants rid of them, someone who left his bitches puppies into the pound and was full sure they would be rehomed, someone who was thinking of buying a puppy who has "great blood lines" for €100- their great breeder "can't get rid of them, by the way what does a (insert breed here) look like...." and someone with a nervous toy breed dog who bites, being advised by the breeder to slap it. I'm very frustrated even writing this post, some people are just idiots and no matter what is put in place they will still be idiots, or just won't give a damn about where the puppy is from so long as they get their puppy.

I understand that a publication will not want to restrict themselves to just landlines, maybe a registered email address, which is also manually checked for repeats like whispered_boards@ gmail.com means that [EMAIL="whispered_boards@ yahoo.com"]whispered_boards@ yahoo.com[/EMAIL] cannot be registered. Random calls from the publication enquiring about "the puppies"? Stop the selling either side of christmas and any animals sold as being a "good gift" at any time of the year not allowed. Information about the breed on the ad, both the good side and the challenges, legitimate breeds only allowed use a breed name, everything else using their crosses (ie; labrador x poodle for sale, as opposed to labradoodle). Things like "teddy bear puppies" not allowed. People selling puppies having to give a tax number or something else to suggest that they are declaring their income.

I'm sure there are loads of things that could be done, but I really don't think the people who run the ads care enough to do it.

Discodog

Whispered wrote: »

I'm sure there are loads of things that could be done, but I really don't think the people who run the ads care enough to do it.

You may be right but one site has expressed a desire to set up a code of practice & they have asked for my thoughts. But a code is pointless unless it is enforced. Any of us would be able to vet adverts because we know what to look for & certain things ring alarm bells to us. However the owners & employees of a site are not going to have our knowledge.

Please keep the suggestions coming.

Wizard01

Tbh I look at a certain site selling dogs and puppies, the thing I really hate is looking at poor animals for sale that look terrible!!!

Surely the people that run these sites can see these animals are not in a fit state to be sold, for example last week I saw a Bichon for sale that was so badly matted and dirty he should of been rescued not for sale!

All dogs for sale should at least be registered, vacs and over 8-10 weeks old, should look healthy and clean and well looked after.

I would love to add in health tested but i don't think that will happen yet

Discodog

One obvious problem is that adverts are not pre vetted. They only get looked at if someone complains. I am also concerned that the idea of these sites donating to rescues is just a smokescreen & that the money could be better used elsewhere.

If they are willing to donate a proportion of the income & lose some revenue, then it begs the question as to why they don't ban ads from unregistered sellers instead.

A question for the pedigree dog buyers. Is there one thing, for example a registration number, that could appear in an Irish advert & enable the buyer to check out the seller ?

axle108

How about prior to accepting an advert the seller has to have a form (supplied by the advertiser) filled out by a vet. Some possible things which the form could require:

1. Owners details and proof of address.
2. Mandatory that the bitch is microchipped and proof that the owner is the registered owner on the database.
3. A health report on the bitch including all vaccinations up to date and any previous ailments. ( this would ensure that the bitch has been to the vet during the pregnancy).
4. Number of times that bitch has been bred from. If not known by vet, mark X in box on form.
5. Litter must be microchipped with record kept on database of mothers microchip. ( this would need the database to be able to include this information).

The site could keep a record of owners details and microchipped bitches from the forms. Any owner showing up with multiple ads could possibly be declined. Over breeding a bitch could be easily seen from the microchip.
This is just an idea of some of the information that sites could look for.

But really legislation is needed to force sites to adhere to certain conditions prior to accepting ads for the sale of animals.

WolfgangWeisen

The online sites "teaming up" with rescues is their way to feel better about themselves for being the driving force behind puppy farms in modern Ireland.

Legislative change takes time and a lot of work, something I would certainly be interested in and would actively get involved in would be lobbying the classified providers to stop advertising animals between November and February. It would be a great start if 2012 marked the beginning of the end for mass, impulse christmas pup purchases, and the subsequent mass abandonment of healthy dogs when it finishes.

Mountainsandh

+ 1 for room for comments from public below ad. Ebay works well that way.
I bought a puppy from this famous site we are all thinking of 3 months ago, and contrary to what Wolfgang seems to suggest is the norm, I did research breeds, temperaments, what to be watching out for when buying a pup, and I did think long and hard before getting a puppy. This was absolutely not a Christmas impulse buying, even though it was close to Christmas time.
Anyway, I watched out for ads that looked dodgy and reeked of puppy farming, and got a healthy, really happy family dog. It's like having a new baby, hard to remember how life was before him now .

But... in the process I spotted a few dodgy ads, as I said, and reported them to the site in question, and the ISPCA. Because I had been looking at that site since well before Christmas (I think I started looking at the site seriously last summer even), I was able to spot some ads where pups are permanently advertised as the same age, with one generic photo. One of said ads is still on by the way, for "last remaining" pup, same age as last October or so.

If there was a way to leave a comment below the ad, I would. And even though the breeders themselves may post positive comments on their own ads, a number of people like myself mentioning how long the ad has been on would certainly be enough to arouse doubt in the buyer's mind. It would have worked with me had I been able to read comments before I bought.

A vet's "licence" sort of thing for any litter, be it accidental or proper breeding, would be great too of course. It would certainly encourage people to neuter to avoid accidents, if they knew their bitches' accidental litters are going to be registered.

WolfgangWeisen

Well, the "norm' just means the majority/the usual, there's always room for the extra-normal/unusual/exceptions and I would most certainly maintain that you're in the minority of those who buy dogs on that site with regards to the research and precautions you took.

I would be very wary of providing a comments section in which puppy farmers could use to promote themselves with fake listings. Such a thing would come with an overhead that would mean there would be moderation/background checks done on those posting comments, which makes it less likely to be implemented by any of the sites involved. I do think it'd be a great way for buyers to leave feedback, however it's so open to abuse and the people who would potentially abuse it are already known to be so scummy or unethical that I wouldn't put anything past them.

Mountainsandh

Discodog it just occurred to me too, that although I am looking at that same ad that has been posted before Christmas, its listing reads 22 days, and posted on a date in March. It is a practically identical ad though, so I'm wondering do the people simply "renew" the ad when they subscribe for another month, if so, really it should be pointed out to potential buyers that this is a "repeat" ad, and possibly "re-re-repeat", if there is no way to prevent the ad being permanently refreshed in the first place.

There might be some cases where genuinely the seller needs to repeat and edit the ad, but that should be plainly visible to the buyer. That way if you saw an ad that is on its 5th repeat, you would smell a rat.

Of course seller might just re-create an ad from scratch, I don't know...

Wolfgang, I know what you're saying about sellers fake posting positive comments on themselves, but as I said, it would take a few negative comments to sew seeds of suspicion.

Maybe if any seller that has been reported was flagged as such ?
The ad I am talking about (reported !) has same seller and number, no sign it has been reported by me and possibly others though.

Discodog

The feedback situation is a strange one. Some website owners will not allow criticism to be published for fear of legal action yet others, for example, trip advisor, ebay, amazon allow open comment.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

The feedback situation is a strange one. Some website owners will not allow criticism to be published for fear of legal action yet others, for example, trip advisor, ebay, amazon allow open comment.

It can easily be written in to the T&C of posting an advert that by the fact that the seller has posted the advert on a site that allows public comment they personally have invited those comments. If they don't like the comments they can just delete their ad, the very fact that this facility existed would make a lot of these idiots think twice about posting an ad in the first place.