Dutch Dachshund-breeders, where did it go wrong?.
Only a few people in the world of Dutch (and Dachshund) cynology may not have heard it, the confiscation of 150 dachshunds due to neglect of two teckel breeders, at the same address, acting under the kennel names Vliegende Kiep and Wie Anders. The Dutch TV broadcast last May, and the raid a few days ago, were the apotheosis of a downturn that - as it now seems - had been deployed much earlier. Apart from questions about the future of the dogs that have now been taken into custody, 150 in totals, and of the dogs that are left behind, about 120 animals, the most pressing question is how this could go on for so long.
Because, but that is only now, the alarm lights have been on red for some time. With regard to the breeders, there had been a stream of complaints much earlier, complaints that apparently were not handled by authorities, or that ended up in wrong mailboxes. But also complaints that did not find their way to other institutions, and partly because of that it seems to have gotten out of hand.
Both breeders, mother and daughter, started in 1988 with the breeding of dachshunds. Kennel names were requested and a series of national and international champions came from these breeders. In itself a sign that good dogs were bred, unless dozens of judges see it wrong.
In 2011, a business license wass applied for and in 2012 this is granted by the municipality of Woerden, the hobby-related breeding then goes into commercial breeding. The permit offers space for keeping 20 dogs (that is without puppies, they do not count until the age of three months). If you keep 20 dogs, with the corresponding number of puppies, according to the "coulotion" scheme as used by the Dutch authorities, a maximum of 20 pups per year, you are definitely working on a business basis. Notably, no action is taken on the kennel names, while such names are withdrawn according to the kynological regulations if "the applicant carries out a profit-making business in which dogs are traded or has a direct or indirect interest in, or has interests in, such a business, at the discretion of the Board of Directors;" (article III 49 KR and Article III 51 KR).
Everything had probably gone well, despite the already starting complaints, if the neighbor had not started complaining also about the inconvenience of barking dogs. The environmental permit, with a maximum admittance of 20 dogs, also included a limitation of the maximum noise, namely 50DB. The neighbor calls the environmental service and the municipality, and measurements show that the noise regularly exceeds 60 decibels. The environmental service also notes that there are 68 dogs present at that moment (may 2017), and two litters with pups. A fierce legal battle follows, but in the end the judge determines that from now on a penalty of 2,500 euros can be imposed for each violation, with a maximum of 10,000 euros. This decision will be supported later if the Court does not see any reason to deviate from this decision during the handling of the provisional provision at the request of the breeder. An eye-catching detail plays a role here, because the environmental service requires, among other things, the number of dogs living at the address in Woerden at the Raad van Beheer. In addition, according to the Executive Board, it would be possible to have 500 dogs.
A small side note, who sells dogs with pedigree expects his buyers that the registration certificate is put in the name of the buyer. As long as the breeder does not submit the Registration Certificate application form after selling puppies, and in the event of the sale of an adult dog the buyer does not pay the costs of this name change to the Executive Board, the dog remains registered in the Pedigree Board of the Council on the name of the breeder / the previous owner. As a result, 500 dogs at one address do not have to be an actual presence. Nevertheless, it is noticeable that nobody seems to haver any questions when they see such a number. It is not a legal duty for the Council to check numbers.
Because in 2017, there were also regular chipping nests, a small 12 (two of which at "Wie Anders", and about 10 at the Vliegende Kiep.) This also means a small 10-12 visits of the chipper, which, according to the Council rules, spot-checks location checks. This is a check that checks whether the vaccinations are correct, the dogs have enough living space etc. Now it may happen that this breeder has never performed such a check, and the is that there were far fewer dogs in 2017, but ... where are the minimum 250 dogs now 6 months later, who were present at the company according to the NVWA's statement? The Council reports that there have been "various" site inspections, have the dozens of dogs been so hidden on the farm? Or is it different if someone has received the golden Erespeld? Because Marion van Z. got this for her great merits in the field of kynology. According to a statement from the NTC, Van Z. was nominated by two puppy buyers, and the pin was granted because she met the conditions. The breed club remains unmoved.
The ladies were affiliated with the Dutch Dachshund Club, but complaints there, according to all sorts of stories especially on Facebook, hardly hear. If non-members submit complaints, the secretary of the NTC indicates that the management policy is not to handle complaints filed by persons who are not members of the NTC. Only after complaints from members about the practices of the ladies, who apparently regularly deliver semi-diseased dogs without a pedigree, the NTC decides to suspend the breeder who breeds under the kennel name "vd Vliegende Kiep" as of February 15, 2018 as NTC-breeder. not as a member of the breed club.
Video under is made by the NVWA