# Cats Protection have put their foot in it this time!



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Be aware of this, everyone. It's a private member's bill which fortunately means it doesn't stand a lot of chance of becoming law, but it shows the way people are thinking, including Cats Protection.

In short, if you fit one of the following criteria: three or more litters born on your premises within a year, or one queen having three or more litters during her lifetime, (your queen includes a queen owned by a relative at the same address, or placed on breeding terms elsewhere), you will count as a commercial cat breeder and you will have to have the local authority or a vet, or both, visit your premises so that the local authority can decide whether or not to give you a licence.

If you do meet these criteria, you will have to get a licence, and you will have to agree to your queen not being mated at less than one year old, not having more than one litter in a year, and not having more than three litters in her lifetime. O, you are exempt if you keep all the kittens or give them away …. and who would we give them away to, since we know you don't advertise free pets on the internet? Cats Protection of course, where they will get a nice little income from selling pedigree kittens.

Be afraid, be very afraid ….

http://www.cats.org.uk/manifesto

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0041/15041.pdf

Liz


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Mixed feelings on this. Im guessing its to stop the "breed until they drop" breeders which I think any cat lover would want but I think some of those suggestions are a bit too much. 

Not being a breeder and never having been involved what is the average amount of litters most let their queens have before speying? Whats the oldest most breeders allow an active queen to be? 

They should start with the puppy/kitten farms where lots of different breeds/types are produced. Those are never done in the animals best interests and they're pretty easy to spot!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> (f) queens are not mated if they are less than one year old;
> (g) queens do not give birth to any more than one litter per year;


Even against veterinary advice? If a cat has a pyo at 10 months old and the advice is to mate on the next call are you meant to risk the health, or even the life, of the animal?

That 'per year' thing is always a problem too. I've had girls who only had 10 months between litters and then went 15 months or longer to the next (or the other way round). It all depends on the calling pattern.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Not being a breeder and never having been involved what is the average amount of litters most let their queens have before speying? Whats the oldest most breeders allow an active queen to be?


I actually tend to stick to the three litter thing with the very occasional fourth litter. However, some breeds have small litters while others produce seven or eight kittens as the norm. I do think overall number of kittens is significant in determining the toll on a queen so I wouldn't decry a breeder who had more litters of only two or three kittens.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

CPL have a page on their website where you can make comments about the proposed bill
Cats Protection | Cat Manifesto


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I've looked at it and I'd love to know the reasoning behind some points. Why do they want compulsory microchipping of all owned cats? What's the plan for cats which aren't microchipped? I mean, there must be one or it's a pointless exercise. Is it an automatic death sentence for any free roaming cat without a microchip?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

all that will happen if this gets passed is more BYBs breeding pedigrees without any paperwork


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I have no heartache with any sensible attempt to control the population of unwanted cats. Sadly I can't see the answer in any of this.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'd also point out that in my decades of breeding I would never have reached the point of needing a licence under the terms of that proposed bill barring two fourth litters which I wouldn't have done if the legislation had been in place, not that I think for one moment it was detrimental to the queens involved. I would however probably have contravened the 'no more than one litter per year' thing once or twice even though it evened out over two litters.

There's a very little bit of me wouldn't have minded absolute parameters to show I 'was' a hobby breeder and not commercial.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Surely the easiest way to reduce the breeding of cats by BYBs would be to simply require all kittens, regardless of ancestry, to be 12 weeks or older at time of sale/giving away, and with vet proof of vaccination required to be handed over to the new owners too - takes all the profit out of it for them at a stroke...

I'm not saying it would be 100% enforceable, but it'd be a lot less complicated and more hobby breeder friendly than what it looks like they are proposing! 

Oh, and maybe ban the phrase 'pedigree cross' too...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Surely the easiest way to reduce the breeding of cats by BYBs


I don't think that's the aim of this at all. How on earth will they police the owner who simply lets their unsprayed, roaming cat produce litter after litter? Do you suppose for one moment they will target the irresponsible? Of course they won't. You only have to look at other threads on this forum where a significant number have a firm belief that cats are never really owned and nobody can be held responsible for them.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

havoc said:


> I don't think that's the aim of this at all. How on earth will they police the owner who simply lets their unsprayed, roaming cat produce litter after litter? Do you suppose for one moment they will target the irresponsible? Of course they won't. You only have to look at other threads on this forum where a significant number have a firm belief that cats are never really owned and nobody can be held responsible for them.


Have you filled in the questionnaire? If not perhaps you could ask for someone to contact you, start a dialogue, there is a comments box on each of the questions. Invite them to join here and get some opinions.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

havoc said:


> I don't think that's the aim of this at all. How on earth will they police the owner who simply lets their unsprayed, roaming cat produce litter after litter? Do you suppose for one moment they will target the irresponsible? Of course they won't. You only have to look at other threads on this forum where a significant number have a firm belief that cats are never really owned and nobody can be held responsible for them.


Eh? If the bill isn't aimed at kitten farmers (which is my definition of a BYB, sorry if that wasn't clear. I classify unspayed roaming pets as a different problem entirely), who IS it aimed at, then?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Eh? If the bill isn't aimed at kitten farmers (which is my definition of a BYB, sorry if that wasn't clear. I classify unspayed roaming pets as a different problem entirely), who IS it aimed at, then?


Where are these kitten farmers? Puppy farms are a known problem because there's money in puppies but there's never been the same issue with kittens as far as I know. The very few times I've heard of some BYB running a commercial enterprise with cats it's been in the back garden of a normal house and never on the scale of the puppy farms. There may well be a growing problem with kittens being imported as we know there is with puppies but I honestly don't know.



> I classify unspayed roaming pets as a different problem entirely


You may well choose to classify it as such but the law as proposed doesn't. That's rather my point. The criteria for prosecution are quite clear.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I don't understand why this is a 'bad' thing


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> I don't understand why this is a 'bad' thing


Well I do..... I've been a (responsible) cat breeder.

Firstly, many cats "call" repeatedly, some as often as every 2 weeks, and there are no failsafe methods to keep them out of call that don't have side effects.

So if you were a good responsible breeder, maybe with only one queen, you might find it hard to keep her entire long enough to have the One Litter Per Year.

Secondly, three litters per lifetime is fairly restrictive. Maximum of four, with a cut off age of maybe 7 years old, evenly spaced, would be much more realistic. Some breeds have only 2-3 kittens per litter.

Some breeds call more strongly than others. Which means you could have your three queens and breed a litter a year from each, for three years, if you had a breed that doesn't call frequently or loudly. Persians, for instance. But if you owned 3 Bengal, Siamese or Asian queens, there is no way you could achieve that without acquiring a nervous breakdown. So that is going to favour the breeding of certain breeds above others, in the long run.

Also if you "give all the kittens away for free" then how is that going to stop the people who have unspayed moggies, who get pregnant at every call? Very often, they are the most unscrupulous breeders of all, selling kittens on FB selling pages for a tenner each (or, as I saw not long ago, swapping a kitten for a packet of ganja ).

It's ill thought out, and I sincerely hope it doesn't become law.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Oh and I forgot to mention - "breed cats" as in those of recognisable pedigree breeds, with or without papers, are vastly outnumbered by the moggies in rescue.

So, to whom does this proposed bill apply?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

MerlinsMum said:


> Well I do..... I've been a (responsible) cat breeder.
> 
> Firstly, many cats "call" repeatedly, some as often as every 2 weeks, and there are no failsafe methods to keep them out of call that don't have side effects.
> 
> ...


Some good points ... I don't think I read it properly


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> Oh and I forgot to mention - "breed cats" as in those of recognisable pedigree breeds, with or without papers, are vastly outnumbered by the moggies in rescue.
> 
> So, to whom does this proposed bill apply?


Since the average person who has a moggy and "accidentally" lets her out is hardly going to apply for a licence, it's going to apply to breeders of pedigree cats. That's it. Punish the people who are not the problem.

Any of you who frequent facebook, go to the cats protection page over there and see what is being said about breeders!

Liz


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Firstly, many cats "call" repeatedly, some as often as every 2 weeks, and there are no failsafe methods to keep them out of call that don't have side effects.


This is the main thing non-breeders fail to realise. They think dogs and cats are the same. There's a huge difference between an animal designed to be in season twice a year and one receptive to a male twice a month. Dr Susan Little, one of the world's most respected experts on feline health, would be surprised to see a rigid 'one litter per year' rule made law under the guise of welfare of cats. Of course she isn't British and therefore her expertise will have been ignored.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Since the average person who has a moggy and "accidentally" lets her out is hardly going to apply for a licence, it's going to apply to breeders of pedigree cats


That's the obvious intention which is why it would be the duty of every right minded citizen to report those who don't comply, including those who let their cats have multiple litters 'by mistake' and advertise the kittens for sale. I can think of one or two in my village who would fall into this category and I'd delight in seeing them brought to book


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

Same AR driven nonsense that's happening world wide, registered breeders are easy targets as they're easy to find.
Very important that breeders have their say, even though you are outnumbered, hopefully you'll have the backing of cat associations who can help make sensible recommendations. Too often these drafts treat cats like dogs and make unreasonable recommendations that don't suit at all.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

spotty cats said:


> Very important that breeders have their say, even though you are outnumbered, hopefully you'll have the backing of cat associations who can help make sensible recommendations.


It won't get in, it wouldn't get through APGAW to start with - 
Home - APGAW - Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare

Added to that, the Bateson report which was commissioned a few years ago on dog welfare and breeding practices, was headed by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, an animal welfare expert, _*who also happens to breed pedigree Egyptian Mau cats*_.
Patrick Bateson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: as an aside, I believe it was he I spoke to on the phone some years ago, when I was trying to get to the bottom of "pelvic fusion" in small animals, esp. rats - he was most helpful and was able to tell me very quickly that is is myth and only occurs in guinea Pigs - who of course give birth to fully-furred and precocial young.


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

MerlinsMum said:


> It won't get in, it wouldn't get through APGAW to start with -


That's what they said here too. AR don't back down.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

spotty cats said:


> That's what they said here too. AR don't back down.


Very little of the Bateson Report has ever been taken up by Parliament - and I agreed with a huge load of it. It contained a lot of common sense without sidelining responsible breeders.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm honestly saddened that the CPL has launched a thinly veiled attack on breeding rather than taking a real look at the problem of unwanted cats/kittens in rescue and where they actually come from. I think it's a missed opportunity but as has been pointed out, breeders of pedigree cats are an easy target.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I found the Bateson report online: http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/special/final-dog-inquiry-120110.pdf

It's interesting and well-presented reading.


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

This has already had its first hearing and it seems that everyone was rather taken by surprise. The GCCF had no idea but say they are now getting involved. 

Everyone seems to forget that the cat evolved to have several litters in a year. Their bodies and breeding cycle are 'set up' for rapid repeated pregnancies. Moggie or pedigree this still holds true. Responsible pedigree breeders, try to restrict a Queen to just one litter a year because they feel that is the morally correct thing to do. The Queen herself has no such qualms and given the opportunity, would seek out a male fairly swiftly following a litter. 

I hope this bill is filed where it belongs ... in the bin. This will not ease the over population in rescues nor will it aid cat welfare in any way at all.


----------

