Questioning the need for Vaccination Boosters?
This article is meant to inform you of the research, opinions, and personal reflections that might be useful to you in determining a disease prevention programme for your pet. It is educational in nature, but by knows means intended as Veterinary advice. I am simply trying to make you aware of the lack of scientific evidence to support current practice of annual vaccination.
Many vets insist on them, Boarding kennels and Groomers necessitate them, and keeping “current” on vaccinations has become one of the trademarks of responsible pet ownership. But are they really essential and are they safe?
Of recent years, these questions have risen to the forefront of veterinary medicine, and it is more universal than it used to be for owners and vets to struggle with an answer. Therefore whatever your vet suggests and the information within this text, it is a decision that only you can make.
Every year we take our dogs to the vets, where they receive combined vaccines in a single injection to protect them against life threatening diseases. However scientist are realising that over-vaccination can actually jeopardize a dog’s health and even life. Some have attributed to skin problems, allergic reactions and severe immune system breakdown. Vaccine manufacturing companies insist the vaccines are harmless and that the benefits outweigh the risks. So where does the truth lie?
The Colorado State University School Of Veterinary Medicine became the first college to issue a vaccination schedule that recommended against annual vaccinations. In their new protocol they stated “We are making this change after years of concern about the lack of scientific evidence to support current practice of annual vaccination and the increasing documentation that over vaccination has been associated with harmful side effects. Of particular note in this regard has been the association of autoimmune haemolytic anaemia with vaccination in dogs and vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats….both of which are often fatal.”
According to leading canine vaccine researcher Dr. Ronald Schultz, chair of the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, “it’s becoming increasingly evident that it is no longer true to say, ‘well even if the vaccine doesn’t help, it won’t hurt.’ There are some canine vaccination programmes that have no scientific justification that may have potential of causing harm.” I know we’d all like to put a magic barrier around our animals that will protect them from all disease and have 100 percent effectiveness and no risk. The closest you’ll ever get to that is to build a barrier of glowing health, which comes from excellent breeding practices, never suppressing disease symptoms and holistic husbandry including diet, environment, exercise and tender loving care. However in the real world, such a barrier will never be achieved. We have to acknowledge some risk in one direction or another. Those who don’t vaccinate at all must accept the risk that the animals in our care may become sick from an infectious disease; with puppies, the risk is immense that they may die, and even if they survive they may have chronic conditions from the disease. As a result the vet fees and guilt may be considerable. Those who do vaccinate must understand the risks of side effects, allergic reactions, vaccine failures, cancer and autoimmune disease. Owners need to educate themselves the best way they can and weigh up the benefits versus the risks. If you want zero risk and all the benefit, it doesn’t exist and you will never find it.
So am I saying that vaccines are harmless?
No! I think they do a lot of damage. I believe that while still knowing and recognising that they are very effective in protecting against certain diseases, they are in fact so effective that most peoples dogs who have already been immunised against Parvovirus and Distemper are on solid ground if they stop vaccinating because their dogs are already immune.
How long does immunity last?
The conclusive answer to this is nobody really knows! Duration of immunity tests are done by vaccine companies, but usually run only for one year, although there are as of 1995, two approved and one pending canine combination vaccines with three-year duration of immunity tests. It’s not that the vaccination ‘wears off’ after a year or three years, but the test ended at one year and three years. The difference between the two is that they ran a longer duration of immunity tests to make a label claim of three years. It’s down to marketing. Since epidemiology tells us that canine parvovirus and canine distemper are almost unheard of in vaccinated adults, we can conclude that in most cases, the immunity from those vaccines lasts for many years, probably a lifetime.
What about the others?
The other common canine vaccinations are Canine Adenovirus also known as Canine infectious Hepatitis and Leptospirosis (a bacteria that causes kidney disease). The Kennel cough complex (bordatella, parainfluenza) is a set of treatable diseases similar to a cold.
Vaccines for bacterial disease do not usually provide long-term immunity. This is true of natural infection. It is why you never get chicken pox (a virus) again after you have had it once, but you could have strep throat (a bacteria) many times during your lifetime. Bacterial vaccines for dogs are Bordetella, Leptospirosis and Lyme disease. If you have decided to use these vaccines you need to be aware that the immunity they provide will not last and you will need to repeat the vaccinations at certain intervals. Leptospirosis: Vaccine has more adverse effects reported than all the other canine vaccines put together. It is not very effective and even when it does give protection, it doesn’t last very long. Most alarmingly, while it prevents expression of the disease in dogs, it does not prevent them from shedding the bacteria. This carrier state makes them a risk to other animals and people, because they can have lepto and you wont know it. We also need to remember that Lepto is transmissible to humans. Lepto is treatable if caught early enough. The reason why it is so dangerous is that owners and vets do not recognise it early enough.
The decision to vaccinate against Lepto will be determined by your own unique circumstances and the area in which you live. Obviously, this need to give the vaccine repeatedly increases the risk of the vaccination. Specific duration of immunity information for these and other canine vaccines is available in Dr. Schultz’s article Consideration in Designing Effective and Safe Vaccination Programs for Dogs.
No “Booster” effect since no one can be absolutely sure that an animal is immune to something unless they actually encounter it, some people feel that it’s better to give annual boosters to increase immunity. Some breeders like to give boosters to their bitches before breeding from them, so they’ll have plenty of immunity to pass on to their puppies. Other owners just feel safer giving their dogs a booster injection and vets truly believe that they should be given “just in case”, on a schedule that will commonly range from every year to every three years. The only flaw in this reasoning is that it doesn’t appear that giving boosters to already-immune animals “boosts” much of anything. You cannot make an immune animal “more immune”. Re-vaccinating an already-immune animal has little or no benefit; the previous immunity will act like maternal antibody and inactivate the vaccine, and immunity is not “boosted” at all. So you have all the risks of the vaccination, and no benefit. (Schultz,1998).
Companion animal vaccination guidelines are currently undergoing critical scrutiny by representatives from private practice, industry and academia. Despite widespread recommendations for annual revaccination, information available today suggests that current vaccination practices in America do not necessarily correspond with the body of knowledge pertaining to the duration of immunity from licensed vaccines. As a direct result, companion animal practitioners should expect significant changes in the current standard of practice pertaining to the administration of vaccines to dogs and cats. Among the most significant changes anticipated in the future will be the recommendation to discontinue routine administration of annual booster vaccination to adult dogs (distemper virus, parvovirus and adenovirus). The incidence of canine distemper, canine parvovirus and canine adenovirus among vaccinated adults >1 year of age is virtually zero. The correlation among vaccination, the development of a positive antibody response and protection from exposure to virulent virus is excellent. Furthermore, protection from exposure derived from immunisation is sustained for periods as long as 5 to 6 years or more (Ford, & Schultz. 2000).
Dr. Schultz reiterates that: In the past, it was believed that annual vaccination would not hurt and would probably help most animals. However concerns about side effects have begun to change this attitude. One disadvantage to over vaccinating is, cost. The client is paying for something with no effect or with the potential for an adverse reaction. He believes that adverse effects are increasing because we are putting more and more components into these animals. There is real concern that vaccines may predispose certain genetically susceptible individuals to immune-mediated disease. The more antigens we administer, the higher the potential for hypersensitivity. In many cases it is impossible to show a direct connection between damage and a vaccine, since it is the accumulation of many antigens over many years that results in clinically evident disease.
In Summary: Schultz says that it is important for veterinarians to recognize an individual dog’s risk for developing a particular disease when considering the benefits of a vaccine. “Vaccines have many exceptional benefits, but like any drug, they also have the potential to cause significant harm”. Giving a vaccine that’s not needed, he explains, creates an unnecessary risk to the animal.
Recommending that dogs receive fewer vaccines, Schultz admits, may spark controversy, especially when vets rely on annual vaccinations to bring in clients, along with income. However annual visits are important for many reasons other than immunisations. Checking for tumours, dermatological problems and tooth decay should be done on a yearly basis. Plus some dogs, depending on their risk may need certain vaccines annually. Rather than vaccinating on each visit your vet can use a recently developed blood test, which checks your dog’s immunity against certain diseases.
Schultz also adds that vets who have switched to the three-year, instead of an annual vaccination program have found no increase in the number of dogs with vaccine-preventable diseases.
References:
Ford, RB and Schultz, RD. (2000) Kirk’s Current Veterinary Therapy XIII. Vaccines and Vaccinations: Issue for the 21st Century.
Schultz, RD. (2003). Dog Vaccines may not be necessary. www.news.wise.edu/8413.
Schultz, RD. (2000). Considerations in Designing Effective and Safe Vaccination Programs for Dogs. (May 2000); Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and Don’t Know.
For more interesting read please click on the link : http://www.doglistener.co.uk/dangers-annual-dog-vaccinations
Veterinary groups around the world have introduced new vaccination schedules in response to duration of immunity studies and concerns over vaccine safety. The Pet Welfare Alliance supports these guidelines and welcomes a reduction in the number of vaccine antigens given to companion animals. The aim of this letter is to practically support these aims by asking you to effect change in line with the current established science and guidelines provided by those veterinary bodies. The Pet Welfare Alliance is an alliance of pet owners and veterinarians formed as a watchdog for the pet products industry. Pet vaccination is one of the foremost areas in need of revision, and we believe that recent developments pave the way for positive change.
It is often believed that annual vaccination is a requirement to establish immunity and that it does no harm. With the advent of updated science and guidelines by world veterinary bodies there are clear guidelines to adhere to, that dispell the myth that annual vaccination is necessary, beneficial in providing any further protection in already immune animals, or without risk of causing harm. Details of vaccine adverse reactions can be found in the WSAVA guidelines (see links below) that range from mild (fever, loss of appetite etc), to severe/life-threatening (epilepsy, arthritis, AHA, organ failure).
The World Small Animal Veterinary Association Vaccination Guidelines state: “Core vaccines should not be given any more frequently than every three years after the 12 month booster injection following the puppy/kitten series, because the duration of immunity (DOI) is many years and may be up to the lifetime of the pet. In order to ensure the existence of duration of immunity, titer testing may be used.” Ronald D Schultz, Ph.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin; Member of WSAVA and AAHA vaccine guideline groups “Only one dose of the modified-live canine ‘core’ vaccine (against CDV, CAV-2 and CPV-2) or modified-live feline ‘core’ vaccine (against FPV, FCV and FHV), when administered at 16 weeks or older, will provide long lasting (many years to a lifetime) immunity in a very high percentage of animals ([Schultz, 1998], [Schultz, 2000] and [Schultz, 2006]).”
In its 2013 puppy vaccine summary, the WSAVA adds: “The WSAVA states that we should vaccinate against the core diseases no more frequently than every three years. This is often taken to mean that we should vaccinate every three years – but this is not the case. If the dog is already immune to these three core diseases, re-vaccinating will not add any extra immunity.” The WSAVA new puppy owner guidelines can be found at:http://www.wsava.org/sites/default/files/New%20Puppy%20Owner%20Vaccination%20Guidelines%20Updated%20July%2029%202013.pdf And the full guidelines at:http://www.wsava.org/sites/default/files/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf
The WSAVA on non-core (optional) vaccines (2013) Leptospirosis “Vaccination should be restricted to use in geographical areas where a significant risk of exposure has been established or for dogs whose lifestyle places them at significant risk” “Protection against infection with different serovars is variable. This product is associated with the greatest number of adverse reactions to any vaccine. In particular, veterinarians are advised of reports of acute anaphylaxis in toy breeds following administration of leptospirosis vaccines. Routine vaccination of toy breeds should only be considered in dogs known to have a very high risk of exposure” Kennel Cough “Canine respiratory disease complex (kennel cough) is not a vaccine-preventable disease” “you should check with your kennel because some will demand kennel cough vaccines, and others will not accept dogs that have been vaccinated against kennel cough (due to shedding)” Essentially, the kennel cough vaccine datasheets warn that vaccinated dogs can develop a mild case of kennel cough. Although said to be mild, vaccinated dogs can infect other dogs with kennel cough. Again, this vaccine is deemed optional by the WSAVA. The WSAVA on Titer Testing “The WSAVA supports the use of titre testing. This is where a small sample of blood is taken from the dog and checked for the presence of circulating antibodies. The presence of circulating antibodies indicates that the dog is immune, and revaccination (with core vaccines) is not required. You may decide to titre test before giving the 12 month booster, as this may show that boosting is unnecessary. New in-practice titre-testing kits are now available which will allow your veterinarian to do a titre test very quickly, without sending the blood sample to a laboratory” The only reliable way of knowing whether a dog is immune is to ascertain whether the dog has antibodies to the core diseases. Vaccination in itself does not offer a guarantee of protection. “A dog with active immunity to CDV/CPV-2/CAV will not develop disease regardless of its physical state! Even a puppy with MDA with a titer considered protective can not become infected/diseased. We have demonstrated that experimentally. In nature it occurs frequently in Shelters where we have severe outbreaks of CPV and/or CDV. We routinely test titers of incoming dogs. If they are adult dogs with titers we put them in with diseased dogs and they never develop disease! That is one of the advantages of the rapid on-site tests like VacciCheck, as we don't have to isolate dogs with detectable titers!!” Ronald D Schultz, Ph.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin; Member of WSAVA and AAHA vaccine guideline groups.
The UK Kennel Club on vaccination Health and Breeder Services manager Bill Lambert said “there are a number of ways in which breeders could choose to protect or immunise their animals” “While vaccination is a commonly used method, the KC would wish to make clear there is no blanket requirement for members of the ABS [Assured Breeder Scheme] to use conventional vaccination either annual or otherwise” We asked Mr Lambert to incorporate the WSAVA guidelines into their policy, and at the time of writing he informs us that, “it has been decided that the wording of the advice sheet template for assured breeders will be changed. Once this has been done it will be submitted to the Dog Health Group and General Committee”. You can contact Mr Lambert with any queries about the Kennel Club guidelines on vaccination at:Bill.Lambert@thekennelclub.org.uk Vet Waiver Vaccine data sheets state “not for use in an unhealthy/immune compromised animal” or similar. Vets should be able to provide a letter of waiver of the requirement to be vaccinated on the grounds of health issues to avoid adverse reactions. The Dog World The Pet Welfare Alliance has written to all UK veterinary practices and included details of the new in-practice VacciCheck titer test and arranged a discount for them with the supplier. Letters have been sent to local authorities, boarding establishments, breed/breed rescue clubs/societies, training clubs, breeders, charity/rescue, and pet insurers in the UK, asking them to incorporate the current scientific guidelines into their policies. Proposal The Pet Welfare Alliance would ask that your club/society: Incorporate the WSAVA guidelines into your policy so: a) That annual vaccination is not a requirement b) That the accepted period of vaccination for core vaccines should be no more frequently than every three years, and that protection can be lifelong c) That proof of a titer test showing that re-vaccination is not required is acceptable in place of blind re-vaccination d) That the Leptospirosis and Kennel Cough non-core (optional) vaccines are not a requirement e) A letter from the animal owner’s vet to waiver the requirement of vaccination due to health issues, is acceptable in place of blindly re-vaccinating f) A letter from the animal owner’s vet to waiver the requirement of vaccination due to alternative methods of protection/immunisation, is acceptable in place of blind re-vaccination This letter is now available on the Pet Welfare Alliance website (along with letters to all the other types of establishments) so that the public have access to this, with the aim of enabling long-overdue change. Currently the WSAVA is working to educate veterinary surgeons with regard to the latest science, and many pet owners are choosing not to over-vaccinate their pets and risk vaccine adverse effects. Quite frequently the requirement to provide proof of annual vaccination is preventing pet owners from following the known science whilst protecting their pets against unnecessary suffering. We hope very much that you will incorporate these proposals into your vaccine policy and we would be only too pleased to help if you have any questions. We would be grateful if you are able to confirm that you have adopted these proposals into your policy as we also like to publicise and make available information on our website for the public and relevant establishments alike in order to promote good practice.
On the subject of breeding
Although we love having puppies and find rearing a litter the most rewarding pastime there is, I am acutely aware of the responsibilities that come with bringing a litter of puppies into the world and take the health checks, choosing the right stud dog and finding the right homes for them very seriously.
However, I have found over the years, that owning a stud dog or breeding a bitch puts you in a very vulnerable position and however stringent you may be with your tests and no matter how hard you try to produce healthy, sound puppies with excellent temperaments, if any thing goes wrong with any pups throughout their lifetime the blame is invariably directed at the breeder or stud dog owner. No reputable breeder sets out to produce unhealthy dogs but there is no doubt this does sometimes occur.
I have had many conversations with people who have discovered a problem or illness with their dog and they or their vet immediately label it as a hereditary fault.
I always find this strange as being a nurse, our hospitals are full of sick people who have got sick of their own accord with no connection to their parentage and yet whatever happens to a dog it is immediately attributed to its breeding and I am sorry to say that I think that vets are the worst culprits for this and seem to automatically assume that all problems in dogs are down to breeding.
It is every breeder’s nightmare to produce some sort of hereditary problem and no matter how careful we are this can of course happen. However we should focus on what the dog breeder does best and what action can affect a breed’s future the most.
Alongside this we should seek to encourage good education of dog owners about health and welfare and add support to any valid attempt to control those commercial breeders with little intent to improve the health and wellbeing of their dogs.
If there is any benefit from past media coverage it is the more overt attention being given to canine health. Setting aside the issue of genetics and health tests for the time being, a dog breeder can really only form breeding plans on what they can see, what they have been told or not told and what they know. Therefore where it can be shown that there is a defect that is detrimental to the health and welfare of a dog, history has demonstrated that the best thing to do is breed away from all of those lines, which you suspect may have the defect or are just incompatible.
What I don’t understand is why the likes of some show people slight/snub you and fail to or don’t want to acknowledge that all your trying to do is what is best for your dogs because at the end of the day 99% of them go as pets.
The trouble is when a defect is not recognised and ignored as a health issue, it becomes accepted as the norm for the breed, and even worse is not recognised for being a major problem.
Breeding is not an easy skill to acquire and even Mother Nature gets it wrong and uses natural selection to sort out some of the mistakes. (I have heard of whole litters dying days after they have been born in the last 12 months). So we mere humans have an uphill struggle ahead, if people don’t share what they know. If of course vets, geneticists, other scientist and dog breeders work together, gather good data, share what they have learned and apply good science and common sense to the problems at hand there is no reason why we shouldn’t all make good progress with our breeding plans.
Of course, to truly succeed we need to remember that breeding is not a precise science and all we can do is our best (and by doing that Jeff and I sleep with a clear conscience at night). So that we can all produce healthy happy cockers that everybody would love to own.
Questioning the need for neutering!
In November Jeff and I attended a seminar on reproduction. It brought a new perspective, on the subject of neutering, which has a cast a new dimension on the validity of UK veterinarians attitudes which favour routine surgical neutering of our nation’s pets.
This will be of interest to many dog breeders and exhibitors as our hobby relies upon the breeding ability of dogs to continue the lines we wish to choose and to provide others with good healthy companions. By definition therefore neutering is something of an abomination to the serious dog breeder although many of our pet owners, will be under pressure to undertake this routine husbandry measure. Of course, surgical neutering is recognised as having value where a medical or welfare situation demands it but to neuter for the sake of convention can be regarded with considerable horror by some people. If the growing veterinary fashion for early neutering replaces the traditional mantra of leaving a bitch to have at least one season, the stage it set for a considerable difference of opinion between vets and dog breeders. It is therefore a brave vet who puts forward questioning the mutual professional opinion that routine neutering is a good idea.
The seminar did offer some insights into the pros and cons for keeping dogs and bitches entire. For example, entire dogs of both sexes appear to suffer less from certain cancers and haemangiosarcoma, transitional cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma and osteocarcinoma were all mentioned. None of these are as common as the variety of mammary tumours seen in bitches but all of them are seriously not good news for the dog that suffers one of them. The higher incidence of changes in coat condition and obesity in neutered animals was also mentioned and the increase of incontinence seen particularly in neutered bitches. Along with the incontinence in female dogs the occurrence of juvenile vaginitis and vulval dermatitis, associated with a poorly developed vagina, were listed and the point was well made that this is less likely to occur in bitches left to have at least their first season. Some new areas came to light also, with increases in cruciate rupture (possibly due to the obesity trend), autoimmune thyroiditis and hypothyroidism, all being reported as more common in neutered animals. It has been well known for some time that HD scores are increased by neutering at an early age and this too was mentioned. It is likely that many of these abnormalities in physiology are probably all driven by excessive or reduced sex hormone secretions – a logical consequence of neutering. The effects of neutering upon aggression were covered too. Confirming a personal belief that the effects are very unpredictable. In many cases aggression to both dogs and humans increases following neutering, with the impact on behaviour therefore not following the assumption of increased social compliance due to a decreased sex drive. In addition, neutered males are often regarded with suspicion by intact males thus, even when aggression has been reduced in the neutered dog, perversely the level of aggression directed towards the now neutered animal by third party entire animals may be seen to increase.
The contrary case for routine neutering has been made frequently and the common list of benefits for the bitch are: a reduction in the incidence of malignant mammary tumours; behaviour modification; avoiding false pregnancy and its associated behavioural problems; avoidance of pyometra; prevention of unwanted pregnancy; and owner convenience in managing their pet. In males the highlighted advantages are defined as a reduction in prostatic disease and testicular cancer and behaviour modification (particularly aggression). So where does this leave the debate on the need for neutering? The point is made that although the benefits on both sides include a reduction in certain cancers, in simple statistical terms the overall balance would seem to favour the overall reduction in the incidence of mammary tumours by neutering, however statistical numbers in isolation do not adequately reflect the pain and despair of a dog suffering some of the other cancers mentioned. Further statistics suggest that urinary incontinence in neutered bitches is around 9.7 per cent with 12.5 per cent arising in bitches above 20kgs in weight and only 5.1 per cent in those under. Perhaps more worrying is the onset following surgery being on average, just under three years. Alternatives to surgical neutering are of course available with various traditional hormone treatments for delaying or stopping a season having being used for decades and more recently long term implants being available to prevent seasons over long periods of time. However the most interesting point has been left till last. It would appear that the UK and the US are fairly well conditioned in their enthusiasm for surgical neutering whereas in other parts of Northern Europe it is considered a mutilation and is prohibited under Animal Welfare legislation. In these countries only guide dogs and medical reasons provide any justification. In the past the reason why neutering was introduced as a common policy in the UK was to decrease the number of stray dogs and over time this has become a general policy that has been conditioned.
However it is now 2014! The conclusion is that surgical neutering has its benefits, but is still an elective invasive procedure and is considered unethical in some parts of the EU. As there are advantages to dogs remaining entire too! the decision to neuter a dog should be made with pros and cons in mind and therefore it should be discussed fully with the owner before embarking on a decision that is irreversible, especially when there are improved medicinal options becoming available with less side effects than previous treatments have produced.
Terasa Buck
You can find more information on neutering from this link:http://www.doglistener.co.uk/neutering/spaying_neutering.shtml
Steve Dean (Dog World)
Whilst reading through this week’s dog world I have to say that I agree with Lee Conner (Hertford) who has written in regarding the BBC’s ‘Pedigree Dog’s Exposed’. He has pointed out that the RSPCA, who allegedly has the welfare and education of dogs at heart, should be clambering to get a stall at Crufts to advise the dog buying public, of the benefits of buying a dog from a recognised registered breeder instead of encouraging them to impulse buy from puppy farmers. Many of the problems within pedigree dogs, has resulted from the indiscriminate way they churn out puppies, with no intention of health screening or taking into account the ancestry of the parents and may I add buying breeding stock fraudulently with the intention of using these dogs as breeding machines (as is what happened to me, that is why all our dogs have endorsements on them so they cannot be bred from. I have even heard of puppy farmers buying older dogs from the local paper who need to re-homed from no fault of their own and then being used to breed from). Not only are they encouraging puppy farmers, they are advocating that it is okay to buy puppies with no pedigree which is asking for trouble in future years when they have no record of tracing any health problem’s back. Whilst the rest of us responsible show-going breeders who own a few dogs, which live in our homes, register their puppies, pay for various tests and dutifully jump through various other hoops for the love of their breed. PLEASE don’t’ tar us all with the same brush.
On the evening of the 17th September 2008 my friend and I spent the evening in the company of Martin Clunes. The evening was held to promote Martin’s book ‘a dog’s life’ and to raise funds for Chilterns Dog Rescue Society (Charity No. 257557). Whilst speaking to some of the staff, I was appalled to hear about the numerous numbers of unwanted pedigree puppies that are being abandoned through no fault of their own, because puppy farmers have produced so many and now cannot sell them. And yet the RSPCA seems to be silent on the selling of puppies in this way.