Fewer licensed dog breeders: what Naturewatch’s report tells us, and what remains unanswered

Naturewatch Foundation’s latest report records fewer licensed dog breeders and fewer breeding females across the UK. These findings deserve attention, but incomplete data means we cannot assume that less licensed breeding means less breeding overall, or better welfare.

For My Licensed Breeder members and our licensing colleagues, the report raises two questions: what does it reveal about the breeders within the system, and what is happening to activity that no longer appears in licensing records?

There are encouraging findings. There are also gaps that need investigating before conclusions are drawn about why the sector is shrinking.

Challenging the stereotype of licensed breeders

One finding deserves greater attention: around 68% of licensed breeders in the UK keep ten or fewer adult dogs for breeding.

This challenges the assumption that a licensed breeder must be operating on an industrial scale. That stereotype does not reflect the majority described in Naturewatch’s research.

The report also records a fall in England’s one-star breeders, from 55 to 30, and a reduction in dogs recorded at those premises, from 671 to 187. Almost 70% of licensed breeders in England now hold four or five stars.

These are encouraging results. However, the report cannot establish whether individual one-star businesses improved, closed or lost their licences.

A licence does not guarantee perfect practice, and the number of dogs alone cannot establish welfare standards. Licensing does, however, provide an identifiable business, an inspection process and a route for follow-up when concerns arise.

A smaller register does not explain why breeders have left

The report identifies approximately 2,572 licensed breeders in the UK. The reduction from the previous report could reflect several different developments.

Some breeders may have retired. Others may have reduced their activity, decided against renewing, had an application refused or lost their licence. Some may have continued breeding after leaving licensing.

At present, we cannot establish how much each explanation contributes.

Through our support work, we are receiving enquiries from breeders who report losing their licences following a change of officer or what they describe as increased officer knowledge and scrutiny. These are accounts brought to us by individual breeders, rather than evidence of a national trend.

They nevertheless raise a worthwhile research question:

how much of the decline reflects changes in licensing decisions, and how much reflects breeders choosing to leave?

We should examine whether better training and more thorough assessments are influencing outcomes. Equally, we need to understand whether breeders are receiving clear advice and opportunities to address problems where appropriate.

Our concern: has some activity moved out of view?

Our concern is that some breeders may be continuing to breed while choosing to take their chances outside licensing. The report does not indicate that this is happening, but it cannot rule it out either.

We also hear about breeding females being housed with other households while remaining part of a breeder’s breeding programme. Such arrangements raise questions about what is captured in premises-based figures.

Keeping a dog in another household does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing. However, if the dog continues producing litters, a reduction in the number recorded at one premises may not represent a reduction in breeding activity.

The questions we need to ask are practical:

where is the dog living, who is responsible for the breeding activity, and where are her litters recorded?

These are suspicions and information gaps to investigate. They should not be presented as established explanations for the national decline.

Missing information affects the comparison

The gaps extend beyond Carmarthenshire, which did not provide its exact breeding-female total this year despite doing so previously.

The report also identifies nine councils in England that did not hold records of dog numbers, and another where the information was not available in a retrievable format. Across the UK, only around half of councils could confirm the numbers of breeding females, breeding males and other resident dogs. That fell to around a third when litter information was also included.

Incomplete recording, including in Northern Ireland, limits our understanding of the sector. However, missing litter or male-dog records do not necessarily mean breeding-female figures were unavailable.

The key question for comparing years is whether the same information was available from the same councils on both occasions. Without that comparison, we cannot confidently separate an actual reduction in dogs from changes in reporting.

Naturewatch’s research provides a valuable foundation for understanding the licensed breeding sector and identifying where further data could help explain the changes.

The puppy-supply figure is an estimate

The report estimates that around 10.5–14% of UK dogs originate from licensed breeders.

This calculation uses recorded breeding-female numbers, assumed annual litter production and estimated population replacement needs. It is not a count of puppies born or sales completed.

Missing breeding-dog records affect the calculation, as do assumptions about litter sizes and how often females breed.

The estimate highlights a substantial gap in our knowledge of supply. It does not establish that every puppy outside the estimated licensed share comes from illegal breeding or poor conditions. Naturewatch recognises that the different sources cannot currently be separated reliably.

What we would like to see next

A follow-up request to councils could ask for comparable annual figures covering:

New applications received, granted and refused.
Renewals granted and refused
Licences revoked, surrendered or allowed to expire.
Suspensions and their subsequent outcomes.
Recorded reasons for businesses leaving licensing, where held.

Combining these figures with marketplace intelligence could help distinguish voluntary retirement, regulatory intervention and possible continued trading.

There is also a role for better records within the licensed sector. Through Digital PawPrint, we see an opportunity to support more consistent recording of individual dogs, litters and retirement or transfer outcomes. With sufficient participation, complete records and appropriate arrangements for sharing information, this could contribute to more informative research.

How we should use the report

For members, the report suggestes that sweeping assumptions about licensed breeders is incorrect. For licensing colleagues, it identifies questions that register totals alone cannot answer.

We welcome Naturewatch’s work and the discussion it has opened. Our view is that the decline should trigger further investigation before it is described as a welfare success.

At My Licensed Breeder, our role is to take the problems identified and turn them into realistic, workable solutions. That starts with reliable data and listening to both breeders and enforcement officers about where the system is falling short.

Our door is open to organisations that want to work with us. By bringing research, licensing experience and the day-to-day realities of breeding together, we can develop practical tools and support that help people meet the requirements and improve welfare.