Since the Labour government announced it will begin consultation on a new registration scheme for dog breeders, there has been a lot of discussion online. Much of it is targeted around unlicensed, small home breeders who believe the government may be heading in the wrong direction.
Many of these breeders describe themselves as ethical breeders. Alongside this has grown a narrative that small, home-based breeders should not be regulated under the current licensing system at all.
That belief sits at the heart of the current debate. And it deserves to be examined properly.
When ethics becomes an argument against regulation
Most breeders who call themselves ethical do so sincerely. They raise puppies in their home. They breed infrequently. They love their dogs as family members. They screen buyers carefully and offer advice for caring for their puppies.
These are all positive things. They matter. And they should be recognised.
But increasingly, ethical is being used not just as a description, but as a reason to avoid oversight altogether. The suggestion is that care, love, and good intentions should be enough on their own.
That regulation is for puppy farms, not people like them.
The difficulty with this position is that it quietly undermines the principles of quality management that underpin every other care system.
In regulated care settings, quality is not assumed. It is demonstrated through standards, records, review, and oversight.
These systems exist not because carers are untrustworthy, but because consistency and accountability protect both the caregiver and those receiving it. Removing regulation on the basis of self-declared ethics replaces a managed system with one that relies entirely on trust.
The problem with the term “puppy farm”
One of the main arguments used to support this position centres on the term puppy farm. It is commonly used to describe a large-scale breeding factory, producing puppies in poor conditions, with little regard for welfare. That image is powerful, and it has shaped public opinion for years.
Journalists will apply the term to any old news story, even to ethical home breeders who misunderstood their licensing obligations.
There are dog breeders operating at larger scale and outside of a home environment. That alone does not make them a puppy farm. Where those breeders are licensed, they are required to meet the care and welfare standards set out in current regulations. They are inspected. They are assessed. They are accountable. Whether people like that model or not, it exists within a regulated framework.
Using puppy farm as shorthand for “large”, “commercial”, or “not like us” muddies the discussion. It turns welfare into a branding argument rather than a standards-based one.
Enforcement has changed, even if the reputation hasn’t
Another argument often raised is that local authority enforcement is not up to scratch. In the past, in some parts of the UK, that criticism was justified. Reports from organisations such as Four Paws highlighted inconsistency and weaknesses in enforcement.
But the position today is different.
Training has improved. Expectations are clearer. And enforcement is far more consistent than it once was.
How do we know?
Because all of our members are licensed, and we see it every day. Breeders are being asked for policies. Records are being checked. Standards are being challenged. This is no longer a light-touch system operating in the background.
That does not mean enforcement is perfect. But it does mean the picture is more complex than online debate often suggests.
Are other care givers unregulated?
This raises a wider question that is rarely asked.
Almost every other service that involves the care of life is regulated or requires registration. Nurses, Dentists, Care workers and Childminders
- Size does not remove accountability.
- Working from home does not remove accountability.
- Caring deeply does not remove accountability.
Until now, dog breeding has often been treated differently. And much of the current confusion stems from the way terms like ethical breeder and puppy farm are being used to shut down debate, rather than to clarify what good care should look like.
Regulation keeps reappearing for a reason
This is not a new debate. Over the years, there have been several attempts to address breeding standards outside of statutory regulation. Schemes such as assured breeder programmes and home breeder associations have all followed a similar pattern.
Many began as an alternative to formal oversight, often driven by the belief that ethical breeders should not be regulated in the same way as commercial operators. Yet over time, they all introduced a code of practice.
These codes set expectations around welfare, breeding frequency, transparency, buyer support, and conduct. In effect, they operate as a looser form of compliance. Not because breeders are untrustworthy, but because standards have to be defined if quality is to be maintained.
This pattern repeats itself. When formal regulation is rejected, some form of self-regulation quietly takes its place.
The disagreement is rarely about whether standards should exist. It is about who sets them and how they are enforced.
So what is an ethical breeder?
An ethical breeder is not defined by scale alone. They are not defined by whether they breed at home. And they are not defined simply by saying they care.
Ethical breeding is not a feeling. It is a practice.
At its core, an ethical breeder is someone whose decisions and methods can be examined, understood, and justified in terms of welfare, not just intent.
An ethical breeder:
- Prioritises the health and welfare of dogs over convenience, fashion, or profit
- Breeds at an age and frequency that does not compromise the wellbeing of the dam or puppies
- Provides appropriate socialisation, enrichment, and early learning
- Is open and honest with puppy buyers about risks and responsibilities
- Accepts responsibility for the dogs they bring into the world, including support if problems arise
These principles are widely shared. Most breeders who describe themselves as ethical aspire to them.
But aspiration alone is not enough.
Clarity matters more than labels
The current debate is not really about small breeders versus large breeders. It is not about home environments versus commercial premises. And it is not about whether people care about their dogs.
It is about clarity.
Terms like ethical breeder and puppy farm are being used loosely, emotionally, and often strategically.
That lack of precision is fuelling fear, division, and misunderstanding. It is also making it harder to design a system that genuinely protects dogs while supporting good breeders.
Ethics matter. Care matters. Intent matters.
But none of these can replace standards that are visible, consistent, and accountable. In every other area of care, ethics sit alongside regulation, not in place of it. Dog breeding should be no different.
As consultation begins, there is an opportunity to reset the conversation. That means moving away from labels and towards outcomes. Away from self-definition and towards shared standards.
If the term puppy farm is going to continue to be used in policy and public debate, then it needs to be defined properly. And if the term ethical breeder is to mean anything at all, it must describe what breeders do in practice, not just what they believe about themselves.
That clarity can only come from open discussion and evidence-led policy. It is something breeders, buyers, and regulators all have a stake in. And it is something that Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs should now lead.
