Puppy farmer jailed after 105 dogs found in Canning Vale neglect

Jia Xu Dong would let the RSPCA take the suffering dogs only if it paid for them. Magistrate Sandra De Maio recounted that demand as she described a breeder who was “uncaring of their welfare and indifferent to their pain”. ¹

Dong has been sentenced to nine months in prison after pleading guilty to 36 animal-cruelty charges and two charges of breaching a court order. De Maio also fined him A$5,000 for breaching orders. The punishment follows the discovery of 105 dogs at a property in Canning Vale, in Perth, in December 2024. About a fifth had to be euthanised. ^{1 18}

The sentence establishes criminal accountability for their treatment. But the most revealing feature of the case is the separation between where the puppies were sold and where the dogs were kept: a house in Como that the magistrate called a “showroom”, and a breeding property in Canning Vale she described as “deplorable” and “horrendous”. The sales setting did not represent the conditions behind the business. ¹

De Maio rejected Dong’s portrayal of himself as a “hapless lover of dogs who sold puppies accidentally born”. She concluded that he was engaged in selling puppies. “I simply do not believe a word he says,” she told the court. “His story changes like the tides.” ¹

The scale helps explain her conclusion. The court heard that Dong bred 366 live puppies between 2021 and 2025; the RSPCA estimated 390. Those are different figures, not a reconciled total. The RSPCA also estimated that he could have made A$1.17 million from puppy sales. That describes potential sales—not verified receipts, money traced to Dong or profit after costs. ¹

During an earlier two-month trip to China, 65 puppies were born, the court heard. That was a separate absence from the trip to Albany during which he left the dogs in the heat, when temperatures exceeded 40 degrees Celsius. ¹

The case came to light because dogs escaped. In its charging announcement on 19 May 2025, RSPCA WA said a City of Canning ranger had reported large numbers roaming outside the property in mid-December 2024. The ranger had already taken two dogs for urgent veterinary attention. The announcement recorded the discovery of 105 dogs, though no precise discovery day has been established. ¹⁸

Inspectors found puppies and adults: cocker spaniels, corgis, French bulldogs, golden retrievers, groodles and other mixed breeds. Faeces had accumulated around them. Some had fresh wounds from fighting; about 15 had dental problems. Others had matted coats, embedded grass seeds, eye or ear infections, or malnutrition. Some had psychological problems. ¹

Dong had been treating wounds with honey. De Maio said “he’d failed them entirely in all aspects of their care”. She also concluded that he had concocted psychiatric symptoms to explain his behaviour—a finding about the explanations he offered the court, not an independent clinical assessment. ¹

This was not simply a dispute over how many dogs a breeder could manage. The findings describe failures across basic care, affecting both the puppies offered for sale and the adult dogs kept in the operation. Their commercial value had not protected them from neglect.

The reported outcomes show both the reach of the rescue and its limits. About 20 per cent of the dogs had to be euthanised, while up to 80 per cent were saved. Many went to new homes. Those rounded proportions should not be turned into exact death or adoption counts, and surviving is not the same outcome as being rehomed. ¹

Outside court, RSPCA senior inspector Jayde Palin said 70 to 80 per cent of the dogs she had helped were now in homes. Her description made room for very different experiences among the survivors: they were “living their best lives or trying to live as normally as possible”. ¹

That distinction matters. A new household is a substantial change in a dog’s circumstances, but it is not proof that the consequences of neglect have ended. Palin’s words acknowledge that some animals are still trying to live normally after what happened to them.

Palin welcomed the prison sentence and called it “heartwarming” that most of the dogs could be saved. She also drew attention to the contradiction at the centre of the trade: these were desirable breeds for which people paid substantial sums, yet inspectors encountered a mass of suffering animals. Buyers would expect them to have been well cared for, she said. ¹

The punishment cannot undo the deaths. Nor does it complete the work undertaken by inspectors and the households that took surviving dogs in. The court has dealt with Dong’s criminal responsibility; recovery is a different task.

De Maio’s conclusion reached beyond the individual offences to the business behind them. But her call to abolish puppy farming did not itself create a legislative ban. ¹

Western Australia’s Parliament passed the Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Act in December 2021 to better regulate breeding. Passage and implementation are not interchangeable: the Act distinguishes provisions commencing the day after Royal Assent from provisions commencing by proclamation. The available commencement information does not establish which specific reforms were operating by the sentencing report. It would therefore be wrong to treat the law’s title or passage as proof that every measure was already in force. ^{3 6}

There is also an unresolved question about restrictions on Dong himself. The West Australian reported on 15 August 2025 that he had been banned from owning animals. The available account does not establish that ban’s precise terms, duration or subsequent status, and it should not be presented as a new restriction imposed with this prison sentence. ⁷

ABC’s sentencing report was published on 28 October 2026 but did not specify when the sentence was imposed. The exact terms of the breached orders, any additional costs orders and any appeal also remain unconfirmed. ¹

The test beyond this prosecution is whether enforceable breeding controls and ownership restrictions prevent another operation from separating a respectable sales setting from suffering elsewhere. For these dogs, the supported outcome is more immediate: most survived, many reached homes, and some are still trying to live normally. A prison sentence answers who was responsible. It does not mean the harm is over.