Steve

one at dawn at one at dusk.

You cant go wrong with these guys

 http://www.nirenokennels.com/

Council cant insist on anything that is not state legislation and I've never heard of a single person anywhere in Australia that has actually been fined for not desexing their dog. They may  have to pay a higher fee but forcing people to desex their dogs, their property - nup. 

30 minutes ago, RuralPug said:

Agree Steve. Gumtree is relying on seller honesty, which isn't protecting the buyer at all, really, only Gumtree!

I am at a bit of a loss how to protect buyers from shonky breeders, let alone scammers - who we know steal breeders' details from online sites and use them in their scams. Breeder's membership numbers and other ID have even been stolen from DOL ads and used in scams on other sites. The very few buyers who know only to look at reputable sites where breeders are scanned and monitored (such as MDBA) are far outnumbered by those who don't know. 

Flame suit on - I have no objection to people buying from puppy farms - provided they are aware of exactly what it is they are supporting in doing so and those puppy farms are subjected to regular thorough welfare checks. If people want to spend thousands of dollars on a cross breed with no health testing of parents that is their choice. I hate designer names, that is one big scam.

But people who pretend to provide quality puppies and don't but hide under what should be trustworthy registries, taint every member of that registry. This is really apparent with ANKC bodies, who for so very long have been slack in policing their members to protect their own name.

 

At least once a week I have to go after someone who is advertising as an MDBA member who is not and that's not just on gumtree - it can be anywhere and nothing anyone can do to stop it except what we are doing and belt them when we catch them and answer questions about whether someone really is a member when we are asked.  So as with everything else someone can buy from anywhere - its buyer beware and good ethical breeders shouldn't have to be over regulated and treated as potential criminals because others are doing the wrong thing. No matter what the laws say or requirements to advertise are on any site if the buyer is going to buy without doing some basic checks at the end of the day nothing will stop it. If anyone really thinks that being registered with a state CC is some kind of tick that they wont be stung or that the pup will come from a good home should take a good look at this.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4454400/RSPCA-rescue-31-dogs-puppy-farm-New-South-Wales.html

On 4/20/2017 at 8:13 PM, Mrs Rusty Bucket said:

yes but you have to meet a bunch of criteria described in the link.

 

Like provide your ANKC controlling body membership number to a would be buyer so they can check.  

And microchip and vaccinate (but I think all the dog sellers have to do this now)...

And then you have to meet the ANKC code of ethics.   

I have noticed more ANKC registered breeders advertising but as best I can tell they say "ANKC registered" and are very specific about what you get regards paper and puppy.   I don't think that's what happened for OP.  

The gum tree ads where it just says "registered breeder" and doesn't provide any ANKC stuff like membership number or prefix...  those are the ones "Registered with council" not ANKC and may or may not be puppy farms.

Personally I think that people who think they are buying from a registered breeder - expect ANKC registered and papers and all that.   So it really helps if the ad is clear.   If the ad is unclear - I wonder what else they're avoiding telling us that we'd want to know.

I just advertised my new Maremma babies on Gumtree. I was asked if I was a breeder and if I was registered.Clicked yes to both. Ticking anything else such as vaccinated etc was optional .I was never asked for my member number, or chip number of puppies etc and the fact that I put my Dogs NSW member number in the ad was by choice because of DogsNSW rules not because I was compelled to do so to place the ad via gumtree. 

To the OP there could be any number of explanations - go back and ask the breeder before you worry about it  being shonky.

If you aren't satisfied you could then ask for help in what you could do.

Well done!

On 4/20/2017 at 8:13 PM, Mrs Rusty Bucket said:

yes but you have to meet a bunch of criteria described in the link.

 

Like provide your ANKC controlling body membership number to a would be buyer so they can check.  

And microchip and vaccinate (but I think all the dog sellers have to do this now)...

And then you have to meet the ANKC code of ethics.   

I have noticed more ANKC registered breeders advertising but as best I can tell they say "ANKC registered" and are very specific about what you get regards paper and puppy.   I don't think that's what happened for OP.  

The gum tree ads where it just says "registered breeder" and doesn't provide any ANKC stuff like membership number or prefix...  those are the ones "Registered with council" not ANKC and may or may not be puppy farms.

Personally I think that people who think they are buying from a registered breeder - expect ANKC registered and papers and all that.   So it really helps if the ad is clear.   If the ad is unclear - I wonder what else they're avoiding telling us that we'd want to know.

Ive never had to do any of that stuff to advertise on Gumtree.They ask if you are a registered breeder and you tick yes - certainly nothing specific about ANKC 

Sorry just because you think ANKC is the only way a breeder can be registered that doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. 

Anyone can advertise on Gum tree thankfully without any requirement for numbers or evidence they are  registered with  one group or another.

People I speak to don't expect ANKC registered and all that and so far only one state makes you ad a microchip which you can ring  in or a license number. Dogs NSW require a member number but  half their time would be taken up with trying to stop people using them when they are not members. In the last week the MDBA has had to report two who have advertise they are our members and even added a fake member number.  

Try this one - Beautiful dogs and really great breeders    nireno

In NSW [which is Where Deniliquin is] WORKING dogs have to be registered but its free - ordinary farm dogs still need to be chipped and registered. 

13 hours ago, asal said:

When the code of ethics for Dogs NSW included this.

"

8.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than twice in eighteen months

without the prior approval of the Board of Directors except under extenuating circumstances where

application for registration of the litter may be considered by the Board of Directors.

9.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than twice in two years without

the prior written approval of a Veterinary Surgeon certifying her fitness to carry and whelp the third litter.

 

10.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than six times without prior

veterinary certification of fitness for further breeding and without prior approval of the Board of

Directors except under extenuating circumstances where application for registration of the litter may

be considered by the Board of Directors"

 

My vets comment was they certainly did not bother to liase with any reproduction specalist vets.

 

The species canine in his opinion should not be bred so infrequently.

That a bitch is better off having her litters when she is young (the norm before was the majority of bitches had their litters before they turned 4 or 5 and were retired, either desexed and rehomed or retired and kept as pets)  but the breeder should have the right to that decision as there really is never going to be a one size fits all where individuals are concerned)   litter spacing decided by the breeder and their vet, if she had large  litters some bitches need to be rested, those with small litters would be better off being bred on each to not only give the breeder greater choice to choose from, but reduce obesity in bitches which have small litters and therefore can have weight issues if left unbred too long between.  It also flies in the face of the fact that older mothers, human included produce a higher percentage of chromosome abnormalities including mongolism, its now documented in dogs too

 

I well remember when I asked why such a blanket ruling, I bred Chihuahua's at the time and one of my best bitches never had more than one pup per (cough) "litter" if anyone can call one pup a litter that is?

 

her best pup was the result of her 7th litter. now of course banned and she had all 7 in a row bred every 6 months, now that stupid rule is in place she would only possibly have managed to produce 5 pups maximum in her lifetime.  no Matter that the large breed bitches produce anything from 10 to 18 PER LITTER!  

 

YET I had to put up with them yelping that I should stop wingeing and be satisfied with what I got.

 

I suggested then if this utterly stupid code come into force then no breeder be permitted more than 15 puppies per bitch and she be retired, regardless of breed since few toy breeders were ever going to be allowed even that number of puppies to choose their next generation from, if its forced on one percentage of the membership then the rest should cope with the same restrictions too.  Surely fair, should be fair to all?

 

The real problem was the code of ethics was not formulated to work with the best practice for either the health and well being of the bitches or the selection of the best puppies for the next generation.

 

It was formulated to pander too and appease the animal libbers and the Politically correct in the frantic hope the KC's would be left off the persecution list.

 

doesn't seem to have worked at all does it, if the latest attacks from Victoria in the form of that latest legislation that was so almost shoved through. 1 bitch and you had to become a registered business with an ABN?  NO one allowed to have more than 10 fertile dogs.

 

 

utter nonsense. look at the world famous breeders who created and maintained the breeds we know today, never happen again with the incredible genetic selection restrictions being called for and pushed for now

 

 

 

No sign yet the libbers or Peta have put down the gun does it?

 

pandering to them is not going to achieve anything, Their Brief is not the elimination of puppy farms, it is the elimination of the domestic dog.  read their own websites.

 

I should reword that, Pandering to them is going to achieve the elimination of the domestic dog by genetic bottlneck, too few being bred, too few to select from, mission will be accomplished.  unless those of us who want to keep their dogs wake up before its too late.  if it isnt too late already for many breeds, hopefully the blinkers will fall off before its too late for all

 

 

 

 

This has never made any sense to any breeder who knew the science of breeding dogs and who knows that the canine reproductive system is unique .It is detrimental to our female dogs to wait too long to breed them and to breed them with gaps rather than back to back. This is a prime example of when it should have been that our CCs were saying "bugger off and  don't tell us how to suck eggs because we are the experts at it "  But this is how it goes - the do gooders push for anything they can think of to lower the numbers bred then the government call together a panel of "experts" .That turns out to be welfare, animal rights, vets and one representative of a state CC and that is usually someone who knows jack shit about actually breeding dogs and the science for the species. So they sit us down as a sheep with a pack of wolves at the dinner table to vote on what is for dinner and before we know it everyone is being educated on how to breed dogs and what is best for them by animal rights.The code of practice comes in and then the state CCs have to  tell their members they have to stay within the rules .At no point does anyone ask what is actually best for the dogs - and you have to be brave to say what is best for the dogs out loud because then you get flogged including flogged by breeders who at some point should be told the truth about the science. 

7 hours ago, RuralPug said:

To

To answer your question in general, it is because in some breeds (SBT in Australia is currently a good example) the dilute colour genetics are frequently linked with more severe health problems. It might just be a case of the genes for dilute colour being on the same physical chromosome as the genes for low immune health/organ malfunctions etc. in that breed OR it may be the case that breeders of "fad" colours go not generally breed for health but nevertheless there is a definite and easily proven link.

In the case of the Wei, there is no such link which may or may not be due to high culling rates as the breed was being developed. Other breeds also have blue as a possibility (e.g. Great Danes, Greyhounds) and it has not been a problem in those breeds.

 If dilute colours are historically found within a breed but are not included in or are specifically undesirable or not permitted then I would imagine that there is a reason and the reason may be that the colour carries problems in that breed, whether alopecia or more.

This is the year 2017 and this colour issue is easily tested for and eliminated. I promise you some colours are kept out for no other reason except that the founders dont /didnt like the look of it and these days its about politics where those who are running the breed clubs play power games.

Colour dilution alopecia does not occur in all dogs with blue or fawn coats, and the frequency varies within affected breeds.

It is the result of a faulty version of the d allele, known as dl. Not all breeds carry this faulty allele, and the majority of blues are completely healthy.

There are various different D alleles, and only one of these causes CDA. Technically this makes CDA a recessive allele, as it is recessive to D (non-dilute, non-CDA) however dl is dominant over the standard d allele.

What this all means is that CDA can be bred out of most lines by careful breeding and genetic testing to eliminate the dl allele in favour of the healthy d allele.

Breeding more litters does mean you place more pet puppies but it also means you have more choices in which ones you keep and breed on with. These days if a breeder is breeding to work toward betterment of the breed by upping the numbers they are spoken of as pond scum because they are only in it for the money - puppy farmers. But a breeder who breeds more has a greater chance of making a difference to their lines and the breed in general. How can what is happening be good for the breeds? but  you cant have it  both ways - if we breed less others will breed more - grown up people who want Frenchies wont change their mind because registered breeders want to limit the supply especially when in the wings they are being told the show breeders are the cause not the solution of their dogs having a chance at being  healthier. Wake up Australia. 

the fact is a breeder cannot contribute to the breed if they are only breeding a litter or two per year. This clearly is where the CCs want us to go as they fall in line with animal rights but any breeder that  wants to make a difference to the breed where it really matters needs to breed MORE litters and MORE puppies.Or we need thousands of small breeders breeding a few litters each per year actively working together for the common goal of improving the health or whatever of the breed.  This is the only way you can select for the all of the things that go into the betterment of the breed - you simply cant do it if you have limited choices and shrinking gene pool with less diversity. Genetics experts reckon you need about 20 irls and 5 boys to be able to select the healthiest and best to breed on with.Its not the non registered breeders who are doing  harm to the breed its the CCs and the show breeders who think that breeding less makes them more of an expert and breeding less is better. Its not - its straight out propaganda that most of us have swallowed and perpetuated.

8 minutes ago, asal said:

now that would be a really great initiative wouldn't it

But the problem is that puppies from healthy parents that have been tested for everything imaginable still get sick and if its due to a conformation issue such as Brachy head health testing isnt  going to help. Breeders have to select for dogs that are less extreme to lower the incidence of health problems. Hip scoring has been the biggest rip off of the century and any dog can still get it including those that  have parents that have been scored or tested with perfect hips.Insurance companies would still be paying the same whether breeders test or not.

I think that there are some huge chunks of reality that seem to be a bit missing in this equation

1. Firstly there is a campaign being run by the RSPCA and the AVA that puts the health issues of the breed firmly on the show ring and registered breeders - if you go to the bottom of the page after  you watch the movie to "yes I want to help" it takes you to a petition directed squarely at the ANKC. Registered breeders who show can state that they are breeding the healthiest dogs but not everyone agrees. There is much evidence to show this isn't necessarily the case http://loveisblind.org.au/

2. There is no mandatory health testing for a registered breeder to register their puppies and hell of a lot of them don't test where a hell of a lot of those who are not members and who are breeding and selling them do test. Some of them [MDBA breeders] are also doing fitness tests on adult breeding dogs as far as I know NO ANKC registered breeders are doing these tests which are about  how the dog can function rather than only testing them in the ring for how they look. MDBA puppy  buyers are also sharing with us details of any health problems that show up as the dog proceeds through life so we can see how responsible our breeders actually are.  

3. Some ANKC Registered breeders are registering dogs with a different colour so they can breed the blues etc so some of the pedigrees are false and if the colours do truly relate to health problems there is no way of knowing via profiling a pedigree. 

4. If there is a such a high demand for the breed if those who are getting  it right don't breed more then people will buy a dog that is available and fits what they want. Rather than registered breeders who believe they are doing it right slowing what they breed down it makes more sense for them to breed more not less. If ANKC breeders only want to breed show dogs and not also pet dogs then they can hardly moan about someone else filling the gap. You can breed pet puppies and still consider the welfare of the dogs and the best for the breed. 

5. Now and if things go on as they are no one can prove who is most responsible because there is no way of tracking which dogs bred by which breeders actually do have to have operations and vets want to do operations just in case. When the finger is pointed there is no defence as the data hasn't  been collected. 

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs.

Well the relevant code of practice in Victoria lets Vicdogs members off the hook and they are regulated no differently than any dog owner if they have less than ten dogs so being regulated by that is a far cry from being regulated as other breeders are.

What part of more than one code of practice did you not get?

I got it Sheridan but having to abide by that code of practice as a breeder is not having to be regulated by anything pertaining to breeding dogs. Therefore stating that registered breeders in Victoria who own less than 10 dogs are regulated by a code is smoke and mirrors because those who are not Vicdogs and breed dogs have more regulation on them and the code for the private keeping of dogs can hardly be counted as regulated in the sense it was being discussed in this thread.

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs.

Well the relevant code of practice in Victoria lets Vicdogs members off the hook and they are regulated no differently than any dog owner if they have less than ten dogs so being regulated by that is a far cry from being regulated as other breeders are.

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

Steve happy to defer on some points and disagree on others. I respectfully ask that you read my posts properly. Apologies for the long post.

While I don't like these cross breeds, the unintended consequences of cross-marketing of cross breeds and the industry of deception that surrounds them, I have said that I recognise they are here to stay and suggested years ago before registration that registration was a better way to go - and got howled down. The registration of the cobberdog, while welcome, does not deal with the issue of the rampant cross-breeding and false marketing of cross-breeds to the general public. But yes its a step in the right direction and may eventually help marginalise the mass cross-breeders - which will be a good thing.

Just because a minority of people think purebreds are preferable it doesn't mean those who don't automatically become idiots and incapable of making an educated choice that they feel suits their family and lifestyle

I agree. However the number of these dogs who are dumped because they do not live up to the claims of their breeder ('non-shedding' or size being the biggies - ie false marketing) would suggest that there are many people making uneducated cross-breed choices on the basis of false information.

And thats the major point of my post: false cross-breed marketing. FB and the newbie threads here show time and time again that the general public do not make the distinction between responsible cross-breeders and puppy farmers/irresponsible ones - in time they may, but not now. These cross-breeders simply come up with a marketing terms and false information to sell their puppies. Why do these cross-breeders come up with these cutesy marketing terms in the first place instead of describing them by their cross? The answer is to claim their dogs are something they are not and to mislead and falsely market them using false information (non-shedding, hypo-allergenic, kid friendly, 'family dogs' etc etc). What defines a 'family dog'? What type of 'family'? Its nothing but a marketing term. If this was any other industry or 'product', the ACCC would be very interested in their claims.

The fact that many cross-breed puppies are still sold through petshops and online as impulse buys and end up in pounds, compared with the numbers of purebreeds in pounds proves the point. At least most (not all) registered pure breeders and hopefully now most Cobberdog cross breeders will try and ensure their puppies go to thoughtful homes with truthful information.

You're right - some purebreeders are horrible and are a big part of the problem. On that we absolutely agree. There are a couple of registered purebreeders I know of who I steer well clear of and never recommend. They are truly nasty, take gate-keeping to a ridiculous degree and do everyone a grave disservice. But there are some fantastic ones as well - and thats where I send people who ask me. Horrible breeders are not restricted to purebreeders. The mass cross-breed puppy farmers I have dealt with have been cruel patronising money hungry lying b*st*rds, And most backyard cross-breeders are not much better. So IMO this is not about 'horrible breeders' who sadly exist everywhere. Its about a group of cross-breeders who falsely represent and market what they are selling to the general public.

Its O.K. to take dogs into your home that come through a rescue that are unpredictable but not to bring a puppy in that you like the look of?

Of course not - rescue is not infallible either - but the fostering system increases the chances of a good match as opposed to an uninformed response to false cross-breed marketing on looks or characteristics which the false marketing of these crossbreeds encourages.

The best protection the puppy buying public has is to buy from someone who loves the breed, knows the breed, breeds for betterment of the breed and socialises their puppies well - and that ain't a cross-breed puppy farmer. Yet as I keep saying the general public do not make that distinction between responsible or irresponsible cross-breeders or do their homework. If they did, most would not buy online or from petshops (and they would go out of business). How many DOLers have said 'I bought my cross-breed from a petshop/mass-breeder when I didn't know any better'?

I have no affiliation with the ANKC and would welcome proper registration under another affiliated body - not a problem - as long as there is some control somewhere.

Steve I know you have worked really hard on breed development and you are probably one of the biggest advocates of the cobberdog in Australia. And with guarding against unintended consequences such as false cross-marketing, this cross-breed probably has a bright future, eventually as a registered breed. And that's genuinely a good thing.

But IMO Cobberdog cross-breeds or registration as a purebreed are not a panacea to the problem of rampant cross-breeding and false cross-breed marketing to the general public. Not everyone who wants a cross breed will consider a cobberdog, wants a cobberdog or even know they exist - so they'll likely respond to false marketing of other crossbreeds and around the cycle will go again.

O.K. Firstly I see more staffy type and working dog type dogs in rescue that never get out the other side and into a new home than I see other cross breeds that have been purposely bred.

I also see pure breed rescue is flourishing. In my two breeds Beagle and Maremma there is a never ending supply of dogs for Beagle and Maremma rescue and there are hundreds of specific breed rescue groups all over the country.

Plus many purebreds are marketed as non shedding, less prone to causing allergies and child friendly. Cross bred breeders don't have a monopoly on that either. There are good and bad breeders in any group and it is just as difficult to find a registered purebred breeder who is doing it all right as it is to find a cross bred breeder who has it all covered. The marketing for purebred dogs tells us that they all health tested - well guess what ? Most registered breeders dont and whats more the anti marketing of purebred dogs tells us that many of them are actually selected for characteristics that cause their quality of life to be low quality and for them to suffer because of it. These days the breeders don't have to do much work on telling the general public the benefits of cross breds because the RSPCA and the AVA and the state universities are right out there about it.

Hit google and ask for non shedding dogs and its purebreds that come up - so is it possible to have a non shedding purebred but not a non shedding cross bred?

What Im trying to say is that grown up people make their decisions on purchasing anything based on their own variables and suggesting that every one should only want registered purebreds is equivalent to telling me that everyone should only want a rescue dog.

So when we see cross bred dogs advertised and people buying them they have as much right to determine that suits them better than what you would choose. The fact that there are choices is a good thing and people who won dogs which are not purebred or not registered with a kennel club as purebreds can still be fantastic owners and the dogs make great pets.Cross bred breeders don't have a monopoly on puppy farming and if there weren't so many people telling the world how great their cross bred puppies were people would stop buying them.

Both sides are capable of spreading crap about what they see as the best and real world but people buy dogs of any type because they are able to make their own choices - some will like purebreds others wont care if they are purebred or not. There is just as much argument - if not more that the marketing of purebreds and the pressure on breeders to only breed a litter or two a year and God forbid for the pet market has helped puppy farmers of both registered purebred breeders and cross bred breeders. Its supply and demand.

Thanks Mackiemad - maybe I'm not explaining myself too well. We all agree on the puppy issue of puppy farms (I hope).

The point I'm trying to make that some here seem to be missing is that the distinction between puppy farmers and those 'who love their animals' is a false one from a marketing to the general public perspective. The so called responsible cross-breeders who charge insane prices for a cross breed on the back of cutesy pie marketing terms (cavoodle, cobberdog etc) to a gullible public, indirectly cross-market the puppy farms. The general public who can't or won't pay their insane prices and don't know any better go looking elsewhere - bingo - they find cheaper easily available crossbreeds online or at petshops. In the mind of the gullible public they are all one and the same thing as FB demonstrates time and time again - simply breeders of designers dogs. The only differential is the price and availability.

So until these 'responsible' cross-breeders have an ANKC recognised breed, are subject to registration, use the breed term exclusively and properly to describe their dogs (breed to a breed standard) or use the proper cross-breed term in the meantime and market their dogs truly to the public with correct information and therefore distinguish themselves from the puppy farmers I won't support them. Terms like cobberdog and cavoodle (deliberately?) mislead the public into thinking its a 'registered pure breed' when its not.

I have no doubt the day will come when a stable one of these cross-breeds will be ANKC recognised and named - and that will be a very good thing as I said years ago - but its not today. And in the meantime me and many others will continue to pick up the pieces of puppy farm rescues like Mac and Andy...

(Flame suit on).

The Cobberdog breeders don't have huge prices on their pet puppies and cross bred puppies such as labradoodles are selling for much more than theirs are even in pet shops and its a bit rich to be talking about expensive cross breeds when you have some pure breeds from registered breeders selling at 7 thousand dollars plus each on limited register.

Every Cobberdog bred here and in any other country is subject to registration and there has never been a pet Cobberdog puppy sold except in Norway where desexing is illegal that has gone out entire and only MDBA members can buy a breeding dog - so no one other than MDBA members can breed them. If we are going to discuss what may push people toward puppy farmers and pet shops etc then its difficult to go past the fact that it's virtually impossible to buy a registered purebred puppy of some breeds due to lack of supply but also because some of the breeders are horrible to deal with. Some grown ups want to make their own choices and simply want to buy a dog without having to go through screening and questioning and having someone else decide whether they will make suitable owners. Just because a minority of people think purebreds are preferable it doesn't mean those who don't automatically become idiots and incapable of making an educated choice that they feel suits their family and lifestyle. Its O.K. to take dogs into your home that come through a rescue that are unpredictable but not to bring a puppy in that you like the look of?

Considering this is almost the year 2017 and the ANKC isn't the only Canine registry that has world wide affiliations maybe into the future some breeds who will become recognised will prefer NOT to be under the ANKC umbrella.

And it's very clear OL and AA (and the RSPCA to some extent) have very fixed ideas, will not change their minds, and cannot understand a reasoned, logical point of view. Breeders are all bad no matter what. That's it. That's their position.

Yes, and Vicdogs members need to be very aware that OL ,AA and AL all very active and very well resourced in Victoria use some filthy tricks to make a point and the big point they are focused on making between now and when this is all sorted is that Vicdogs members are pondscum , keep their dogs in rotten conditions to make a better case to ensure no exemptions will be given and that there should be no self management. Keep your campfires low, stay off the track and be protective of your privacy and your dogs.

We need to look closely at what OL and Animals Australia had to say in their submission. This to me clearly demonstrates their ignorance on what people who breed dogs actually do and how they really do raise their puppies.

They have some crazy ideas that if a breeder has 6 dogs regardless of the dog's sizes, regardless of the size of the home, regardless of the breeders resources, regardless of whether the breeder has the ability to be with the dogs all day every day etc regardless of how many litters they may have to whelp at the same time etc etc that all breeders will simply have all of their dogs in their home, living within the family home as if they were children. They constantly describe the terrible sin of allowing dogs to sleep in tin sheds even though some of those tin sheds which we used to call kennels are equipped better and are more comfortable than many people in live in. They seem to either live in fantasy land or they have only been talking to people who breed dogs under a narrow set of variables. Again I say there is a vast difference between 6 toy breed dogs and 6 giant breed dogs.

Can you imagine ducking in for a cuppa with a breeder who has two or three litters in their home which are a breed that has a dozen in a litter and are a few weeks old if they really do have them all running all over their family homes? During the whelping of a large breed it can look like a murder scene, and puppies being weaned and on the move turn into little poo factories. They have worms and other bugs that are not real posh in carpets and family living areas too. There isn't much point in having a bunch of puppies locked in side a house for hours every day whilst the breeder goes to work and only being let out of the crates long enough to clean up either even if the breeder only owns two dogs. In many shires you cant keep more than 2 dogs within 15 metres of a dwelling to stop people having a bunch of puppies under foot in family homes. 60 giant breed puppies and 6 adult giant breed in a family home and none sleeping outside "in tin sheds" ??????

You cant expect them to get the limitations on a breeding gene pools, selecting for traits, health and temperament and how a breeder is much more tempted to use a dog which they would have preferred not to use if they had a greater choice or that some people prefer a purebred puppy over a rescue dog but what their submission told me was they are basing much of what they think happens in every breeders home who owns 6 dogs or less on a very small sample and they are living in la la land as far as reality is concerned. You cant base this on numbers because there are so many variables in the ability for a breeder to get it right.

Two parliamentary enquiries now in two states have found that there is no correlation to welfare and numbers and reality is dogs all over Australia live as outside dogs and sleep under the house, or anywhere in the yard they can find shelter, riddled with fleas and fed poor diets with no vet treatments and poo never picked up,water bowls never cleaned and just as all owners are not equal, all families are not equal and all breeders are not equal. There are some families I met along the way where I reckon if how they treat their children counted I certainly wouldn't want to see a dog living as part of the family in the family home let alone raise a litter of puppies as part of their family.

Committee recommends withdrawal of Domestic Animals Bill

The Victorian Parliament’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee has recommended the withdrawal of proposed legislation to further regulate the breeding and sale of dogs and cats in Victoria.

To take its place, the Committee has recommended that the Victorian Government immediately establish a stakeholder group of industry, municipal and community representatives to consult on the drafting of a new Bill.

The Committee’s report tabled in Parliament today makes 18 recommendations on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016.

The Committee found that consultation with relevant stakeholders was inadequate and the Bill reflects this.

“While there was agreement amongst all stakeholders that unethical breeders should be shut down, the significant lack of consultation undermined the development of the Bill,” Committee Chair Joshua Morris said.

“If implemented, the Bill will lead to a reduction in the supply of pet dogs in Victoria, particularly popular cross-breed dogs,” Mr Morris said.

“It may also lead to a significant reduction in the supply of livestock working dogs, with consequences for farmers and the agriculture industry.”

Another key recommendation is that the government establish a more robust standards based approach to the health and welfare of dogs in commercial breeding establishments.

The Committee’s report follows a series of public hearings with key stakeholders.

“The message is clear that a new Bill is needed and that it must address the inadequacies of the existing Bill,” Mr Morris said.

“There are significant concerns that provisions in the existing Bill will lead to the decline of the industry in Victoria and will have unintended consequences that will be detrimental to animal welfare.

“A proper consultation process for a new Bill can help to address the concerns that were raised with the Committee during its inquiry.”

The report is available from the Committee’s website.

Media queries

For media queries: Committee Secretary, Lilian Topic, on 0417322053

Issued: 6 December 2016

This was two years ago I remember it well it was appalling.

She got more than she bargained for though and was slammed on social media and went to ground for a while.

What a cretin she is

I only noticed the November 17th and thought it was recent. Sorry old news.