Steve

It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs?

Apparently the landscape is not conducive to shooting , either on foot or aerial ? anyhow , it's on LANDLINE at noon today . I am 90 % certain that my brother & his dogs could manage the task . His dogs are used to finding goats- he is a qualified shooter ..... I have a strange feeling this experiment once aired today , will attract an awful lot more negative attention, and may not be completed ... Im 100% sure shooters with trained dogs to herd them could do a better job than this lunatic scheme. Seriously Ive seen wild dogs at work literally playing tug of war with baby lambs. There has to be a better way of culling them - the thought of this gives me nightmares.

So just let me get this right a minute maybe Ive missed a bit . Rather than go in and simply humanely kill the goats we are going to put dogs in to rip them apart and then make sure the dogs die with a poison in a couple of years after they have killed off all of the goats ? But we charge people with cruelty who use dogs to hunt with when the animal is killed soon after the dog brings the animal down? Do you know what the dogs will do to these goats - they will rip them to pieces while they are still alive. the goats will die slowly in agonising deaths Why don't we just go in and shoot them if its such a problem ?

Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? Apparently many aren't since the discovery of mass graves etc. A bullet is only humane if it's well aimed, and a bludgeoning certainly isn't humane. Mass graves dont prove anything except that they chose one spot to bury them. Actually there was a forensic report done on how the animals were euth'd. Dogs lined up in groups of 2,3 or 4. Killed by gunshots or blunt force trauma. Oh come on just because they want to say they have evidence that some were killed inhumanely that's no reason to take away someone else's right to humanely kill them or have someone of their choice do it if they want. I was at the vet about a year ago and a grey trainer came in with 8 dogs in his dog trailer to be PTS BY THE VET and when it was done they took the bods home to bury them because its cheaper than having the vet dispose of the bodies. I was at a breeders house once who killed her's by locking them in a crate and not feeding them or giving them any water - does that mean we should all have our rights taken off us?

Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? Apparently many aren't since the discovery of mass graves etc. A bullet is only humane if it's well aimed, and a bludgeoning certainly isn't humane. Mass graves dont prove anything except that they chose one spot to bury them.

Some niggles. First I have to have ID to use the online system but I dont need ID to have a dog chipped. I need a breeder ID number or I can use my approved org number. I entered my MDBA breeder number so how do they know that really is my breeder ID number or even if I am an MDBA breeder member? Then if I don't claim my pet with the phone number which is taken at the time the chip is put in their system it doesn't link it to me. They cant chip a dog in someone's name that isn't there on the day to sign for it so if I send my kids or friends or staff along to have them chipped each time that other person gets their own ID number as if they are the breeder .They cant let anyone turn up and use my breeder ID number unless Im there to sign for it either. I could use a couple of different vets and say Im a couple of different people and no one would know how many I own or breed. Ill wait until the big launch and vets are given new forms and instructions etc but it looks to me that all we are seeing is a system that will make it easier for pet owners to change their details when they move and even if the breeders chip their puppies [around here most don't] there are some gaping holes and its certainly not going to achieve the stated goals of knowing where the breeders are and how many they breed and tracking where dogs come from unless of course they are mugs like me and play by the rules.

Yes ,however, in this country it is not an offence to have your own dogs PTS and it wouldn't matter to me whether it was the RSPCA or any other rescue group. Until such time that it IS illegal to have your own dogs put down humanely then why do we need the RSPCA to be getting loads of money and the replacement for choices that any dog owner has the right to make ?

Well problem is that a bullet is quicker and cleaner and more humane. Then when they spot the bods its cruelty.

Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing?

I had no idea there was a social track I didn't get that I saw a social club

My link

Same problem they keep telling me that my dogs dont exist. Ive got a litter of puppies papers here that went home last week and I was hoping I could just notify change of ownership Ive received notice from council that they are in the system but the Pet registry says no such animal. I just signed up and worked out that YES. Phone format DOES MATTER. One of my dogs, the phone number is xxxxxxxxxx The other two after being "not found" have been input as xxxx xxx xxx Still can't find my cat though after trying all number combinations possible. She was registered in 2003 though. Edit: if you still have your pet's council registry certificate like I do, it's easy to check what format your phone number is in from that. Ive got the forms in my hand so being careful how they are being put in - still nothing

Well I know what I would do and the first part of that is run, don't walk, run away.

Same problem they keep telling me that my dogs dont exist. Ive got a litter of puppies papers here that went home last week and I was hoping I could just notify change of ownership Ive received notice from council that they are in the system but the Pet registry says no such animal.

It has never worked anywhere else it has been made mandatory - The ACT numbers didn't change at all. And why should everyone have the right to do what they want with their property removed because some others don't do the right thing? Its just another scoff law those most likely to be the offenders are the ones less likely to register their dogs anyway.

I'm not even in a border town and I don't travel with Malcolm, but seeing posts about dogs who went missing or were stolen and wound up in other states, and even hearing from my own vet about people bringing home lost dogs found on holidays, I didn't want to risk it. I did some research on DOL and Central Animal Records came up as a good option. I also liked that I could change my details online. I'd still keep them on the NSW database even if it's not a legal requirement (I feel like it might be?) as I can imagine some NSW people not bothering to check other registries if they couldn't read the chip. Edited to add that I've seen recommendations not to add dogs to all/too many registries as you may forget to update them all. If you live in NSW it is illegal for them not to be on the NSW companion animals data base whether they are on another one or not

Yes I went in had a look and sent out word last week to our members to let them know. I registered but seems there is some issues with registering so cant get in. I'd try again now. You should be ok getting in. Yes now Im registered but every microchip I put in wasn't on their data base - maybe they havent gotten to that bit yet

logic????? there is none in the current trend of various governments haste to respond to whatever they need to do to be seen to be doing something without affecting their voter base too badly... or perhaps i am becoming totally cynical. H Yep and its all about who yells the loudest and who piddles in who's pocket SA introduced mandatory desexing of baby puppies which I consider much more cruel than many other things but thats O.K. Norway says it cruel and its against the law SA says who cares it how we will stop dumped dogs.

If I had to guess, it could be that he has done a deal with the shooters party for something or he might have drank the AR cool aid and believe they would be better off dead than alive and being "exploited" by humans. However I am very cynical about things these days. --Lhok If this does go ahead wait until the rescue groups start screaming because the RSPCA have been given the job of rehoming and too many are PTS that could be helped in finding a home if other rescue was able to be involved.

Also they cant just pack up and move them and their dogs to another state where they can continue because even though they own the dogs the GRNSW own the paperwork and they simply won't transfer them if they don't want to so the dogs can never participate in racing anywhere - not done via laws but policy and rules within the organisation they are a member of.

They wont resign now because they don't know what's coming - they expect that if the industry does survive and they can participate that they will need to still be members. If ever they want to race their dogs they just have to do as they are told. Just as ANKC members would need to do as they are told if they want to participate in ANKC shows. There isn't anything saying right now that if they are not members they will loose their dogs. Many would not want to keep them but if they did want to keep them rather than have the RSPCA find them new homes or PTS it would be hard to imagine that anything legally could compel them to simply hand them over. their properties are licenced for them and as long as they tick all the boxes I cant see how the state could demand they go to god or the RSPCA. Owning a grey isn't illegal. Breeding a grey isnt illegal, selling a grey to someone in another state isnt illegal either but just as the ANKC controls the registrations so do they so their dogs are no longer worth anything if they are not a member to sell.

What is happening now with the greys is because by joining the GRNSW they agreed to hand over their property rights just as when someone is a member of the ANKC .They get to tell you what you can and cant do with your dog -some more extreme than others -which you have the ability to do if you are not a member. If I own a dog and I'm not a member of DogsNSW I can let it have sex to every girl it meets, I can sell my puppies to anyone and anywhere, I can participate in any event etc. I dont have to register my puppies with them nor do I have to give out certified pedigrees. When we join we also agree that we understand that they get to change these things at any time. The GRNSW has a situation where if anyone want to race greys in their events they have to be a member of their organisation - they have a monopoly on those who want to participate because they are the only ones who can run these events. THE ANKC has a situation where if anyone wants to show dogs or breed dogs recognised by the FCI they have to be a member of their organisation - they have a monopoly on those who want to participate because they are the only ones who can run these events. If someone wants to retire or has had enough and resign their membership they get their basic property rights back but they dont have any ability to participate as they did have whilst a member. As a member of GRNSW now you cant simply decide what to do with your dog - you have to have their approval to give it away, sell it, transport it or PTS but so far state law allows you to do all of these things Eg. Its perfectly legal for someone who owns 100 dogs to get the vet in or someone skilled at killing animals by shooting them and humanely killing them without needing permission but as a member its a no go.

Yes I went in had a look and sent out word last week to our members to let them know. I registered but seems there is some issues with registering so cant get in.

Yeah. That just blows me away. Steve, Fair points , all of them. ( yep, The DOGS are a breeders 1st responsibility, but also the purpose) In this case, it is about cruelty that breeders must recognize and address. Overall tho', I believe its about the costs to the community vs what value they get from it. So I think we need to do what we can to make sure the community is getting the best value from their dogs, and have more say in what those values are. Looks like many prefer to be seen as victims than accept their 1st responsibility is to the dogs, and not the Orgs. and standards they originaly signed up to. I think the community has a pretty fair say in what values they want. The consumer system enables them to have choices and purchase them [so far ]from a source of their choice. There is a component of a collective feeling with in the breeding community - both within and outside of the ANKC or purebred dog world of feeling as if we are the victims of an ever increasing onslaught from animal rights. Dog breeding is certainly not the only "industry" or hobby under attack but there are various pushes to remove people's property rights and freedom to trade equally for reasons given which are not justified and are based on anything other than science and facts, beaten up by sensationalism and propaganda so when the focus starts to switch to accusations of yet more cruelty issues its understandable if they are saying poor me. However, whilst some things which we have come under attack for , so far, are making us feel battered they are pretty trivial in comparison to this one and they pale into insignificance. I am 100% sure that there is a valid case to make that some dogs suffer due to their conformation. There may be some debate over what causes that and one group may be pushed as the cause more than another but that doesn't change the base issue It is cruel to breed dogs which have less quality of life and greater welfare issues due to the way they are selected. Pedigreed dogs exposed movement and so far all welfare articles target the registered purebred dog community as the absolute cause - that is the show ring / the standards [which they own] and anyone else who is breeding them is seen as a by product caused by and less guilty and less likely to perpetuate the problem. Doesn't really matter if we agree with them or not THIS is the one that the war will be fought on. For now its sort of like someone being told they should stop hitting someone and rather than see that as a problem they think they will do other stuff right such as making their bed all is O.K. and no one will care or notice they are still hitting someone. THEY dont see that hitting someone is a problem and a large chunk - certainly from an administrative perspective don't get that making people adhere to all sorts of crazy new restrictions and rules and regs to get prefixes and breed more than average numbers with finger pointing and extra inspections etc to see how your poo pick up is operating - that this is not going to help because its not the issue that will actually have the ability to shut them down. Will it be the breeding of certain characteristics or will it be the show ring - or both ? even if it never gets to a legislative issue like we see in the greys we should be learning that all is not well and start to work on being seen to be taking it seriously as a cruelty issue.

Sociology and philosophy to some one who can't understand it when its explained in terms of physics and biology. So much for using more familiar language :laugh: I Don't give any single problem to any single group. I have said the environments as a whole are inseparable. What affects one affects all. But fleeing the group denying it, unless it happens overnight, is too slow, and risks bringing that culture with it unless the cause is openly addressed. It is inherent in the pedigree system. Any other philosophy needs to be spelt out. Clearly and directly. That requirements for issue of pedigree registration papers apply only to issue of those papers, and any endorsement from that body. That a breeders 1st responsibility is to a purpose for the community. Not to a philosophy. The world has changed and every thing can be legislated out of existence if the activity includes acts which can be considered cruel. I have a BA in social welfare - major in psychology and sociology and I have always been happy to avoid physics altogether. Being bogged into this type of discussion for me is way off the track we may as well have an academic discussion on the industrial revolution. Any action plan or strategy has to be about identifying the problems we must solve and looking for solutions - some will be worth looking at others wont but this constant bogging into this keeps us stuck in no action plan that is realistic when the constraints of the purebred pedigree dog world environment have to be taken into account . The ANKC have never said a pedigree was an endorsement of anything other than a certified record of a dog's ancestors. Breeders have never said this - they have said that being a breeder member of the ANKC is an endorsement - not because of the pedigree but because of the third party accountability and codes of ethics. A breeder's first responsibility is to their dogs and to ensure that what they bring into the world does not suffer or have less quality of life because of their decisions. I know that its not to a philosophy. Everything has always been able to be legislated out of existence if it is considered cruel - this is nothing new. However, what is perceived as cruel is being put in the spotlight so more people see it for what it is. Its clear that what I see as the major risk and what is cruel is not recognised by many within the purebred dog world environment