Steve

You obviously don't get at all what I am saying therefore any further discussion is pointless. Well why is it pointless? Im happy to listen and learn and Ive no desire to make any part of this personal why not take the time and tell me what you mean. Perhaps you need to tell me what you think an ethical breeder does which others dont do?

I didnt say you didnt have a right to buy a puppy from someone you think is ethical according to your definition of what is ethical but I dont think you have a right to expect that those ethics are exactly as you believe them to be unless there is some accountability.

define ethical

Yes. I think that it's a very subjective thing, everyone will have different ideas of what THEY believe is ethical and will look for a breeder who matches this. I certainly don't have anything against registered breeders who don't do all the things I would like done, I just wouldn't get a puppy from them. Part of the problem is that CC registered breeders have a code of ethics - yet many of them don't really know what they say and what they have agreed to and those in the public decide what they think is ethical and expect that everyone else will be and think the same way. no one has any right to have an expectation on a registered breeder for anything that's not in their code of ethics. that's all they agreed to and all they are held accountable for . Ask people to define ethical and you dont get the same answer from anyone same with the term reputable. When people make up their own ethics unless there is an accountability process many of them will justify doing something outside of that if they think its better for attaining their goals some of them will have higher and lower standards - no amount of laws will help that. I have every right to buy a puppy from someone that meets my personal expectations of what is ethical. I actually don't care one bit about the ANKC rules or whatever. I make up my own mind about what I think is ok or not. How can you determine if what you see and what you are told is as it is?

Yes. I think that it's a very subjective thing, everyone will have different ideas of what THEY believe is ethical and will look for a breeder who matches this. I certainly don't have anything against registered breeders who don't do all the things I would like done, I just wouldn't get a puppy from them. Part of the problem is that CC registered breeders have a code of ethics - yet many of them don't really know what they say and what they have agreed to and those in the public decide what they think is ethical and expect that everyone else will be and think the same way. no one has any right to have an expectation on a registered breeder for anything that's not in their code of ethics. that's all they agreed to and all they are held accountable for . Ask people to define ethical and you dont get the same answer from anyone same with the term reputable. When people make up their own ethics unless there is an accountability process many of them will justify doing something outside of that if they think its better for attaining their goals some of them will have higher and lower standards - no amount of laws will help that.

Yep but its much more than that .

webbed feet need to have skin right up to the claw.

Not sure what your point is here but I dont consider those things to be what it takes to be a good breeder. Might fit with the ethics - though ethical and reputable get chucked around all over the place - doesn't seem to take us anywhere and dogs suffer because of it not just in spite of it. What this subject needs is an honest open discussion non personal debate with everyone having a desire to learn with all aspects of the dog world being taken into account and all groups held accountable for the part they all play in where this is all going - I don't believe it is possible to do this here.

Would appear that licencing doesn't work .

Just spotted this .Sounds horrible and wish I lived closer so I could make you a cuppa and give you a hug. Hope its all done and dusted quickly Julie

Further Information http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/pets/dog-care/new-regulations-for-dog-breeders For information on: planning permits for use of premises for dog breeding; registration of commercial dog breeding establishments; registration of the individual dogs in commercial breeding establishments; please contact your local council. Part of the problem is that this isn't stuff that's been circulated effectively so when breeders get them coming in demanding DA's they didn't know they needed one and thought the Vicdogs exemption allowed them immunity to it all. However, its a different permit via different departments.

You dont need to pay for the permit but you still have the same regs on you as every other person as far as a DA and complying with the codes.

You have to comply with the code of practice for breeding dogs and you also have to have a DA from your local council to be able to breed from your premises - only exemption is a permit cost if you have less than 10 fertile dogs. But every single breeder in Victoria is really covered by the same rules - they just think they arent because so far it hasnt been policed - but now there is a new policeman too. . The only reason Vicdogs get the exemption is because they have taken on the responsibility of educating their members and policing the laws as well as their own regs they are not off the hook as far as having to do everything thats in that code of practice that everyone has to do who own more than three dogs.

My link My link Then you need to consider that even though Vicdogs members dont need a permit until they have 10 fertile dogs everyone who breeds a dog has to have a development application and council demand these building are in place. Many Vicdogs breeders have been floored to find out they need these DA's because they thought being exempt from the permit meant exempt form needing the buildings and an approved DA to breed dogs form their premises.

This will be where each council plays their own game Id say. Nothing official but it would surprise me if they didnt have some kind of criteria on who they would cut agreements with etc.

Do you have the definition of a shelter?

Im not sure what you are asking for But be careful because its about pounds AND SHELTERS and I have some recollection of the definition of a shelter being a bit of a problem for private rescue.

This only covers foster carers who are within a pound or shelter system -and only animals that come from a pound or shelter so if its a private rescue they may only ever take privately surrendered animals and just because you are a foster carer attached to a pound or shelter doesnt mean you cant take other animals. As long as you are still complying with numbers and planning etc regs. Take note however, of what the new definition is of a shelter. Quote. A new foster care section requires foster carers within the Pound and Shelter system to have and comply with a written foster care agreement. Animals can be fostered for a variety of reasons, such as for veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation, if they are juveniles, or if they require short term care to provide respite from the pound or shelter environment. Animals can be fostered for any time period, as long as it is done in accordance with the written foster care agreement.

Assuming you mean Rat Lung Worm. Unless something has changed since last year there is no medication to prevent it according to drontal My link Panacur is off label in use for dogs in Australia and you can only use it for dogs with a script/ note from your vet .

Good points but 1.As long as everyone knows the requirements,possible advantages and disadvantages before they put their hand up, know whats going to be asked of them first etc and they understand how the prospective new owner will get to meet the dog and that they may have people coming and going to their homes and that sometimes those people wont always be reasonable and how to protect themselves. 2.As long as the foster carer is adequately screened and trained in what is required with policies and procedures in writing 3. As long as the group covers insurance to protect their volunteers As most of you have already learned and after being the intermediary involved in several disputes between foster carers and the new owners and foster carers and the rescue group with usually no winners and people being pretty mad at each other because life after becoming a foster carer isnt always what they had expectations it would be and when you throw in a bit of good old emotion because the foster carer and the owner is attached to the dog make sure you cover it as best you can.

RADAR is pretty close to your neck of the woods and they are MDBA members. They work to this code of conduct and have third party accountability. My link

Considering you have to be a registered breeder before you can breed a registered litter it would seem to me that many people would be a registered breeder before they get their dog or are ready to actually breed.Becoming a registered breeder and owning an entire purebred dog is not a requirement for application to state CC's anyway. There are several people I know in Victoria who are registered breeders with Vic dogs and breed puppies but don't register their puppies as the dogs they are breeding are not registered with Vicdogs . They are breeder members in order to be able to get the exemptions on numbers but breed first cross dogs and unpapered purebreds and working dogs with no papers. However, breeders can be registered with many different organisations and assuming its an ANKC affiliated group they are registered with is not really giving the potential answers.

According to the DPI there has been no final report released and even when the report is released its miles away from anything in the report getting to legislation even if those who have to decide agree with the recommendations. Considering the discussion paper 's suggestions for alternatives incorporates a desire for the current guidelines in the code of practice to be formulated as standards the timing and the issues in the petition is curious . We are no where near having to concede defeat and accept that there will be a licence and that every person who breeds a dog will need to be inspected or that guidelines will become standards. Yet it seems it is accepted that its a done deal and all they are interested in is asking for them to police their own members in inspections etc. No matter who is doing the inspecting the same laws will apply and the same standards are for everyone and the laws they want suck.

Seems I must have missed something after the bit about Dogs NSW [ the lambs] sitting down with a bunch of wolves to decide what might be for dinner. I can see the discussion paper - I know what Dogs NSW submission is but where is the final report to the ministers?