Steve

Thank you Fixed the link.

Hi Everyone, We did it ! For the third year in succession, and announced at a gala dinner in Brisbane, we won the coveted MDBA's ( Master Dog Breeders & Associates ) Dog Owners Choice Award for AUSTRALIA'S MOST CANINE FRIENDLY HOLIDAY DESTINATION. We are honoured, and most pleased that our unique facilities are continued to be recognised as Australia's very best. We wish to celebrate our success with you all and as an EXCLUSIVE offer only available to you on our mailing listing we are giving the following special for all bookings made on-line by you no later than Monday, 30th April. 1. A huge 15% discount.2. A free late check-out time of 12 noon. 3. Sparkling wine and chocolate on arrival.( cabins only ) To get this special your booking must be on-line, by 30th April, and where it says "Enter Discount Code" enter " MDBA15 " ( sorry, does not apply to pre-existing bookings.) So plan your holidays now and take advantage of this very special offer. With sincere best wishes from Ralph & Coralie. BEST FRIEND HOLIDAY RETREAT Multi Award-winning accommodation

Looks to me that anyone who is not in it for financial gain is pretty much out of the mix anyway.

The 6th Annual Dog Owners Choice Awards Nominations are now open www.mdbaawards.net.au and we are looking for some people to put their hand up to help us with the judging if anyone is interested in giving it a go. We need at least a dozen people - no qualifications required except that you own a dog. You don't need to be an MDBA member. You will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement and in January/ February next year we will send you through via email the nominations for you to judge the one you feel is most worthy to win in each category. This will be a copy of their nominations and their own bio's telling you about each one. We try to give each judge at least 6 categories to judge and we mix and match them so there is a different combination of judges in each category and you can request what categories you would like to judge too. We don't tell anyone who the judges are until its all decided and the winners picked and then we publish your names in the program etc but we don't say which categories you have judged and if you want us to withhold your name we can do that too. If you are nominated or have nominated someone in any category we will remove your name from being able to judge that one but you are not excluded from the others. Its not as easy as it sounds as last year we had over 480 nominations and there is a fair amount of pressure on to have it done in a time frame to enable us to get trophies and plaques done up and printing ready etc for the big night. The winners will be announced at the awards event on the 24th of March 2013 in Canberra which judges are welcome to attend for significant discounts. For now all we need is expressions of interest to Email me and we will take it from there.

Two different things going on here. One is what is happening in Victoria which is the meeting that alpha Bet attended re laws which came in late last year and revision of mandatory code discussions which are happening right now and the other is the RSPCA paper which explains what they will be pushing Australia wide over the next few years to have introduced- that is what they believe will be the best strategy for legislation to end puppy farming. The link in this thread is what the RSPCA have decided is simply the best strategy and is what they will be advocating for legislation . In this case [Victoria] the changes you see to microchip laws and the advertising laws are a direct result of them pushing these things but that doesn't mean everything they want they will get in every state. It certainly doesn't mean they will get what they want across the board.

[email protected]

Bumping this - we still have lots of books of tickets we could use some help with.

Ditto - I am not afraid of any inspection or legislation I know I am doing the right thing by my dogs. Though the detail of no:6 is concerning. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to hide!!!!!!! I do think they are making pure-bred dog breeding unfairly complicated but I doubt I need to change anything I am doing to comply. I have the appropriate kennels its just that my Labs spend much of their life on our lounge and the current litter, as all litter we whelp, are whelped in the lounge because that is where the niose,activitye and general temperament stimualtion occurs and I spend many broken sleep nights ensuring the dam and pups are safe, warm and comfortable - no legislation will change my whelping practices. Nor will it change mine - or anyone else's thats really the whole point and there are several things in mandatory codes - especially if I lived in Victoria that I wouldn't do either. That's because we believe that we have the right to decide what is best for our dogs based on our dogs, our breeds, our lifestyles and our properties. I just want to be able to sit on my front porch with my dogs at my feet and enjoy their company and decide now and then to have a litter. I want to be able to make my own choices based on what I think is best as to whether they need to see the vet or need to be vaccinated ,or medicated etc and allow them to behave like dogs. I want the right to make my choices based on what suits me and my dogs and not based on some across the board crap which isn't even based on science. Even though none of this would affect me personally - except I don't like people just turning up to look me over or asking permission to be able to keep my dogs entire etc it would take me a minute to get my head around that - however I still don't believe that people should have to for go their basic rights ,give the government the right to make decisions on my dogs and be assumed a potential animal abuser just because they want to own an entire dog or sell a puppy.

The Gold coast is being used as a pilot and there you have to have your premises inspected in order to be able to own an entire dog . When that came in we had one person who owns a large breed dog. She doesnt want to breed her dog yet [for at least 18 months] and when she does will be in a different premises. She was told she could not breed dogs on her current property - that meant she had to have her dog desexed. She moved to another shire. If you hunt back through this forum there is someone telling us animal rights in Victoria intended to wait until breeder permits went in and then raid them because in the wait time for approval they are illegal. We also had one last week[ not one of our members] who has 7 small dogs and council have rejected their application so they now have 10 days to get the dogs which are not desexed off their property. As you look at this you are assessing as a person who owns acres and who has the ability to address such things if they are put on you but there are many small breeders who would not have those luxuries. You also have to remember they want to inspect you every year for you to be able to renew your licence so at some point its inspecting you after the approval.

A license or a licence they call a registration is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to have something, or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the license. It makes dog breeding and selling your puppies illegal. It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency which can at anytime, inspect, confiscate,suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. [breeder number] Licensure is a taking by government without compensation. If you live in a city, town, municipality, or state that requires dog breeder licensing, then the act of dog breeding or selling a puppy has been made illegal without permission of government. They can at any time change the rules and leave you unable to comply. When we agree to license ourselves to breed dogs we agree to give over our ownership and breeder right to the licensing agency,which can at any time revoke our use rights. We grant them absolute controlover our animals. They can come onto our real property, and remove ourtransitory property (dogs) without due process of law for even minor breaches. The fact that we see these animals as we do our family,that we love them and want to protect them and we have a fear that the system is easily infiltrated by animal rights and potential corruption isinconsequential. So we get to a point whereyou have to be treated as a potential criminal and animal abuser because you happen to want to breed a litter of puppies - or own an entire dog even if you never want to breed it - property rights and privacy and freedom to make choices according to your own variables is out the window and we will just be led off like lambs to the slaughter as no other breeder of any other species would ever stand for. I can just see horse, sheep,cattle, pig,chicken breeders standing still for those who have no real idea of breeding their species to over regulate them and dictate when they can breed,what they can breed them to and how often etc. We should be able to stand proud of what we do and not have to constantly defend ourselves and our property because now and then someone somewhere mucks it up. There seems to be a total lack of care or understanding that for some of us our dogs are our family and the fear that may have them simply taken from us and our freedom to just live with them and enjoy their company,make daily decisions on what is best for them and do what some one has determined commercial breeders have to do is the same as having to live with a fear that someone could come in and take our kids off us and we never see them again. But wait - as long as we are doing the right thing we shouldn't be concerned about losing our basic freedom, property,privacy and free trade rights because as someone who owns an entire dog you are potentially pond scum even if you have no intention to breed but simply don't want to desex your dogs. Anything that stops puppy farming is good - right?

Yes - for me too and obviously for Oscars Law and many other people - but its doesn't matter what WE think the definition should be because the only thing that counts is what its defined as and accepted as when they come to legislate against it . We really do need to understand this as when we have different starting places and you think we are protesting one thing when they think we are protesting another all we do is constantly create an environment which is more beneficial for a large scale commercial operator to work under than it is for small breeders. This isn't me supporting commercial breeders its me again trying to explain that the definition was set for the purposes of legislation and "the way forward" If ever we can just agree that even though we think the definition should be what we think it is and accept whet its being defined as at legislative level we may just be able to work together and be clear about what it is we are protesting and actually do something about what is clearly now showing as unintended consequences.

It wont - there is no intention of stopping commercial breeding - never has been. I keep saying that over and over and Im accused of supporting puppy farmers but we were at that meeting and there is absolutely no way that there will be an intention to stop commercial breeding. Its about knowing who is breeding and being able to get them on administrative issues as well as ensuring they comply with their over regulated and stupid mandatory codes. Everything they do makes it more likely that people will have factory type conditions with lots of outlay and a need to breed large numbers to get their money back. Everything they do advantages those who do breed commercially over those who breed dogs as a hobby. Again - its ground hog day - unless we get it and see that what we think is a puppy farmer isnt what they think it is and it isnt what they will be legislating against [or for] no one really has a clue about what they are advocating or who is on the right side and how it will really impact on hobby breeders, supply and demand and the future of our breeds. A puppy farmer is someone who breeds dogs in substandard conditions and doesn't comply with administrative requirements which are set in mandatory codes .Its not someone who breeds 10000 puppies a year unless they do that without regard for the mandatory codes,laws and regs.

If you go to the first link under the text it tells you the finer details.- what is on that page is only a summary.

http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-laws-are-necessary-to-stop-puppy-farming_508.html

Who would you like to see and Ill bring them here for you Julie

Pacers My link has a fantastic Raffle running with the major first prize donated by Best Friend Holiday Retreat in Tarra Valley in Victoria Best Friend This is for a first prize of 5 nights holiday for 2 people and their dogs in a themed delux cabin valued at $1095. There are also 7 other minor prizes including an original oil painting 1360mm x 750mm of horses running on a beach valued at $250. Tickets are $2 each and are available by contacting us via email Email me - we would also appreciate it if people could take books of 10 tickets to sell for us to friends and family etc. We really do need some help in this guys and they are great prizes! Julie

At last - the photos are up on our website and if anyone wants bigger photos sent to them there is a contact email on the website and Jay will send them to you - if you want to use them in press releases or your websites etc. http://www.mdbaawards.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=79

http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/fundraising_general_info.pdf

Yep - but even without donations they are still operating un professionally and immorally if they are placing dogs without giving their full history and that in itself has a huge impact on whether people have the desire to take a rescue dog from anyone.

PR is an unincorporated association - which pretty well means they are nothing but a group of people with a common interest. They are not accountable , not a charity, not able to give tax deductible receipts etc . Any one can ask for a donation and anyone can give them a gift - they cant run raffles etc without an approval to fundraise but thats about all they are restricted in. The big difference is that if you fundraise as in run a raffle etc you are restricted in how much you can take from what comes in for admin costs - so for example. Pacers currently has a raffle running - Before we can do that we have to work out how much we hope to get in via ticket sales, and how much its going to cost us to run it .printing of tickets, promotion, purchasing the prizes if we need to and postage etc. Depending on which state you have approval to fundraise in you are restricted in what you are able to use from what you get in to run it too. These guys are not fundraising so donations,sales, etc can be used how ever they like. There is only an audit if you have charity status and or approvals to fundraise. There is much confusion in the rescue and welfare areas about donations etc due to people not checking who they are donating to and what the person receiving the money will do with it . Because they are not incorporated the chances you could prove they are doing anything wrong is remote and even if they were you have to spot the person who did the wrong thing and sue them personally because they are not really an entity.The good news is they would have to sue you as an individual and not have the protection of limited liability or insurance that being incorporated would give them. Concentrating on this aspect is in my opinion a wasted energy - it wont get them gone or make them operate any differently though educating people on who they donate to may slow em down.

Yes and by now they have behaved so un professionally and attacked other people and groups so who would want to work with them. I dont see how they can have it both ways - a rescue with a 16d or not a rescue but an agent. As far as non profit orgs are concerned - Pacers has to have an annual audit and put our books into ATO every year - and its all covered by Asic this is something we cant get out of and we spend more money on that than any other admin expense.We also have to have approvals per state to fundraise - which you cant get without your yearly audits and if they arent done on time they cancel your approvals - that's because we are a registered charity - a company limited by guarantee and have tax deductible gift recipient status but many - most- non profits don't have to be accountable to any where near that degree - depends what type of entity they are.

Ok but what if they are covering vet costs after the dog gets out - for example are they paying for the new owner to desex them? They also cover transportation costs etc too as far as I can see.

Yes but I think they see foster carers as different to the way they are seen traditionally. For most a foster carer is attached to a group and works under their policies ,covered by their insurances etc - but these guys sort of see them as private contractors .So they have them working for them [ voluntarily ] but they dont really work for them they work for them selves. [voluntarily] Its different but legal.

But from what I can gather PR are not a rescue group - I assume any of that article they would believe doesn't apply to them. The aim is 100% get dogs out of pounds. It doesn't really matter to them,if the dog has problems, who gets it,where it goes or how it gets out as long as its not PTS and has a chance. They offer money to help this happen, release costs, transport costs,vet costs etc to cut down on reasons why some people may not be able to do this. Couple this with pounds which are not operating under regs or laws or a code of practice which allows them to do what PR is asking of them and you have a situation where dogs are going everywhere and the pounds and PR feel warm and snuggly that there are less dogs in pounds and more finding homes. What comes next is neither the pound's problem or PR. Whether the person taking the dog is suitable or already has 100 dogs, whether they have fencing or what ever isnt counted. Even better if they can get people to take em in temporarily to beat their PTS date - they dont care about the foster carer or the foster carers dog - the only aim is get the dog out of the pound. Even without PR the same people could be getting the same dogs if they could afford it because its a basic flaw in the system which allows it to happen in NSW. So because they are focused on only that one thing they would think you guys are mongrels because you didn't like them using your photos and descriptions and they wouldn't get what the problem is - after all they are getting dogs out of pounds. So perhaps it would be in the dog's best interests and the ethical rescue group's best interests to work with them - take their money for dogs you feel are able to be re - homed allow them to help with finances for vetting, transport etc and do what needs to be done to find them homes ethically and using foster carers who have the necessary experience and skills. Perhaps we need to really promote ethical rescue groups and give a warning about simply taking a dog from the pound but that means a whole new bunch of fanatics will be staring us out. We will be concentrating on showing the public what our rescue members do and why its good to go to them without knocking groups such as PR or pounds with rotten policies as much as we can because our concern is that we don't want people perceiving a danger across the board in taking on a rescue dog - but seriously someone has to say the way its being done does really put the dogs and people at greater risk than taking a dog through a rescue group who is making sure its all good to go. Hopefully showing what is a great way to take on a rescue dog and educating as much as we can we can limit negative impacts - but overall it makes ethical rescue have to work harder. At the end of the day they couldn't do what they are doing unless the pounds were doing what they are doing and if anyone is going to be held accountable its going to be the pounds who release them to the people they do because all PR does is put them in touch with each other and pay some costs if they need them.To their mind They are not placing the dogs,the pounds are so none of this concerns them. I think. So sooner or later inevitably as more things go wrong there will have to be state laws introduced or at least council policy which will in fact make it harder for the ethical rescues,and suitable dog owners to be able to get dogs out,or to get a 16D etc.