Steve

Yep I agree and not all people who are convicted are also not able to own an animals anyway.Its a requirement put on them via the court if the court deems it par of their punishment and lots of them are either not restricted or restricted for only a short period of time.

The fact that you know its here, that its a simple recessive and that there IS a DNA test for it is a good thing. If you didnt know it was here you may overlook it altogether assume its not and dont test for it. It means every single dog used for breeding can have its status known for this particular issue.Breeders can make well informed decisions based on what the goal is for their litter and pet owners can opt to have a test to determine if their dogs are affected or treat them as if they are "in case" Hopefully in a few generations by using carriers now and creating more clear options the whole thing can be eliminated. At the end of the day breeders have the say on what dogs go out with main or limited papers as well. This particular issue in the big scheme of things is no big deal and its very possible for someone who wants to target this and nothing else could eliminate it from their own dogs in pretty short time. Completely different set of circumstances to some dseases and some breeds especially considering the current gene pool is so limited. No breeder should consider mating two dogs without an understanding of what they are aming for and what they may need to compromise on to get that. Some breeders will consider it impossible for them to breed a carrier because above all else the elimination of that gene from their dogs is their goal - a carrier will be overlooked no matter how great he is in other areas. Another breeder will consider its more important to develop more genetic diversity without concern for anyting else and breed any different combination of pedigrees they can and over look how great the dog is in other areas. This one appears to be how the purebred dog world is going with the introduction of a ban on close relative matings and calls for opening the stud books. Others will want dogs which represent the breed standard and over look the need for diversity or removal of the gene from their dogs. Others decide that Hip scores/elbow patella are more important than anything else. Which one is right? They all think they are doing whats best for the dogs and the breed.In this case they have the luxury of being able to make the decisions with relatively minor negative consequences as long as they know the breed is suseptible to this condition and the owners are aware of it. In the big picture the more diversity of goals you get over time the better it is for the breed because it gives each breeder with each different goal the ability to change goals or move onto the next challenge and have a wider and greater choice in which dogs to use to get there as more genetic and health issues come up in the future. Traditionally a group of people with good intensions for the breed decide on what is best and they give those who want to have different goals a bit of a hard time.At the end of the day as long as the breeder is making choices based on what they think is best for the breed and they are not just breeding what is convenient or without understanding the goal and the possible consequences its all good for the breed - better for the breed.Its more complicated now than it ever has been before because the science gives us more tools and more potential things we could or shouldnt work toward.If everyone just decided to not breed carriers we would end up with dogs clear of this issue but butt ugly and no longer as predictible in other areas - which basically is what determines a purebred - the breed - in the first place. If every breeder in the country compromises on the same things to get the same goal the danger later down the track is dogs with the same problems and no where to go. As long as its only this one and nothing mutates or there is nothing else in there which isnt showing yet it seems to be an easy choice but in breeding dogs nothing is ever as easy as it seems.

Coolies or Koolies ? Using dogs from pounds isnt that uncommon in breeds where they still have open stud books - theoretically you would be able to do that with any breed in the UK too where dogs only have to pass a photo ID to be allowed into the registry Well the "Coolie" folk weren't doing it but the "Koolie" folk certainly were. Not just a dog of unknown origin but a "rescue" to boot. I would have said the bitch was more likely a Kelpie than a Koolie but each to their own , if they are desperate enough to decieve themselves and others. Hard to follow isnt it?

Coolies or Koolies ? Using dogs from pounds isnt that uncommon in breeds where they still have open stud books - theoretically you would be able to do that with any breed in the UK too where dogs only have to pass a photo ID to be allowed into the registry

yep

Supply and demand

Animal liberation have never been backward in telling us what their goals are and there is no surprise that they are anti breeder - people who join them know up front what their agenda is and they are known politically for their actons, goals and tactics. Even though I dont agree with their philosophies or tactics I can easily see what they are and not be led in under a false pretence.Its clear not all supposed anti puppy farm groups have the same ethics and many people who join them and follow are deceived.Part of that is not their fault but lies with a continued issue in everyone being on the same page as far as a definition of a puppy farmer is concerned. If ever I had any doubt that lies and bullying were used to go after someone all doubt is now removed and I would never ever take a scrap of notce of anything that is said via that source. It Seems to me that its good for business anyway - we can always use the publicity and our membership grows every single day - it certainly hasnt done Banksia Park any harm either - even the PM took no notice. Thank you for seeing the accusation as absurd - of course it is - but they are not the first to accuse us of a multitude of things nor will they be the last. The MDBA has been around now for about 7 years and our policies and goals have not changed.Since day one everything we have done is because we believe it is what is best for the dogs - all dogs and the people who love them - we never expected everyone would agree with us.It didnt matter then and it doesnt matter now. We're not here to win popularity with anyone or to tow the traditional line and certainly not to get animal rights tick of approval on anything we do because we believe its only about what is best for the dogs and the people who love them. Its not about money including donations gathered for some great cause or politics or glory with the media. Based on that we are accustomed to being beaten up and have no need to care if someone needs to tell lies and try to bully us.

You know its really hard to be two or three people on this forum and get away with it for long. Lots of small things... give you away to start with but then .... other things start to ad up too.... What ever is going on here I hope it works out the best solution for the dog - if there is a dog - but Im done playing in this game.

Sorry But under Australian rules and Breed standards we do not accept NOR recognise Natural Bob Tails in Australia. It is a con. This is spina Bifida and is unacceptable in Rottweilers. I hope that Janice Niaess a self proclaimed "breeder" (of ill repute) will now be forced to cease having anything to do with Rottweilers in Australia. I hope the clubs and National Rottweiler Council serve her with fines and suspensions that will halt the lies and preying on unsuspecting and innocent future rottweiler owners. Having been fined and served the fines by the RSPCA should ensure she is given a life time suspension from Dogs QLD too. Please someone in Qld request this. Finally some justice. Wrong

Id rather refund than have your mother take the pup - no amount of contracts would get me there. If she is a pain now she is going to be a major pain later and experience tells me to get the hell away as quick as the breeder can.

Yep. Not a chance. + 2, but I would probably just give back all the money paid just to be rid of her. yep me too.

Yep. Not a chance.

I wouldnt consider taking a deposit before I was sure I had live wriggly warm healthy babies but some breeders take deposits before the pups are born simply because they then know who is still going to be there when they call them to say the pups are here. In some breeds and some breeders you can have up to a hundred on a wait list and calling them back to be told they have already purchased a dog or they have changed their mind etc is not only time consuming but also costly. in some breeds they are hard to find homes for too so perhaps the breeder needs confirmation they have homes before they get too far into it. From a buyers perspective at least they know they have a fair chance rather than first come first served after the pups are born. People often offer me deposits before the litter is born and there's not a chance Id take it because having a litter isnt like working to a recipe where you can just punch in how many boys or girls or what colours you get etc. or even that they will live. I get why it would suit some.

What companion animal act? They are different in every state and just because your Mum is living in Queensland means nothing to the state she bought it from.

Some years ago I purchased a pup and the breder refused to take a deposit - I spoke with her several times between when we agreed I would have the pup and home time. When I rang to organise when to pick it up it was sold to someone else .My kids and I were shattered and when I asked why she did that to me she simply said well you didnt have a deposit on it. Id rather place a deposit and know its mine.

If she admits she was told at the time that the initial deposit wasnt refundable, put it on and then expects it back thats a bit rough.

Your mother isnt showing any symptom to me of buying on impulse. She had to make a decision, go out of her way at least a little to pay the original deposit ,have time to think about it and then make more payments. I wouldnt classify that as an impulse buy. Most breeders would refund the money but not all breeders are loaded and when you think a puppy is sold you tell people who may also want the pup that it is sold . This means the breeder may have to re advertise and may have to keep the pup longer than expected which can also lead to more expenses than they would normally anticipate. So the breeder may refund or refund after the pup is resold and expenses they have incurred because the person has changed their mind have been deducted. Some who can simply put their hands on the money make em wait anyway. But by now most breeders would not want her to have the pup and wouldnt push for her to continue her contract as they dont want dogs going home where they are not wanted. Reality is she put a deposit on to prevent the breeder selling it to someone else and the breeder kept it for her in good faith. People should know what the go is before they put their money on if they pull out and breeders should have this in writing to prevent the confusion if they take a deposit. Im my breed [ Maremmas ] depending on the timing this can really cause me much of a pain. When I know where they are going and what they will be used for I treat them differently - socialise them differently to enable them to either be better suited to walk into a working environment or a pet home. They also do much better if the bonding training starts early as possible so its better for them to go home at 8 weeks . They grow like weeds and cost money and create lots of work which I wouldnt have needed if the person who said they were taking them hadnt changed their mind and it takes loads of time and work to educate potential new owners and ensure you are eliminating as many risks as possible to be sure the dog and the owners will be happy . If I have to go back and re advertise that I still have a pup available when Ive told a couple of dozen potential new owners I dont its not much fun.I also give out stacks of in fo and a new puppy pack way before the pup comes home to ensure the owner knows what to do and what they are getting. In this case the breeder has at a minimum had several contacts with your Mum and done some running around to work out transport which will work etc .They may have relied on the money she has already paid to cover rego fees, vetting etc too. Your Mum is way out of line - done the wrong thing and she should get a grip and understand this from the other side and expect to wait until the pup is sold to someone else and have a reduction due to expenses the breeder has had to incur because of your Mum's crap. More likely the breeder will simply pay up ,take the loss and be thankful she didnt take a pup. Best idea is for her to speak with the breeder and ask her where she stands before she starts to consider threats or legals.

I know this sounds terrible but if it does lead to more dogs being killed in pounds - and I dont think it will - for me - that isnt the biggest issue. I get that there are people and groups who have targeted this as their focus over other things and though I think that on the whole the assumed reasons which they have decided causes this are too narrow my focus is on ensuring that living dogs dont suffer.Not just at the hands of people who treat them poorly but also at the hands of people who breed them without concern for how their choices will impact on the quality of life for the dog for its whole life. What we have here is a situation where once people could simply decide to have a litter of pups with their own dog in their own yard, ,house them and treat them with kindness as part of the family which suited them and the dogs is now removed. We have moved to a situation where less people breed more dogs.Where the choices owners who wanted to do what is best for their breeding dogs have had those choices removed from them. The mandatory codes are set so if you own a breeding dog you can no longer decide what is best based on education and experience but rather based on crazy ideas of just in case. And worse the just in case is also based on ignorance. We bring a world reknowned canine immunologist to Australia to give us lectures, produce DVD's of this and encourage breeders to educate themselves to enable them to make the best decisions in their breeding programs and for the longevity and health of their dogs. Forget all that - you can know the facts and the science and what really is best for your dogs but at law you have no choices but to comply. We have laws for breeding dogs and their management which mean they are more not less likely to suffer. So while you see more dogs will be euthanised - time will tell - clearly they pushed for this to try to stop that but for me more dogs will suffer while they are alive. No management plan will ever work while ever the demand is not acknowledged because while ever that is there someone will supply that. When you push small hobby breeders,treat them as pond scum and take away their choices in how they can live with and manage their breeding dogs they will walk away and for every litter they dont breed thats one more large scale breeders will breed . For every puppy you make too hard to sell from someone's back yard thats one more which will be sold in a pet shop. For every registered purebred breeder who walks away thats one more breeding dogs with no known heritage which creates greater risk of poor quality of life for the puppies and the parents living in cells with a pat on the head every day seen as cash cows. Personally I think your euthanasia rate will not be impacted by any of this because you still have the same number of irresponsible owners or the number of unpredictible dogs which cant be chosen to suit someone's lifestyle as always because nothing what ever has been done to address this. By the way I know animal rights like to rub their hands together and say this is because smaller breeders feel threatened- after all whats the problem if they are doing the right thing ? Fact is the right thing has become the wrong thing for the dogs and small breeders dont want to have to manage their dogs the way someone with a couple of hundred do. For example They dont care if they have to stick a vaccination in them every year but breeders who care about their dogs do.

Yep my guess is the chip wins

It is up to the public but the reality is the majority of people who buy puppies from pet shops think that is preferrable to buying them from a breeder because the animal rights campaign has concentrated on breeding. In a pet shop they can at least see them and decide whether they want to beleive their eyes , buy them if they want to without someone interogating them or having to go to extremes to see the parents etc and do what they are told they need to do to find a good breeder. The vast majority of people either dont believe the beat up on where do puppies come from or they simply dont care - they just want a puppy. They can be just as well educated into believing that their pet shop doesnt buy from puppy farmers and that they are not buying a pup which came from one of these places as they are in the beleif that some pet shops do. Our whole strategy is led by radicals who have a narrow view and think they know all of the reasons and answers without looking further at all that is in the mix and its time we came back to earth and saw what the big picture is. While ever the push to stop puppies being sold in pet shops is about where they come from its doomed to either failure or years before we see much progress. The more we state that puppies in pet shops come from people who keep their dogs in substandard conditions the more they can show they dont. Animal rights are saying this is a win but its legitimised commercial breeders more than ever , allows those who buy from pet shops to feel safer about the pet shop buying from legal breeders, it makes more people want to spend the money and breed more numbers and that was what their definition of a puppy farmer was! Its put greater penalties on illegal operations but pet shops have been telling us they havent been buying from illegal operations anyway. Legal puppy farms are seen as a good place to buy a puppy - they dont need a pet shop anyway - where did Julie Gillards dog come from?

Is my experience that asking a breeder how many they have is like asking for them to run a mile.

Im all for a facbook page for purebred dog breeders but dont fall into the same traps.Dont assume that anyone else other than us think purebred dogs are better or that Vicdogs registered breeders are not capable of mucking it up. Anything you want has to be also given to DD breeders and breeders who breed for money unless its expemptions for an applicable org. Firstly you need to ask Vic dogs and the government to clarify whether or not this will affect your current exemptions for needing a domestic animal business licence if you have less than 10 fertile breeding animals. Then if you are going to fight mandatory chip numbers in ads you need to make realistic viable objections and explain why you believe what you do.Remember that it is mandatory to chip any way - so stick to the subject - how putting numbers in ads will affect you and why you feel it will be un policeable - how it will affect your ability to compete and trade freely with other states and what the loop holes are which will mean those they are trying to get will be the ones who dont. Forget any idea of arguing that it hasnt done anything to stop reg puppy farms. They dont want to stop reg puppy farms they want all puppy farms to be registered. The push by Animal rights was to stop sales of puppies in pet shops and to stop people breeding commercially but that was never on the table because the definitions they were using was different to those being used by animal rights. The goal is for everyone who breeds dogs to be out in the open so they can be watched and picked up if they do the wrong thing by the dogs - which is why they want chip numbers in ads. Thats probably better than what the RSPCA is asking for which is for addresses to be made public. We wanted them to feel safe to apply for their DA's but thats not going to happen now - anyone that doesnt already have one is terrified of applying in case they have a bunch of nuts camping on their footpath. Im saying this again - if you breed dogs in the state of Victoria whether you have Vicdogs exemptions or not - you probably need a DA and if you dont have one you are illegal. Thats not something new since these laws came in - its always been the case - its just most didnt know it. What has changed is that now more than just the council will police it and if someone doesnt like you and reports you there is much more to loose if you dont have the necessary permits and you are illegal. No one cares if its a hobby or if you breed for money or not. Go after the mandatory code for breeding dogs and ensure you are covering it all.

just goes to show that these people making all the laws have no idea. i thought so. what about hobby breeders from ANKC. hello? how ridiculous, its like the hobby breeder doesn't exist in their eyes or his eyes because they obviously know nothing about the dog world. we are all out to make a buck and thats it, is that how it goes. grrrrrrr that gets my dander up i can tell you. You know what toydog Ive been in here for months telling everyone it has nothing to do with money or profit or hobbies or businesses. It has nothing to do with how many or what type. Its difficult for me to understand why hobby breeders didnt hear that they would be treated no differently to what they thought a puppy farmer was.

You know what the joke of it is - you can have as many as you want - like hundreds and thousands as long as you dont breed them.

Yes I saw him on the ABC this morning but couldnt really understand what he was saying,. He said the problem withthe legislation before was that the councils had to prove a breeder was making a profit. Thats not how I saw it and the DPI website still has the old stuff on it which specifically says you dont need to make a profit but he's the boss. Anyway he said the new definition of a puppy farm was any place that ever bred a puppy and sold it . he also said that the numbers of fertile dogs came down to 3 rather than 10. That worried me because as far as I know in the legislation before the only ones who ever had a 10 fertile dogs thingy were Vic dogs registered breeders. So perhaps this is what they meant when they said there was currently about 50 registered puppy farms but they were expecting the numbers to jump to about 9000 when every one who now needs a permit gets one. I think someone should really look this legislation up and work out how its going to impact on registered breeders in that state and be sure about what they need to do to be legal.