Steve

But its not even just the debate on whether animals should have rights or not that is really the point - Assume for one minute we said O.K. lets give dogs rights - the rights the loonies want are not even those which are best suited to their species . Look at what they are rattling on with now under the banner or Oscars law, prisoners for profit ALV . A big part of their goals is to stop other species being treated like their own species or even like our own species . They want to decide whether a dog can mate, have puppies, enforce them to do what they say is best for them without any basis in science etc. So we give them the right not to be exploited by humans but take away their right to breed freely without human intervention when ever they want with whatever dog they want because that particular right doesnt' t suit animal rights loonies. We give them the right to shelter but take away their right to choose the shelter - because the shelter they may choose doesnt suit animal rights loonies. We give them the right to behave in a way which makes them happy unless of course they choose to hang out in pack and eat other mammals rather than eat with human acceptable manners and shelter in our loungerooms. We give them the right to exercise and socialiasation but running free with their other dog mates on their own property is out and they only have no right to refuse being dragged around the block with a lead around their necks. My children have the right to adequate medical treatment but as their parent I have the right to decide whether I will allow them to be vaccinated but as a breeder I have no right to decide I dont want my dogs vaccinated every year if I want to maintain the right to breed. I can be trusted to keep my children healthy and to decide when they should visit a vet or a dentist but not my dogs . If I dont agree with how someone is living or how they are treating their children I have to follow conventions and laws to bring that to someone's attention and I cant just make up what I think is best for kids and skulk around at night and steal their kids to "rescue them". But we see animal rights lobbying for the rights of dogs and taking loads of publicity and money to be able to continue that - but never a whimper when family pets are being seized and being put to death because they look like they might be a bad breed. Where are they - why are they camping in ballan and carrying on about what might happen with a breeder when they should be camping on councils doorsteps and yelling about the right of a dog to be presumed innocent . Nothing logical here for me.

I dont think you can buy something that has rights - slavery, went out pretty quickly when they gave them rights, so did women being treated as property when they gave them the right to vote and own their own property. I cant buy a baby or a person in a coma either - can I?

Isnt it funny - if my dogs had Rights they'd probably say they dont want to have their balls chopped off, want to run around the neighbourhood barking their heads off and kill cats, eat shit out of garbage cans, drink out of open sewers and sleep wherever they feel like it. My dogs dont have Rights - they're not little humans in fur coats.

You've never struck me as an Animal Rights Loonie, Schnauz. You still dont...unless you go and B&E or kill some animals in order to demonstrate that animals have Rights (which I think is even loonier than just loonie). You have never made me think you would do that kind of loonie shit, babe. Do you go out there and do loonie militant shit in order to prove that animals have Rights when they dont? I am a rescuer - that probably says it all My belief is that every dog is entitled (has the right?) to a good life with a loving owner/family - can't get more simple than that. What if they had rights and decided they didnt want a loving owner or family but would rather run free and live with a dog family instead - should they have the right to choose or should we have the right to choose for them? I think we should have the right to choose for them if we acccept the responsibilty that brings.

Hi Raz We will have to agree to disagree with this one. I do believe that dogs as companion animals have the right to a good home, a warm bed, and a loving owner. I do not believe that they should be bred in cages for their entire lives, without exercise, proper nutrition, social interaction, vet treatment and enrichment. I dont think that is an animal rights issue I have the right to own an animal as long as I am responsible for these things - there is a difference.

No one has rights. Rights are agreed upon & then given. Which is why they are continuously evolving, via discussion and debate. And find their way into community standards or into a legal framework. You lost me. If I give someone rights doesnt that mean they have them ? So far thank heavens animals dont have rights because they havent been given any . They havent been given any because they cannot be accountable and responsible Because whether or not the animal rights loonies want to admit it or not they really are a different species. Shall we give them the right not to be eaten? how do we tell that to other species who want to eat them? Or do we only give them the right not to be eaten by humans - isnt that treating humans as a different species - dont the rat bags want - an end to specieism.

however, if breeders can scan have the results and decide whether they want to share those results at least they will scan and they wil know - even if they dont want to share what the status is on their dogs. making a situation where vets send the results the KC will mean less -not more will scan.

Ah, thanks... so it wouldn't apply to other orgs anyway... Sounds like something that they used to allowed them to exclude the APBT club. I wonder if they might still try to use it to exclude non-breeder groups, like a BSL lobby group from being stakeholders? It would definintely be something for the Vic mob to look into and get on top of if they do look at setting up any such groups. Any group can write to the minister and be asked to be considered a stake holder and be advised when any action is in the mix re dogs - whether they take any notice is open to discussion - however, when they dont then the group who has asked to be involved can have a big fat moan and complain they asked to be involved and a stake holder and they were excluded.

clearly having someone there who is classed an applicable org is of benefit if they are anti bsl and not only interested in protecting their own breeds. It would give them a voice and allow them to be considered a stake holder - however, if that org were to be seen to be representing owners of prohibited breeds rather than a principal regardless of breed they dont qualify for being an approved org. It would seem that in order to have pit bulls or dogs who look like pit bulls ever given a reprieve therefore that it is in the best interests of their owners and them for anyone who is against BSL to stick to that and not be seen to be defending any one breed or any particular look or type. That means some of the actions and methods used to date may have been counterproductive to all dog lovers to be seen to be united and perhaps its time to rethink the strategy to be able to see a realistic positive outcome. When a government targets one breed or their look alike normal reaction has been to defend the breeds - we loose . We need to present ourselves to be against BSL and develop strategies to ensure that's how we are seen and how we make our battle plans. If you take the breed out of the equation then everyone is on the same page - no one wants any dog judged on how they look rather than how they act - it becomes a bigger army - more voters.

That's very interesting Steve, thanks. So is it in their dog legislation, or have they stuck it in some other legislation on incorporated bodies or similar? Just thinking most people might check the dog legislation, but not think there is anything they would need to check anywhere else before setting up... This would actually mean that a BSL lobby group, for example, wouldn't be able to be an "applicable organisation" if they are lobbying / supporting on behalf of APBT owners. So what does this actually mean for them? Are they able to still be an incorporated body, what actually is an "applicable organisation"? What is an applicable organisation? Under Section 3 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (the Act) an applicable organisation is defined as an organisation that is declared by the Minister under section 5A to be an applicable organisation. An applicable organisation under the Act is an organisation of either dog or cat breeders who have established a code of ethics in the responsible ownership and breeding of their animals. What are the benefits of being an applicable organisation? The benefits for an applicable organisation include the organisation being considered a relevant stakeholder for Government and Departmental committees on animal management and members of the organisation receive a discount on pet registration with their local council for the animals they have registered with their organisation. Also, where members of the organisation have less than 10 fertile females but still intend to operate a breeding establishment for profit, these members are not required to register their operation as a Domestic Animal Business with their local council. How does an organisation become an applicable organisation? The Minister may declare, by notice published in the Government Gazette, that an organisation is an applicable organisation if: (a) the organisation has applied to the Minister to be declared an applicable organisation (b) the Minister is satisfied that the organisation meets the criteria set out in the relevant guidelines; and © the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into Australia is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth

I agree.I think they have made a huge mistake by trying to make the vet pass the results on to anyone other than the person paying for the scan.

Yes but anyone can represent owners of one of these breeds as long as they are not seeking approval in Victoria as an applicable organisation - that's state law.

Just want to make sure I have this clear: the bit quoted above, that is from the Vic dog act / legislation somewhere? Is it new, or has it always been in there? its always been there and it's part of the legislation and eligibility criteria for any one to gain recognition in Victoria as an applicable organisation. 5A Applicable organisations and recognised organisations (1) The Minister may declare, by notice published in the Government Gazette, that an organisation is an applicable organisation if— (a) the organisation has applied to the Minister to be declared an applicable organisation; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the organisation meets the criteria set out in the relevant guidelines; and © the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into Australia is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth. (2) An application to be an applicable organisation or a recognised organisation must include— (a) a copy of the organisation's annual report of the preceding year; and (b) the organisation's code of ethics and details of how the code is enforced; and © the outcome of any disciplinary action taken by the organisation for breaches of the ethics code during the preceding year; and (d) any other information required by the Minister.

Diligence and care in keeping them in but they got out? Then how did they get out? If we get to a point where we agree that no matter how diligent or how much care we provide we cant keep them in then the only place left to go is to ban dogs based on their size or breed or ban them altogether.

DOG WORLD UK 29.9.11

Missed that bit - yes that may work better . Too bad we have to worry about sharing the info though if we really are motivated by what is best for the breed and the dogs.

Yes - unless they are going to make it mandatory making all of the results public may be counterproductive but its at least a start - that has to be good - I think.

there is also one fact which has to be given consideration as well - in Victoria in order for the VCA to be able to be an applicable organisation they have to agree to this - so at best they can advocate for no breed specific legislation but they cant advocate on behalf of pit bulls or their owners. © the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into Australia is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth.

Yep me too - it makes more sense to help feed them and try to keep them together .

That's great work by Pacers but the article wasn't actually about you. It might gave been nice for you to acknowledge that another organisation is also trying to help the disadvantaged, rather than just congratulate yourself on doing it first. Why thank you snook for your unsolicted advice but you misunderstood . I was congratulating them and I wasnt congratulating myself but rather saying that both ORGANISATIONS are doing what is needed to help people and its do - able,much needed and a great way to help people.

This

Great news - as long as they will have a method of being able to determine which ones were bred by registered breeders and which ones werent - and that they also publish stats on any cross bred dog affected too. Our health survey showed more first cross dogs diagnosed in australia than any purebred.

Pacers has been helping people feed their pets now for 2 years in 5 states - Eukanuba.

Whew - thank you but I also know that some people are not going to ever understand that we have nothing but the best interests at heart for all dogs. I also understand that some have focused on stopping dogs being killed in pounds and our focus is on stopping live dogs suffering - dead is not suffering. I think the cause of that is different to what they think and while their methods may save a dog or two it wont solve the problem - too bad we couldnt work together rather than being seen as the cause. If we are to be able to go in and advocate for the best possible outcomes for dogs - BSL, breeding , ownership etc ,offer science based education and advice and ensure less dogs suffer we cannot be seen to be advocating illegal activity or condoning the spread of information which is untrue or biased against one group or another .We have to ensure we are seen to be moderate and credible. We only have breeder members who breed registered purebred dogs or those working on breed recognition but we also have rescue members who rescue all dogs regardless of their heritage and ordinary dog owners many of which who own dogs which are not pure bred .These are collectively people who want to be able to have the right to own the dog or breed of their choice ,people who want to be able to walk their dogs without fear of being attacked , people who want to be able to take their dogs places they go,people who want to be able to make decsions on how often to vaccinate ,people who want the right to choose whether they want to desex their pets, whether they own a rescue dog, purebred dog or cross bred dog , people who want to be able to choose what is best for their dogs based on a huge amount of variables. They dont want more laws which further restrict them which the people most likely to do the wrong thing will not follow anyway Every day we have more restrictions on dog ownership because the whole plan of attack has been "what if" or "just in case" . In the case of breeders we all have to keep our breeding dogs the way we are told in order to be able to keep them .Once you accept a permit or licence situation you no longer have the same ownership rights. You have to agree to do exactly as you are told or loose the right to own a particular breed or to breed dogs. I am a breeder I own 8 beagles - I love them - they are my life. Ive devoted a huge part of my life to learning all about dogs to be sure that Im doing the best I can to ensure they are healthy and will live long and happy lives. My dogs live until their late teens and early 20's but just in case some other idiot may do the wrong thing I have no choice but to vaccinate my dogs with live vaccine every year which is exactly the opposite advice we have received by some of the worlds leading canine immunologists . I have to whelp them and house them based on what someone has dictated who has no idea of my breed or my situation in case some hoarder or crimminal treats their dogs badly . If people really do love dogs and truly do want what is best for them camping on someone's footpath and calling on people to make their lives hell because they asked for a DA - or worse they got one is not the answer . the only thing that can come from it is more dogs suffering and more donations for animal rights.

If in fact anyone from the ANKC is calling for rescue dogs to be tested they make fools of themeselves - Rescue does need to be pulled into line but they are in the same spot we are .More laws are not the answer.