Steve

By the way - Im O.K.if the Da's are not being given out because that means they shouldnt be but when a breeder asks for a DA or is granted a DA and they are flogged before they even get a chance at mucking it up that will stop others from asking - that has stopped others from asking . Can you blame them?

You dont need to apologise any one who loves dogs and cares about even one having to suffer has every right to an opinion and disagree with someone else. I dont think anyone involved in the conversation is meaning to uopset any one Im certainly not. There are just so many sub issues here which are difficult to cover but its simply not as easy or a simple as it sounds. No breeder regardless of their motivation wants to have their dogs in cages but before you judge them go and take a look at the mandatory codes they have to comply with - and the requirements which are put on them in order to be able to gain a DA and apart from that - sure Ive no doubt that some breeders do keep their dogs in these cages all the time but most dont or would prefer not to. These codes are put together by people who havent understood that keeping breeding dogs is different to keeping dogs in a boarding kennel or shelter . A breeder cant even make a decision on whether they should have their dogs vaccinated with live or killed vaccine, or when they should or shouldnt vaccinate. they are enforced to do as they are told even though that is in complete contradiction to that which we know is best for our dogs. Everyone who ever considered breeding an animal knows they produce more and better if they are healthy and happy and its in a breeders best interest to keep their dogs in a more species specific environment and introduce a species specific management plan to ensure they do what they can to increase their quality of life but more and more laws ensure that no breeder is able to do that. Animal rights have seen what they think the problem is and assumed what it is that has caused it and decided what is needed to fix it .They miss about 90% of it.

I asked because you seem to be defending commercial dog farms lately. Im against any breeder who keeps dogs in sub standard conditions and the reason I appear to be defending commercial breeders or any breeder is because I want to know who they are and where they are and I want them judged on their actions rather than their motivations. Not because I think commercial breeders are O.K. but because there is no real way to determine what one person's real motivation is for breeding dogs - and if we agree its O.K. to break into people's homes and steal their property and behave illegally based on assumed motivation or any old body's idea of cruelty rather than their actions and the law, If we agree it is O.K. to prevent someone breeding dogs in case they muck it up - then how will anyone be left to breed dogs ? How can you stop someone who says they want to breed dogs for profit but let someone who says they want to breed a champion off the hook in case they muck it up too? What point is a breeder judged breeding commercially - is it a numbers game, is it a puppy count ,is it where they sell them or is it when someone says so or they say so? We work our clackers out trying to educate people and have them follow laws and regs - even if we dont agree with some of them and encourage them to apply for DA's and be more easily able to be monitored so their dogs are at less risk of suffering but the methodology used by animal rights ensure less people not more will apply for a DA. So Im not defending commercial dog breeders Im hoping we can work toward stopping all dogs from suffering regardless of what group their breeders belong to or what motivation they may have.Reagrdless of whether they breed 1 or 50 . Im asking that before people dive in and follow animal rights they think it through,look for data , research, evidence and make an effort to see the propoganda and the information objectively to be sure they know what it is they are protesting about and how this may have a negative impact rather than a positive one on the stated desired outcome - to understand the term puppy farmer has 200 different definitions and that they are sure of what the definition is of the group they are protesting with. If someone wants to protest against commercial breeders thats fine by me and every one has the right to do that - I may even join them as long as they dont ask that people join them in the belief they are protesting against people who keep their dogs in rotten conditions and as long as the information provided to help people to see the problem is true and not simply sensationalism and prooganda. Why? because not all commercial breeders do keep their dogs in rotten conditions and not all breeders of any group can guarantee they dont have some who should be locked up too. The worst Ive ever seen was not a commercial breeder so what are we to do about that - this person was a registered breeder who had around a dozxen dogs so should we perhaps agree that in case some registered breeders might muck it up we should belt the hell out of them for applying for a prefix ? Perhaps we should just decide any one who breeds a certain breed or cross bred dogs or purebred dogs might muck it up so protest and break the law to make em look bad.

Groundhog day Sheridan . The definition I use is the one which was decided upon at the round table conference by all the groups who attended. A puppy farm is an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

So lets assume that will do us then - this is the definition of a puppy farm. Quote - LETS DEFINE THESE EXACTLY AS THEY ARE – SUBSTANDARD BREEDING OPERATIONS end quote So why are people wanting to protest this breeding operation? It doesnt even exist yet but we protest it in case it is a substandard breeding establishment some time in the future - surely you can see this is not making any sense. I'm not interested in 'converting' you to my way of thinking, so why are you trying to convert me to yours? That's honestly what it feels like. You sound like you're trying to tell me how to think. It's a real turn off! We obviously have different points of view and that's okay with me. I've already explained my reasons and I'm not going into it again. I'm sorry that they don't make sense to you (and I don't mean that in a patronising way) Im not trying to convert you to my way of thinking .I m trying to understand what you are talking about when you say you are against puppy farms.Im trying to explain why I think its so important for everyone protesting sonmething to agree they are protesting the same thing and clearly they are not.

So lets assume that will do us then - this is the definition of a puppy farm. Quote - LETS DEFINE THESE EXACTLY AS THEY ARE – SUBSTANDARD BREEDING OPERATIONS end quote So why are people wanting to protest this breeding operation? It doesnt even exist yet but we protest it in case it is a substandard breeding establishment some time in the future - surely you can see this is not making any sense.

They also want the right to camp at someone's property, runaround trespassing and entering enclosed lands illegally ,stealing their property and make their lives hell because they dont agree with what they do but also complain when they have to move 3 times in one year to hide away from people who dont agree with them. :rofl:

If you are answering me then i was only stating what i believe to define a puppy farm. I haven't said anything abt protesting against whoever is opening a facility, all i did was say what my definition of a puppy farm is! I understand what you were doing was telling me what you think a puppy farm is - but that isnt the same as the RSPCA Australia and every other group who agreed upon a definition to be used. What I was saying is that it isnt possible for anyone to be protesting puppy farms until we all agree on what it is we are protesting. It seems to me that will never happen.

According to what this guy has in his application all of those things will be covered .If they werent he wouldnt have been able to win on appeal. He has never been found guilty of anything other than being up front about why he breeds dogs. The current laws which are in place do ensure all of these things are happening in commercial operations and if people are breeding puppies and not finding a market for them then they will stop breeding them . While ever they can find homes and so can rescue who "save " pregnant dogs then there is no over population of dogs.There clearly is an over population of irresponsible owners. What would I do ? What I am doing . He applied for and was given the nod for a DA for 50 dogs - so what ? Having a DA is no evidence this is a puppy farm.Someone who keeps dogs in substandard conditions. I can see evidence it is a commercial breeder but thats not a puppy farm. AND FOR THE RECORD I dont think its ethical or responsible to breed 1 dog let alone 50 regardless of your goal unless you do what you need to do to ensure you dont compromise on their welfare. Of course you have to let him go ahead and only act if the dogs are suffering - because what is the alternative? Stop EVERYONE breeding dogs regardless of their stated motivation in case their dogs suffer? Where will dogs come from? You have determined that breeding commercially means dogs are more likely to suffer - perhaps they are but there are more people than you few who think dogs will suffer if they are in bred, or bred for the show ring , or bred for sledding or bred for humans to use as pets etc. The goal is to have everyone who breeds dogs regardless of their stated motivation,regardless of how many they own being held accountable , easy to see and easliy monitored to ensure no dogs suffer. In order to do that we need people to be rewarded when they apply for Da's rewarded when they are doing it right and punished when they dont . In order to punish them we have to catch them and it takes much longer to catch them out if we send them underground. How on earth do you seriously expect someone will do what we are asking them to do and apply for a DA to bring on what is dealt to them even before they begin. Do you think small breeders will do this to themselves? less small breeders = more dogs bred in large kennels. Do you seriously think that by doing this you will talk the guy out of it or change the verdict of the appeal. do you seriously think anything you do will stop peopel having the right to breed dogs commercially? All you do is undo everything we do to encourage them to be open and accountable and teach them what they need to know to ensure their dogs are given the best possible quality of life. And edited to ad by me saying he has the right to apply for a DA and get one isnt the same as supporting him. Its about the big picture. Something which seem to allude people who break the law and have no regard for the rights of people as they call for the rights - not welfare of animals.

I am aware of that and the major part of all of this that distresses me is that I have to appear to be defending those whom I would prefer not to defend . if we are protesting commercial breeders then call them commercial breeders and not puppy farmers. That way we are all clear about what it is we are protesting and why. In this case there is the VCA, police, RSPCA and Councils responsible for ensuring his animals are treated appropriately and in this case he only gets to breed dogs - and keep dogs on his property on the condition that he complies with mandatory codes because he did what was asked of him and applied for a DA and has agreed he will not be puppy farming [ keeping his dogs in substandard condition] We know where he is and he is able to be monitored to ensure he complies with what he has to comply with Now clearly the whole thing is centred around the fact that he is going to be primarily motivated to be breeding dogs for profit - which is seen by some to be a higher risk factor for keeping dogs in substandard conditions. O.K. so we protest people breeding dogs based on their motivations and what one group feels is a higher risk to have dogs suffering.in case their dogs suffer - not because their dogs are suffering . Then what - do we protest people breeding purebred dogs because some of their dogs suffer when people are only going after a champion ? What numbers or criteria do we use to determine whether one person has one motivation or another. Is someone who owns 30 dogs who says they dont make money but is breeding for the betterment of the breed a commercial breeder? Someone who breeds 5 working dogs for 20,000 each - are they breeding commercially? If you have 10 fertile bitches are you breeding commercially or is it a higher number than that ? If you keep your dogs in crates in a spare bedroom and NEVER let them out and let them live in their own shit until some of them die and allow any other in the crate to walk over the dead bodies and sleep on them for months until they die too but you tell me its for the betterment of the breed is this O.K. because they say its not for money? I condemn puppy farms [ places which breed dogs in substandard conditions] and urge everyone to report them to the authorities when they are located. I work for the closure of puppy farms and we view the people involved as criminals. I do not protest against someone in case they muck it up because of their motivation for breeding The minute we start to yell about what someone MIGHT do you may as well wave good bye to all breeders and if PDE didnt show you the threat - nothing will. The minute we flog someone for applying for a DA to breed dogs we stop all others from applying and increase the risk of those in the boonies hiding out in sheds with no accountability.

Yes, please move it. I found 7 skinned Alsation puppies on a bush track near my house when I was a kid. My parents reported it to the RSPCA and the offenders were caught and charged. It was a horrifying experience and I don't feel like re-living it. I bet they got off with a slap on the wrist too if the fines are anything like they are today How awful! Im so sorry you had to see something like that. I think they took it pretty seriously. The RSPCA Inspector and the police came to our house to interview me. They even came back another time to tell us that the people responsible had been charged. The Inspector said they had been watching these people and suspected it had been going on for a while but they had no proof. Did they skin them alive ? Its not against the law to skin a dead animal and in some states of Australia as long as you dont kill them cruelly you can still eat them as long as you dont cut their tails off first.

Why are you happy that they are protesting the decision? Because I believe in speaking up for your beliefs. I believe that dogs should not be bred in commercial settings, they deserve to be part of a family - locking them in cages is not the life for a breeding dog. So you are protesting commercial breeding? You are protesting people keeping their dogs in settings which are dictated to them via the mandotory codes? But according to the agreed upon decision of the definintion of a puppy farm you are not protesting puppy farmers? Is that what you mean?

So what is the point in everyone joining forces against puppy farmers if none of us can agree on what is a puppy farmer. If a puppy farmer is what you have defined it as then why are you protesting this one- they havent even started yet - so how are they breeding dogs in rotten conditions?

Yay! Good for them! It's so inspiring to see people not just speaking out against puppy farms, but actually getting off their arses and doing something about it. I would go too if I didn't dislike camping so much Define Puppy Farm.

Why are you happy that they are protesting the decision?

Yep and while ever this goes on it takes us further behind and more not less dogs suffer. What breeder in their right mind would apply for a DA in Victoria ?

Sounds like great fun!

Dont know how he's going to be keeping them but kick and scream any way. We know how he's going to be keeping them - in accordance with mandatory codes and laws for breeding establishments. Until she cant breed anymore and she either has a prolapse or she's put down - Big fat fibs again. They are not going to get VCAT to overturn their decision but it should be good for more donations and chasing off any other breeder considering daring to ask for a DA. Better just breed em out the back of the boonies and keep em hidden.

How the dog looks and whether it is physically a good representative of the breed isnt the only reason people put dogs on limited register and whether the owner is not contactable or dead or in a metal home shouldnt make any difference. When we register the dog we are told that the limited register has certain restrictions and that these cannot be lifted unless the breeder agrees .If the breeder doesnt agree that shoudl be the end of it. Whether there was something within the sales contract or a queston over what the agreement was needs to be decided by the courts and if the breeder is directed to upgrade via the court the breeder up grades - if not they are punished by the courts . When they introduced rules that we had to register all live pups and give out the papers the deal was limited would enable us to control which dogs we bred could be bred with and have registered pups.Later we were able to prevent them being issued export pedigrees so puppy farmers overseas couldnt register them in countries where the export papers are necessary to register puppies. 20 years ago we didnt have to register them all and we didnt have to give papers - we could sell them with copies of the pedigree and no registration papers - which is why papers would cost more . No matter what this should be the right of the breeder as it is the terms of our contract with the CC's - it doesnt say if we dont agree or if the breeder is accused of doing something they shouldnt have we will change the rules! Some breeders in WA register all live pups on the main register but only provide the owner with a copy - so the breeder keeps the original - The only ones who get the real pedigree are those who want to show or breed from the outset and its dogs the breeder has determined are worthy of this. Perhaps the breeder should consider legal re dress as this appears to be a clear breach of contract .Breeder purchased the rego papers in good faith in the belief they would have control of this and that was taken from them.

Its very rare for puppies to be lactose intolerant - because bitches milk has lactose . When baby mammals are born they produce an enzyme called lactase to be able to tolerate and assimilate lactose without a problem . As they are weaned if the milk with lactose in isnt still part of the diet they stop making the lactase and their body cant make it quickly enough when they drink milk to do the job so they become lactose intolerant . So as new babies lactose isnt something you need to be concerned about . the only time its an issue is if the dog hasnt had milk for a couple of weeks and then its given milk again. The leerburg one is best because some of the powdered ones are dificient in Arginine - no big deal if its something you are using to suppliment but if you are using it as a replacement with hand reared pups you sometimes see issues develop such as nutritional cataracts .You also dont know how old the product is and many of the vitamins ar destroyed by storage so you end up with a powder that has the minerals but no live vitamins to assimilate properly - again not such a biggy if its just a suppliment but may show in joint issues later if its used as a replacemnet. As mine get older especially the Maremmas I use dencovit which is for all mammals but comes in 20kg bags and is much cheaper because its sold via stock feed places for farm animals - direction on the bag for dogs. From 6- 8 weeks they get a big warm drink of milk before bed every evening - they love me for it too. I also feed my adults this milk too.

+1 +2 Dont under estimate the breeder's knowledge of what will make a good combination - she is saying better to consider another breed and that might be a good idea - not just for the sake of the dog but for the sake of the child. I dont think its as mch to do with the size but based on what you have said I think I would be directing you away from a mini foxie too. They arent as easy going as some other breeds.

I know there is testing for cross breeds but cant see them offering PRA testing for cavoodles.

DNA testing for cavoodles for PRA?

How is it possible that world wide there seems to be an epidemic of stupidity where dogs are concerned ? Why cant they see what they do holds no logic and will not take them to their intended goal . Its even worse than stupidity I think - madness.

Bloody hell thats bit r0ugh isnt it ? Maybe its time to name and shame vets!