Steve

no way am i going to PTS any dog not unless it is really suffering if i can fix it or keep the dog happy then it will live. as in the case with the hydro puppy i had. he is now in a wonderful home with a very experienced lady and is loved and cared for just like we did for him. he was happy and kept fed and warm and his every need was attended to. i was worried about that so i asked my vet do you think i could be dobbed into the RSPCA he said, no because you have gotten veterinary assistance on a number of occassions with receipts so they haven't got a case against me he wreckons. I dont think they care whether the dog has been treated or not when they put your photos up on the net . That may be why some look bad but are cleared when the real people charged with checking this stuff out take a better look but you wouldnt hear that - its just look at this terrible thing .

Ive had people who just came to look and 4 weeks later a litter of puppies was stolen. Ive had someone come to look at a puppy and they arrived in 3 cars - while I spoke with one person the rest literally searched my property and went in and out of sheds with nothing in but tools - no dogs in sheds here and one ven walked in on my kids wathcing telly in the loungeroom .Their kids played on my kids bikes and broke one and they walked through concrete which my husband had just laid and was still wet . What do you want from us - blood?

we are very wary nowadays who we let through our doors because of run ins with various people in the past. so now we watch it and now i see that the animal libs are getting buyers to report back to them the condition of dogs and the conditon of the property then they have their guns blazing, come in seize dogs yell puppy farm, puppy farm. as what happened to a reg breeder i know. so should we as breeders just open up our homes to anyone we come across? i think not. but yes, parvo can be carried on shoes and other items and its bloody hard to get rid of too, once you have it. There are many breeders who are vulnerable, single women who live alone out in the boonies etc who have lots of fair reasons for not wanting strangers visit. For most of us our kennels are our homes and all of the crap about seeing where the puppies are raised means peering into people's loungerooms and in some cases their bedrooms. We also have other lives if we dont breed commercially, you know we have kids, and jobs and families. Reality is big commercial kennels are more likely to want you to come to them because they are all set up for that than we are and their kids and families are less likely to have to be put out by someone who just wants to look in case we are puppy farmers. .

You can own a prefix with Vic dogs and never breed a puppy or you can breed cross bred puppies or you can breed cross bred and purebred puppies . Lots of people who breed cross bred dogs have a Vicdogs membership and are therefore exempt form all things other Vicdogs members are exempt from. Vicdogs can only say what you can do with your registered purebred dogs not what you can do with your unregistered dogs. The codes of conduct only cover what you can do with your registered purebreds and you dont need to show whether your dogs are registered purebreds to be exempt - you have to have Vicdogs membership and not own more than 10 fertile bitches.

I sincerely hope that the ANKC does not accept the breed for recognition with that name. Fanciers of this breed in development might care to reflect on how other breed fanciers feel about that name before tying themselves to the mast over it. It is a huge barrier to acceptance of the dog IMO. Me too. In fact just now I had a call from a guy who purchased a labradoodle 6 months ago which he has to surrender and it took me half of the conversation to work out whether it was a first cross or a dog from a registered labradoodle breeder . Made me realise what a hard time the buyers are having sorting it out. They go and learn about labradoodles on one website which talks about predictible characteristics of the "breed" then go looking for a puppy and buy a first cross because they are called the same name and the puppy buyer has no clue of the difference. It turned out it was a multi generation one part of the breed in devolpment program - 12th generation and there is a behavioural problem where the dog is nipping the kids .The breeder has agreed to take the dog back and full refund or replace but rescue have told hm to give it to them and not send it back to the breeder because as its a desexed female it will be killed. One has to ask if thats what they will do with it why they are prepared to refund - they arent obliged to.

If the idiot had of had his dog on a leash it wouldnt be an issue - ding bat .

Not much different when they hold up a young pup with cherry eye - which cant be treated until the pup is older Like as if the breeder deliberately made the cherry eye or is deliberately not getting treament for it . Perhaps you are supposed to get the vet to kill anything that might make you look bad before they get there. The beagle sleeping in the bread crate made me smile when it was used to show some terrible sin because I had one once who slept in a bread crate because she ate everything else we gave her to sleep in. We tried everything and even had her in surgery when we gave her one of those tramp beds with shade cloth stuff on it because the threads wrapped around her intestine. She would shred a bed over night but now I know the bread crate makes you look bad Im glad she doesnt live here any more. Better let her new owners know to chuck out the bread crate too.

i've heard this over and over again, people buying pups not vaccinated and clearly underage. yet people still buy them, i heard from someone a petshop diddn't believe in selling vacc pups. and still the person bought this pup and then proceeded to walk it around everywhere even after believing the pup wasn't the age the petshop told them it was. Well thats pretty hard to believe - any pet shop that didnt believe in vaccinating and didnt vaccinate would be so stupid its soundling like gossip and crap to me. If its true and they didnt vaccinate then the buyer needs to report them. In Victoria its against the law to home a puppy thats not vaccinated - there you have all you need to lodge a complaint if you have the evidence to back it up or if they can't prove they did.

Well lots of breeders dont like people coming to their homes for a variety of valid reasons and some breeders believe their puppies shouldnt be handled by and exposed to stranger until at least a certain age. Rather than focusing on things the breeder is accused of she is able to do legally - in Victoria she isnt able to sell or home a pup before its 8 weeks old and unless it is vaccinated . Like it or not she can decide she doesnt want strangers coming to her home and as time goes on you are going to see more breeders feeling the same. If you had people coming to your home trying to ping you for some supposed sin would you be eager to open you doors ? Like it or not she can breed cross bred dogs or several different breeds and if the gossip is right and she only has about a dozen dogs she is possibly giving them all they need. A puppy farmer is someone who breeds dogs in sub standard conditions and there is no evidence that this is what she is doing - breeders in Victoria have to comply with mandatory codes - even though they suck. If you have evidence she did sell that pup under 8 weeks and it wasnt vaccinated then thats enough to have her more closely looked at by people who are charged with having the right to do that under the law .The local council and the RSPCA.

The Labradoodle people who are working toward breed recognition are more than half way there if they are going after what is required by the ANKC to become a recognised breed. They are breeding consistent predictible dogs with up to 10 generations in.They are health testing and registering their puppies. The problem as always is that when you say labradoodle its also known as a first cross poodle x lab. Thats not the case anymore with those who are breeding to a breed standard and sooner or later the purebred dog world is going to have to accept that this really is a breed in development and when they achieve what is required for breed recognition they will apply just as all other breeds have done throughout history. If they werent by now breeding predictible , dogs which do look like a breed then they wouldnt be able to produce toys as each would have to be different. On a personal note I have an issue with the name and feel that because its is so confused with first cross dogs they should have introduced another - however when I challenged them on this they told me they had considered it and attempted to do so but were bombarded with those who were against that. The majority of owners and breeders felt it should stay as it is. The Mini Foxie people also have issues with their name which is why they cant be called the Mini Fox Terrier but they dont seem to have the entire purebred dog world against them as the labradoodle does. In fact the labradoodle is probably closer to qualifying for breed recognition than the Mini Foxie is. A breed is a group of dogs with an easily identifiable set of characteristics such as size, coat , type and disposition and thats what they are working toward via the criteria as required by the ANKC.

If she handed over a pup to someone you know without immunisations she has broken the law. If you can get the person who bought it to say that out loud then she needs to be reported to the RSPCA - however, they want more than things you have heard.

No she was sacked before the raids but we arent allowed to talk about this here .

Oh that one - he's a nutter and even if he had anything worth looking at he losses all credibility .Fancy having him fighting for you! Friends like that who would need enemies FAnatics, rednecks and nut cases are on both sides of the fence by the looks.

Can you forawrd it to me? [email protected]

I no longer see the Labradoodle which is bred by registered labradoodle breeders as a designer dog .I see it as a purebred in development . The registered breeders do more for testing and health and temp than many breeders of recognised purebred dogs do. Big difference between a registered labradoodle form a registered labradoodle breeder and a first cross mutt.

That is equally as stupid as the recent Vic legislation setting forward a visual standard for forbidden breeds. Sadly, I don't see dog people uniting in opposition to either stupid piece of legislation. . . or the NSW regs that in effect make it illegal to use the back bedroom as a whelping room. There were some rallies about the Vic BSL. Some people wrote letters. But it's four days before Victoria's draconian laws come into effect and try finding any coverage of any organised resistance. There was a stir when the laws were announced. But it has gone quiet. Did anyone even notice the Vic law about puppy vaccinations? You'd think no one would object to adding parvo to the lists, and it would have been reasonably easy to do. At a guess Id say it was over looked because surely no one would object to having puppies vaccinated against Parvo before they go to new homes but it clearly demonstrates the problems when people who dont breed dogs and know bugger all about it are involved doesnt it ? The other thing that fascinates me is that they appear to have accepted that cats have a unique need for their reproductive systems to remain healthy and the code allows young breedings and no more than 2 litters per year yet with dogs its completly different and their unique reproductive systems are never taken into account .

And you know what the biggest joke of all is - we aim to teach dog breeders more about dog breeding .When we were compiling our Canine immunology course we went to some of the best canine immunologists in the world and a professor of Science Education set the course and a world reknowned human and canine immunologist made our DVD'S which go out with it but the state government make laws which make any education we give breeders a complete waste of time and energy . Now you really dont have to have been breeding long to work out PARVO is a breeders worst nightmare and that puppies are the most suseptible and if we are going to vaccinate puppies against anything in this country this is it . The others in the C3 which we vaccinate against are low risk in comparison and one hasnt been documented in a domestic dog in over 30 years but .........Take a look at the mandatory code for breeding dogs in Victoria for the sale of puppies Ready ???? 3.3 Sale of Puppies and Kittens The proprietor must ensure that all dogs and cats sold must have a current vaccination certificate signed by a veterinarian stating that the animal has been vaccinated in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturers of the vaccine administered. Puppies and kittens must be vaccinated at least fourteen days prior to sale to cover the following: Puppies canine distemper infectious canine hepatitis

Well this is certainly true here . I am now defending the rights of people I have a basic difference in philosophy with of what is and is not responsible. In my ideal world there would be no one breeding with a primary goal of making money ,there would be no one breeding designer dogs, there would be no one selling animals to pet shops etc there would be no one breeding puppies detined to suffer because the breeder decided on any goal which wasnt in the best interests of the dogs and the majority of the breeders who have entered into this debate feel the same.We have a quasi police force with no outside accountability which in at least one state clearly has a bias against those who they are charged with investigating and their website shows they are capable of bending the facts in order to make their point. I am defending the rights of all pet owners and all breeders all Australians and Im more aware than most that there are some who need to be locked up. Everyone underline everyone can see that the laws we currently have in place are not enforced. We still have approx only 30% of all dogs whch are registered ,we still have people who cant walk the streets with their own dogs and their kids in fear of being rushed by off leash dogs, we still have dog attacks and dogs dumped in pounds un microchipped . We see no underline no work being done by anyone of a preventative nature and no enforcement .We have people who moan and complain about breeders who dont follow mandatory codes or their own ideas of what is best beating a drum about breeders breaking laws and howling for more laws who are of the opinion they are the only ones who do have the right to break the law and disregard people's rights. What hypocricy - a breeder in Victoria has no choice but to vaccinate their dogs by a vet every year but if they decide its not in their dog's best interest to do this - they breach the codes and have their dogs seized and "rescued" by people who dont have to have their dogs vaccinated by a vet every year ,but its O.K. to break and enter, steal property, trespass, stalk ,terrorise and do all else that they do.

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/livestock/cattle/caple-questions-four-corners-authenticity/2299686.aspx THE authenticity of footage used in the ABC Four Corners program, "A Bloody Business", has been questioned by veterinarian, Dr Ivan Caple, due to the level of guttural bellowing sounds from cattle shown in the program. Dr Caple is Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University of Melbourne. He conducted an independent assessment of the Indonesia’s abattoir slaughter practices with three other senior veterinarians in March last year, providing an overall positive conclusion that animal welfare standards were "generally good". But that report has contrasted starkly with the gruesome footage supplied to the ABC by Animals Australia from its investigation last March, when investigator, Lyn White, posed as a tourist to gain access to abattoirs. Dr Caple raised the allegations about excessive bellowing last week at the Federal Senate hearing into animal welfare standards in Australia’s live export markets. The inquiry was instigated after the government’s suspension of live cattle exports to the $320 million Indonesian market, following public outrage generated by the ABC program on May 30. Dr Caple said the only video he trusted was "what I take myself". "The main difference between the video footage from Animals Australia and what we saw and recorded was bellowing," he said. "From memory, I think, in the video footage that Bidda Jones (RSPCA) analysed, 54 per cent of the animals slaughtered vocalised. "We heard one out of 29 animals vocalise - that was a shorthorn at a traditional abattoir and it bellowed as it was pulled down to the ring on the ground before its throat was cut. "We did not hear any vocalisation from the other animals that we saw slaughtered, or restrained and then slaughtered. "We noticed the complete absence of bellowing and noise associated with disturbed cattle in any of the feedlots we went to - and some of those feedlots had 30,000 cattle. "We were absolutely astounded by how quiet the cattle were and how close the people who were looking after the animals were to them." Asked how the footage could be fabricated, Dr Caple said "I am told editors can be very clever at editing video and putting additional bellows in". "Unless someone was there, independently assessing what was really going on and recording, video image by itself is not adequate (evidence)," he said. Dr Caple also questioned a report from RSPCA Australia, tabled to the Senate inquiry, which included an analysis of Animals Australia’s video footage. He said the type of analysis presented in the RSPCA Australia report "certainly would not meet the standards required for investigations conducted by registered veterinary practitioners". "The RSPCA Australia report does not appear to be peer reviewed," he said. "Until that report has been put through that process I am fairly sceptical as to the observations and conclusions made in it." Dr Caple was Chair of the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare for three terms, from October 1997 to June 2006. The independent panel he led in March 2010, assessing Indonesia’s abattoir slaughter practices, included two Australian veterinarians, Dr Penelope McGowan and Dr Paul Cusack, and Professor Neville Gregory from the University of London. Dr Caple said Professor Gregory was a member of the animal welfare working group of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and had done a "lifetime" of research on cattle slaughter. During their investigation, the panel visited 13 Indonesian abattoirs and witnessed 29 animals being slaughtered, in reaching their overall conclusion. They arrived both announced and unannounced, took photographs and notes, and audited what they saw according to OIE practices. Dr Caple said he only saw one abattoir where a tail was broken, and that on a couple of occasions the panel saw cattle head restraint "with a thumb in an eye socket, but no eye-gouging". "We wrote what we saw, so what is in our report was truthful," he said. "The thing we questioned was that at some practices they started throwing water over the animal before they had it adequately restrained and we said: 'Well, you don't need to do that. The animal is too stimulated'. "We wrote that in our report, and we assumed that had been addressed, but from what I saw on the Four Corners program that is still occurring." Dr Caple said his report identified areas that needed attention, but not the type of cruelty exhibited on the program, "A Bloody Business". He said "we would have rang the minister" if they had seen anything like the practices shown on the program. Dr Caple said the independent panel was very strongly of the opinion that banning live exports would not improve cattle welfare in Indonesia - or any other country receiving live animals from Australia. He said the panel made a recommendation for stunning as an "excellent" way to restrain an animal. Dr Caple said he tried - under freedom of information - to find out which footage was the ABC’s and which was provided by Animals Australia in Four Corners’ final cut, but was "told to get lost". He said he visited the ABC’s Ultimo Studios on 27 April before the Four Corners producers left for Indonesia to conduct their own investigation and showed them evidence of his industry report, including the names of abattoirs he and the other experts visited and outcomes. But he was disappointed that an edited transcript of the interview with him, which appears on the ABC website, doesn’t match with the video footage shown on the final program. Dr Caple has made a formal complaint to the ABC about the issue, which has been referred to the ABC's legal department. "If the ABC adhered to its Code of Practice, the doubts that I certainly have in my mind, the doubts that the Australian veterinary profession has in mind, regarding this program would not occur," he said. "I am shown there like a goose saying, 'We found nothing a problem,' and behind there are all these horrific things - I was never shown any video. "That was the basis of my complaint." Dr Caple said the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria required digital images and video tape, provided by third parties, to be checked for authenticity to provide reliable evidence in an investigation. He said the Board would not accept photocopies of documents from barristers and only wanted to see original documents in its investigations. Dr Caple said the type of treatment seen in the ABC/Animals Australia video footage "should not happen to cattle anywhere". "If this supply chain assurance can be made to work so that we can track those (Australian) animals wherever they go in the world and have an audit report that they are slaughtered appropriately, we will have made a major improvement," he said. Senator Nick Xenophon asked Federal Agriculture Department officials if they believed Professor Caple's evidence, asserting that the footage from Animals Australia was in some way fabricated or changed. Acting Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr Robert Biddle, said it was not the Department’s role to forensically examine the authenticity of material provided, although they would be alerted, if there were any problems. Acting Department Deputy Secretary, Paul Morris, said, "We are not raising any questions about the veracity or otherwise of the footage". The RSPCA and Animals Australia said Dr Caple’s claims were not worth responding to.

If we are going to use the USA as an example. Exactly what is happening now here was carried out by animal rights loonies eg PETA over there and they have had 20 plus years to show how those tactics and methodology have helped prevent dog suffering. They haven’t and they are every bit as responsible for that as anyone else. Just as they will be here if it gets worse or we don’t ensure its stopped. Because the more they push the more breeders go underground or get bigger and bigger. The small scale responsible ones walk away. If their goal is to stop large scale breeders the end result will be exactly the opposite. What is going on here is counterproductive. And in the states limiting dog numbers whether they are pets or used for breeding has been proven to be unconstitutional anyway. They also have different trade laws and federal laws which govern property, equality and free trade which will always win out in Australia over any proposed laws which will limit a person's ability to free enjoyment of his property, limit a persons ability to trade freely and ensure that people have equality and that one group cant be more disadvatgaed than any other. The aim is to take away property status - but think it through and consider what that means to you and your dogs - if you dont own them. http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/petfriendlyguide.pdf Quote Beginning in the early 1990’s, activist groups convinced some municipalities that breeder licensing and other restrictions would reduce the number of pets entering shelters and raise funds needed to cope with overpopulation. They claimed that breeders were the source of shelter problems, and they used the media very effectively to promote anti-breeder sentiment and anti-breeder ordinances. They euthanized dogs and cats on television to showcase the issue of overpopulation and inflamed the public against breeders who they said were to blame. Much of the information used to sell these ordinances was not true. Today, most of the counties that adopted such provisions have long since discarded them because they did not work. These laws alienated the most responsible dog breeders in the community, but had no affect on the irresponsible ones they were intended to reach. They created a wedge between animal control and citizens who formerly supported them. They drove responsible breeders underground, and they didn’t raise funds or address the real source of surplus shelter dogs and cats. They were failures by every objective measure.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201109/s3324311.htm The Victorian Farmers Federation is encouraging farmers to join the RSPCA and influence its stance on issues like live animal exports. It's accused the animal welfare body of shifting to a left-wing agenda. The head of the VFF livestock group, Chris Nixon, says the RSPCA is too heavily influenced by radical animal liberation groups. "The RSPCA has moved their agenda further to the left, they've become more strident in their views about banning live exports and other farm practices that we do," he said. "We believe that by joining the organisation, we can bring the RSPCA back in the middle ground, so we can get a reasonable debate about these issues, not a far left wing agenda that's been driven by Animals Australia and PETA and groups like those." But the Victorian president of the RSPCA, Dr Hugh Wirth, rejects Mr Nixon's message, saying the organisation has no political bias. "It's obvious Mr Nixon knows very little about the RSPCA and the way it works. You've only got to look at the membership, you've only got to look at people on the board of management to see that his claims are completely wrong." You only have to look at their website re dogs to see his claims just may be right!

Debra Tranter was until recently heavily involved with Animal Liberation Victoria. Someone may know why she resigned and is no longer a member however, its interesting that ALV have had some issues with RSPCA Victoria – for example On 4 September 2006, ALV sent a letter to Dr Hugh Wirth, RSPCA Victoria's President, asking them to turn to strict vegetarianism their RSPCA Annual Gala Ball, as made the RSPCA UK. RPSCA Chief Executive Officer, Maria Mercurio, wrote the reply in which they refused. Among other criticisms, Mercurio said: "We know that ALV will continue to attend RSPCA events in Victoria and target our staff, volunteers and guests. We are continually asked why ALV don't hold their own events if they truly wish to get wide attention for their issues; why don't they lobby governments and why don't they try to influence industry, instead of targeting the RSPCA?" ALV has also criticed that while RSPCA says it's against the battery cages, they business with the largest battery egg producer in Australia, Pace Farms. They have also accused RSPCA of approve barnlaid sheds of which ALV claim to have documented later "overcrowding, beak mutilations, lack of perches, prevention of roosting, chronic stress and electric shock training to the hens", among many other criticism It would however, appear that Oscars law is pretty snuggly with RSPCA Victoria. In fact some of their website looks like it came straight from Oscars Law they even use the same photos and their definitions of what is a puppy farmer lines up more with Oscars Law than RSPCA Australia. Animal Liberation Victoria's STATEMENT OF PURPOSES are as follows: 1. TO ABOLISH THE PROPERTY STATUS OF ANIMALS Animal Liberation Victoria endorses an animal rights position which maintains that all sentient beings, regardless of species, have the right to be treated as independent entities, and not as the property of others. 2. TO ABOLISH, AND NOT MERELY REGULATE, INSTITUTIONLISED ANIMAL EXPLOITATION Animal Liberation Victoria supports only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda, placing primary emphasis on animals in factory farms and abattoirs. We recognise we will not abolish animal exploitation and the property status of animals overnight, but will encourage at all times the adoption of a vegan lifestyle as the most appropriate course to achieve these aims. 3. TO ABOLISH HUMAN'S SPECIEST ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism and homophobia, we reject speciesism. The species of sentient beings is no more a reason to deny any individual the basic right not to be the property of others, than is race, sex, age or sexual orientation a reason to deny membership in the moral community to other humans. 4. TO ENCOURAGE AND NURTURE ANIMAL RIGHTS EDUCATION Animal Liberation Victoria commits itself to public education concerning the rights of animals and the importance of defending any other animal whose language communication is different to our own, and who are thus unable to 'speak' for themselves. 5. TO ENDORSE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-VIOLENCE All campaigns and positions of Animal Liberation Victoria use non-violence as their guiding principle and rule of operation. Our work fosters giving aid and rescue to any animal who is suffering in pain and left unattended.

Maybe your campaign is stalling so much because you take on overseas issues and try to apply them to aust. I could show you lots of shocking pictures from all over the place to do with lots of things but the relevance to Australia and legislation within Australia is about nought. I clearly stated that the story was from the US Lilli and also stated it was an example. Perhaps you need to read back a bit. We are over 30 years behind the US and UK. So anyone in AUST with any sense or intellegence will sit up and listen to the huge issues they have already faced and are addressing O/S. That is correct we are about that behind and around about the mid nineties animal rights in the US did exactly what is going on now here .I dont see that as a very successful outcome and if we are going to allow animal rights here do what they did over there we will go backwards not forwards Then take a better look and re assess the situation with different eyes. What they have just made law we have here already.

I like tri coloured beagles but I do have a couple of Tan and whites in my breeding program because of the other good things they bring to the table but if I were pet shopping Id wait for a tri colour . Im also fussy about the genes in the boys to ensure I don't get too many which are not tri colour when I mate him to a Tan and white girl. I would never own a tan and white stud dog no matter how good he was.

Most pet owners say that they consider their pets as part of the family, but animal control laws like this treat the entire pet-owning community as the problem and their pets as disposable commodities which can simply be moved out to a pound if there is one too many or as nuisances. When she calls the police and has them charged what does she intend to have done with the dogs which can no longer live with their owners – Oh that's right "rescue them" Instead of defending the values of responsible pet owners, andresponsible breeders they want to load us with unenforceable crap that actually threaten an owner's sense ofsecurity and convert otherwise responsible citizens into seeing them as scofflaws,driving them underground for fear of being found in violation of the law or publicly castigated even if not guilty all over the net. Number limits are oftencited as a means to prevent the hoarding but this problem can only be solved by enforcement of current laws