Steve

We've got our own Lauras here. Some do a good job too.Others collect the old stuff and use it themselves claiming they are rescues.others sell them entire and pregnant.

Intersting that their definition of a puppy mill is specific that its breeders who recieve pedigree papers from the AKC . a puppy mill is any location that breeds a lot of dogs,18 which receive pedigree papers from the American Kennel Club19 (AKC).20 Also their laws appear to leave a very large chunk of breeders out of the loop The new law defines a “kennel” as any establishment “in or through which at least 26 dogs are kept or transferred in a calendar year, or a boarding kennel.64 A “commercial kennel” is a kennel that breeds or whelps dogs and sells or transfers any dogs to a dealer or pet shop kennel or that sells or transfers more than 60 dogs per calendar year.65 and that the laws they are bringing in re kennel conditions, etc now we already have.

Except in NSW we dont have a restriction on how many dogs you can keep and dog attacks havent been shown to occur because someone has more or less dogs.Why introduce something which will restrict all dog owners when its not even part of the issue ?

Agreed - however, in Victoria up until now RSPCA had powers to police POCTAA - Council had power to police mandatory codes and regardless of what we are being told they did . In some cases they have been pretty full on .We know of one who is made to keep her dogs in pens and paint the floors every time they drop in for a visit because they say the floors arent sealed well enough. Its been pretty hard for anyone to get a DA in Victoria to breed dogs too. However, now the RSPCA have powers to work outside of POCTAA so they can police mandatory codes which are more specific to a fault of what can and cant be done. We are told the biggest risk factor lies with those who dont have DA's who hide out and do lots to conceal who they are and where they are, what they do etc .there was all manner of stuff in the original discussion paper about getting stock feed places to dob in those who buy lots of dog food etc in order to try to spot them. They tell us this is why they want licences introduced .they tell us that is why we should encourage everyone to apply for DA's and do it all 100% by the book. Most of the photos and footage of terrible puppy farmers who we can clearly see are crimminals are shot of people in this category or hoarders - but the campaign is directed at those who do have inspections, who do have DA's and do follow mandatory laws even if they dont agree with them. Its classic animal rights behaviour and propoganda.

Of course thats horrible Nic but that isnt here and it isnt something that is happening here.If it were there are people who can investigate it and do something about it. But just take a look at this which is used to slam one breeder .Which supposedly happened 8years ago - so much for us trying to educate breeders and trying to turn them around if they are to be branded and judged for supposedly previous sins almost a decade later ! There is not one breeder among us who has not made some mistakes or who operated one way years ago before we had the science. That the breeder had puppies with one bitch every 5 months. Now if a bitch has puppies today in order for her to have puppies in 5 months she would have to come on heat again when her puppies are 10 weeks old . That gives us 10 weeks break + 2 weeks before she ovulates and 9 weeks of pregnancy .Which would give her puppies in just over 5 months. Now Im sorry when the breeder says this is crap its pretty bloody hard not to agree with her and believe her when she says she was set up. Based on the breed politics which were alive and well at that time in that particular breed and the factthat the prisoners for profit website says that other breeders of this breed are against her - thats pretty believeable too. I have never seen nor heard of a bitch coming on heat when her puppies are only 10 weeks old. But apart from that this is a judgement and used as evidence of the breeder being cruel but the science and experts qualified in canine reproduction dont agree that mating a bitch on every season when she is young is cruel anyway. That breeder has been raided by rednecks inspected more than most due to vexatious complaints by RSPCA and council and has never been found lacking yet her name is used to demonstrate cruel breeders for things she is accused of doing in 2002. Since then mandatory codes have been introduced and you cant have more than 2 litters from a bitch in 18 months in that state but back then it was not an issue and it is a very controversial issue still as it is against the research and science for the best management of breeding bitches. Before it became part of the code of ethics for CCs and state mandatory codes most breeders bred their bitches young and often. It is now in the codes due to pressure from people who decided what is best for a bitch and what is cruel simply because they have chosen that as one of the things they say . We have to have the ability to choose what we do with our girls taken from us because some one somewhere might mate a bitch when she isnt in good condition. Suppose its probaly a waste of time to say research shows if she isnt in pretty good nick she either wont mate or doesnt get pregnant either. Who should decide what is cruel but worse do we get to hear what is considered cruel before they rip us to bits or do they just make it up as they go along ? The mandatory code for breeding dogs in Victoria is quote Materials should be selected for ease of maintenance and cleaning, durability and non-toxicity. Floors of animal housing areas of catteries and kennels must be made of an impervious material to assist cleaning and drainage. Wood, brick, dirt or grass floors are not acceptable except in exercise areas. The internal surfaces of the external walls of catteries and kennels must be constructed of impervious solid, washable materials optimally curved at the wall/floor junctions to facilitate cleaning and disinfection. Kennel and cattery floors must be sloped to enable wastes and water to run off. A collection drain must be provided to take away water after cleaning. Pens maybe separated by either solid partitions, galvanised chain wire or weld mesh wire dividers. All kennels must be provided with a weatherproof sleeping area containing raised beds constructed of a material other than concrete, such as wood or plastic. So when the cameras come in and film dogs on impervious material to assist cleaning and drainage which is not brick, dirt or grass who is cruel those who gave them no choice but to do that on them for doing that? And 3.8 Minimum Pen Sizes (a) Dogs (Table 1) Under no circumstances can more than two dogs be housed in the one pen. The minimum pen sizes are for one adult dog (older than 16 weeks) or one bitch and a litter up to eight weeks of age. One third of the area of each pen must be weatherproof and include raised sleeping quarters. Individual sleeping quarters must be provided when two adult dogs are housed in the one pen. The identification number of each dog housed in each pen must be clearly displayed on the pen. Poor dogs and you understand this is for all breeders and not just large scale commercial breeders .None of us including commercial breeders want to keep their breeding dogs that way but whenthe cameras were on the Bulleys place if the place wasnt the way it was they would have been in strife with council and RSPCA - yet its used to show how cruel they are .

How can you seriously come onto a public forum and advocate for people to break the law and believe thats O.K.? Surely you know in the dog world that people will accuse you of all manner of things and its not O.K. to just run riot and have no regard for the law in the name of some cause. There's a highly respectable line of enquiry....in ethical circles. It's an age-old question, is it 'right' to sometimes break a law, and, if so, in what circumstances. For example, some civil disobedience lay behind the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jnr in the US. The position is generally expressed as, is it morally acceptable to break a law, if, not doing so, means that a perversion of law will continue. Happened in my own state of Qld back in the 1970s. Reactionary, highly conservative Premier Jo banned any kind of demonstration in public streets (with no permits available). He was rock solid against any pleas thro' regular channels to reverse this. Bless the Q'ld University students. They assembled on campus & marched to the city a number of times, because the only way left to highlight the problem, in that case, was to break the law on that ban. Policing was much rougher, then....& some of those kids got themselves bashed with batons. Eventually it sickened the general public so much, that the Gov had to change that law & allow permits to have demonstrations. True but what is going on here is a little different - These people are breaking and entering, trespassing and stealing when there is no need for them to do that. If they think something is going on that is this bad to warrant that kind of action then why dont they simply hand it over to the people who are charged with investigating it all? The RSPCA have been accused of coming in with boots on, filming those they are raiding, taking out dogs and we have seen them on the telly siezing dogs and doing their job. But with commercial breeder or anyone perceived to be a commercial breeder we are to believe they inspect breeders and see this stuff and dont do anything about it especially now when they have police powers to act OUTSIDE of POCTAA. If they have suspicion that someone is doing it wrong the police, RSPCA and council and all of the puppy buyers who attend the properties will make that determination. This isnt about rallies and civil disobedience its about you and everyone having the right to expect that a bunch of vigilanties and bullies will not break into your property in case you might be doing something to hurt animals according to their definition and not the law and even when you are found not guilty of breaking any laws making your life hell for years anyway because they say so.

But Nic - Rare cases are used to make it look like it is more prevalent and its become a situation where some kennels which are being accused are being inspected are given a tick and they are not found to be guilty of having their dogs suffering. As the head of the RSPCA Victoria said last night - the problem is one group has some idea of what is suffering and thats not necessarily suffering . The stuff that is being circulated and being used to brand a breeder in some cases is way over the top and most people can see this .

The minute they changed it from people who breed dogs in sub standard conditions to a go after commercial breeders they lost. The more they carry on about how rotten commercial breeders ar the more they make it more difficult for everyone who wants to breed a dog. The fact is breeders dont want to keep their dogs in kennels on concrete floors but look at the codes and the crap they push and they come in and find a dog in an enclosure thats had the bloody hide to dig a hole and its a breach of the codes and laws. There is one ranger who takes photos of a couple of dogs in big yards to prove the breeders are not following the codes. We have spoken with one breeder who has to paint the floors of her pens every 12 weeks or so because the council say the concrete isnt sealed enough. She doesnt want her dogs even in the pens she tells us it is causing her dogs to have leg and feet problems. I have a whelping room which cost me 80,000 dollars plus which my dogs have never whelped in. I have a grooming room - Ive never groomed a dog in.I have a shower room in case I ever have staff which has been used twice when the hot water system in the house blew up.I have special septic systems. I have a fully tiled and sealed quarantine area Ive never used. I have a separate laundry which I do use as it has a washing machine in it which I use to wash my dogs stuff rather than the one in my laundry and the hot water in that area is hotter than the house to kill germs. The only thing other than this that area is used for is storage for Pacers. I have special worm farms for poo , and special landscaping to prevent noise escaping, I have special rain water tanks and town water in a kitchen - beautiful- Ive never used which is almost as nice as the one in the house. the area is climate controlled with sealed floors and has hot water hoses. I have a parking area no one has ever parked a car in. I have dog pens which are 60 feet x 15 feet which the dogs are only in if I have visitors and they are positioned so the dogs in one cant see the dogs in another because council told us that if they could see each other it would create a noise issue. My closest neighbour is 3 kilometres away. All of this for 9 beagles some of which are in their late teens and too old to breed and 8 Maremma which work the sheep and are out in the paddocks except one which is with me and the beagles all day. Ive had 3 litters this year and not one of them has seen inside that whelping room.

But Toy Dog most them are no problem.Most of them are clean and there are no problems.Its just now and then one turns up thats rotten and its used to try to paint all places with the same brush.

I agree but thats not really all we have on the table here is it? If it were then the other crap designed to make breeders look cruel and terrible wouldnt be needed.

First I think we have to prove that puppies in pet shops come from puppy farms - they say they dont and that puppies in pet shops are less healthy, less socilaised or more bad temperamented.

How can you seriously come onto a public forum and advocate for people to break the law and believe thats O.K.? Surely you know in the dog world that people will accuse you of all manner of things and its not O.K. to just run riot and have no regard for the law in the name of some cause.

If these kind of tactics are acceptable perhpas its time some rescue orgs were raided and if we find one thats crook use it to push for laws for all rescue. Ive a couple of photos right now taken legitimately which should kick it off.

thats just not true - good breeders do sometimes need to advertise .And what if they do - advertise anywhere? As long as the breeder is doing it right and handling the sale isnt that better than having puppies unsold or puppies sold by an agent or pet shop? This is a real issue .Ive met some breeders who justify putting their puppies in pet shops because if they advertise they are judged as being rotten breeders. The pet shop doesnt tell peopel they had puppies and didnt have them all sold before they hit the ground. Ive met breeders who kill their puppies rather than be seen to be advertising someplace someone has decided they shouldnt. If pet rescue are advertising there thats great it puts them where people can see them and no one is selling them entire so why would puppy farmers be attracted to that ? I dont take a waiting list simply because when I did I had up to 100 on it - that makes no sense to me or the buyers .I start taking names about 3 days before the litter is born and I dont tell anyone they are here until they are about 3 weeks old. Maremmas have a dozen or so a litter and it's better for them to be gone at 8 weeks to be able to start work and bonding and its not just puppy farmers who shop on the trading post its ordinary every day people who dont know where else to look. Its a good thing for pet rescue or any rescue assuming they are doing the rest right and its a good thing for breeders. Does anyone seriously think that someone looking for a dog for a puppy farm isnt capapble of seeing dogs on dogz or the pet rescue website as easily as they do on the trading post? This whole thing of if you are a good breeder you dont need to advertise is a myth and its a good way for breeders to promote their breeds outside of the usual in house places.

I could not agree more. I do not understand why live pets in pet shops are not banned. I understand that the City of Toronto in Canada is about to ban them and the rest of the country is expected to follow suit. The Province of Quebec is also about to introduce some legislation to stop puppy farming but I don't have any details yet. Maybe if the RSPCA do not have enough inspectors they should hand the inspection part of their job to someone else. They are getting enough money to do the job and pushed for more powers. Same old same old push for more laws because the current ones arent being enforced.

Yep that took my interest too .Im going to give it a go.

I wont war with you but give me enough chance and Ill try and convert you

i don't mean to be rude or anything but i am genuinely interested in what you are saying here in the above statement, you breed cross breed dogs, i understand that working dogs if you have all working dogs can be crosses sometimes and good workers. my family have been farmers for years although we didn't have a working farm ourselves we just lived on a working farm in one part of the property. my aunt and uncle managed a 2000 hectare sheep farm for many generations. they've had many working dogs over the years. i am just interested in how that works out, breeding crosses to work, not being able to know the bloodlines because they are crossed and nothing recorded down so you can't cross check. its hard enough for us to breed the pedigrees and keep track of genetic problems and try to minimise them and everything is down on paper so we can cross check a name of a dog say, generations back and see where the recessives are coming back through from. so how do you test successfully crosses? sorry to everyone this is i know You can still know the blood lines if you cross breed them you just cant register the pups with the ANKC .You can still test the parents for the same thing any one else breeding that breed can and there are some you dont need to test for as they are recessive and not common to both breeds. Its about what you are selecting for. If Im selecting dogs destined to be used for further breeding I have to take into account things which will impact on future litters. If Im breeding for only one litter then I have to select differently. Some peopel select for working ability and others for the way a dog conforms for the show ring . Each can keep their dogs well and each can justify what they do. What makes purebred breeders unique is that we do have to consider what comes next so we select differently. We dont have to agree with it and we can lecture them on predictibility etc but just because its not what we think should be done doesnt mean they are breeding sick ,untested dogs or keeping them in rotten conditions. Time we sorted out that we are a minority and there are only 4 and a half thousand of us Australia wide and stop trying to beat those up who do things differently or select for other things - we need friends not enemies.

I am against any introduction of a licence system. When you issue a licence it makes that activity illegal without one and it is a methid for them to come onto your property and take your transient property without due process. It means they can withdraw the licence on any whim.

Thanks for that info. So with the definition of a puppy farm - the definition upheld by the RSPCA etc is a useful definition that came out of a working group involving the key stakeholders in the animal care world. I want to be clear on this - the problem then is not the 'official' definition of a puppy farm; you're saying the problem is public opinion and media pressure? Sorry if I'm not picking it up right - let me go back to the beginning. Has the definition of a puppy farm that came out of that meeting been accepted as a universal definition for use in Australian legislation? If it hasn't, can you tell me where the resistance to upholding the definition comes from (e.g. politics, ego, something else?) I understand that there are deep complexities around points of view about dog breeding. Some of the most staunchly pro-animal people in the nation will openly savage some of the most ethical and responsible dog breeders in the nation purely because the former believe the latter are "adding to the problem". With the Calgary model, I've read the bylaws and was very impressed by the clear and rational thinking behind them. However the results in the Calgary 2010 annual report don't uphold what I'd been led to believe about the model being a cure-all for dog attacks - which is how it's presented by many pro-pit factions. (And again in anything I'm trying to learn about and get others interested in, I'm steering away from focusing on pitbull terriers). I've been doing more to figure out why the model hasn't had the effects I've been told it had. Perhaps it did initially, but now there are other problems that need to be investigated and accounted for. (I need to find out if anyone's conducted an evaluation on the Calgary animal bylaws and implementation thereof.) Some problems apparently include that Calgary never dealt with laws around breeding, and by rescinding BSL they've left their region open to abuse from unscrupulous breeders of fighting dogs. The region has also allegedly become a dumping ground for fighting dogs from other regions where BSL is in force. Add a measure of public hearsay to those allegations, and you come up with a dangerous rumour mill about how the Calgary model is full of holes (which I don't believe - I do think it's the most progressive and effective animal control legislation we have to work with). It also lends grist to the pro-BSL mill, who can choose to ignore the really positive outcomes from Calgary and focus on the bad - a tendency that isn't exclusive to critics of that model. Yes one problem is that Oscars Law and RSPCA Victoria among others have decided upon their own definition and those who are calling for puppy farms to be banned are actually calling for all manner of things to be banned. If I support oscars law based on what I think the definition is I find that in fact Im supporting something else altogether. The word puppy farmer is different depending on who you talk to so how on earth can anyone take any of it and use it as a show against puppy farms .When they see a rally and hear its against puppy farms who's definition do they think they are rallying against? The other problem is that the methodology being used - that is bullying, raids, sensationalism, illegal activities,presenting false information , calling for laws which will never fly is counter productive to the best out come.

Thats it.

the only copy I have was delivered via email though Im sure its on a website by now somewhere and at first we were asked to keep it all to ourselves - there is much I could say about the whole round table thing and what came out of it and why the MDBA has recently withdrawn support but thats not really stuff that I can say on a public forum. Im sure if you search for the RSPC'S Way forward plan you will turn it up. If not send me an email and Ill send it to you.

Steve, do you have any links to anything I can read up on about how this process went? e.g. the date and time of the meeting, who chaired, who decided who would attend, who was due to run with the definitions and so on, and what happened next? If the RSPCA were holding the reins, did they drop them? Or was it the influence of the media yet again in policymaking, undoing the work you guys did by giving air time to the Animal Welfare Activists because of the potential pull of such an emotive story? (Government here, I have seen and heard from those within Departments, reacts strongly to the media - anything that has media coverage is on the minister's desk within minutes.) I ask because I've opened a right can of research worms myself. Prompted by how I feel about Victoria's rushed dangerous dog legislation, I spent a few pretty long nights reading and following links and trawling through archives and calling people from ages past and getting information about why the legislation as it stands on dangerous dogs won't make a difference. But of course, that sort of approach should always be balanced by what will make a difference. I'm very careful not to take the information and stances on personal web pages as God's own tears and that has involved me trudging through a lot of legislation from other jurisdictions. (The Calgary Model, for instance. I heard about it, I had views on it, I read about it from personal webpages, I had other views on it, and then I printed up the animal bylaws from Calgary and read them in tandem with Calgary's 2010 annual report, and now I have all SORTS of views on it.) What I am starting to realise is that animal welfare and control in this country cannot be tackled in bites. If we want to create a safe community for our pets and our children, if we want to prevent wilful animal cruelty and if we want to place a higher value on animals and our moral responsibility towards them as a society, we need to look at the whole pie. That pie starts with who breeds dogs and why and that ties in inextricably to how owners manage their pets and what powers our councils and rangers should have to protect our community and the place of our pets in the community. So that's where I'm coming from, and any info you have - links, PM, whatever would be most welcome. PS: Did I say I had a headache? When the discussion paper went out comments were called for and the RSPCA Australia who chaired the meeting invited those groups which had submitted comments to them to attend. It was held in Canberra and from memory. Dogs NSW,ANKC, MDBA, AAPDB, PIAA,Young lawyers,Deathrow pets, RSPCA Australia ,RSPCA ACT and RSPCA NSW , AVA and AWL. If I take a bit of time Id be able to dig out dates but for now Id be guessing. The RSPCA havent dropped the reins and they have made some good progress so far and a major part of the plan is in having breeders out in the open and not hiding away regardless of how many they own or breed to ensure the dogs in their care are being treated as they should be. We went and banged a drum and tried to get breeders to see they needed DA's and complied with codes and laws even though we dont agree with some of them but then when they do they are beaten black and blue Now anyone who dares to ask if they can breed dogs on their property know they will probably cop some crap and that lots of stress and grief is to follow. The big guys stick it out and appeal and win or go to another shire. The little guys dont dare ask. Then comes illegal raids and sensationalism and that makes everyone alienated and frightened especially when you get them "dobbing in a puppy farmer" when puppy farmer is defined by a multitude of things. There isnt any point in pushing for things to happen which are prevented from happening under federal law - It wastes time and is divisive and if cant be seen to look at it and present it objectively its not going to have the same chance of sucess I agree with you and think you are on the right track though the Clagary model is a good base line I think it needs a small change to work effectively in Australia. dont underestmate the egos and the politics.

Seems the Pacers shop has blown up so we have put it inthe MDBA shop until we can get it fixed.Any one who want to buy one needs to go here. http://www.mdba.net.au/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.browse&category_id=32&Itemid=28

But in Queensland you can register them into the new owners name - wish we could.