Steve

However, state laws and codes are more restrictive than any CC's and all people who breed a dog in NSW are supposed to be operating under them. And - when others start a group which gives those who dont want to be or who cant be ANKC they get beaten up.

Then good ethical registered breeders have nothing to fear. By the way, the worst rescue I have ever done was from a registered breeder. Malnutrition, shocking ear and dental infections and skin infections. The traumatised bitch that I kept took months of constant vet care to get her healthy again. The dogs lived on a concrete slab in cages. Yes I agree good ethical breeders have nothing to fear whether they are registered with ANKC or not - if that is the definition we all use - the problem is it isnt. If it were i wouldnt be yelling about it because some of the definitions are doomed to failure. By the way the worst Ive ever seen was a registered breeder too.

Sandgrubber the discussion papers was put out prior to the round table meeting which discussed the discussion paper and the definition was changed. The RSPCA and everyone of the groups who attended agreed on a definition and we all thought that was that and we were all working toward doing something about that. On the 22nd of August via email distributed to those who attended the round table meeting and other interested people including Oscars Law again RSPCA Australia clarified what definition we are using to define puppy farms. Quote Thanks for your further feedback. The RSPCA defines a Puppy farm as: A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as: an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

NODS.

Well I thought we had all systems go.We sat in a room for bloody hours with a whole bunch of people from all different breeder, welfare , vet and pet shop groups and talked it through.We left in the belief we were now able to define what a puppy farm is and what needed to be done to ensure they were stopped. The RSPCA Australia took the reins and whilst we didnt agree on some of the finer details we could see a fair potential that we could do something to stop people who bred dogs in rotten conditions - regardless of how many or what their motivation was. Then animal right's come in and use their own definition and all of it goes to hell. Any hope of breeders being prepared to be more open and more transparent ,therefore more accountable,easily seen if they are doing the wrong thing etc is put back by miles. Everything planned to bring in real laws and regs and real solutions are smashed because the method and info given is so easily seen as fanatics and beaten up and just as the pet shop campaign failed because it was generated by emoton, assumption and lack of credibility thats exactly the way this will go. Breeders who are not motivated by the money and who dont have large amounts invested in infa structure [kennels etc] are asking themselves why they would continue to be involved .. Responsible breeders go underground,or work out its not worth the grief and irresponsible ones are more likely to do all they can to avoid being spotted.

It doesnt as long as we all agree on what a puppy farm is and what it is we want shut down.

Unless I have one which is going into the ring I also take my time. A breeder in NSW has 18 months and I like to be sure before I place them on a register as to what they will be used for rather than having to chop and change them later.Sometimes too I have a pup here for several months until it goes to its new home and it suits me more to wait and name them officially when they are sold. Im very clear about this up front and write it on my receipts but Im also happy to provide the unregistered pedigree if anyone is wanting to see bloodlines etc.

Found it, but it wont register my order into my cart for some reason. ill let you know when its fixed Ive let the webmaster know there is a problem. Julie

Define substance and ideas ? So called breeders? Im a breeder alright - What does so called mean? Do you doubt that I breed dogs? But you're dead right about empty vessels making the most noise and its animal rights loons who are way ahead in that department - blind freddy can see that

Ill check it out for you . If you have already ordered one via the website all you need to do is deposit the money and use your invoice number. PM me your real name and Ill look it up for you if you like . Julie

Yep you just wait for it to be thrown around and used to shut us up when they dont agree with something we say. In the main it works too where people are too frightened to tell the truth and stand up for what is right and dare to say what they think is wrong . Perhaps - especially in Victoria where laws abound for defining shelters which need domestic animal licences and have to operate under mandatory codes are now there for rescue its time we started dob in a rescue and snuck around in the night with cameras. After all what have they got to hide if they do the right thing they have nothing to fear. We knocked a rescue member back a couple of months ago and refused membership for them because they could have 2 dogs on their property and they had 25 - nothing to fear if they do it right though.

I think you'd only need to look in the mirror to meet a breeder like that, toy dog. You sound like my kind of breeder! Frankly, in my limited experience, I've met far more decent registered breeders than awful ones. My wish is that responsible pet owners find their ways to breeders like that. And if calling yourself your dog's mother....birth or adoptive....is what nutters do. Then I'm a nut job, too. At least we and our dog are happy. In my experience I too have met more great breeders than scabby ones

My dogs all come from a registered breeder who believes that as soon as her girls have done their bit in the Show-ring & got their titles.....& have had one or two litters....they deserve to be in a good pet home for the rest of their days, if possible. She doesn't have a lot of dogs, so all are known to her by name and personality.....& they have access to the house. She's part of a national & international network of breeders of her breed. Where health matters are taken seriously, with an International Working Party & tested dogs listed. She makes a conscious effort to continually socialise her dogs & puppies, with access to children and some doing pet therapy. She follows up with support, for life, any of her pups or dogs that've been placed in homes. And, because she knows their personalities so well, is able to make good matches. No wonder, the dogs that I've got from her have been brilliantly socialised to be close companion dogs. And scientific research would back the worth and necessity of what she's doing in that respect. Interestingly, the word 'socialisation' is absent from most support of commercial puppy breeding. Of course, she'd sell her puppies for money.... & they're worth it, in terms of the expert knowledge put into their breeding & raising. I doubt if she'd describe herself as a 'commercial' breeder, which implies making a living....and maybe supporting employees as well. And I doubt if commercial breeders could do what she does, given there'd have to be larger numbers of dogs & more emphasis on number of litters produced. Which is why I support her 'hobby', 'breed-centred', approach as the source for any puppy or dog I'd get. And I'd like to see registered breeders like her, get the acknowledgement and consideration they've earned. The critical issue that needs to be looked into is supply of puppies and dogs, given that such an 'expert hobby model' does not produce puppies in great numbers. Like, is there any benefits in the model frequently used in the Scandanavian country from which one of my dogs originally came. Some of a registered breeder's dogs may be placed in 'hub' homes, from which they go on with their show career, but in which they benefit from the up -close care and socialisation. Yes, the ability for a breeder to decide how many is good for them to be able to live with and cope with dependent on breed and their lifestyle. When one of your breeders's was under the gun there were all manner of crazy accusations made about her .One of which was that she kept her dogs in kennels in her back yard and never had any interaction with them As you know nothing could be further from the truth . From the other side she was beaten up because she didnt have kennels and didnt keep them according to mandatory codes. She was accused of having too many or being cruel and of not caring about them and rehoming them when she no longer needed them..of course because she had so many and had them in her home she had their voices lowered and accused of doing so in order for her to be able to hide the fact she had so many. Her home was filmed and her ordeal went on and on and it is something she will probably never get over. Imagine what that would have been like for her if rather than someone turning up with a search warrant it was someone who was skulking around and plastering accusations all over websites and national TV prior to the people who have authority to do that arrived. The numbers she owned are way over what I could cope with and do as good a job of it as she does - the size of my home, my breeds, and the numbers of humans who live here wouldnt be able to cope with having that many under foot etc either. One of her dogs was PTS with the reason being given it was under socialised and had a rotten temperament and was suffering so badly because of what she did - based on what we know of how she lives with her dogs its difficult to understand how that could ever be possible. If we are to protect her right to live her life without fear that someone will dob her in for some terrible thing which they have been doing for 30 years or so even to the point of distributing illegally gotten documents which are over 20 years old and that people will break the law to try to prove it we have to work to protect all . If we say its O.K. for one breeder to stand accused or if someone just wants to check in case so its O.K. to come in and trespass and stalk them there are few people in the dog world who wouldnt have someone prepared to take a poke. In a perfect world for me no one would breed commercially, no one would sell their puppies to pet shops, no one would see their dogs as farmers see their beef cattle and only predictible puppies would be bred from well socialised happy and healthy Mums and Dads - other's are saying in their perfect world there would be no show ring , no purebred dogs no one breeding for a breed standard, no one breeding at all, no puppies in loungerooms etc. But we cant just follow on blindly without questioning the propoganda and the un intended consequences for all dogs. We cant just decide one group has more rights or is somehow more special than another because we are in a different group. Everything that has been strategically planned by a group of people who attended the round table conferences to address the issues such as lack of socialisation etc is bought undone and it wont stop dogs suffering ,I mean really suffering. You also cant expect to educate breeders but hold back some bits which you think they may abuse or which animal rights has decided is different to what it really is. You cannot justify breaking the law treating people who breed dogs as if they are somehow exempt from having rights in case they are treating their dogs poorly and not see how that erodes the very essence of our society. We have to go in and advocate for changes in order to stop dogs suffering and if we are seen to be in bed with a bunch of redneck people who are prepared to break the law and beat up issues with sensationalism and emotionalism we are lost before we begin. We have to show we are a moderate group capable of seeing all aspects of the issue and not use illegal methods or non provable accustaions to back us up. If we dont when one thing is shown to be assumed and crap and we can be shown to be wrong or beating it up - its lost. Prime example of this was the whole pet shop thing - Where the reasons given for change were so easily proven to be in correct. RSPCA Australia tell me in writing they are not against sales of live animals in pet shops and they are not against commercial breeding and that is something that is underestimated inthe big schem of things too.

did i say i don't vaccinate every year and dont walk my dogs? i certainly do do all those things, i hope you were just using that as an example of what they can say i hope its not thought i don't do those things because i believe in vaccinations every year and i also believe in exercising my dogs and training every day in actual fact Sorry Toy dog - no I wasnt accusing you of doing that and I have no way of knowing either way i was just using it as an exaple of what could be said about any one. You see I think its cruel to vaccinate your dogs every year and I really really hate the fact that in order to comply with mandatory codes a breeder get no option.

im a registered breeder and i have fostered dogs, i have rescued dogs from "breeders", i am an animal lover and i am against puppies being sold in petshops. it breaks my heart. there are alot on here like me too. you are wrong. and there's another aspect the hidden cruelty that i alert people to, what they don't mention because they don't know the breeding side of it all i suppose well i know that for a fact as i had to explain alot to the leader and she was very interested in what i had to say, is those pups often have hidden genetic problems as the parents are not health tested for that particular mix as they have several mixes of breed in them. pedigree dogs at least you can predict lots and have a better chance of obtaining a healthy puppy. as MDBA have written staff are often not qualified enough to address buyers concerns so those buyers are on their own and this leads into issues with dumpage etc etc. people (refuse to call them breeders becauae they are not!) who sell their pets to shops don't obviously care so churn out more and more. endless cycle. i think there is too much focus on the cruelty in farms when those same farms can say to govt and council as they do, the former mayor of one council i spoke to told me what these farmers actually tell govt and councillors! we do look after our animals, we feed them we water them, we exercise them so there is NO PROBLEM. anyway, i got chucked out for my comments on pedigree dogs when i wasn't really speaking about pedigree dogs! i was speaking about the breeding side in general to get people to think outside the box and to counteract what the farmers are actually saying to the people who make the laws. then i had one person come on just to wind me up and say i am cruel to expect my dogs to breed and what right do i have to breed dogs. and i thought right oh, if animal rights people think that all breeding is cruel then where do they expect to get their dogs when the shelters dry up because breeding will be banned? doesn't make sense. perhaps that person was from PETA i have no idea but it was scary and a really out there opinion. but i did wonder from then on, how many others think the same thing. i dont think anyone is disputing that fact. steve has stated she has come up against some registered breeders who have failed the grade and i have too and there are unscrupulous breeders amongst our midst. but its a difficult issue in how to eliminate these people out of the picture, dogsvictoria asked that same question and then there was a whole session on what is a puppy farmer and how do we go about gathering evidence that they are in the wrong. these people are giving us all a bad name. there were some on prisoners for profit website who said that DOGSNSW should be ashamed of themselves for taking the money when they knew these people were exporting and breeding alot of litters. perhaps they haven't got to that stage like dogsvic of actually asking the members why so many litters and what for. not that that's going to deter these people really i think to myself. Its a difficult issue to remove these kind of people from any group. The people not just breeders, but also rescue and owners who I have seen who have not made the grade are people who keep their animals in true suffering. Suffering where they are being saturated from head to foot by the dog in the crate above them weeing on them for weeks at a time where they stand and sit and sleep in 6 inches of their own shit where the crate is never cleaned and they never ever get out .Where a bedroom door is shut to keep the stench contained in case any one comes. Where dogs are able to die in this filth and their bodies are left to rot with the rest walking all over them until they eventually die too. Ive seen rescue who would leave most puppy farmers for dead - who pride themselves on no kill and keep dogs for years locked in pens, who have them living in filth and suffering. Ive seen smaller rescues who "rescue puppy farm dogs" only to use them themselves for breeding and continue to breed every cycle and sell the puppies as rescue dogs with dogs living in crap and costs cut . Ive seen owners who are clearly mentally ill and hoard not just animals but anything including shit and filth. We have been in houses where we have had to put on masks and overalls and pay heaps of money to people to get the crap out so we can help the dogs and sometimes they are registered breeders. How many they own , how many they breed, where they live or why they do what they do is no indicator of someone who keeps dogs in misery and Im talking real misery - not the emotional crap thats used all over the place to tell people what a puppy farmer is.

it is justified doing it through raids and other means because they (animal rights people and others) say that police, RSPCA and council refuse to act? and also the police were actually operating puppy farms themselves. many people on here have said that RSPCA are weak and sometimes don't even act when it is infront of their face that there is a cruelty case going on. i haven't had that problem myself they've acted fairly quickly in my experience. so this is their reasoning? they also go on to say the laws have failed these dogs, they can only act when the dogs are near to death. RSPCA/animal rights people. so they intervene to save the dogs and one video they had up, don't know if its still there but they went to take a look at the dogs and one puppy was lying still on the ground so Debra and her friend picked up the pup it was fitting i think clearly a sick little baby. they took it in the car and tried to rush it to the vets. it ended up dying. but it was in the farm in a pen on its own and no owner or anyone was in sight. O.K. So is it O.K. for someone to accuse you of something and for them to break into your property and do this to you? Why are you more special and have more rights - because you say you dont do these things - so do they! Why do you think they refuse to act? The police are not operating puppy farms - there is one who operates a breeding kennel.which has been inspected by authorities, which is inspected almost daily by puppy buyers. What they are saying is cruel isnt cruel according to the law and in some cases according to science. If we condone this toy dog then I can say you breed purebreds and that is cruel ,you feed them home cooked human food, you keep them inside, you dont take them for walks, you dont vaccinate each year so I will come to your house and tell the world about how cruel you are .You cant just let any old body make up their own rules and do what ever they want because they have a different idea on what is cruel according to those who have been charged with ensuring POCTAA is not being breached and that mandatory codes are being observed. Do you rally think that the RSPCA would sieze dogs and do what they did to the breeder who debarked them and not act on this stuff if it was as bad as they say it is?

I dont have a clue how anyone can or does look after 1000 dogs but Im not prepared to make judgements on whether they are or are not cruel to their animals based on emotional argument which is not conducive to science or on another case which has been sensationalised. If dogs are suffering there is a system in place for the places to be inspected and action taken, council, police, and RSPCA are charged with this - there is no need to go in under cover of darkness because the same dogs and the same conditions are there in daylight and when you come through the front gate. Of course what we do is different to what Debra Tranter does. Firstly nothing we do is illegal and the breeder gets a fair chance to defend themselves. They already have given us permission to investigate any compliants against them and they are advised when these complaints are lodged. So far we havent received a complaint against any of our members that they keep their animals in poor conditions but if we do Ill be there with two others personally and I wont need a private investigator or to break in at night to do so. I'll knock on the front door and ask to take a look. Our use of a PI so far has been when our members have been accused of fraud and not providing necessary infomation etc as we didnt have the skills and resources required to do it ourselves but the breeders knew we were investigating it and so far have been cleared.

Excuse me ? I didnt say if they are regulated and breeders put their own dogs in there that it is O.K. .It is never O.K. for breeders to sell puppies to pet shops .I agree the ideal way is for pet shops to advertise for breeders and reascue and not have live animals and its pretty easy to regualte the education level and age of a sales person who sells live animals. You have no justification to accuse me of being most concerned about myself and its a typical response - the fact is everything I do and say is based on what I think is best for dogs - all dogs, dogs in general and you dont have to agree with what I think or say but you you are out of order when you accuse me of having that as a motivation. Get it right I didnt accuse you of telling fibs I accused the Oscar's law and RSPCA Victoria's websites of telling fibs . i accuse animal rights of taking cases and sensationalising them and making out there is an epidemic. Again I ask if people are treating animals cruelly isnt that enough?Why is there a need to beat it up. Breeders, registered breeders [ why do you think we started the MDBA] Rescue and owners can al be guilty of neglecting their dogs Now just in case I over estimated you I will spell it out - I am [and the MDBA ]is against the sale of live animals in pet shops - it is against our codes of conduct and if any of our breeders did they would be gone. I would like to see live animals banned just as you would but when you bring in reasons for having them banned whichcan easily be disproved it prevents us being able to do anything which may actually have a chance of getting results.

If I didnt think other people had enough intellegence to work it out for themselves - especially front line rescuers like you I wouldnt be here knocking myself out, putting up with abusive calls and emails and PM's. Im hoping that people can work out that the methodology being used is counterproductive, has un intended consequences and that they do look into it all and make their own decisions rather than simply accept what anyone is telling them - including me.

Management of dogs in shelters which are only there for 2 weeks is different to management of breeding dogs and many of the big commercial kennels have staff and systems which cover it all. A captive work force with no voice ?????? It was like jail just as its just like jail in a boarding kennel or rescue kennel and that is part of what breeders have been yelling about for years. Mandatory codes influenced by animal rights and animal welfare have given breeders no choice. Thats how they want me to keep my dogs!!!!!!! and if we dont we are in breach of the codes . in 3 states we get no choice on when we can vaccinate our dogs !!!!!! When they approve DA's that's what they approve. None of this can be dealt with in one dimension.

So your link says - My concerns about a dog from this type of situation do not run so much to the "breeding use" side of things, but to a host of genetic and health problems found in puppy mill animals in general. No one is suggesting breeding a bitch which is not in good condition but the reproductive cycle of the bitch is unique - there are no other mammals which have the same. If a dog isnt mated she still secretes the same hormones she does as if she is pregnant and she is likely to have uterine problems and her insides "messy" if she has had phantom pregnancies rather than real pregnancies. Even if she doesnt show radical signs of phantom pregnancy as some do her body is going through a phantom every time she is in heat and doesnt get pregnant .The ethics you want to push have been developed based on feelings and convention and not science. Dogs - including registered dogs from registered breeders have back to back matings all the time as we can do on some heat seasons according to our codes of ethics and our bitches are in great nick before during and after they whelp. These puppy farm dogs may well be mal nourished and they well be in poor condition due to poor nutrition or vetting etc but to state categorically that it is bad for a bitches general health for her to have back to back breedings is not true. Canine pregnancy protects against life threatening uterine diseases. The most common uterine disease in the bitch is cystic endometrial hyperplasia. It is linked to several serious uterine diseases including the potentially life threatening disease “pyometra” (literally – a uterus full of pus) which affects nearly one quarter of dogs under 10 years old which are not desexed . According to canine reproduction specialist Dr S. Romagnoli “bitches whelping regularly throughout their reproductive life almost never develop pyometra, while those who whelp rarely or never in their lives have a greater chance of developing this condition. Its not politically correct to say so dogmad but bitches when given the chance do spend some time being pregnant, whelping and feeding puppies and waiting for their next season. Its what they are and how they have evolved.Humans have found other uses for them so we desex them but an entire bitch runs into problems internally if she has not been mated and its why many show dogs which are held back have reproductive problems. I agree that many people see some of what they do as totally callous behaviour but many people think rescuing a dog which needs months of suffering to survive rather than putting it down is callous too. I think keeping puppies alive which have no front legs is pretty rotten too. Its not a nice thing to do but its not cruel and the breeder may decide it is more cruel to re home it - none of us get a say in that but not all of them do this anyway. Dead is not suffering and Im interested in preventing dogs suffering . If dogs are suffering - as in being kept in flith and without food, shelter, exercise and vet treaments etc isnt that enough ? So why is there a need to sensationalise and exaggerate and bring in the emotional stuff ? References for back to back breeding. 1. J.P. Verstegen III and K. Onclin. Prolactin and Anti-Prolactinic Agents in the Pathophysiology and Treatment of Mammary Tumors in the Dog. NAVC Proceedings 2006, North American Veterinary Conference (Eds). 2. Canine Pseudopregnancy: A Review (Last Updated: 23-Aug-2001) C. Gobello1, P. W. Concannon2 and J. Verstegen III3, Recent Advances in Small Animal Reproduction, Concannon P.W., England G., Verstegen III J. and Linde-Forsberg C. (Eds.) 3. Donnay I, Rauis J & Verstegen J – Influence des antécédents hormonaux sur l’apparition clinique des tumeurs mammaires chez la chienne. Etude épidémiologique. Ann. Med. Vet. 1994, 138, 109-117 4. Simón Martí Angulo Clinical aspects of uterine disease in the bitch and queen. Proceeding of the Southern European Veterinary Conference Oct. 2-4, 2009. S. Romagnoli, How I Treat… Pyometra. Proceeding of the SEVC Southern European Veterinary Conference Oct. 17-19, 2008 – Barcelona, Spain 5 Davidson AP, Feldman EC. Ovarian and estrous cycle abnormalities. In: Ettinger SW, Feldman EC (eds) Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine. WB Saunders, 2004 6 Johnson CA. Cystic endometrial hyperplasia, pyometra, and infertility. In: Ettinger SW, Feldman EC (eds). Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine WB Saunders, 1992, pp. 954.

So why not advocate for more regulation and enforecment of pet shops ? Instead of saying they are dreadful places when the public and the government can clearly see that not all of them are and using an argument of where they get their dogs from? Why - because using that argument is easily discredited and it affects all breeders and if it ever does get you to your goal that is decades away. Why because while ever the ANKC allows their members to sell to pet shops and the stated position statement of the RSPCA Australia is not against pet shop live animal sales and there is no research or data to prove pet shop puppies are sicker or more likely to end up dumped and while ever Australia has federal trade laws to protect them it prevents us educating the public, breeders and the pet shops on the real why and the alternatives. Regardless of how progressive and well run a pet store which sells live animals may be, an argument against purchasing pet store puppies is that prospective buyers cannot contact the breeder to be sure of the parent dog’s temperament and health in order to understand the potential problems or management issues. It is very easy to purchase a pup from this source as an impulse and the store is often motivated to sell the pup above any consideration as to whether the dog and the buyer will suit each other. It’s difficult to believe the pet shop assistant is as qualified to educate the buyer on the breed’s characteristics and offer support as well as a breeder who has devoted their lives to learning about and becoming expert in their hobby. There is no safety net in place for the puppy buyer for advice or support or to take back the dog if things go wrong. It is NOT in the best interests of the dog for breeders to place their pups in pet shops and who as a result choose not to be involved in or take responsibility for the dogs they breed past sending them off to market.

weird, i will have a look into my emailks. thanks Might need to check the one you use for dogz.

Oh goody yet another definition of a puppy farm

These people are fully accountable to the law but take a look at what it is they are using to determine a puppy farmer - its not just whether you care for your dogs or whether you follow the law. its about not keeping them inside on satin pillows and only breeding according to what they have decided is best for the species. Its about how many you own with some magical number being too many. Its about where you advertise them or who you sell them to - its even about what info you give your puppy buyers on diet.