Steve

I dont see it as pie in the sky stuff or that this forum is the place it can be or should be resolved either. I think being able to discuss things and see others points of view is good. in Victoria if you are ANKC and have less than 10 fertile bitches you dont need a domestic animal business licence however if you want to breed you need a DA.

Toy Dog The MDBA only accepts purebred breeders and those working on purebreeds in development. Every breeder has to be able to register their puppies with a stud registry and supply registered pedigrees and no - it makes no difference how they are bred a cross bred breeder cannot be a breeder member of the MDBA. However, our position statement respects a persons right to breed dogs commercially as long as other things are not compromised on. 6. MDBA Position Statement on Commercial Breeders Commercial Breeders sell dogs as a business through large kennels and pet stores. The MDBA is against the sale of dogs in pet shops but the myth that all pet store puppies come from puppy mills misdirects energy, attention and resources away from genuine puppy mills that need to be closed. The activist tendency to paint the entire industry with the same brush has slowed animal welfare improvements by blurring the issues. The public and politicians can clearly see that not all commercial breeders are guilty of breeding dogs in filthy conditions with little regard for the dog’s health. Because of the volume of puppies bred commercial breeders sometimes see their stud animals as stock. This means there is a higher risk that there is no post sale support or that they are not as motivated to be sure that the dog is suited to the buyer’s lifestyle as they could be. The need to cover costs and make greater profits can create a potential which instigates a compromise on testing and husbandry issues. The MDBA believes there is no shame in making money from breeding dogs as long as health, temperament and welfare issues are not compromised on in order for the breeder to attain their goal. Commercial dog breeders who can fit MDBA criteria are welcomed as MDBA members

and get rid of animals in pet shops ;) and reading up on clovers moores bill, this is the reason why her bill got turfed out. they said that there was not enough evidence to suggest that puppies sold in petshops was directly related to dumpage in shelters. i believe they added on that argument and then they came up against a brick wall when they were winning but for that. Its the same thing - assumptions, and some of what they say is easily discredited and it was fed by animal lib. The activist tendency to paint the entire industry with the same brush has slowed animal welfare improvements by blurring the issues. The public and politicians can clearly see that not all commercial breeders are guilty of breeding dogs in filthy conditions with little regard for the dog’s health and that puppies on death row dont come from pet shops. The amazing thing is that rather than check first to see that since 1997 microchipping of puppies sold in pet shops has been mandatory so therefore if they did really come from pet shops most puppies would be chipped when they were dumped to see what they were saying could so easily be thrown out they made up their minds and went ahead with it.

what is the definition of the word farming? everyone is always saying she's/he's a puppy farmer, meaning, she/he breeds her dogs for money - a farmer. LOL if its not that, then we need to change the word, i mean why are they farming if its not for cash? this is what most pet people are against. i see what the trouble is, everyone has a different definition but if we go down the avenue of its how the dogs are treated then as you say, how are we going to define that and by whose standards, in 20 years time i can see that owning dogs and breeding them will be the thing of the past - i think that that is going down the road of dictatorship. so why is breeding for a "purpose" showring, working or for a purpose mixed up with breeding for profit? i don't think thats thats the same thing and i don't believe its fair on the ethical breeders either who are doing the right thing. it just blankets all of us the same no distinction what-so-ever. Toy dog Sooner or later we have to agree with the definition because if we dont no one knows what it is we are for or against. You are still not getting it . If you say its bad for people to breed for profit because they usually do XYZ then what stops people saying its bad for people to breed for the show ring because that usually means they do XYZ ? You can just as easily farm dogs as in sheep farming etc and not be primarily motivated by profit. Some would say if someone owned 20 plus dogs and they live in their home they are farming and whether they are primarily motivated by trying to produce a champion or not . You cant expect that any law or reg will only affect someone who says they breed for profit and not all breeders. There are laws in place to deal with this and you cant take their word on what is and is not cruel because their ideas on how dogs should be kept and what is supposedly evidence of neglect or abuse isnt always correct.

This is not true and it is the crux of the whole bloody issue. RSPCA Australia and every other group which attended a round table meeting and drew up plans to do something about puppy farming all agreed that this is NOT what puppy farming is .It is not what I am against. I dont care if someone breeds for money, for the show ring or for any other reason . I care about how they treat their dogs. its only when everyone agrees with what the hell it is we are rallying against or for will any one be able to do anything.

Are you fair dinkum? I have some of my own photos taken in the last few months of puppy farms which would put most of what is on the internet to shame and no one is denying it exists or that its a problem. To suggest that I think they are staged just to annoy me is a pretty silly comment and its doubful anyone reading this is going to believe that is what I think. I do believe that its being sensationalised and that it is classic animal rights signature and has the potential to do more harm than good.

Bit of a contradiction isnt it? Its not O.K. to break the law but if you do break the law you are seen as someone with tremendous guts .Standing up and speaking for those who cannot doesnt equal breaking into someone's property and stealing their dogs. It doesnt equal running breeders over either .

Dogmad Im not a qualified vet Im a breeder and the vets I take my advice from are qualified in canine reproduction and I have seen the science backed up by studies and data and again I say if those dog's insides were a mess then it wasnt because they were being over bred or because they had back to back litters . It may have been any number of complications or problems but insides do not become messy just because they are being bred every season - that is a fact . In fact it is more likely that if their insides were messy that it was caused because they were not bred often enough. When people say that a dog's insides were messy due to back to back breeding that impacts on everything and it takes away the ability for good breeders who do care about what is best for the species to be able to make decisions which are best for their dogs. Laws, mandatory codes and regs are there now preventing a breeder to make their own decision on when and how often they can breed their bitches and no one knows why because the truth is that there is no science to back that up but loads of science to prove its wrong. Everyone is too frightened to say so because when they do they get accused of not caring - Its bad enough we have no choices other than to do as we are told and breed dogs the way animal rights have dictated but even worse that when we dare to say what the science is we are bullied into shutting up. What I do with my dogs when they no longer breed isnt the issue but since you asked they stay here - rarely they go to new homes. However, if a breeder decides it is best for their dogs to have the vet bump them off whether anyone thinks thats a good thing or not its not cruel and its not illegal. Its certainly not something which should be used as some sort of sign that they are treating their dogs cruelly or that they are living in sub standard conditions. You dont have to agree with it but its not anyone else's business and it never will be. Its also not something a breeder should have to disclose. Some breeders,rescue, owners, shelters decide to PTS every day of the week for a variety of reasons and one of them is that they are no longer productive . I dont like it but I dont like dogs being killed because they are the wrong colour, breed , too old ,because they jump fences etc either. You dont need to lecture me on what a puppy farmer does or doesnt do as far as ensuring their dogs are healthy and receive proper vet treatment etc - that is treating them cruelly and keeping them in substandard conditions. I too have done more than my fair share of seeing what they do in real life - that is what we are supposed to be fighting against full stop. If they stick to that and discuss the evidence resist the urge to tell me about the assumptions and crap which undo any good that may be done and which have the potential to impact on good breeders and their dogs all is good. Maternal cannabilism can and does happen in any whelping environment regardless of how the bitch is treated - it is not evidence of dogs being treated badly.It losses credibility when it is said. Vaginal and uterine prolapses happen to any bitch for a variety of reasons and is not a symptom of bitches being over bred or dogs being treated badly. it looses credibility when it is said Back to back breeding is not bad for the general health of the bitch.It looses credibility when it is said. Commercial dog breeders can and do treat their animals well and breeding for profit is not evidence that the dogs are being treated badly. It looses credibility when it is said. It is not O.K. to break the law whether you think you have a good reason or not . It is something used world wide by extremists - It looses credibility when this happens. Breeders and dog owners have the right to decide if they want to have a vet kill their dogs and that will never change - when it is introduced as an argument against breeders it looses credibility - dead is not suffering.

Dog mad . I do give credit where it is due and I am as much against puppy farms as you are. I agree with you 100 % that people who keep dogs like this and who are guilty of this kind of thing are in need of being arrested and charged as crimminals. If there are so many guilty of these things then why havent they been charged and found guilty ? Councils do not approve puppy farms as defined by the majority of groups who are working against puppy farms and that is the major issue and will forever be the problem. We cant agree on what is a puppy farmer and what needs to be stopped so the people who are rallying are not all rallying for the same thing. People who are rallying all have great intentions but there are other issues at stake and whilst Im more than happy to rally against puppy farmers Im not happy to rally for something - a law which Ive no idea of what that is and Im not going to rally against a breeder because of their motivations rather than their deeds. Its one thing to want to have changes made and quite another to tell fibs, and sensatonalise in order to get everyone feelling as passionate as you are.If its an epidemic of breeders who do this then why is there a need to beat it up? Its not O.K. to break the law and no one even knows what it is they are asking for. What is Oscars law - surely its not a law where you get to keep a dog after you have broken into someone's property and stolen it ? Where can we read what this law is we are supposed to be asking for? The good news is that you can decide to follow this in the belief that it will bring an end to dogs suffering and if I dont agree that this is the best method of doing something about it and I think it un does much of the good work being done which I think will bring a better result Im allowed to say so. If I dont choose to see someone who breaks the law as a hero - thats no evidence I condone puppy farming . What is it exactly thats wrong with back to back breeding - the science and not the emotion says it is in the animals health interests . No point coming after me for that - I didnt make it up. If those dog's insides were really a mess it wasnt having puppies that did that.

Cooling coats donated to Pacers by Cool champions are up for suction here now. http://www.dolforums.com.au/forum/68-pacers-fundraising-auctions-general-fundraising/

We get lots of weirdos - some so weird you think you are being set up .He didnt contact me personally - as a beagle breeder but the MDBA asking if any of our members bred puggles

Some left so if anyone wants one now it will only be a week turnaround.

O.K. We worked on packing and adressing them all yesterday and they are ALL ready to go and will be out in tomorrow's mail. Whew!

And quote But after Oscar was taken away, Tranter questioned her resolve. “Sitting under that tree, I believed I’d failed. Then I thought, I wish there was some law I could use to get him back. If only I had Oscar’s Law. And that’s how I had the idea for the campaign.” A law to get back a dog which someone has stolen because they said it was suffering rather than waiting for someone who is charged with making such decisions to take a look and make a decision legally ? Its just a big joke right?

'Improving the breed' is subtle and subjective. Proof is hard, especially with temperament, and "exact" can be misleading. You can, for example, get a low COI using a 5 gen pedigree, and a high COI if you go back to the days when the stud books were closed (ie, an exact COI that has high precision but no accuracy). The easiest 'proof' of 'bettering' the breed is simple tests, like hip/elbow scores, plus the frequency of Ch. or Gr Ch. on the pedigree. This may mean breeding for exaggerated characteristics and good hips/elbows/eyes, while ignoring temperament and harder to quantify health problems, like tendency to cancer or heart problems. Personally, I wouldn't choose a mate based on beauty show results and some bone X-ray results. I have a breeder friend who pts'd a dog she imported from top UK show lines cause he mauled a puppy (breed standards and reputation are strong against any sort of aggression). Anecdote, not proof, and not something you'd advertize. But it made a big impression on me. Now my soapbox: I wish pedigrees recorded dates of death as well as dates of birth. If I am looking for a companion, the most second most important assurance (temperament is #1) to me would be indications that the dog is likely to lead a long, healthy life. Sorry. The dog world doesn't keep records of mortality, much less morbidity. WTF. Most breeders work with the bitches in hand and try to 'improve' by choosing the right stud. I sometimes use working test results in choosing a stud. But it's risky. Sometimes going for retrieving titles (I run Labs) ends you out with high-strung dogs who have a beautiful water entry and have no problem with a triple retrieve, but who will drive you crazy if you try to keep them as house dogs. You have to also consider things that aren't quantified . . . is the dog a good bed dog? Does he have undesirable quirks, like resource guarding? Or sweet quirks, like loving children and being protective in a very good way. The breeder really has to meet the dog and do some research to come up with a good choice of studs. . . . and the bottom line is still subjective. IN SUM: It's hard to define 'improving the breed'. BUT we can work to make it harder for bottom feeders who keep NO records of pedigree, who don't socialise their pups, who don't do any health testing, etc. . . . I'm not convinced that the Oscar's Law crowd have ANY rational criteria for defining a 'puppy farmer' and are doing ANYTHING to improve the breed or X-breed, or mutt. Improving the breed is unique to pure breds and one of the things they attacks us on. Its not possible to claim you are breeding to improve anything if you dont breed on with it and record what you are doing for those who come behind you in the breed. Each and every breeder will have a different idea of what is bettering the breed and in most cases they can justify it at least to themselves. You cant really define it because it changes depending on what the goal is for the breeding program or the mating. Whats more you cant say someone isnt based on their methods or results. If a breeder breeds 100 puppies a year , and says they breed to better the breed rather than doing what they do to primarily make money you can think what you like but if they say they bred to better the breed proving that their motivation is something else gets very messy indeed. especially when they are able to sell their puppies to pet shops. Right now especially in some breeds many of the dogs are eliminated from the gene pool based on hip scores in the name of bettering the breed but that in itself may prove to be counterproductive to bettering the breed in years to come. We dont know what genes may or may not be linked to hip scores and we dont know what else may or may not impact yet or if we really are bettering the breed. Is every breeder's goal who eliminates high scores about bettering the breed or about being afraid of being attacked by their peers or sued by their puppy buyers or because they cant register their puppies without them? You can only ever go by what they say because you cant prove that wasnt their motivation. Pedigree dogs exposed,McGreevy etc is all about how we have supposedly buggered it up and guilty of animal cruelty by "bettering the breed" because we have selected for breed standard traits rather than any others in the name of bettering the breed. No doubt some have but they do it with the motivation of what they think will better the breed. Who is to decide and the reality is that the more breeders we have with different ideas of what they need to do to better the breed rather than one group who dictate what can and cant be done the better it is in the long term for the breed. You may be able to prove that the results of a breeding program are not helping the breed but you can never prove what their motivation was for doing it. The point Im trying to make is that we are sitting ducks .Many believe that unless you have more than average numbers of dogs to choose from in your back yard that you cant better the breed. If I have 6 bitches and one turns up with an issue which means she has to be taken out of the breeding program I still have 5 to breed with and I can select the best of what I have. If I only have one and she turns up at 18 months with something which she needs to come out for Ive got to start again and in 18 months I may find my self in the same spot - starting again or compromising on what really is better for the breed. If a purebred breeder wants a DA for 50 dogs to breed to better the breed so they have more places to go in their breeding program etc should they be beaten black and blue because they apply for a DA ? They have the same numbers that someone who is up front about breeding commercially has and the same husbandry and housing care, socialisation etc issues as any breeder regardless of what breed or cross breed they produce. The purebred breeder can make a better case that they are breeding this way because its what is better for the breed especially if they also show their dogs but hello??????? In some circles breeding purebreds under the heading of for the betterment of the breed is evidence we are cruel and pond scum. Why does a breeder have a dozen large breed dogs locked up in filth in a spare bedroom.Is it for money, to keep more stock for breeding for the betterment of the breed or because they have a mental illness or because they are crimminals? Should it matter whether they are purebred or cross bred? Should it matter what their motivation is or what excuses they can verbalise? Of course not. When you make stupid laws and make life hard for anyone applying for a DA it makes it more likely you wont spot the hoarders, smaller breeders, larger breeders etc regardless of what they say their motivations are. RSPCA Australia defines a puppy farmer as someone who keeps their breeding dogs intensively in substandard conditions and everyone who attended the roundtable conference agreed with that because we all know it means we will be judged by how we treat and keep our dogs rather than what our motivation for breeding is. When ever - if ever everyone is on the same page and we all know what the hell it is we are fighting for and against when we support Oscars Law or anti puppy farms we may make some progress without the need for being seen to be fanatics, distorting facts, breaking the law and sensationalising

This is my standard answer to them all we get a couple a week. But Anthony started with us about a week ago. Answer Hi I'm sorry we cant help you as our members only breed purebred dogs. It seems a bit of a shame that you would take so much trouble to try to find a breed that would most suit you when you are going after a mix where the two breeds are so different. There is no way for you to be able to predict the behaviour or management issues you will need to deal with. Julie Nelson Reply. Hi Julie, Thanks for your advice, You make some very good points, it’s something that I’ll keep in mind throughout our pup search

Thats why we need a pilot program

If they police them they will have the money.

Yep and they should be out walking being there in the middle of it when it's happening. I hear there is no funding but a couple of fines a day pays a wage and if they start doing whatthey are supposed to do life for everyone including them becomes much easier. I hear there isnt enough work for them to justify them only working in animal control but if they picked up a bit of prevention and education type duties every one wins. Councils everywhere dont hestiate to tell us that only approx 1 third of all dogs are registered - they just accept it and do nothing about it. Time we started yelling and rallying about it. Yes, I agree,this is part of the problem. I have always thought that the councils are part of the problem. If they had done their jobs properly, we may not have been in this situation. And I have always wondered how they come up with the figures of how many dogs aren't registered. If they can state figures, they must know where these dogs are, so why are they still unregistered? And in my area, the current trend is to walk your dog early in the morning, or after business hours, weekends, with the dog off lead, either running 3 houses ahead or behind the owner. The owner usually sporting the leash around the neck, like some sort of fashion statement. Cracking down on these people would surely cut down the risk of an incident. And when these owners do this with 2 dogs, the problem is worse. They can't grab 2 dogs at once if something does look like happening. Add to that, earphones in the ears, and they don't even realise at times that the dog has caused a problem because the dogs are out of sight and owners don't hear anything. Yes and when I walk with my kids and see their dogs running off leash I have to be on full alert and it takes the enjoyment away from my walk. They let em run wild and before you know it we get more in case laws and we are more restricted on what we can do and where we can go with our dogs. Thisis council repsonsibility and if they got off their bums and fined the people who are walking their dogs off leash we can all move around our community without fear of running into an idiot as much as we do now.

Yep and they should be out walking being there in the middle of it when it's happening. I hear there is no funding but a couple of fines a day pays a wage and if they start doing whatthey are supposed to do life for everyone including them becomes much easier. I hear there isnt enough work for them to justify them only working in animal control but if they picked up a bit of prevention and education type duties every one wins. Councils everywhere dont hestiate to tell us that only approx 1 third of all dogs are registered - they just accept it and do nothing about it. Time we started yelling and rallying about it. There is the Responsible Pet Ownership program in NSW which currently goes into the schools - it starts with the kids in Kinder - yr 2 and it covers all the issues regarding safety around dogs. It is presented positively so that fear is not imposed and on kids but the message of the pleasur of owning a dog/cat also comes with responsibility etc - There is accurate and useful safety information to be taken home to parents/guardians as well. It has been identified that children will get to their parents quicker than standard education TV/news media. The NSW govt has copied the Vic program, which has been running for 10 years.The Victorian program goes to Year 6 and it would be good to lobby the NSW Govt to continue to fund the program to year 6. Rather than re-invent the wheel why not push for this well designed program to be supported to it maximum potential. It would be greta for the program to go national its well designed and age appropriate. Thats all great and I agree with it 100 % but it hasnt done anything in 10 years to correct what has always been the problem. Pulling the people into line - many of whom do know better and enforcing the laws we have.

Not practical to divide into idiot and non idiot owner either I guess.

Then who is responsible for making sure that people control their dogs in them? They provide the parks , set the rules, know people dont follow them but do bugger all about it . Its time they saw their role in all of the issues rather than just accepting the fact that some people dont do the right thing. Its up to them to ensure peopel do the right thing to protect everyone else's rights - why arent they? Why should the good guys stay home because there are too many bad guys. If they dont have as part of their planning something built in to enure people will follow the rules its time we made sure they do.

Yep and they should be out walking being there in the middle of it when it's happening. I hear there is no funding but a couple of fines a day pays a wage and if they start doing whatthey are supposed to do life for everyone including them becomes much easier. I hear there isnt enough work for them to justify them only working in animal control but if they picked up a bit of prevention and education type duties every one wins. Councils everywhere dont hestiate to tell us that only approx 1 third of all dogs are registered - they just accept it and do nothing about it. Time we started yelling and rallying about it.

This wont work. It was used last time and failed dismally. I can post pictures of people swimming with great whites and patting tigers but it won't convince a lot of folk that the animals are "safe". The MOMENT you get drawn into an argument about what breeds are safe and what breed aren't you've lost. The only way ahead IMO is to talk about what makes DOGS safe and what doesn't. The emphasis has to be on education to socialise, train, desex and contain ALL dogs. That has to be coupled with effective laws to deal with dangerous dogs - which we have alreadly. Move away from that theme to talk about breeds and you play right into the hands of the BSL proponents. Yep but I think it needs one more thing we havent tried yet. Which is what Steve? The fact of the matter is that bsl comes in because the laws we already have in place are never enforced. They just keep making more and more knowing all they do is attempt to make the community think they do something and that the people can feel they are safer. For years - at least 10 that Ive been involved Ive seen this thing fought by people who disagreed with BSL being on the back foot. Feeling they need to promote a breed or the type of dogs which have been victim so far of BSL. I have seen facts and figures presented and watched court cases and evidence all over the place that it doesnt work - yet everytime there is an incident it goes down the same path. If you for one minute take restricted breeds or dogs which resemble restricted breeds out of the mix and have a look at what goes on in our towns and cities every single day of the week caused by irresponsible owners - this is a huge problem- which no one seems to get. People avoid walking ther own dogs, they have routes to walk in order to avoid areas where dogs are able to roam and harrass them, There is rarely a day here on this forum where someone hasnt had an incident which has placed them or their dogs or their families at risk - caused them stress or sometimes injury. No amount of promoting a breed, or of promoting dogs etc is not going to eliminate the fact that there is an element there which puts people and their dogs at risk . Irresponsible dog owners exist and sometimes they own dogs which can do and do damage that no clear thinking person can condone. When we hear of one we either blame the dog or the owner .When we have to organise our walks and our lives to aavoid problems we blame the owner. Laws bought in appear to address the dog and the owner. Bigger penalties for owners who blah blah blah and more restrictions on how you can keep em and contain them etc. If your dog does this then this will happen to you and this will happen to the dog and if its a breed which has been decided is more dangerous if the owners are idiots than others - big trouble. However, in my opinion before we will ever see any improvement or a movement toward taking out laws which are breed specific we need to give it back a bit to the people who have been charged with ensuring their streets are safe enforcing the laws, educating their residents and preventing problems before they occur rather than after. We need to be pushing for councils to be more into prevention, and enforcement regardless of breed because they too play a role and need to be held accountable . the dog that killed that child in Victoria wasnt registered and wasnt kept securely. Just a simple walk down that street by rangers to ensure all residentS who owned a dog had them registered and they were aware of the importance of keeping them secure and ensuring their fencing and security would keep them on their own property may have had a huge impact on whether that dog could have ever been out of the yard and could have ever done what it did. Thats about all the detail Il go into here but we need to focus on fighting for safer communities - which is what they are receptive to and what council and residents want - rather than anti bsl or pro pit bull. This will show them that what breed it is wont matter . We need to rally and beat a loud drum to change the job descriptions of council rangers - get a pilot program up and running to show how it can be done and pay for itself with better results than anything they have come up with to date. Thats what I think has been missing.

teebs I tried to email you back but the email bounced If you go here http://www.mdbapacers.org.au/fundraising-faq.html it will answer most of your questions and it also has a form to fill in for approval to fundraise for us.