Steve

Too hard now to try to recoup the extra costs - its too messy but stay tuned we will be doing some raffles and things as soon as I get them all done where you are more than welcome to chuck in. Thanks guys The offer is much appreciated.

O.K. This is it - Cook books have finally arrived and I will have them out Monday - Tuesday. Im still a bit crook and running on less pistons but the kids have promised to give a hand to get them out in quick time. Thanks to everyone for your patience and your support. Julie

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.

Is "Us" the MDBA? I don't ask for any political reason, just clarity on who is doing what I'm happy to help out, as you will remember I was heavily involved in the EDBA and was even on the committee for a while when some of the others had to step out. The crew here in WA is still going with a lot of the old members (remember Ricey?) and some newies as well. We're working on some stuff, but it would be good to have a concerted effort that was also consistent in approach. Let me know what's happening. Sorry - yes the MDBA . We are looking at running a campaign and rallies etc and proposals for a pilot program. I dont want to go into it all too much on a public forum yet but Ill work out somewhere we can all meet up to start to plan it all and get some yelling and screaming going on.

I dont know its hard to tell. There seemed to me to be a lot more people who were ready to do something back then than there are now and like you Im not interested in doing anything that isnt about all dogs. With regards to BSL The minute we start banging a drum about breeds or fighting for one over another we are no better than them.

Yep.

Not exactly the kind of thing we need people doing right now! Just remember how long some have actually been fighting this, but then It was only limited to mostly supporters of the APBT breed, now I think It's hit home for a lot more people and their breeds Good point SM I hope that can be clarified by the AVA Actually thats not quite right. From day one many of us have been fighting against breed specific legislation not for pitbulls. The original committee of the EDBA had people who had never even seen a pit bull. Most bred purebred dogs which are unlikely to ever be under the pump. Mini poodles, chi's,cavs,boxers,chows,beagles etc - some also had pitties and worked with the APBT. No one could deny how much of her soul Val who owned mini poodles put into this until she could go on no longer. But you are right it has been a long time and what we saw in Queensland broke our hearts. I stepped back from it because I felt and still do that fighting it in court in the hope that laws would be over turned was too slow if it were ever going to work . I felt it may save one dog at a time and eventually may make em consider changing the laws and that some needed to come at it that way but being bogged into that hasnt shown much progress. The community want to be protected from dog attacks and they want to feel safe and anything the government can do to make em feel they are having a go at that equates to votes. Part of the problem is that they seem to bogged into one course of action. They Know its not going to make any difference and its going to be a bit of a pain along the way but the reward they get outweighs that as everyone cheers that they are acknowledging the problem and attempting to make the people and their kids safer. There is little point in us trying to educate them and beat our drum to tell them any dog can bite and that what they do wont stop dog attacks while ever they dont ensure owners are being responsible because they cant see any other way to be seen to be taking action and ensuring their towns are safe without upsetting all dog owners and risking votes. That in my opinion is where we need to fight from and show them the role they play in dog attacks and how it is their neglect at preventative measures and lack of enforecement of laws they already had which has put their communities at risk. We need to show them alternatives to breed specific legislation which will to do more than BSL can ever do to keep people feeling they can be protected from idiot owners and their dogs. We need to show how to fix it and a part of that is in explaining why BSL actually puts the community more at risk of dog attacks than it ever has been. Fighting for restricted breeds is for me the wrong way to go because as soon as you do you are seen to be a redneck etc and the public dont get it. In fact if we could stop talking about pitties altogether that would be even better and instead fight for responsible dog ownership regardless of breed. If anyone is interested in giving us a hand at having a go at this we could use your help.

They cant and this is why legislation like this all over the world has bombed because now and then you get someone who isnt willing to simply hand over the family pet and agree with the ACO and it takes mega bucks,stress and resources to deal with it in court. If ever there was a wake up call its now - register your dog.

You don't have to hold a breeders permit to own entire dogs, you only need it to breed from them. I own 2 entire bitches and as of yet do not hold a permit as i have no litters planned at the moment. The registration fees remain the same whether you have a permit or not. We do get a discount for being a Dogs Qld member. The council, in conjunction with dogs qld held a meeting last year to discuss the breeders permit. I personally found it quite good and there was a very clear message made that the rules and regulations in the breeders permit scheme were based on the dogs Qld code of ethics so provided a member followed the code of ethics they should have no concerns in being granted the permit. Earlier this year i had 4 of the council rangers in my street investigating reports of dogs attacking the cattle in the paddocks near my house, i was in my front yard at the time and got chatting to them and asked about the permit and about any changes i would need to make to my yard to be granted the permit. They all came into my yard to check it out. My home has a terraced yard, a covered patio area off the family room and a single attached garage off the patio area. I have a paved area adjacent to the patio area and then there are 5 steps down to a reasonable sized flat grassed area. I have removable fencing around the garden beds on the top section which prevents the dogs getting into the gardens and when i have a litter i have a fence and gate at the top of the stairs so the pups can't get down the bottom area. I have gutter drains around the patio which makes it easy to hose down. The garage has raised bench shelving so the whole area can be easily hosed out as well. I didn't have all the fencing in place at the time the rangers were here and the only bedding was for the older dogs not the puppy pens i set up. I explained that i raise the pups for the first few weeks in the family room of the house and then they go to the garage. All the rangers agreed that there would be no problems with the set up i have and they felt i would easily get a permit provide i had no objections from neighbours. They also said they didn't know of any applications from dogs Qld members that had been refused but they had had a few from non members. This legislation requires residents who own an entire cat or dog, and breed, or intend to breed, to hold a breeder permit. If you want to breed in future so therefore need a breeder permit but you are not abe to get a breeder permit where you currently live you dont tell em you want to breed - so why on earth would anyone say they want to breed,pay the permit way before they really would need to anyway ,go through an inspection and take the risk of being knocked back when all they have to do is say oops I didnt intend to breed. If you apply and get knocked back and you have already said you intend to breed what comes next can you still keep your dog entire? What if its oops then? How does this stop back yard breeding ? What happens if you go oops without a permit? You cant sell your puppies without one. What happens to them?

Ah but Purdie you missed the trap. You cant have laws for one group and not another - its against the law. So anything we make "them" do we also have to be stuck with ourselves. But guess what - not all of us are the good guys either.

Yep and in the mean time its more money , more inspections, more compliance from us. Word is not even us are doing it anyway.

We have had a couple fo issues. This is a pilot program being assessed by RSPCA and councils to see if it should be introduced elsewhere. Having to have a breeder permit in order to own an entire dog is an issue.People should be able to decide on this and whilst lowered registration fees are a good thing either entire or a breeder is in my opinion not on. We have one member who owns the only champion bitch of her breed in the country and does want to breed with her at a later date - maybe. In order to keep her entire she has to apply for a breeders permit now and have her premises inspected .The premises she is in are not suitable to breed her breed of dogs and if she does decide to breed the dog at a later date it will be after she moves. So she cant keep an entire dog without a permit and cant get a permit until after she moves and may never require a permit because she may not ever decide she will breed her. Once again same old story anyway they have focused on the threat of enforcing greater restrictionsand heavier penaltiesunless people comply. These are empty threats, because peopel are not complying and there is no funding for enforcement which basically doesn't exist. So while this may scare a few owners into grudging compliance, it also causes a corresponding measure of cooperation and support to be lost from the group [us] that was already compliant. They are seen as scoff laws and whilst some simply ignore them and carry on as always some go underground and hide for fear of being found in violation of the law. No one is supposed to be able to advertise a pup for sale without their breeder permit number but when the council was questioned as to why no ads carried these the answer was they cant enforce it. What's the point - its only alienated the most responsible dog breeders in the community, and has no affect on the irresponsible ones they were intended to reach. They created a situation where people are worried about permits being removed or denied. Once again you see the result of animal welfare input into breeder's activities and missing a big chunk to make it more than just another restriction on those who were doing it right. At most they may get more dogs desexed but then more desexed dogs will be dumped.

http://www.standard.net.au/news/local/news/general/warrnambool-rspca-broken-into-dogs-released-stolen/2290647.aspx POLICE are investigating an unusual burglary at the Warrnambool RSPCA shelter early yesterday when seven dogs were released and a Staffordshire bull terrier (pictured) was stolen. Detective Acting Sergeant Richard Hughes said police were attending an accident on Raglan Parade when they observed a couple of stray dogs and called in the local ranger. The dogs were collected and taken to the Braithwaite Street RSPCA centre, where the ranger discovered that a door leading to the dog cages had been forced open. "Bolt cutters have then been used to cut off locks to three cages," Detective Acting Sergeant Hughes said. He said the dogs were let out during the break-in which occurred between 1.30am and 5am. All were later recovered, except for the Staffordshire bull terrier. The missing dog is a two-and-a-half-year-old black/brown male that arrived at the RSPCA as a stray on August 25. Detective Acting Sergeant Hughes said the RSPCA would normally sell the dog through its adoption program for $210. He said four males arrived at the Braithwaite Street centre on Monday in a red four-wheel-drive and spent a lot of time with the dog that was missing. "We are appealing for any person with information to contact the the Warrnambool CIU on 55601174 or Crimestoppers on 1800 333 000 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1800 333 000 end_of_the_skype_highlighting," he said.

Well the same laws apply to them that apply to us and these breeders are not selling the pup to a pet shop and they are able to be located again and put through the ringer just as we are. If they are members of some associations their codes of conduct are pretty hard too.

Yep and hard when she has seen that what she has been told about conditions etc isnt true, that the breeder does appear to be concerned about matching the right pup with the right home and had all the time in the world for them. One of the huge reasons why we need to stop the stuff thats happening and go to work on the real things we should be fighting against.

I can understand why you may be upset because she has decided to get a pup which is unpredictible and that places the dog and her at higher risk of not being able to live together . But surely this isnt a puppy farm or it would by now be shut down - do you mean it is a commercial breeding facility? One which has allowed her to come visit their lovely farm, see the dogs, meet the parents, meet the breeders and be around for support when the puppy goes home or to be held responsible if the pup has a problem?

You raise some good points, Steve. Things that I hadn't considered with my limited amount of spare time All I ask of anyone is that they challenge what they are being fed. I know 100% that most of the people involved in Oscars Law are there because they truly believe it the best way to go to stop dogs suffering. I have no doubt that those who follow feel the same. But one of the things that amazed me very much when we went into speak with Clover Moores people back when they were pushing for laws in NSW to stop the sales of pets in pet shops and various other sins that breeders do was there almost complete lack of knowledge of what the true situaion was in the dog breding world. All or at least a huge amount of their information came from animal lib in Sydney. I was pretty new to the whole - lets make a new law thing back then - and I couldnt believe that with this lack of knowledge they were prepared to go ahead . So little research had been done - they didnt even know that Dogs NSW breeders were able to sell puppies to pet shops via their code of conduct - and then when that group didnt back them they were surprised. They all have this magic list of supposedly what only puppy farmers do and why you shouldnt buy a puppy from them etc - these things are everywhere but its all still one sided and the lists have been drafted by welfare or animal rights without breeder in put . Its gone on so long that it influences so many things. Breeders are too frightened to stand up or argue what is best for them and their dogs in the fear that if they do they will be judged and seen as one of them, supporting them etc .We have codes of conduct which over the years have been changed - not because it is what is best for dogs or what purebred breeders have known to be successful but because it makes one group look like they are doing what animal rights think is what is best for our dogs. There is one group working to stop breeding too many - what ever that may be - because its cruel and another working to stop purebred breeding because that is cruel another working at showing what ails purebred dogs via a software program pushed to vets. All of them have great big fat faults in them which are so easliy squashed but worse what is not condusive to being what is best for the dogs or the people who buy them. If in fact we are all in this to ensure what is best for the dogs then we need to work together, get educated on what it is that is really a problem and find solutions. We cant do that if we all just see something we dont agree with without being educated on what it is we are seeing ,assuming what the cause is , assuming what the solution is and not getting to a point where less dogs suffer. Our knowledge has to come from facts and quite simply in this country the facts have been left out to a point where we have expectetions on breeders which are not in the best interests of their dogs. Yes breeder education is a problem but they shouldnt be hindered by being able to learn what is best for their breeding programs and how they keep them,and select them and how and when they breed them by information whichis assumed to be correct because its pushed so loudly by people who have never bred a dog.

I suppose it depends on what people get out of reading the article. Based on the assumption that most people will read it, be shocked that these puppy farms exist, and perhaps tell others not to buy from pet shops as a result, then that in itself is not a bad thing. I'm not saying I'm in support of Oscars Law per se, just that I don't agree with puppy farming and believe awareness needs to be raised as far too many people support it without even knowing. But how do you justify raising people's awareness based on smoke and mirrors ? What is it exactly that you feel people should be more aware of ? If in fact these puppy farms exist to a point where we need this kind of action and behaviour there are laws already which people can and should be charged with under the prevention of cruelty to animals act. Where are they? How many have been charged and convicted? If there really is this epidemic of filthy puppy farmers then why is there a need to tell fibs and beat up emotion based on these rather than having enough real evidence to be able to maintain credibility? Pet shops say they dont buy from puppy farmers and if the puppy farmers are as bad as is being represented that they do buy from then how could a pet shop make any profit from sick,filthy puny and dying puppies? Pet shops say they buy from commercial breeders who are complying with mandatory codes and there is no evidence what ever to prove other wise. Who has the data to say that a person who is charged with keeping animals in substandard condition has sold their pups to a pet shop ? One person who should know and who is pretty high up and able to collect data tells me if the info of where the majority of puppies in pet shops come from were made public that purebred registered breeders are way up there as the suppliers too. This is also my experience I know commercial breeders who sell to pet shops but I have more knowledge of those who are registered purebred breeders who hand the ones they dont want to keep over to a third party to be sold in pet shops. I have witnessed these deals and seen this with my own eyes. At one time and perhaps still now it was common for purebred breeders to take their puppies to an agent for shipment to a pet shop in Hawaii and if they failed the vet test due to a hernia , heart murmur etc then simply duck into one pet shop known to pay good cash prices on the way home for around a hundred less than export prices. The fact is your opinion has been impacted by exposure to the stuff animal rights puts out ,not by valid facts backed up by research and data and you feel its acceptable to pass this around to spread it and undo everything others who are looking at it working at finding solutions which will work , where those presenting it are seen as reasonable fair minded people,credible and not crimminals and rednecks sucked in by animal rights propoganda. If we are to be serious and really ever do anything to move Jo public away from buying pets from pet shops we have to stop looking like a bunch of redneck fanatics and present the real provable tangible reasons as to why they should avoid buying pets from them.And there is heaps - which can be proven and used to educate people in a reasonable temperent manner without Jo public and pollies shutting down because we hold no credibility. There is no evidence that pet shop puppies are more likely to end up dumped - in fact the opposite is the case.In NSW it has been the law for pet shops to chip puppies as they go out for around 13 years and yet most dogs that are dumped are not chipped. There is no evidence to support claims puppies sold in pet shops are likely to be more sick than puppies bought any where else and at least if they go through a pet shop rather than a breeder who doesnt vaccinate etc you know there is a fair chance the pup is at least healthy when it goes home. There is no evidence that dogs sold in pet shops are more prone to temperament issues than dogs sold anywhere else. So We believe that 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. We do not believe it is 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. Our policy regarding sales of puppies to pet shops is that under no condition should puppies be sold to pet shops and that we will educate breeders and puppy buyers and the general public on the facts and issues involved in this and promote alternative methods for pet shop owners with the aim of no live dogs being sold in pet shops. When this crap that is in this article is distributed it is assumed everyone who is against live animals being sold in pet shops is animal rights and it prevents real progress but it also educates people on lies - how on earth can that ever bring us to a place where anything can be done to stop dogs suffering and not create more division and more obstacles to progress?

Would it bother you if (a) the story wasn't true; and (b) the lady has a history of attacking and defaming decent breeders? Of course it would bother me. But as far as the article itself goes I wouldn't hesitate in passing it on to raise awareness of puppy farms. If it stops people buying puppies from pet shops then at least some good can come from it. But what of the negative things that can come of it ?

Yes this is the whole point - for me. Because its so obviously sensationalised and so easliy discredited in so many areas it makes me feel mad as hell that it looks like I am not against puppy farms when I question it or talk about it. I want to fight against puppy farms if puppy farms are people who breed dogs in sub standard conditions regardless of how many they breed, or what they breed. But Im not going to fight to have everyone who wants to breed dogs judged guilty of some terrible thing and held under control with limited rights in case their dogs may suffer because some think they do or they do breed for profit. Im not going to support stalking, break and enter, trespass, assault, theft or using extreme cases of mismanagement abuse and cruelty to misrepresent and vilify animal owners and related interests or fundraising that uses crises that it is distorted or sensationalized. or attemps to use the political process to turn public concern for animals into laws that deprive private citizens of the right to make ethical, educated decisions about their relationships and management with animals.

How very true. Ive seen a couple of commercial kennels and some big show breeder's kennels which had facilities Id love to have. People have been hearing lots of stuff about all the terrible things breeders do to dogs,to a point where even breeders have been affected by it and have bought it. In order to score points against another group we decide on rules for ourselves which will make us look like we are better breeders, caring more for our dogs and having animal rights leaving us alone and animal welfare recommending us. Who decided that breeding dogs when they are older is better for them ? Who decided it was better for them not to have back to back litters ? Not canine reproduction specialists or experienced breeders who had the honour of being able to test various protocols and decide what was best for their dogs based on the unique biology of the brood bitch. Who tells us the opposite to what is true - that bitches get mammary cancer when they are bred more often. Who tells us that uterine or vaginal prolapse is the result of being over bred? Animal rights campaigns so far re breeding dogs has been pretty successful to a point where a breeder is limited in some states by law on making decisions based on what they and science think is best for their dogs. Trying to even point out the science and the truth in canine reproduction and husbandry brings on all manner of attacks and accusations because everyone has been educated on what should be done with breeding dogs by those who have no knowledge of or experience in breeding dogs. Canine Councils and state governments have obviously been told what is best for breeding dogs based on crap - or they know its crap and play politics or just in case some breeder somewhere allows a dog to get pregnant when it isnt in condition all breeding bitches have to be at greater risk and all people who want to breed their dog have to do what they are told. Codes for breeding dogs echo what animal rights and animal welfare think is best for breeding dogs when in fact its good for rescue dogs or boarding dogs, not necessarily breeding dogs . Its not good for breeding dogs to have vaccinations EVERY YEAR either. Dog breeding in this country has been held to ransom by fanatics and politics and a desire for one group to score points rather than what is truly best for the dogs. We have to stop just being led by the loudest voice and consider what possible consequences come for the majority who dont need legislation to make them care for their dogs and decide what is best for our dogs based on facts and not constant emotional calls for new laws or bans.

Yep and puppy farmers dont allow you to come to their properties but she can go into the property as a buyer under cover be given a guided tour and select the dog she wants to buy.

By the way - Ive had to be involved in some of the worst cases of filth and suffering of animals imaginable - Few of which included those who owned up to being commercial breeders. ive walked through large commercial breeding facilities and inspected them and the dogs and Ive seem my own share of people who were rotten enough for me to report them who owned few and many . So please dont assume that I havent seen as much if not more of what its all about. We do it legally and we have different methods of treating the issues which no new law could do. So while the rest of the world is teasing them out and wanting them to be able to be seen and an eye kept on them oscars law just slams dunks the hell out of them and sends a message that its best not to ask. Animal Rights use extreme cases of mismanagement abuse and cruelty to misrepresent and vilify animal owners and related interests. *Raises funds using crises that it has manufactured, distorted or sensationalized. *Uses the political process to turn public concern for animals into laws that deprive private citizens of the right to make ethical, educated decisions about their relationships and management with animals.

Dogmad.Ive seen the videos and there is absolutely no doubt that people who are crimminals and keep dogs is dreadful conditions exist. I encourage anyone who knows of them to report them and have them charged. Local councils do not approve puppy farms - if puppy farms are what the RSPCA Australia and all of the other groups who were involved in developing a plan to deal with them have agreed the definition is. Local councils do not approve development applications for people to breed dogs in sub standard conditions. They approve people to be able to breed dogs on their property and comply with the mandatory codes. There IS more to this than meets the eye. The stated goal of all involved is to bring us to a point where breeders are rewarded more for doing the right thing.Applying for a DA ,being easily located for inspections and complying with the codes they need to but the method chosen by Oscars Law is to make their lives miserable and publicly malign them and accuse them for asking. No one knows what the magic number is - At what number is it terrible to ask for a DA - is it 10, 20 50 ? What dogs is it O.K. to breed?What motivation is it O.K. to have to be able to apply for a DA and not be treated like pond scum for asking ? The minute we start to allow motivation to be involved [eg breeding commercially] we fall victim to any motivation being able to be outlawed and then you have to rely on people telling the truth about what motivates them. perhaps it should be purebred breeders, or maybe just purebred breeders of certain breeds or maybe anyone who breeds dogs for the show ring. Does anyone here truly believe that commercial breeders have a monopoly on treating dogs poorly and keeping them in filth and suffering? Like it or not people have rights and you cant just break into their properties, decide they have no right to privacy or ownership of their goods without due and proper process.You dont get to say whether someone can make money out of breeding dogs, you dont get to tell them where they can sell their product and stalk them , ruin their businesses and reputations based on emotional beat ups collected from what someone else did and illegal acts. Do you really think people arent being stopped from doing the wrong thing because they are mates with the rangers as suggested ? It couldnt possibly be anything to do with fanatics making the accusations who have little or no credibility left and they undo the work being done to try and address it. Sometimes people are hoarders, sometimes they have mental issues and sometimes they really are cold hearted straight up money hungry criminals but this is not the way. Why? Animal rights *uses extreme cases of mismanagement abuse and cruelty to misrepresent and vilify animal owners and related interests. *Raises funds using crises that it has manufactured, distorted or sensationalized. *Uses the political process to turn public concern for animals into laws that deprive private citizens of the right to make ethical, educated decisions about their relationships and management with animals. I ask that before you simply accept the crap that you ask questions and dont get sucked into it all without thinking it through. Again I say it is an issue that needs to be addressed but following blindly someone who is known to have committed serious breaches of the law and reading articles and information given out which are so easily proved wrong beaten up by emotionalism isnt going to stop dogs suffering all it achieves is use extreme cases of mismanagement abuse and cruelty to misrepresent and vilify animal owners and related interests. *Raises funds using crises that it has manufactured, distorted or sensationalized. *Uses the political process to turn public concern for animals into laws that deprive private citizens of the right to make ethical, educated decisions about their relationships and management with animals.

Why should the breeder compromise. She agreed and signed a contract. Under duress ? Then you should have said no to signing and taken the breeder on for the deposit refund. If you didnt think you stood a chance of getting that back I hope the breeder usually sells their dogs for $5000 and you only got it for this price because of what you agreed to and you find yourself with a bill rather than a refund if you dont honour what you agreed to.