Steve

you can buy parvo vac here - works out abot 10 bucks each but you cant give a live vaccine such as C3 . Lots of things in Aus are way tied up and seem to do little more than give vets more business. Just the fact that the mandatory code in Victoria and NSW for breeding dogs compels breeders to vaccinate their dogs each year is incredible.

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. The MDBA recognises and supports the contributions that responsible dog breeders make to the welfare of animals and to society and supports efforts to close substandard kennels. Animal rights activists use substandard facilities as a vehicle to indict all who produce puppies as pets, work or competition based on their narrow criteria for which ever group they target. This is very evident in this article Commercial doesnt necessarily = rotten, hobby doesnt necessarily = good. Any female dog can get uterine prolapse even on her first litter, female dogs sometimes eat their puppies in fact in some breeds it pretty common and it would be more likely if strangers were running around with torches and cameras stessing a bitch out while she is in whelp than if she were left alone, I saw it once years ago in a vets office when a bitch woke up after a C section, there is no data to prove the majority of dogs sold in pet shops come from sub standard establishments. How could anyone know if the dog had never seen sky ? Are they sure it was uterine prolapse and not vaginal prolapse - both can occur in any bitch regardless of how many litters she had. Are they sure they saw mammary cancers usually more common in bitches not desexed and NOT used for breeding than those which are and not hormonal cysts or mastitis? What is a puppy farmer?

I get that we probably need someone to test the current laws and defend those dog owners who have the misfortune to end up in the middle of it all and need help in court. I know tybrax was involved with one group and the EDBA is still working in that area. Im happy to support this in a relatively minor way - mainly because we have been there done that. Remember that most to the board of the MDBA were founding members and on the original board of the EDBA. Personally I think moving toward and using words such as rehabilitation, training - educating the public etc will fall on deaf ears. For the media, Jo public and therefore politicians in the climate which has been created the fact is only a very small minority care about these things. They have been conditioned to believe that no matter how well they are trained or rehabed ,no matter how well the owner is educated that with this breed and obviously sooner or later others that its just too risky to have them in their communities. They dont care about whether the owner of the dog which walked into a strangers lounge room and randomly killed a child was educated and responsible and some ratbag unlocked the gate and let the dog out or that there may have been less risk if it were better trained, or assessed . They want to know their kids are safe regardless of whether a dog is being assessed adequately, well trained, always under control and contained .They believe that one slip the dog is out and running wild and because of its breed it is more capable of really hurting someone than say a beagle is. I breed beagles and I wish I had $5 for everytime people want to tell me how they dont understand why anyone would ever want to own a dog of a breed which has a high prey drive and is capable of hurting someone or some animal walking around suburbia. Pop into the general discussion forum any day of the week and people who own and love dogs have to either stop walking wit their dogs, drive them to another location to walk them, walk with big sticks etc. So the result of the problem for me is that dogs are killed and judged by breed BUT lets be honest big dogs need bigger fences, different breeds or part there of do need different levels of control and training ,different medical conditions can and do cause a calm gentle predictible dog to become agressive virtually over night, some idiot who wants a giggle can open a gate and let the dog out ,some nice pretty lap dog can take a trip of a night meet up with a couple of other dogs and kill sheep etc and the owners have no idea that their dogs could possibly be capable of this. I could go on all night with these types of examples but you get what I mean. We need to identify the problem, clearly define what we want the end result to be rather than seeing the crap solutions politicians are coming up with and the media hype we are fed as the problem. Then go after realistic easily achievable solutions to the real base problem and emotion it generate with in the community rather than constantly trying to address the symptom of the attempts to address the problem. Dont get me wrong Im not saying dont do what you are suggesting but I think what you are suggesting will have a slow result, it will take lots of money and lots of people organised to lobby and rally and at the end of the day it wont change the problem or the emotion of the majority of the general community so while we may see small victories, maybe some laws squashed or re written its a constant battle and always will be. Politicians know that making a breed of dog extinct wont stop dogs biting people or other animals, they know that the chances of the bred actually becoming extinct is a hard task. But the people , the only currency they deal in VOTES see them as doing what they can to keep them and the streets safe - if the streets are not then safe - and we know they wont be - then they call for tougher "in case laws" and blame idiot dog owners and a breed or cross bred breeders or what ever rather than who they should blame and everyone votes for those who are seen to be trying to do something about it. To date over the past 10 plus years there have been donations made and loads of money spent on court cases and stress miles high for owners caught up in it and those trying to help sweating it out with lawyers and courts .tens of thousands of dollars spent in just one case to save one dog and hopefully change the laws or prove them to be illegal. We have choices - where will a legal fund take us ? Even if we gather heaps and spend heaps and prove it to be illegal for them to do what they are doing , prove they cant assess correctly etc what then? how long do we have before more and more dogs are dead and owners have to give up their pets etc? They will simply draft other laws - because if they want votes they have to because the problem still exists just the same as it is today. We do need a fighting fund to cover expenses involved with moving into a proactive campaign and we do need people to work together and help bang a very loud drum to get quick positive results - proven to work better than any laws .This way we can have a community which feels safer, dogs, kept responsibly and dog owners having their rights restored. Anyway, we think what we have in mind just might change it all and in a reasonably short time frame so we are moving that way in the hope we can not only tidy up BSL but also some of the issues associated with being able to walk your dog without needing to feel fearful of off leash or charging dogs regardless of breed.

Over the years there have been several including the EDBA which is still active very much behind the scenes. Personally I think that simply yelling about the laws without supplying a viable, realistic solution is going to have us stil doing it all again for another decade and Ill be too old then to bother. If we can cover all their woes and dont come at it as if its about BSL but rather about all the things we see dog owners and non dog owners complaining about wrapped up in one we can have the whole community prepared to chuck in with us.

Makes for a positive step, I gather the pilot of what you speak If It goes ahead will be trialed first In a QLD shire? No not necessarily - I was thinking Victoria because they have the most horrible dog laws but Im in NSW . Anywhere we can find a shire which is prepared to give it a go will do.

Yep its not in breeding that has created problems - its selection.

Same here re" wanting to help. I've got nothing 'new' to add but like what is being said here. It is a very frustrating situation and Public Education re Dog Ownership has been lacking for so long already. I would have liked to have seen more on the TV years ago. I think it needed to start at the 'root' of the problem. Tackling problems such as "Where does your puppy come from?" Responsibility, care and education. It begins with Puppy selling Pet shops/BYB's and education (or lack thereof) of the Public in Dog Ownership. IMO alot of the problems we have regarding Dog Ownership have snowballed from these areas to the mess we have today, creating kneejerk reations such as BSL and leaving the fundamentals of the situation untackled. I think we need a whole new approach and a whole new plan. In order for us to get anywhere it seems pointless for us to keep saying what we have been saying for what seems like forever. We have been rpesenting the science and arguing and arguing common sense including demonstrating that what they are doing hasnt worked in other places, has made it anything but better here or anywhere and it wont stop dogs biting people regardless of their breed and it wont stop irresponsible owners. We have been taking a look around at what has shown to work or at least that which has shown that it may work in other areas. We think we need to present a better probable solution and go after a pilot program in at least one shire to show it is a better, safer alternative. Ive just come out of hospital and Im running at half speed for the next few days at least but we are just putting together a strategic plan to consider having a crack at it. It's different but I think its got a fair shot at cleaning up the whole mess.

Agree. I wonder if the People who disagree with this all have wills that say that all their dogs go back to their individual breeders, even if that means splitting them up, sending old dogs interstate etc. I know that certainly won't be happening with my dogs - no one knows my dogs better than me and I've made decisions based on their best interests. We are talking about totally different scenarios here, I want to be given the opportunity to step up to the plate and take responsibility for my own if they fall the cracks and end up in Rescue or the pound. Private agreements between individuals are a different case again. Whilst I hope that anyone who has one of my dogs would contact me if they run into trouble and allow me to help that is out of my hands once they leave, however I simply cannot understand why more Rescues and Pounds do not even give the Breeders the opportunity. There has been talk bandied on forums like this of using microchips to identify where animals in rescue and pounds originate. Would all Breeders get lumped into the same basket when most I know would step up and take their own back if only given the chance. If one of my dogs landed in rescue and its details were recorded do I become one of those uncaring breeders who just don't care and are contributing to the kill numbers when in all probability I would have no knowledge of it. Agreed. What has been the most difficult thing for me to come to grips with is the fact that on one hand we hear about all of the dogs being killed and on the other how rescue seems to literally fight over getting surrenders or pulling pregnant dogs . The truly most amazing is rescue who accept dogs from commercail breeders to "save them" and then breed them themselves, sell them as breeding pairs or sell them entire. The biggest issue for me is that I want to be contacted when ever possible and that is in any case where they know the person who wants to surrender is holding one of my dogs BEFORE the actual handing over takes place not after.

However, I have to say this.If someone asks me before they decide to purchase one of my puppies what my procedures are if they can no longer keep the dog - and more and more often they do - because they are being told a breeder who is willing to take their own back is a good breeder and this is part of the reason they decide to purchase one of my puppies it sucks if when the tme comes that they do all they can to avoid me finding out they dont want it any more. Ive had two incidences of my dogs being handed over to a rescue group - one beagle one Maremma .one lied to the rescue and told them she had contacted me and I hadnt returned messages. Do I want to punish them or punish the rescue groups who are handed the dog for somehow aiding and abetting them breaking their contract they had with me ? No. That in my opinion is illogical. Do I want to get some kind of restitution because if they had told me at the time of sale they would hand over my dogs to Beagle Rescue or Maremma Rescue and deliberately avoid speaking with me first rather than what they agreed to in writing - which was to come to me first ? No. Im sad because in one case at least I believe I could have helped them avoid handing the dog in AND Id really like to tell them what I think of them but to take it further is not Iin my opinion logical. In both my cases beagle Rescue Victoria and Andrea found new homes for them probably quicker than I could have and they both now live happily ever after with people who love them. Thats all I want for them so the fact that I was kept out of the loop until the deed was done is annoying but if they had dumped them at a kill pound rather than these two reputable rescue groups Im not sure logic would still be part of my reaction.

If you put the punative damages clause at less than $10k (in SA) then you could fight it in Magistrates small claims court - no lawyers are permitted to be present. So long as you have the properly written contract and argued it correctly there is no reason it will not be upheld. Of course if the dog has already gone then it's to late for that dog but it does put people on notice that they can't get away with it in future. Not really equitable though is it ? How is this fair to the buyer? Do they get a reduced price based on the fact that they agree to taking the dog back to the breeder? Therefore if they default the breeder can ask for the higher price but you cant honestly expect me to believe that someone would have to pay some money to the breeder because they decide to give the dog away or sell it to someone else rather than take up the breeders offer . Im not convinced and would want to hear this from someone who is qualified in property and contract law.

Well all I can say is if it is even remotely possible that I would have to be directed on what I do with my dog even if I believe it is no longer in its best interest I would never buy a dog and agree to any such contract. I am a breeder and hope that my puppy buyers would honour my wishes and come to me first but I am also an owner and I believe its illogical and unreasonable.

Agreed. My point is due to the fact that Oscars Law and RSPCA Victoria are obviously operating under a different definition of what a puppy farmer is to the majority of those involved in working toward stopping puppy farming - as they see it you need to be clear about who and what you are rallying for. Oscars Law has decided upon certain actions which I believe erode the work being done by others and threaten the desired goal. If people want to support them and rally - its supposed to be a free country and everyone has the right to make their own choices - all I ask is that you are not led by emotional propoganda and you look a little deeper before you decide this is something you want to support. Be clear about what it is that you are asking for . If you know little of canine reproduction and have questions please feel free to ask people who know about canine reproduction. No one who does know about canine reproduction would have comments like. Oscars Law What happens to ex-breeding stock? Dogs should not be bred every heat cycle as it is bad for their bodies. Puppy factory bitches are bred every time they come into heat, until their uterus prolapses and falls out of their body Rspca Victoria It's not uncommon for female dogs as young as six months old to churn out as many as several litters a year for their entire lives. Under Victorian State law, bitches are only permitted to have one litter in every 10 months. However, within these factories, bitches are forced to have litters of puppies every six months and do not get the chance to recuperate. Additionally the MDBA will not support any new laws relating to dogs while ever the people charged with policing these laws are obviously uneducated and biased against breeders and have no outside accountability process. I simply ask that you are sure about what it is you are rallying against and whether that is the best way to get breeders out in the open and easily seen and monitored.

the fact is there was an agreed definition decided upon which stopped speculation on what a puppy farmer is. Someone who breeds dogs in sub standard conditions. How many they have , what they breed ,how many they breed or where they sell their pups or what their motivation is whether that be for money or for the show ring , for working , agility etc doesnt come into play. I promise you I have seen via Pacers some breeders who only own around 10 dogs who would put commercial cross bred breeders to shame in the filth and suffering department. But what we see with oscars law and RSPCA Victoria is a different definition of the term puppy farmer to RSPCA Australia and all other groups which attended the round table meeting. Basically it means we are all protesting and rallying and depending on what someone thinks is the definition who is involved or watching the cause is changed. What is going on in Victoria is truly scary stuff and the consequences of animal welfare being in bed with animal rights will be far reaching. There is a hell of a lot going on behind the scenes and if anyone wants to do something to stop dogs suffering or puppy farmers then being sucked in by what Oscars Law is spreading is not the answer.

It may be that they are poor and have no money to register the dog and are fearful of fines. Could be many reasons and Im sure all of them can justify why they did it to themselves. What really worries me is that these dogs are being judged by how they look as if no other dog can be dangerous and as if you can determine risk by breed.It cant be long before they ad more.

This.

As any owner you should not have to be concerned that someone can claim to be the owner and surrender it. There are laws which protect us from this but we dont know what they did to have ownership proved or authority to surrender the dog when they accepted the animal . If in fact they just said O>K> we have no evidence that you are the owner and have the right to surrender but we will take it anyway they are in breach of the law and may have recieved stolen goods and therefore its a police issue. The question that hasnt seemed to be asked is where is the owner who made the agreement and who supposedly still owns the dog and what they have to say? Was the dog stolen from them or did they give written approval for them to have authority to surrender it etc. There are also issues coming up here re privacy surrounding the chip etc which may need to be addressed. .The owner is not talking , there was no written permission , the organisation after realizing no one checked this have now said through there solicitor..... paraphrasing he has been advised by his client( the organisation) that due to the relationship status he is her authorized agent.This conclusion was reached 10 days after this dog was surrendered and after a worker had been able to put her name on this dog . Geez that's pretty shocking - what state are we in? Any rescue group which has such shoddy surrender procedures needs to be bought into line pretty quickly . Pacers had a case not long ago where the partner of a person had the dog and needed to surrender it . The registered owner wasnt able to be contacted and there were other issues which meant the owner couldnt be involved. Basically the dog had been abandoned by the owner and left with the ex partner and the ex couldnt afford to keep it. After much agony Bankstown council accepted the dog as abandoned and a stat dec was still required from the partner to state the dog had been left with him and he couldnt look after it. The chip was registered to that adress but owner wasnt able to be located so the dog became the property of the council so only then could someone else take it. My point is this was a very difficult thing to do and all the dots had to be covered first.

Sorry I dont think the wording you have used is going to define the difference.

ain't that the truth I agree but it still doesnt change what can legally be done.

The contract has a condition of sale which is legally binding how ever the dog is considered "goods" so you can affix a monetary value only. But the condition of sale isnt legal. It takes away the right of the owner to have free enjoyment of and make decisions about their own property. If I didnt want to give the breeder back my dog no amount of contract I may have signed years ago would make me do it. Thank God.

That is all I ask .There is much at stake.

As any owner you should not have to be concerned that someone can claim to be the owner and surrender it. There are laws which protect us from this but we dont know what they did to have ownership proved or authority to surrender the dog when they accepted the animal . If in fact they just said O>K> we have no evidence that you are the owner and have the right to surrender but we will take it anyway they are in breach of the law and may have recieved stolen goods and therefore its a police issue. The question that hasnt seemed to be asked is where is the owner who made the agreement and who supposedly still owns the dog and what they have to say? Was the dog stolen from them or did they give written approval for them to have authority to surrender it etc. There are also issues coming up here re privacy surrounding the chip etc which may need to be addressed.

The Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders has registered breeders and so does the MDBA and about a dozen or so other registries. Breeders in Victoria who have approval for breeding dogs are also registered by their councils.

So how does this clarify an ANKC registered breeder against any other who is registered with any group = any registry can provide pedigrees and papers.

Why can't a Covenant be put into place? They place Covenants on Title and these regulate what people can and can't do with their property beyond the initial date of their ownership. O.K. Lets look at this . You were recently sick and had to consider what was best in your opinion for Mandela if you could no longer look after him. You made choices based on what you know of the people involved and your dog. What if it was possible for the breeder to hold you to an agreement where Mandela had to go back to them? How would you feel about that? Do you think that would be in your dog's best interests? Shouldnt you have the right to choose that if mandela is your property without fear of being sued ? Things change, circumstances change and you cant make a promise now and be sure that in 5 years time all the things which were in place when you made a promise are still the same - they arent . Dogs arent like land or businesses they are moveable property and different laws apply. That's not quite correct - they are still covered by Australian Consumer Law - the same as all goods and chattels Thats right and can I say what you can do with a DVD player I sell you and have a penalty if you dont ? Its simply not logical ,Breeders dont get to say what happens to a dog once it becomes someone ele's property.

Why can't a Covenant be put into place? They place Covenants on Title and these regulate what people can and can't do with their property beyond the initial date of their ownership. My understanding is that where a promise is part of the contract there has to be an expectation of some type of "consideration" in return. That consideration could be what is known as a "peppercorn" consideration (a token consideration). Without some type of consideration in return then to be valid it needs to be executed under seal or deed. So where the promise is to return the dog to the breeder the breeder needs to promise something in return - that could be a promise to return to the original owner any difference between the financial consideration received by the breeder from the new owner less the cost of housing and caring for the animal until that time - or even a token $10.00 This then allows the breeder to include penalty clauses if the promise is not kept. That's how I understand it. How does this allow the breeder to include penalty clauses? If the owner doesnt want what the breeder has offered they simply dont follow through - how could you penalise me if I decide that what is best for me and my dog is to break the promise? Why would we want to? We are owners as well as breeders.