Steve

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.

By the way its not possible to introduce anything , anything for commercial breeders which isnt the same for registered breeders .The objective should be to stop dogs suffering and dogs can suffer just as badly with someone who owns half a dozen as any. How long do you think before the war swings to how cruel registered breeders are - pedigreed dogs exposed/ All thats going on here is a plot to divide breeders to make each think they are superior and will avoid the crap so they dont stand united for basic rights and common sense in breeding. Here's a news flash there are only 4 and a half thousand registered breeders australia wide and there are many many more people who have media and money on their side who want to see registered breeders shut down. The only way you know what someone's motivation for breeding is if they tell you and even then anyone who is breeding to send the kids to uni would be very brave to say so even if they are doing the most wonderful job of ensuring their dogs are well bred and well looked after. Take away one group's rights and before you know it all groups loose the same rights - thats called free trade and anti competition and equitable society and there isnt anything you can do to stop it.

Some good information. Are you kidding? They are telling fibs all over the place and the very sad fact is that people reading it have no idea so run on and believe their crap. Dog breeding 101 for RSPCA Victoria and Oscar's Law. It is not scientifically possible for a bitch to have "several litters each year from the age of 6 months" Dont argue about it and stop making fools of yourselves Do the Maths and understand Canine reproduction . This is a lie full stop no getting out of it. Bitches of any age can get virginal and uterine hernias and they can have no litter and be any age. To say bitches are bred until their uterus's fall out is designed to make the reader believe that this is done as a matter of course and that it is only the result of many litters. The scientific facts of canine reproduction do not show any evidence and most definitely support the fact that dogs should be bred young and often if they are in good condition and it is untrue that breeding dogs often is categorically bad for them. Every person who applies for a DA to breeds dogs is treated like pond scum to a point where people who want to breed dogs in Victoria wont apply any longer for DA's.If I lived in Victoria I wouldnt apply for a DA .Everyone else is asking that breEders come out in the open so we know where they are and that they are complying with mandatory codes but yet Oscars Law supported by RSPCA Victoria use donations to try to stop the applications. If they were serious about cleaning the whole thing up they would allow the DA's to proceed , wait until they had paid their couple of hundred thousand to set up and then bloody keep an eye on them to see if they are doing it right.All they accomplish by their actions is a- it prevents anyone applying and being out in the open and b- it grabs donations for a comapaign which is counter productive to the Stated aims of every group who attended the round table conference on stopping puppy farms. RSPCA Victoria has been given new powers to police people they are obviously biased against without outside accountability and their stated definition of a puppy farm is contradictory to the stated definition of RSPCA Australia and all who attended the round table meetings and who have participated in talks since. The whole thing sCreams of animal liberation who have stated goals to prevent dogs being bred and a provision of equality for dogs with people. The founder of Oscars Law has been 100% animal liberation until recently and all thats happening here is a wolf under a dfferent name.Rallies and actions designed to whip up donations based on information with little credibility that sucks in those who know nothing what ever about canine husbandry or canine reproduction.Evidence for that is in everything they say. Until the RSPCA Australia ensures that their branch in Victoria is on the same page with a definition and actions against puppy farming with RSPCA Australia and all who agreed on a plan to fight this,this is only one reason the MDBA withdraws all support for the RSPCA'S "Way forward" and we find it disgraceful that animal welfare has climbed in bed with animal rights. We find it very sad that the public is so easily sucked in and so eager to believe that they should take their lead from people who know nothing of dog breeding rather than objectively look at the issues and the possible serious consequences which come of extremists actions. Even the mandatory codes which they harp on about are basically flawed and no breeder would want to keep their BREEDING dogs the way they have been made to .The concept that a breeder has to by law have their dogs vaccinated EVERY YEAR or they can loose their right to breed and their dogs is truly pathetic and its time animal rights stood back and let people who know about breeding dogs take the lead rather than assume we are all pond scum and potential animal abusers. All this achieves is more power without accounatability for the RSPCA and more donations for Oscars Law. It wont stop any dog from suffering nor will it stop one dog from being handed into pounds and needing to be put down. Wake up Australia!

Yes there is but its run by animal rights rednecks.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law. What about rights of first refusal? That involves a transfer of property and I far as I know, can be enforced. No idea we [ the MDBA ] set a lawyer a task and sent them on a mission to sort it out. We paid them for their leagl advice and I have no choice but to go ith that until someone can show me evidence that it woudl stick with a dog. What if I promise you right of first refusal and something happens between when I promise and when its time to offer and I no longer think that person is fit to take the dog. Im having a difficult time seeing that if I own I have no choice but to give it back even if I dont want to.

Im forever amazed at how many rescue groups set up shop or operate without standard policies and procedures so that when something like this crops up a standard answer- its against our policy - is used and there is no more to be said. If a rescue group is going to have a policy which enables the dog to be returned to the breeder then the criteria by which that decision will be reached needs to be documented and followed. Its difficult to believe that a bigger rescue group would accept a dog without some procedure to ensure the dog is owned by the person handing it in and that necessary protocols and procudures were not followed . It leaves them wide open to being sued and having some rotten publicity on their backs

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law. Your knowledge of contract law is flawed. Probably is , Im no lawyer , however we paid a lawyer a truck load of money to go into contract law and property law to enable us to put together contracts which would hold up.We are also aware of several breeders of cats, dogs and horses who lost in court cases. If you can show me how its possible for me to ensure someone I sell a car to can only return the car to me and not sell it to someone else or give it away to a wrecker after I have transferred ownership if they dont want to Im all ears. if you can show me how as an ex owner I can ensure someone doesnt change the paint job on the car or use it for drug trafficing etc after ownership has been transferred Im very keen to hear it all. As an owner if I want to bump the dog off, breed it, sell it to someone, use it for fighting etc etc no matter what I made them promise they would do into the future it cant stick. It is their property just as my dog is my property and if I dont want my dog ever returned to its breder - and in one case I would rather put it to sleep than have it returned there then that is my right as an owner. Once a breeder takes the money and changes the ownership they are out of the loop - like it or not. These are basic rights of property owners which date back to the Magna Cata

Promex

My Maremma puppies always get car sick .So before I take them to the vet I always give them pills from the vet .The trip is 55 kilomtres. A new vet opened in this town recently which puts me 3 ks away from them so I thought Id be safe taking them to the vet without them spewing all over each other. Nup new vet and up chuck everywhere. Even worse on the trip back home. Gross 13 pups covered in yuk. So now every single pup thats going home gets a pill - it doesnt knock em out just calms em down and that works like a charm. Last time the vet offered me the new drug but the old one works well and its cheaper so Ive stuck with that

It is illegal in all states of Australia to take a dog without proof of ownership and having the necessary documents covered. Report them - but how will you prove this? How can you prove they didnt check for ownership , have a stat dec or even check the chip and simply not tell you?

Yep.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law.

Sadly any contrat you write that makes someone promise something in the future isnt worth the paper its written on and they are within their rights to do what ever they want with the dog. Lots of rescue decide not to return the dog back to the breeder for a whole bunch of different reasons and even if you put your name as secondary contact when a dog comes in as a surrender that the owner has decided they want to hand over to the rescue its their right to do so. I get how you feel and that this is something that is against what you hoped for when you sold the pup but the fact is in this case there isnt much point in beating up the rescue. In an ideal world our buyers will honour our agreements and come back to us if they no longer want the dog and or that the rescue will give the breeder first dibs they havent broken any laws or regs and contracts like this are worthless.

Yep and even more concerning is the Victorian RSPCA affiliation with them. Big fibs on both websites trying to make out that breeders do things they couldnt possibly do.

I so agree with everything you say! I would never remove the puppies, nature is wonderful, we really don't need to interfere unless there are problems, its amazing how well our girls can cope, please don't underestimate them. me too. let nature do its job - stop interferring!

Im so sorry and sending you all my best wishes. Julie

Thanks to everyone who has donated. So far we have $130.

Congratulaions and very well done Julie

How do you know they arent registered with the WACA?

stupid

I would still have a problem with it...there is too many unknowns when breeding mongrels to mongrels...and your last statement it the biggy for me. Maybe I am "holier than thou" as called by someone in another thread :D but a backyarder is a backyarder, whether they breed Pugs or Working dogs. Are you saying organisations such as Guide Dogs who breed labrador x goldens are BYBers? The dogs are all temperament and health tested. The parents are purebred labrador and Golden Retrievers. These dogs are bred to be functional and have working careers that help hundreds of people. And everyone is different - .

I would still have a problem with it...there is too many unknowns when breeding mongrels to mongrels...and your last statement it the biggy for me. Maybe I am "holier than thou" as called by someone in another thread :D but a backyarder is a backyarder, whether they breed Pugs or Working dogs. I dont think its up to me to say what is right or wrong - thats all. I already know that there are many people who think breeding purebred dogs is wrong and I dont want to hear what they think any more than those people want to hear what I think . I do what I do because its because what I think is right and I think its what is best for the dogs I breed.

it appears to me all they are doing is identifying any dog they think will be potentially dangerous - by breed or part thereof and ensuring people who own them are having to do what is necessary to keep it contained and the community safe.

The why isnt important - its the how that counts. Breeding 2 working dogs together to make a litter of good working dogs isnt such a bad thing but thats not bettering any breed. The only way to do that is breed predictible puppies over consecutive generations. What we do is different because we think being able to consistently predict management issues in a dog is as important as having to test each one working to see if it got the right bits from the right parents. Unless you know that dog has ancestors which have been doing the work well then what you see isnt necessarily what you get . I think its time we stopped labelling it wrong I just think its different to what we do. For me part of breeding dogs is the challenge of getting it right over consecutive generations so I can say Ive left something behind which others can work with. Its the use of the knowledge and science. If someone else wants to use luck they also need to know there are consequences for that and pumping out a dozen or so cross bred pups with high prey drive which are unpredictible is big deal in the society we live in.

I will never be without a Maremma.