Steve

No it isnt. Steve is right on the money. The ACO I spoke to today said your idea is just council registration with a different name. As for a drivers license - it doesnt automatically make people a better driver. Filling in a dodgey RTA test to get a learner's permit does not stop road rage, speeding, drunk drivers, disregard for seatbelts etc. Doesn't stop it but it certainly limits it, look at the huge numbers of people on the roads who get it right compared to the huge numbers of dog owners who can't contain their dogs or dump them in a pound because they lack the basic understanding of animal care and responsibility? The licensing system I'm talking about is nothing like council registration, all that involves is paying for a dog tag, I'm talking about licensing of owners as part of a mandatory education system. You don't have to know anything about animal care and management to register the animal with council. You cannnot compare driving and dog ownership. I can own a car but I am not able to drive it without a licence - owning a car is not illegal. You want to make it so that it is illegal to own a dog without a licence - cant you see the difference? Then what do we give someone an approval to own a dog or two dogs or 10 dogs etc and how do we know how many are stacked up in their bedrooms etc?

If you want to beat a drum about education Ill back you all the way but I will not back in any new laws which affect dog ownership. There are many many ways councils and interests groups could educate people without it needing to be mandatory. When ever if ever they have a go at doing that and it doesnt make a difference Ill listen but until then if some of the resources spent on the campaigns run by the RSPCA needs to go that way instead of where it goes now.

No I dont agree - I also see animal ownership as a privilege - however I am not prepared to forego people's basic rights because there are some idiots around - and if there is no money and no resources to police current laws then why would we anticipate any differences with any other laws ? There isnt any point in comparing drivers licences with dog owners licences and ignorance has never been a defence in any situation anyway. What basic rights would you be forgoing under a licensing system that you don't already forgo under any other system anyway? If it were structured in a similar way to the wildlife license all you have to do is put your address, provide a reference or two (depending on the species) and provide a certificate of completion for safe handling etc in the case of snakes. Sounds pretty similar to getting a driver's license if you ask me. I'm not talking about ignorance as a defence I'm talking about ignorance as the prevailing state at the moment among animal owners where there is no obligation to change. People only learn what they have to learn. At the moment there are no obligations for anyone to have to learn anything at all when they get an animal, this IMO is a huge part of the myriad of problems associated with domestic animal ownership from welfare to effective containment. Of course resources for enforcement are needed and that will come, but first and foremost I think we need a mandatory education system in place to minimise the occurance of problems in the first instance and provide a simple framework for the general public to follow. At the moment if they are even motivated to learn (rare) they need to wallow through legislation that is not designed for reading by lay people. Far better for this information to be dissemated in the form of workbooks, handbooks etc, and integrated together so that welfare laws, management laws, containment laws etc are all there together in a concise simple to understand format, similar to that of the learner driver's handbook. When we agree to license our dogs we agree to give over our ownership right to the licensing agency, which can at any time revoke our use rights. We grant them absolute control over our animals. They can come onto our real property, and remove our transitory property (dogs) without due process of law. The places which require licensing can refuse to issue further licenses, and revoke the privilege of dog ownership. Mandatory dog licensing is the initial step in removing dogs from our ownership and or stopping us from doing certain activities with our dogs. A license is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to have something or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the license. It makes dog ownership illegal. It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency which can at any time, inspect, confiscate, suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. It’s a way of taking away your property without compensation and the same goes for the "permits " being introduced all over the place for people to be able to keep entire dogs. Say no to more laws.

No I dont agree - I also see animal ownership as a privilege - however I am not prepared to forego people's basic rights because there are some idiots around - and if there is no money and no resources to police current laws then why would we anticipate any differences with any other laws ? There isnt any point in comparing drivers licences with dog owners licences and ignorance has never been a defence in any situation anyway.

They state they are a registered breeder with Dogs NSW and the schnauzer mother is pedigreed. Yep but they dont say it is an ANKC registered pedigree. Dogs NSW only have a say over what their breeders can do with the dogs that are registered on their pedigree database and system. Pedigree doesnt equal ANKC registered pedigree.

There are only 4 and half thousand ANKC registered breeders Australia wide - there are a hell of a lot of other breeders registered with all manner of registries. It will only get worse too any time from now with the RSPCA pushing so hard to have breeders licenced.

I thought so. Its also against the code of ethics of dogs NSW The registered breeder states Dad is a chocolate Labrador and Mum is a Pedigreed " rare red coated" standard Schnauzer according to the breeder.*** Personally I dont get it. If you have a pedigree dog and are registered with a Canine Association why deliberately breed ( not just once but twice ) your dog with another breed and make $700 crossbred pups ? If the schnaauzer is pedigreed but not registered she isnt breaking any rules.

"hybrid theory" burkes back yard............ Sure but the big deal genetic diseases common to both breeds which cause the greatest concern are species specific not necessarily breed specific. HD,allergies, ED etc are polygenic and there is as much chance of getting any of that as there is with any dog.

So you don't have a problem with continuing the status quo where anyone can buy an animal without any kind of requirement to know or learn anything about the species they are becoming responsible for? You need a license to keep certain native animals as pets I see no reason something similar couldn't be implemented for domestic animals, this site details the regulations and requirements for keeping wildlife, I see no reason a simlar system couldn't be implemented for domestic animal owners. (And before anyone gets nit picky I'm referring to the general concept not the specifics!) Everyone knows you need a license to keep certain exotic and wildlife species so why should it be different for domestic animals? The regulations are there to provide guidance, education and to protect owners, the public and the animals. Thats right. Current laws are scoff laws and any new ones will be also . Dogs are supposed to be registered , in NSW dogs have supposed to be chipped before they leave the breeders yard for over a decade and still thousands turn up in pounds not chipped, still breeders dont chip puppies. Dogs are supposed to be walked on leads, and even people who visit this forum who know better think they are able to make their own laws because their dogs are special and well trained blah blah blah. Big deal new laws on the gold coast for breeders - have to put a licence number in an ad to sell puppies - open up a local paper and its easy to see few are doing so. When the council are asked why they arent policing the new laws - they havent got the money, man power blah blah blah. Laws in NSW say no electric fences near dogs but how many NSW people on this forum still have electric fences. I explained to a puppy buyer last week about how electric fences near dogs in NSW is illegal and got a call 4 days later the dog was killed because it got caught in an electric fence. When was the last time a council ranger walked the streets to check regos and chips and to ensure fences were adequate etc - never. Not enough money and it looses votes . What on earth makes you think introducing a licence will make any difference ? Hello - people tell lies to get what they want - people agree to anything you make compulsory to be able to get it and then it goes out the window or they ignore it and carry on as usual - More scoff laws which take away people's rights and make life hard because a handful of idiots do the wrong thing - people think they are special or their dogs are special and therefore they dont need to follow laws. Get inthe car and go for a drive around the block any block and see how many are walking their special dogs because they are special trainers without a lead. The ONLY system that will work is to develop opt in groups which are rewarded for doing the right thing which generate education and interest in their own community and where the current laws are policed to punish those who are not doing the right thing before their dogs bite someone or terrorise the neighbourhood. There are many potential answers but this one is the worst and as eveidenced in other places where a licence system has been in existence it doesnt work anyway.

So what is the point in doing all of the leg work to try to find a dog which will suit your lifestyle and then choose one which you cant choose to suit your lifestyle because everyone is different. The fact that he wants this particular cross insinuates he has at least thought about what one of these crosses may turn out like and he thinks it will suits him. Makes no sense to me.

Ive tried telling him that but he think they arent "pedigree" A GSD x Malamute isnt pedigree either Might be - anyone can write a pedigree and fill in who the parents are.

No more laws, no more laws, no more laws, no more laws, no more laws.

An activist group which gets funding as a charity and handouts from the taxpayers to use against them. With no outside accountability. Surely someone will get it soon.

Agreed but before we start we need to know where they are coming from .

How many are coming from owners who dont desex their pets versus how many come from feral colonies. I saw some figures some time back that the feral colonies account for 90 % of them. They need to know the figures and real stats before any one can do anything with any task force. By the way - animals do not have rights.

Yep - I spent 3 hours or so with the new owner when they came to pick him up and one of the things we discussed was that electric fences are illegal around dogs in NSW

I sent a male Maremma pup home to his new family last Friday. He was a bit older than usual - 17 weeks so I was a bit more attached to him and it was sad to see him go. I just recieved a phone call from his new owner. He was electricuted today on an electric fence. Pet plan have been wornderful to the new owner and will cover the purchase cost and the vet expenses. The owners are very thank ful I activated the free insurance as he was leaving here. Petplan- Julie

Tasmania · The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) is planning a Code of Practice for the breeding of dogs. · From the 1st July 2011 it became mandatory to microchip dogs from 6 months of age. While this is a positive step in the right direction, we hope future amendments will ensure pups are legally required to be microchipped by the breeder prior to sale or transfer with the breeder’s details recorded on the microchip register database. Victoria · The Domestic Animals Act has been reviewed and included stakeholder consultation. · The new Victorian government have advised they are committed to legislative change for the Spring session. · The government has given increased powers to the RSPCA Inspectorate to enforce the Domestic Animals Act which was previously only enforceable by local government officers. Inability to enforce the DAA was previously a major constraint for the RSPCA Victoria Inspectorate when trying to protect animal welfare. When a cruelty complaint is investigated and breaches of the Domestic Animals Act are in evidence, Inspectors now have the powers to act outside of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTAA). · The number of pledges for support of the Close Puppy Factories campaign can be found here: http://www.rspcavic.org/campaigns_news/campaigns_puppy_farming.htm. · The RSPCA have introduced PROVE IT stickers to encourage pet shops to prove that they do not source their puppies from puppy farms. · The second phase of the campaign will be in Nov/Dec 2011 focusing on the channels through which puppy farms sell their puppies – online, print media and pet shops to increase public awareness. South Australia · The Code of Practice for the Care and Management of Animals in the Pet Trade has been reviewed and included a public consultation phase. We are currently awaiting the final draft of the Code to be released by the South Australian government. New South Wales · RSPCA NSW advise that while NSW have the Animal Welfare Code of Practice – Breeding Dogs and Cats and the Animal Welfare Code of Practice – Animals in Pet Shops which contain enforceable standards, the difficulty is that with no central register of breeders, the RSPCA may not know where some of these breeding facilities are and therefore we may not be sure that the animals are being kept in accordance with the Breeding Dog and Cat Standards. · One way of addressing this problem would be the establishment of a central register of breeders and the necessity for a breeder prefix and microchip number to be included in any advertisement and provided at any sale or transfer of an animal. Australian Capital Territory · No regulatory changes have occurred as yet, however, there has been some positive movement. A Discussion paper "The Breeding and Sale of Companion Animals in the ACT" was released in September 2010. The purpose of this community discussion paper was to gauge the level of community concern and to facilitate the communities' views in planning the ACT 's first enforceable COP under the Animal Welfare Act 1992. Recent changes to the ACT Animal Welfare Act 1992 allow the inclusion of mandatory enforceable components with approved codes of practices related to animal welfare. We are currently awaiting release by the ACT government. Queensland · The QLD government proposed a Breeder ID system in 2010 which is still under development. The scheme will include: - assigning each breeder their own ID - compulsory microchipping of breeding bitches - requiring breeder ID numbers to be displayed at points of sale or in advertising - requiring that the ID of the breeding bitch is included as part of the microchip information on all her puppies - development of Dog Breeder Standards under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 The Gold Coast Breeder Permit System was also introduced as a pilot study and is ongoing (for more information please contact the AWL of QLD). Northern Territory · No significant changes apart from the fact that a greater number of councils have made microchipping mandatory for dogs over 6 months of age. · There is no Domestic Animals Act in the NT, there are local by-laws. Western Australia · No significant changes. Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC) · As mentioned previously, the ANKC has moved to make microchipping compulsory for all registered pedigree dogs across Australia. Microchipping must now be done before registration of a puppy. This will be enforced in all states and territories from 1st January 2012. This is a great step forward to enable positive identification of pedigree dogs and to help drive regulatory change towards compulsory microchipping for all puppies by their breeders. While these positive steps are encouraging, much more action is needed to end puppy farming in Australia. We would greatly appreciate your organisation’s advocacy to all State and Territory Governments in relation to the principles in the Way Forward document. In particular, calling for compulsory microchipping by the breeder prior to sale or transfer and a breeder ID system for those states yet to introduce these critical requirements. Urgent action is also needed to address inadequate export requirements and the national co-ordination of state efforts to allow for breeder traceability across state/territory borders. There is no doubt that current regulations and their enforcement need to be strengthened across Australia. However, a holistic approach is needed to successfully bring an end to puppy farming incorporating both regulatory reform and public awareness and education initiatives. The RSPCA continues to distribute the RSPCA Smart Puppy Buyer's Guide to help raise community awareness and enable prospective puppy buyers to screen breeders effectively to find a responsible breeder (for any type/breed of dog). The RSPCA will continue to communicate the key principles in the The Way Forward document to key stakeholders including industry, breeders, governments and policymakers at every available opportunity. In addition, the Close Puppy Factories campaign continues with strong and growing support from the community.

Posted 15 August 2011 - 10:44 PM toy dog, on 15 August 2011 - 08:58 PM, said: Steve, on 15 August 2011 - 05:52 PM, said: If I lived there I sure as hell wouldnt apply for a DA to breed dogs. ah but wait they'll still find you, locals talk and some even go as far as to dob in anyone seeing doing the wrong thing by the animals. ;) so you won't get away with it na ah ah (always wanted to use that emoticon and now i found a reason to ) Well thank God you only have two dogs then and never breed from your premises

Any one want to take bets on the solutions they come up with ? - no breeders on the "task force " and they recognise the rights of companion animals. Good luck with that.

I dont think its been done to death or it would be dead and as far as Im concerned it very much alive and kicking and hopefully along the way people will start to think and consider the big picture rather than what we all think we know.

ah but wait they'll still find you, locals talk and some even go as far as to dob in anyone seeing doing the wrong thing by the animals. ;) so you won't get away with it na ah ah (always wanted to use that emoticon and now i found a reason to ) Well thank God you only have two dogs then and never breed from your premises

Im not that sure that its all as simple as some of you seem to think it is. What is it to be - do we allow registered breeders to do as they wish and breed more dogs in family homes - therefore give them exemptions to mandatory codes and dont belt into them about how many they own or breed. The theory being there are more registered pups available so therefore worth someone's while to promote them or not? Registered breeders are chucking it in and leaving in droves, less and less registered dogs are being bred every year and saying you breed dogs - especially purebred dogs in some circles gets you treated like pond scum. Why on earth would registered breeders spend money and use energy to draw attention to themselves and promote a product that is in such short supply - a product they couldnt breed enough of to fill the demand. Which by the way brings us back to full cirlcle doesnt it. If you want anyone to breed dogs based on current regs in the state of Victoria - purebred or other wise you have to apply for a DA - which may bring down Oscars law onto you where even your own peers are backing them in. The point is some people treat animals badly and breed them badly and as a result some people feel that the best way to try to monitor that is to know who is breeding and where they are - in order to do that you have to back off and allow them to feel safe enough to apply or EVERYONE will stop applying. If I lived there I sure as hell wouldnt apply for a DA to breed dogs.

no i think what is being said is these dogs are being bought from a puppy farm for thousands of dollars???? so the farmer yet again wins big by selling to rescues so whoever they sell to doesn't matter to the farmer as long as they make their money. play on the emotions of the people trying to help the dogs. this wouldnt' help anything i don't believe it would only serve to encourage?????? where do the rescue get all this money to buy the dogs, when most are crying out for more funding? Actually . These bitches are being given to "rescue" and "saved" by rescue from these terrible puppy farmers - from there they are used by "rescue" as breeding dogs - puppies sold of as "rescued from a puppy farm" Or bitches are being sold or given to "rescue" and sold off pregnant or as breeding pairs. And in our organisation breeders, rescue and owners all come together and work well as a team to do the right thing by the dogs - I will never ever agree that Oscars Law is animal welfare. Oscars Law is animal rights - with the front lady 100% animal liberation.

thats just it what i was saying about genetics and breeding standards etc etc. can't really go into it all and make it all public i could be liable here, they didn't agree with me thats why they chucked me out. i was a ped breeder and they had a problem with ped dogs being represented when as you say, it doesn't matter whether a person has purebreds or crosses they don't distinquish between the two is what i found out. if you breed dogs you are automatically a bad person only in it to make a profit and there is nothing inbetween at all. judging by my conversation with a person that was pretty high up on the ladder. i cannot say any more than that Steve. please. i know where you are coming from and you are completely right. but still i am against puppy farms like the rest of us are ofcourse we all are. O.K. Its good to be against puppy farms but running with animal lib is folly.