Steve

yep

If someone is going to speak ill of you, they will use whatever they have at their disposal. I've seen breeders spoken about as if they are dirt because of how much they charge for a show puppy - it was cheaper than the "pet quality" of the speaker and therefore that meant they were less than pet quality. If you breed more litters than someone, then you are a puppy farmer. If you breed less than you aren't serious. There already exists ways to advertise the "betterness" - Top Breeder competitions, Number of Champions, bred by an International Judge etc etc. Just cos I don't win any of those doesn't mean I can't sell puppies. If someone wants to construe that I am less ethical because I'm not accredited, they can go right ahead. I guess it's not the first negative connotation slung my way. It doesn't make it any truer. edited to add - I let my actions speak. These sorts of schemes are about the appearance of ethics and none of the actions of it. Yes totally agree however , in this case it appears to be your own regsitering body who is promoting them over those who choose not to be accredited.

i suspect you are right steve. i had hoped that them being accredited breeders they may have had a higher standard to attain. this system leaves a lot to be desired. ...............and now you are starting to understand what we are talking about. Accredited Puppy Farmers, do you really want to be an Accredited Breeder and on the same level as they are. Even scarier - do you want to be a registered breeder who is not accredited and spoken about as if you are even worse than they are?

Im pretty sure I know who you are talking about. I had a major winge about them to the CCs back when I noticed they were registered breeders but also were members of the AAPDB and were advertising they were breeding cross breds. Nothing can be done as long as they dont breed their registered dogs in this way.

Give DogsVic a go but you are also welcome to call me 0269276706 Hope the money we sent through to ShelleyBeggs helped out a bit with the puppies.

Wags said = Well, if you can't see the difference between simply an open book exam and an undertaking which may or may not be upheld, compared to the additional scrutiny of having to present evidence of principled and ethical breeding initially, then physically monitoring both through new owners and on site inspections instead of doing nothing unless pushed to do so, then I guess I don't know how to explain it to you so that it is understood. I broached my thoughts in regard to just instigating it across the board with registered breeders in a previous post. Of course I can see the difference in that - but isnt that saying more about how they manage their current members? Again I ask given that these things with the exception of two of them are already things every person agrees to already as registered breeders how will these members who do not go after accreditation for what ever reason - be that because they cant or because they wont on principal - be managed? Surely its the members who dont sign up and jump through the hoops who should be monitored more because they havent presented evidence as the others have ?????????

Yes, the accredited breeders have gone through the same examination requirements and undertakings as a registered breeder, and the more involved submission and requirements attached to accreditation as well, plus have undertaken to be part of the site visits. This effectively formalises 'standards' to be maintained and encompasses inspections to ensure that those standards are in fact maintained. I've yet to hear of any CCC doing adhoc inspections to date. They may if there's been an ongoing complaint situation and the inspection is part of the investigation. I initially wondered why they didn't just instigate the accreditation to breeder registration, but they have the current registered breeders who have agreed to the current regulations and conditions, plus they are giving the breeders the opportunity of freely getting on board rather than simply commanding. New breeders apply for normal registration and as I'm not a new breeder I haven't ascertained whether there is a period of for want of a better word, 'traineeship' with a Mentor prior to being able to apply for accreditation. I suspect this might be the case. I know that there have been some inspections in NSW - I cant speak for Queensland but the reality is that the inspections we are discussing for accredited breeders are not adhoc any way so that's not really an arguement. This is still my question - why didnt they just instigate these things for all members because the reality is I can only see 2 which are not already there. I can see why those 2 things would be a bit sticky and knowing breeders as I do would really start a public flogging if they did but honestly its hard to follow why the things which are already there are being touted as something over and beyond. Give it time the usual reaction to anything new is to imagine all kinds of things which are not real and to pick on those who are more open to change.

There is no problem for me I can see what you're saying but if everyone has to already agree to this when they become members and already give the nod to having their site inspected etc what am I missing? It implies that those who have agreed to be accredited have agreed to something different to or more difficult to comply with than any other registered breeder yet at least in this regard I cant see the difference - I sort of get the feeling there is more to it. So if they are now policing it more with site inspections which they can pull on any member at any time anyway and surveys why not just leave this one out? Why have this in there ? Does this mean if you are not accredited you dont have to comply with this? I dont think so because accredited or not you have agreed to comply with it. Does this mean if you are not accredited you are off the hook and wont be inspected? Hard to see the logic in it .

Im sorry I know how it feels when you feel you are repeating yourself but........ O.K. Lets have a good look then. Wags says - The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it. So the difference must be in the detail Because isn't this covered by – Current Queensland code of ethics b. I shall permit any person authorised in writing by the CCC(Q) Secretary/General Manager pursuant to a resolution of the committee to enter and inspect any premises owned or occupied by the member for the purpose of investigating compliance with section 2a of this Code; i. I shall adhere to all the current ANKC Regulations Parts 6.2 4-8, 6.8 2-11, & 6.9.1 & 6.9.19 and any subsequent amendments (as per Appendix to these Rules) if specified for my particular breed. Breeders shall record such scores for breeds as required by any ANKC regulations;

I wouldnt take that much notice of what breeders who havent joined have to say. Ask the ones who have and also understand that they will be promoting this to puppy buyers and regardless of what the breeders who dont or cant join have to say that may just make the difference. If you are concerned about what other breeders might think of you if you do - forget that they will find numerous other things whether you're in or out. Its nice to know the difference between me being ethical and unethical is simply $22. What a crock!!!!!! Yes Jed - I agree that you can't make people change their ethics unless they choose to, however, there is nothing wrong in creating a system which highlights those with ethics in order to give the general public a measure. The focus on the (incorrect) fee as a means to accreditation means that the person doing so hasn't fully taken on board the requirements of accreditation, but hey, if they choose not to do so, it is their bag. The application is not the entire scheme - it is merely entry into it. If the breeders of long standing who believe they're the ants pants are too high and mighty for screening, then perhaps they're a little afraid they might be nudged off their pedestals, instead of seeing it as confirmation of what they're claiming. I can only repeat my previous quote. Wags. please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say, nor do I think that "breeders of long standing" (including me) believe they are the ants pants, and are afraid of being nudged off their pedestals etc ...... you said that, not me. I didn't even think it. I do not see any point in being part of a scheme with someone who, according to the CCCQ is better than others, despite telling lies when purchasing dogs, selling a pup with a broken leg, selling pups full of hookworm, and refusing to refund the full purchase amount and auctioning pups on popular sites --- oh I could go on. Registered pups are so difficult to acces (except in some popular breeds) that most of the public would happily buy from Bluebeard, if the pup looked ok, and will never ask, or care whether the breeder is a member of an Accredited Scheme or not. The system almost works in UK, although a lot of very good breeders wont join, but it is less likely to work here because of differences in UKKC and Dogsqld. And whilst the CCCQ may think it is a great idea to snuggle up with RSPCA instead of standing up for what their members want, they will find themselves standing alone as breeders walk away from their prefixes. And I agree with Mysticview and Oakway. DO you work for Dogsqld? No, I don't work for Dogs Queensland, but I have gone into it, know what an accreditation scheme is all about and appreciate what it can do for an industry. It is not a matter of stating that some breeders are 'better than others', or that they 'need monitoring', although there are responsible registered breeders and irresponsible and unethical registered breeders as you have noted. The scheme and it's ongoing requirements should weed out the irresponsible and unethical so that the general public and other breeders have a measure of confidence in the remaining breeders. It is the ongoing requiements that will achieve this, something there seems to be an element of ignorance or innocence about on this thread. Dogs Queensland have had the courage to make improvements and are presently giving everyone the opportunity to volunteer for the process and are being greeted with outrage by people who have complained about irresponsibility, called people puppy farmers and anything else they can think of to discredit them and objected to people being registered etc. etc. I really and truly am mindblown at the response. There is unlikely to be one of us who hasn't come across a registered breeder who is not necessarily a good advertisement for the industry. And this isn't necessarily confined to new breeders and can certainly include so called reputable and/or long standing breeders. We can choose which way we go with our breeding principles and programmes and ethics and the majority of us no doubt take the positive road. But when you are presented with an opportunity to hopefully make it uniformly so that registered breeders conduct themselves and their breeding in an ethical and principled manner with all the endeavours of being a breeder practiced, including assisting new breeders to do it well, then why on earth aren't you right behind it ??? Good points but please go slowly what is it exactly in this accreditation process which is any different to what is already in place for registered breeders via their COE and regulations in Queensland?

I dont think the idea of it is to make people ethical - I think its designed to enable them to make a statement that they are ethical according to what is required in that program.

I lived through Althea and to this day I dont know how - and they say this is bigger. It scared me enough to know if I was where you guys are Id be outta there. Stay safe and please let us know asap that you are O.K.

She must have bred some good ones she's got a hell of a lot of champions under her belt and many breeders are still using her dogs - titled in their breeding programs. Many Kindee dogs are profiled on dogz.

Stay safe and if you need help give a yell.

Yep

If I answer you in detail here I will be accused of using the forum to promote the MDBA so suffice to say I am 100 % sure that our members are ethical. I am happy to defend every single one of them and promote every single one of them and recommend every single one of them and if the very worst thing happens and one of those members mucks it up they will no longer be members. The concept of having a 2 tiered system which promotes one or the other over the other members implying that some are less ethical is - in my personal opinion - disgraceful. I think it is giving into animal rights crap which originated from a country which has a completely different system altogether to us and it has placed Queensland breeders in a situation where sooner or later they will have to become accredited or be treated as second class or insignificant.

Its not just $22 though - you have to also pay to advertise in the Dog World as well - which is $75 for one small line I think it is. I looked into the whole thing, downloaded all the forms....but its really another fee and just more money each year - its just getting really ridiculous. But I also agree that it is wrong to say that anyone that is accredited is "better" than anybody else, just like the MDBA saying that cos a breeder is with them, then that makes them more ethical or better. The MDBA doesnt say their members are better or more ethical than anyone. They say that they know their members are ethical - there is a difference. CCCQ have now said they know some of their members are not ethical. Glad its not my problem.

But thats really the whole point - if they felt it was needed why didn't they just make it a change to the COE for everyone? Why did they set a system up which made it look like they allowed members who were rotten and why did they set a system up which sees puppies being regsitered by some who may not be doing the right thing Why didnt they just tell them to bugger off , that we were all doing the right thing and if we dont they will chuck us out ? Why did they play this game? It cant be for more money. Time will tell but now its done sooner or later breeders will give in and pay the money tick the boxes or be seen to be lesser breeders.Would have been different if no one joined but looks to me like its a run away train. Its a done deal and accredited breeders are being promoted over any others even though any one who can read can still see they dont have to do anything more than they do now. Whats more they can still sell to pet shops and still breed crossbred dogs and still breed hundreds of puppies each year.

I wouldnt take that much notice of what breeders who havent joined have to say. Ask the ones who have and also understand that they will be promoting this to puppy buyers and regardless of what the breeders who dont or cant join have to say that may just make the difference. If you are concerned about what other breeders might think of you if you do - forget that they will find numerous other things whether you're in or out.

Why do you think its a good thing? Personally i think its a good thing because it will help weed out the breeders whom do not meet the standards and the mills and also for the puppy purchaser. The buyer can look see that there are lets say 100 breeders listed and only 5 accredited breeders listed who are you going to spend your $1500 with. I think im going for the accredited breeder everytime. Well some guy in England by the name of Bateson did a big enquiry into purebred dog breeding after the pedigreed dogs exposed program was aired. One of his recommendations was that they needed an accredited breeder program and they probably did because they have a different system to us So two states so far have fallen over themselves to introduce these accredited breeder programs. Its all very much a worry because just the fact that they put that stuff in there as some mark of a "better" breeder surely implies they must know they have some pretty crook ones. I mean seriously have to go through a check list to say you are going to record the mating and the whelping date - even though you can't register a puppy anyway with out that Having to have people agree they will prepare a spot for a bitch to have puppies in So here's the three burning questions. 1. If there really is a need to have people agree to this stuff - why not make everyone agree to it - for free - why dont they just change their codes of ethics for everyone - why only give an option? 2. If its only $22 and the breeders are doing it all anyway why dont they just go along with it? Seems to me there must be a hell of lot more shonky breeders in the group which havent signed up than there is in the one that has 3. If there are really breeders who are registered with a state CC who are not doing this stuff which is in the main covered already in regs and codes why do they let them stay in? So as long as the pet shop owner or agent comes to the breeders place and sees the mother and where the pups lived they are good to go. They can still breed cross bred dogs and thousands of puppies a year as long as they say O.K. for a site inspection with a warning that its coming and they can request at least one person who is doing the inspecting.

I wasnt thinking about dog behaviour - I get annoyed when people want us to treat dogs like humans when their reproduction cycles and systems are unique to their own species.

Sheer blind ignorance

Well Im sure the people who were in the clubs and voted on what they thought was best for their breeds are all happy Its too bad that none of it makes any sense from a science perspective. Cant see any point actually any more in breeders needing to know jack about the science of the reproductive issues of the species.They can all be led like lemmings to do as they are told rather than need to know why or why not. Repo vets tell us the opposite but some where some how someone decided that a good breeder was one who interfered and tried to turn their dogs into humans and now its been voted on and like it or not whether its good for the dogs or not its a done deal. Then we see Cavs can be mated at a younger age than beagles or Aussie terriers when world wide they are asking us to hold off on mating cavs. Why can cavs be mated earlier than all of those others? 24 months for a Maremma ? Why? Im such a terrible breeder Ive been breeding them at 18 months for 16 years so where can I go to learn why what Ive been doing is wrong and why making my bitch wait for up to a year longer [ because of their cycles ] is better for her or her puppies?

This is the check list you have to complete to apply Visit Website

Why do you think its a good thing?