Steve

I wondered why the 2 dogs were to be euth'd? Extremely sad that an innocent dog is to be killed when it has done nothing wrong. If one of mine showed any sign of aggression I'd shoot it.

Yep.

So if someone doesnt honour their contract to spay but breed instead would you want to know? No breeder is going to spay an 8 week old GD puppy and you couldnt know if there was an agreement in place or not. If it were mie I would want to know and I would give them a serve to make me feel better but reality is there isnt anything to be done about it and its probably better to let it go.

I watched an RSPCA Rescue episode a couple of months ago which had been filmed in Liverpool western Sydney. The inspector thought there was a dog on the premises which may have had its tail docked. She knocked on the door and there was no answer . Clearly there could not have been an act of cruelty in progress if no one was home.There was no screaming of a dog in agony coming from inside the home etc. On camera she carried a ladder and set it up beside the house and on camera looked in the window and saw the dog.the dog did not show any signs of being injured or in distress in any way. Yet on she climbed into the home through a second floor window and entered the property when the owner was not at home - without a warrant. She removed a dog which was around 8 months old with a shortened tail. If her assumption that it had been illegally docked was correct then clearly it had been docked months and months earlier. She wasnt sure how old the dog was and for all she knew the dog may have been over 1 year old [statute of limitations on animal cruelty cases] or had been born with a bob tail or it had been imported. There was not one single solitary clue or explaination to show why she should have the ability to enter someone's home and remove their property without being invited in or without permission. She had the option of doing what the police can do if they suspect crimminal activity which is not endangering life - to apply for a warrant or she could have simply either returned when the owners were home or left a note for the owners to contact her to investigate the situation. After she removed the dog she left a note for the owner to contact her when they returned home and took the dog to the shelter where it was X rayed and examined by the RSPCA vet.It was determined the dog had been docked.The dog was in excellent health and condition. The owner contacted the RSPCA on her return home that evening. She told the inspector that the dog had been given to her as a gift by her Ex boyfriend at 8 weeks of age and it had already had its tail docked. As she no longer had any contact with the ex and he was travelling around Europe and she didnt know where he got it from she could not provide information on who had docked the dog. The dog was returned to the owner the next day. Now you dont have to be a genius to work out that if she did this on camera and didnt get the sack and that the RSPCA gave approval for the show to go to air that this is seen to be an acceptable practice. Is this acceptable practice? If a police officer did this the owner could lodge a complaint and if they felt they were not being treated as they should be and the cops were covering each other to prevent further action being taken against an illegal entry and seizure without due process they can go to the ombudsman. If a child may have been injured some month's previously by persons unknown could a cop or FACS officer climb in through a window without warrant and remove the child while the parents werent watching and take it off for an examination? Surely cops should have more not less powers to prevent and punish child abuse than an RSPCA officer should have. There is something very radically wrong with this picture and yet everyone who watched that show saw it as no big deal. Must be just me because I would think if that happened to people I know that the owner would be on the 6 o clock news yelling about it. Society sees it as "good job RSPCA" - These are very strange times we live in. Given the amount of false and vexatious complaints which are made is it posible that you can dob in your neighbour and tell them there is a docked dog or a debarked dog on the premises and have them illegally enter your home and remove it while you are out shopping before they ask any questions to see if the dog has been docked or debarked ,whether the correct procedure was completed and whether they may need to further investigate without a warrant? Obviously they think they can and they think its something to brag about and strutt their stuff on TV.

When it happened to me the puppy didnt go cold. No other symptoms but turned into a block of wood.

I think you missed right at the start: inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer. So RSPCA Inspectors share with police the early listed powers of entry without warrant in certain extingent circumstances. Then police, as defined authorised officers under LEPRA, have additional powers relating to warrants. So again you've alleged that Inspectors have more power than police under this Act, but reading the Act correctly clearly illustrates otherwise. You cannot bend legislation to fit what you want, but you do need to read it carefuly and not make presumtions about what it contains. And unless you're very conversant with LEPRA, I would contend that you have displayed a very limited knowledge of police powers of entry in various circumstances without warrant. And yes Steve you're right, police have no part in enforcing anyone's policies, they are not legislative instruments. They dont police mandatory codes either .

Thats not a Maremma. No way.

You need to understand that in all states the RSPCA have police powers for POCTA but their stated aim is to have the same powers in other states they currently have in NSW - in particular the ability to police mandatory codes as well as POCTA.

Police in NSW cannot police mandatory codes for breeding dogs planning laws or RSPCA policy.

The Qld law which allows RSPCA intervention, is a relatively new one, so includes some emphasis on a review/appeals structure. In line with current public expectations. The final process is via an independent tribunal & that is written into the law. I already posted about that & my memory is that you, JB, responded. I don't know the laws & their accountability structures in other states. There seems to some confusion about this - QCAT - Says it handles complaints with Animal care Under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 decisions about registration, using an animal for scientific purposes, disclosure exemption applications and giving an animal welfare direction. Thats not quite the same as having the RSPCA having an outside accountability. If a police officer comes into my home and does an illegal search and beats me up. I can complain to his superiors and if I dont get any outcome because they collude or cover up facts or laod evidence to make out that the cop didnt do the wrong thing I can go to th eombudsman and anti corruption and have some INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO HAS NO POLITICAL REASON TO FIND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER to hear my case and take action if corruption or similar is found. Now if and RSPCA officer is out of line you have to complain to his boss, if you dont get any joy , you can complain to his boss, if you dont get any joy you can write a letter to the board of directors. You can also go to the minister. However all the way through that chain there are many opportunities for collusion and its not in their best interests to find their system has failed and someone has had their lives ruined. I am not accusing the RSPCA or any other person or body of anything - however, if someone can come onto your property and seize your animal , refuse to allow you to know where its being taken , have their own vet look at it without any obligation for a second opinion, they can decide without consulting you or allowing your vet to have a look on your behalf, decide the animal is suffering too much to stay alive and kill it. No evidence because its cremated. Then prosecute you and have more rights to withhold evidence which may work in your favour etc as the prosecutor does in any other instance. Then lets add a bit extra - in one some states they have the power to police pocta and planning laws and their own policies . This is why all of a sudden some rescues in NSW all of a sudden need concreted pens etc . But did you know that when you ask your local council what you have to do to comply from a planning view to be able to breed animals from you rproperty they cant answer ? Why? Because its all taken on a case by case basis. This means that one neighbour may be looked upon in a more amiable manner than another, and it leaves open opportunities for free luches and bunch of other potential corrupt behaviours. Im not saying this happens but the fact is in every state of Australia there are ordinary people who are saying there is something crooked and you only have to hit google to see what kind of accusation there are .Breeders now are telling us they have to have concreted pens and there is no mandatory code which says they have to have that - no one knows why. Its simple give us an external system where people can feel they have an ability to tell their story and be listened to fairly and none of this would be happening The ombudsman and anti corruption was put in place for EXACTLY this to prevent these situations and accusations and history tells us its possible in fact probable that at least some of these cases have some basis but worse these guys tie it up every single step of the way. We also have to tidy up council planning issues so every person is seen to be treated in an equitable manner to their neighbours. Its not O.K. to tell people they cant tell you what you need to do until after you apply and that each application is taken on a case by case basis. Whats more just because a person wnats to own and entire dog they shouldnt have to give up their right to privacy and be treated as if they are crimminals.

And so they should be, as in my case where it was proven the sire registered on the pedigree was not infact the actual sire !!!!!! It is suprising just how often this occurs. Shhhhhh You'll get in trouble if you say that. We will be accepting clear by parentage because all parents have to be profiled before they can register the litter and our system will put it forward. If anyone falsifys a pedigree we will have them charged with fraud.

Yes I agree that it isnt happening very often - how ever for the record the reason we hear more of this is because the MDBA gets calls into both offices and emails regarding these things with people asking advice and reporting to us what they see or things which have happened to them. Sometimes we get calls from legal people asking us what is the norm and expected in order for them to make claims for compensation etc too. Of course when we hear these things we then advise them on how to go about making complaints to the various state registering bodies and as far as I know they do. The person who offered me personally papers without dogs did so 15 years ago and she was reported.

We have a rough outline ready for what we will be doing for the Border Collie breed in our new registry. If anyone is interested in giving us some feed back on that before we put the final tick on it all your input woud be appreciated. Breeders and owners of show and or working dogs of this breed are welcome to have a look. please email [email protected]

We have a rough outline ready for what we will be doing for the Border Collie breed in our new registry. If anyone is interested in giving us some feed back on that before we put the final tick on it all your input woud be appreciated. Breeders and owners of show and or working dogs of this breed are welcome to have a look. please email [email protected]

We have a rough outline ready for what we will be doing for the Border Collie breed in our new registry. If anyone is interested in giving us some feed back on that before we put the final tick on it all your input woud be appreciated. Breeders and owners of show and or working dogs of this breed are welcome to have a look. please email [email protected]

So 1.16 and 1.17 still stand but they deleted the bit about 6. Not withstanding 5 above the progeny of a variety other than its parents cannot be registered on either the Main or Limited Register if the three [3] previous generations are the same. (eg If all dogs for three [3] generations are the same variety, but are different to the progeny then the progeny is illegible to be registered by the ANKC. Is that right? - what does that mean? Does this mean a variety other than their parents can now be registered? What is a variety ?

Sorry go slow - doesnt one say no registration on main and the other not at all.What am I missing?

so is this about useage of the property when it was erected or when you purchased it / moved in?

Where do I find a constitutional lawyer ?

Yes !

From the 2010 ANKC Conference paper. 1.16 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.3 - Registration of Progeny of Close Matings It was resolved that ANKC Member Bodies will not register the progeny of first degree matings (father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister) on the Main Register. The only exceptions to this would be where application was made to the Controlling Body prior to the mating on the basis of health or genetic reasons to the benefit of the breed. 1.17 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.4 - Close Matings It was resolved that the ANKC introduce the following regulations pertaining to Close Matings from 1 July 2011. "I shall not mate my bitch or dog to a close relative ie mother / son, father / daughter or brother / sister and I am fully aware that puppies as a result of these matings will not be registered without first gaining pre-approval from the Member Body for the mating for scientifically proven welfare or veterinary reasons." So if they are not to be registered does that mean that if breeders have these puppies they can be sold without papers without breaching the code of conduct is it that they cant be onthe main register or cant be on the limited register?

It's O/T, but as you've already been told, in another thread... yours is an extreme 'definition' of Green. And you've added a pseudo-motto. 'End dog slavery...' The Greens have entered a draft bill in the ACT. As with any draft proposal, it's open for negotiation & lobbying. And redrafting. A good thing. On face value, the basic structure doesn't appear very different from the jointly designed system in the Gold Coast area. Except there's a clearer statement about desexing. As others have said, details need to be teased out. So proactive submissions will count. Mita your goal of getting all of Oz under the laws you got in place in your shire is a wonderful goal. Very strict mandatory spay neuter with all breeders under direct permit and inspection by councils, planning depoartments and the RSPCA is a good start to ending dog slavery! Now add ownership licensing and we got em all under our thumbs! Not many nasty slave dog breeders and nasty slave dog owners will keep breeding and owning dogs under these ever increasingly intrusive laws and when they find out the can go to jail or be fined..well that will toast them! You are so cleaver, we need more like you to fight for the cause! You have my full support and backing on this worth goal!! Be Green, Go Veg, Vote Green. End Dog Slavery and Dog Ownership today! Not very many breeders and dog owners are happy on the gold caost and they have devised all kinds of ways to dodge the laws. Some notes of interest For Gold Coast model. Under “Guidelines – Identification of Anti-Competitive Provisions in Local Laws, Section 3.2.6, paragraph 5, it states, “The identification of possible anti-competitive provision and any ensuing public interest test must therefore be completed prior to the subordinate local law being made.” I don’t believe this Public Interest Test was carried out on the Gold Coast. Of the various interested parties quoted in the Preface of the Code of Practice, I know for a fact, at least one of them (GC Dog Obedience) were not party to the discussions and did not agree with the permit system and told AWL this. Under “Guidelines – Identification of Anti-Competitive Provisions in Local Laws, Section 5.2.2, an activity of a commercial nature cannot be discriminated against. A commercial activity is one that “would normally involve a financial transaction and includes a notion of profit making or economic gain”. This does not necessarily make it a business and requiring a business license. It is quite legal to operate a small home enterprise (say selling Tupperware – no doubt considerably more profitable than dog breeding) without any planning permission as the primary purpose of the property is still a residence so you can operate a commercial enterprise that cannot be touched under planning laws. 4 (2) and (4) - Permit required to keep more than one dog under 600 m2 or more than 2 dogs if land is over 600 m2 - Common Law right of an owner of land to the use and enjoyment of the land. Section 77 states that "A local law should not, without sufficient justification, unduly restrict ordinary activities". A person who keeps exhibits and occasionally breeds their domestic pets for a hobby is surely an "ordinary activity". 4(3) No permit required to keep any number of greyhounds if they are registered the Greyhound Racing Authority. (iii) Limiting participation to those persons or bodies who hold membership of a particular occupational or professional organisation. 19 Must obtain breeder permit in order to keep 1 or more entire dogs or cats and who wishes to either breed or sell offspring. A law should be consistent with the principles of natural Justice, i.e., something should not be done to a person that will deprive the person of some right or interest or legitimate expectation of a benefit. (iii) Limits number of participants to those who meet the enclosure and housing standards and can pay the $369.00. Also (x) Creates rights or permit specified activities denied to non holders. Hobby breeders can no longer enjoy the breeding of their dogs' offspring or the enjoyment of furthering their hobby or small home business by selling such offspring, unless they can meet the permit requirements. Therefore anti competitive: Barriers to entry to a market and barriers to competition within a market. Confers advantages on certain parties to the detriment of any actual or potential competitors. 18(3) does not derogate from, laws regulating the use or development of land. Can't affect statutory lawful right of use? 48 (d) (I) Permit for an additional dog only granted if all 3 dogs are desexed within 3 months. Fundamental Legislative Principles - ie traditionally accepted liberties would include the ability to breed and profit from domestic pets. 52 Various conditions, enclosures (4(a)-(c ), 13)+B1, sizes etc required in order to obtain a Breeder Permit. 49-52. Express provision should be made for the penalty if there is an offence. There are almost no mention of penalties for offences. (v) requirements for prescribed quality or technical standards to be observed or for specified equipment to be used in regard to a particular business activity. Also (vii) restrictions on business relating to matters such as size of premises, provision of specified facilities. Also (ix)prescribing technical specifications or standards that can only be met by a particular operator. Requirements of enclosures far in excess of hobby dog breeder and in excess of Code of Conduct of associations such as ANKC. Means that almost no hobby breeder of purebred dogs would be able to obtain a breeder permit or keep more than 2 dogs - unlike other parts of Australia where no such laws are in place. Home Office sector is not affected by normal planning laws and a small enterprise can be carried out from a private residence if that the primary purpose of the property is a private residence. Therefore, these laws break Fair Trade Practices Act even though dog and cat breeding may only be a small hobby, it is none the less potentially income producing. 52(24) Must advise GCCC of the Vet you use. Breeches freedom of choice, right to change vets. 52 (39)(b) Can only sell an undesexed kitten to the holder of a Breeder Permit. (viii) the nomination of a particular person or body as the sole or preferred customer or supplier in regard to a particular business activity. Limits "customers" Gold Coast cat breeders who have applied for a permit. Current information on this is that there may be less than 6 such people on the entire Gold Coast. Can't sell to anywhere else in Australia as no one else has a Breeder Permit system? 52 (42) and (43) keeping of detailed records of all activities and making this available for inspection and allowing GCCC to take photocopies or all records. Section 68 - - requires Warrant. Section 69 - provide protection against self incrimination. Invasion of Privacy. Also an individual cannot be forced to provide anything to an official that incriminates the person. 52 (47) The holder of permit must comply with the Code of Practice Code of Practice is highly restrictive including desexing of females at 6 years of age, very limited period in which to breed, separate enclosures for each female with a litter (not standard practice with all breeders as in some breeds other members of the pack are involved in raising the pups), number of times to feed your cats and dogs each day, when to wean, arbitrary quarantine periods, etc. Possible encroachment of Civil Liberties since my right to make responsible decisions has been taken away. 52B (19) All animals owned by holder of permit who is a kennel must be desexed. 23, 44-55 Law should have logical and coherent structure and have content and language that promote effective communication. This particular section is impossible to understand when and how it applies. Hard to breed anything if they are all desexed. 52 Term of Permit. Extremely vague. 59(2) Section does not apply to a guide dog used by blind person or a deaf person. Discriminates against Service and Assistance Dogs. See anti-discrimination Act for Disabilities. Section 18 (1)-(5) of Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of animals) - any animal not covered by permit and can be seized and destroyed. Section 68 - Needs a warrant issued by a Judge or other Judicial officer. Fundamental Legislative Principles - ie traditionally accepted liberties would include the ability to breed and profit from domestic pets.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ed/db_40359/default.asp Key issues for breeders. The consultation period runs from 8 December 2010 - 22 February 2011 Some of the implications of the proposed bill (which applies to all people breeding - there is no excemption for Dogs ACT members) are: All dogs that are sold at over 6 months of age must be desexed (74A) All breeders must be licenced (this is in addition to any Dogs ACT membership, prefixes etc) (Division 3.2). Obtaining a breeders licence involves a premisis inspection, and these criteria (amonst others)must be met: (a) that the applicant will only breed an appropriate number of dogs or cats; (b) that the applicant will only breed from dogs or cats that are healthy and genetically sound; (it isnt explain how these will be determined) All dogs less than 6 months old must be sold with a redeemable desexing voucher (we already have compulsory desexing for pets - so why not just police this!! The new rule appears to apply to all dogs even if they are being sold on Main register)

O.K. ONe of your big deals seems to be the fact that we dont have minimum ages in our code of conduct . For the record there wasnt any need for us to have that in our code of conduct as all of our breeder members were ANKC members and all of them already had those requirements on them. All of our breeder members now are required to adhere to minimum ages for their bitches. Now I get that you think this is a necessary rule to write in and if its not in that this is evidence that we dont care about the welfare of our dogs but we think we have that covered in other parts of the code and now we also have a registry and the only people who can register puppies in that register are our members who have had to jump through hoops and we monitor them we dont think we need to do that. As we were making that decision we spoke with among - others Dr Elbaff, Dr Thomas, Dr Bodell, Dr Billinghurst, Dr Dodds specifically on that subject and we researched hundreds of peer reviewed science papers on canine reproduction to bring us to a decision that we would not include it. We felt the possible negative consequences of having that in there were more important than any positives including the fact that we didnt want to make it seem to anyone watching that we thought taking the ability for the breeder to make their own decisions out of their hands was a good thing to do. Now you dont agree with that and thats hardly much different to me not agreeing to some parts of your code of conduct for your state's CC. We could ask - is the fact that your code says you can sell your puppies to pet shops or that it allows you to breed cross bred dogs as long as they arent registered having the same effect on your members as you accuse ours of having on ours. I cant help it that you think this should be in there but its not in there and there really is only so much I can continue to say on that. We have literally spoken to hundreds of experts in their field for everything which we have had to make decisions on. In just one breed we have so far spoken to and had meetings with 4 people who hold Phds before we start to talk to breeders and judges. What we are doing is different - thats why we are doing it. People can look at the differences and be free to decide its not for them but we are trying to impliment things now with the knowledge of what can happen and go wrong and try to put things in place to prevent it which includes our knowledge of some of the things which do go on in the purebred dog world - all be it rarely. Im not saying you or anyone else are lesser people or lesser breeders and I honestly dont know why anyone is threatened by the fact that we have said our breeder members have a different set of things they have to agree to and apply under . I dont understand why its O.K. for the CCs to introduce an accedited breeder program where one member of the same org is made to look dodgier than others of that org where they register both their puppies but they get upset when we promote all of our members as equals. We are certainly not asking anyone to leave their CCs or not register their puppies with them as they always have. Its unreasonable for you to expect that we would promote people who are not our members or that we would not promote our members in case someone who is not our member feels we are promoting our members over them.The ANKC has promoted their members and their members dogs over any other breeder for decades and what we are doing is no different.Just as people had choices on whether to be a registered breeder or not and take the benefits that membership gave them with the ANKC because of that promotion so do they now have other choices. I get that some people will think thats a bad thing - such is life. We currently have just over 1000 members. Since last Monday when we accepted our first registrations we have 35 puppies registered on our data base. Over a dozen applications for prefixes. Have I answered all of your questions?