Steve

Yep thats how I see it too.

I'm not quite sure WHY the ANKC cannot place restrictions on things like exporting entire litters - it is a voluntary organisation, people are not forced to join. If they don't want to abide by the rules and regulations, they have no place being part of the membership. Because its the Federal law - restriction of trade. Can the ANKC refuse to sign off on the exportation application so they cannot be sent overseas with their papers? The state CCs make lots and lots of money from export certificates and usually by the time the applications go in for the certificate the puppies are long gone. Puppies are exported at 8 weeks but CC wont issue the certificate until they are 12 weeks. All puppies that go out are under AQIS regs so on what grounds would the CC stop issuing an export certificate? Whats more the new owner can ask for an export certificate anyway - stopping the breeder being issued with them wont get us anywhere. people only need a CC issued export certificate anyway if they intend showing or breeding. Stopping them being issued for pet shop puppies isnt going to make a scrap of difference. No matter what box the breeder ticks you cant stop an owner taking their dogs overseas. History tells us that when the CC even listed the exports each month in NSW they all moved to have export certs done via the ACT.These puppies arent going out with boxes ticked for no export the breeders want them exported . You cant stop that. Thanks for the more detailed answer- like I said, I've not exported before or really thought about it. Makes you wonder what the point of all our $$$ is if they can't do anything to protect the dogs or even our sport. I can see why people grow disillusioned and drop off the membership whilst still breeding. Perhaps a higher fee for the processing of the export application? So it's sounding like there is little the ANKC or state CCs can do regarding restriction of trade but surely they can introduce monetary penalties for those doing the wrong thing? On that note, do they have a process for members found selling to pet stores? Dogs NSW has lowered the price of the export cert because they lost over 160,000 in one financial year in export certs to the ACT - who had a lower rate and back then didnt publish exports.

Some of these comments concern me a bit. Im not that sure that many really know what a breeder is capapble of doing and pretty quickly in their own back yard in reasonably short time which can do miracles for the breed. Its all about goals and what you know you have , what you dont know you have and how many you have to work with. Lets go back to an actual case before in breeding became such a major taboo and before having more than a couple of litters each year became politically in correct and before we had to make bitches do things which were not conducive to what her species had evolved to do. The breeder has 40 bitches and 6 stud dogs which are not related .They write up a closed breeding program designed to get to the end of a 5 year period with dogs which will be able to be used for breeding by themsleves and other breeders which will be clear of the problem they are targeting and they select first and foremost for nothing else and with all other things taking second place. Not only will this closed program show them where the problem is and is not in their dogs but it will also show where there may be others they will need to address as the program progresses and what lines other breeders may need to be aware of which they may be still using too. Even better if another breeder is doing the same with different dogs to enable outcrosses. As this breeding program is worked through depending on what turns up and in what incidence the breeder is going to need to make decisions which were not on the table and not anticipated at the beginning because genes are tricky but can you imagine what the potential benefit that is for the breed? Its not that different to what is going on now with many breed clubs who are saying what disease needs to be tested for and what results are not acceptable for breeding - especially those who are making it compulsory for registration anyway but its a much slower process. Even for breeders who dont go right into it as described above every one of us will see things which we need to take action on quickly to ensure it doesnt become a major blight on future generations of the breed. Breeders should be encouraged to do this rather than be told that in breeding shouldnt be used as a tool to identify and eliminate a problem, rather than be told they are being restricted in how many litters they have each year, rather than being told what stud dog to use and how often etc. A stud dog thats used over a hundred bitches which a hundred people own for no other reason than because he is a champion is going to potentailly do much worse for the breed over a couple of generations than any breeder who is following a planned program with goals for specific health issues is going to do - yet those breeders may only breed a couple of litters each year and never in breed. They may breed more champions because thats what they are using as a goal but that isnt to say they are breeding to the betterment of the breed. Yet it seems that this is what most of you see as a preferrable way for a breeder to behave.

Why ? You cant ask for this because you cant say what the breeder or breeders would be going after in their breeding program and every breed would have different goals at different times.

I see the sense in this. However, just to be (as usual) the fly in the ointment. Consider A breed. 2 fatal diseases. DNA tests recently developed. Many of the better dogs are found to be carriers for one disease or another. The choices in stud dogs are limited - if they aren't carriers for one disease, the bitch is. Some dogs are carriers for both. Remember there was no way to identify the problem until the dog developed symptoms. A new dog is imported. He is clear of everything, so all the carriers can safely be mated to him. He does not have many genes in common with any of the bitches, so he is an outcross which gives breeders and opportunity to breed clear or carrier pups from their lovely, but carrier status bitches. So he is used very extensively at stud. However, the pups by him can now go on and breed without the risks involved in these diseases. Now the breeders have clear or carrier dogs they can go back to whatever lines they like. Limiting the number of services he was allowed would have seen the 2 problems continue in this country, for many many bitches, without any way forward. I would disagree with limited services - always. With Cavs and SM and MVD, if the genes involved are ever discovered (and I don' t think they will be), one or some dogs will need to be used quite a lot at stud to work the way around these problems, I think. Limiting the number of times a dog can be used at stud will retard breeding away from the problems. You are very correct Jed. The missing bit is each breed has it's own breeding rules. All of what you have said is taken in and is part of the decisions. So for example the plan might be to import some known clear dogs and these dogs would be used more, how much more for how long I have no idea, but the group decides how to best care for their breed. Genetics' and populations experts can be very helpful in building these types of breeding plans when breeds are in real trouble, not all of them want to wipe out purebred dogs. In Northern Europe that is not part of what is going on. Ask me the breeders have been so progressive in their planning, that animal rights radicals don't get the time of day as the breeders have already address all the issues. \ BTW from what I could gather on the cavs in Sweden, you test at least one parent to be A, the other parent had to be free of symptoms. So that was not very restrictive and sure not the same as saying A to A only. There was a lots of eveidnce they were trying to keep as many dogs as possible in the population. I think we would find most of these breeding plans not really different to what we already do. Except they would know what the status was of at least one of the dogs they were using and we dont because most dont scan.

I'm not quite sure WHY the ANKC cannot place restrictions on things like exporting entire litters - it is a voluntary organisation, people are not forced to join. If they don't want to abide by the rules and regulations, they have no place being part of the membership. Because its the Federal law - restriction of trade. Can the ANKC refuse to sign off on the exportation application so they cannot be sent overseas with their papers? The state CCs make lots and lots of money from export certificates and usually by the time the applications go in for the certificate the puppies are long gone. Puppies are exported at 8 weeks but CC wont issue the certificate until they are 12 weeks. All puppies that go out are under AQIS regs so on what grounds would the CC stop issuing an export certificate? Whats more the new owner can ask for an export certificate anyway - stopping the breeder being issued with them wont get us anywhere. people only need a CC issued export certificate anyway if they intend showing or breeding. Stopping them being issued for pet shop puppies isnt going to make a scrap of difference. No matter what box the breeder ticks you cant stop an owner taking their dogs overseas. History tells us that when the CC even listed the exports each month in NSW they all moved to have export certs done via the ACT.These puppies arent going out with boxes ticked for no export the breeders want them exported . You cant stop that.

I'm not quite sure WHY the ANKC cannot place restrictions on things like exporting entire litters - it is a voluntary organisation, people are not forced to join. If they don't want to abide by the rules and regulations, they have no place being part of the membership. Because its the Federal law - restriction of trade.

Can you give me some more details of what you would need? Do we come to you or do you come to us? How many dogs from each person are you looking for etc?

So given this has already been tested and they have been told by the ACCC that they cant restrict numbers of litters or puppies bred and they cant restrict where their members can sell their puppies - and that at least one board member of a CC is definitley pumping out a hell of a lot of litters and puppies and selling them to a pet shop /agent . How are they to get around this and do what you suggest and take away the rights of a member to breed more than someone else or more than some line drawn? Also please remember no one who is involved in making suggestions for law or reg changes uses that as a definition for puppy farming - in fact from memory some people who attended the breeding better dogs seminar advocated more puppies being bred for the pet market and not less. With less breeders and more need to eliminate more dogs from the gene pool wouldnt a breeder who bred more rather than less have an advantage in dealing with issues that might show up? Shouldnt we be advocting more education and more opportunity to utilise resources and for breeders to be able to make their own decisions based on what is going on in their yard and what they can cope with depending on their life style and access to help etc.

So for you its a numbers game? Will this number be determined by litters or pups? Who will determine this number ? How will you stop breders doing what they do now - have several different prefixes in family members names? How much hope do we really have - even if we could in stopping this when at least one board member of Dogs NSW exports stacks of pups a year and someone happens to be related to the guiy who owns Transpet and was instrumental in the whole export thing from the ACT even starting in the first place?

Since when is mcDougal a puppy Farmer? Why would he want to be? He owns several USA Pet stores and advertises that he only sells Australian bred registered puppies from great Aussie breeders via Transpet who is their sole agent in Australia . Ive never ever heard of him breeding a pup himself.

The only way anyone could know if the RSPCA took info fromthe data base is if the RSPCA told them. Thats unlikely and who cares anyway?

I've been doing that from the first litter I've bred. Every pup that is sold before chipping at eight weeks or whenever I do it, is chipped in the new owners names. All they need do is sign the form for me and it's done. Only those that are staying are chipped in my name. Naturally to become one of the new breed of certified breeders according to dogs nsw, you will have to chip before rego and include the number on the application to register. That puts an end to the above legally we cant chip the dog into the new owners name unless the owner is present when its getting chipped. So if you are a chipper or the owner is with th epup when its getting done the owner can sign as the owner. In my case I am not a chipper and my pups are chipped at 6 weeks and I often never meet the owner let alone take them to the vet with me to have them chipped.

If in fact that the RSPCA did go to CAR to get numbers thats not part of their brief for access to that information and you should be more worried about that than whether or not she was breeding more than SOMEONE says she should! Those dogs were passed with a bloody clean bill of health and for the record the RSPCA went after the show catelouges not pedigrees . If ANYONE is able to just dig into the microchip registry - get numbers and decide its too many and make them a bloody target then I have just entered my detals as breeder on the data base for the last time. In future my puppies will go out in the new owners name and I encourage all breeders to do the same.

Great Idea!

Me too but thats a restriction of trade - wont fly.

No fighting - There has been a suggestion in the News Forum to limit the number of puppies a breeder should breed. I know that isnt possible. We cant limit the numbers or tell them where they can sell them to - its against the law to restrict them in how they want to trade. Also I dont see how limiting the numbers they breed will help the problem with the ones who breed only a few and still do a rotten job or kep them in poor conditions. According to the RSPCA a puppy framer is someone who breeds dogs in sub standard conditions. Problem with that for me is they use the mandatory codes as the standard and theysuck for good conditions for a dog to live in all its life. The question is what really is sub standard - keeping in mind that dingoes are pretty happy living in cave like areas and digging in dirt in breeding sanctuaries and that dogs are dogs and not people. Also keep in mind that the term puppy farmer has been used for years to beat up people you dont like or compete with or do something or dont do something you think they shouldnt do. There are many people who regard me as a puppy farmer because I dont personally show my dogs and in my opinion if I am a puppy farmer then the dog world could do much worse than to have a whole lot more puppy farmers. I also think a breeder who has more than average dogs and knows their stuff , loves their dogs and keeps them well is a greater asset to the breed than a breeder who only has a couple and breeds now and then . For the purposes of this discussion I dont see how we can use any other definition than the RSPCA have - even though there will be other subjects regarding breeding goals etc How do we ensure that puppy farmers are not also CC members or is this even remotely possible anyway? No fighting.

Why is it cruel to use a collar that "might cause harm" (even though there is no recorded evidence of harm - but plenty of attestation to its benefits) and therefore worthy of its use being banned, yet NOT cruel to use a collar/s that HAVE caused harm (and where there IS recorded evidence of harm) and which seem to deserve support from a certain number of *cough* well known orgs? This is the State we are in. Laws that don't make sense; don't make any difference to animal welfare (and can infact work against the very essence of the Act they are listed under); and which the Government cannot (evidenced by the fact they will not) answer to or explain. There is no figuring it. Many of these laws were bullied through and IMO the reason for this is politically based - nothing to do with wisdom or the "we care for dogs" factor. Its not just your state. We have Stud Dorper rams here Big boys who like to break through fences - Its a pain and costs a fortune to constantly ensure they are kept in the paddock. In NSW Im able to have an electric fence to keep the Ram in but I cant because my Maremmas are in the same Paddock. Rozzie was charged with cruelty because she had an electric fence to keep the pigs out of her garden because the dogs were on the other side and Might get near the fence! Its illegal to have an electric fence near dogs in this state. Better for them to jump the fence and get run over of course and O.K. for my kids to laugh about their friends getting a ping on a neighbours property. O.K. for every other species including humans to get near it but not dogs! They are a bunch of nutters and the fact that government has gone with it is incredible. We need a good constitutional and property lawyer.

Thing is, there is no way any private rescues would be able to comply with the DPI's regulations for pounds and shelters because the legislation is written for a completely different set of circumstances and assumes a whole lot of infrastructure and populations which rescue groups don't have and don't want to have. It's a bit like having legislation to manage apples and then trying to apply it to potatoes ... they might all end up in your fridge, but the that doesn't mean they're the same thing. There was a proposed change to the current legislation earlier this year which attempted to define rescue groups and was worded in such a way as to make rescue almost impossible. I'm not sure who leaked the draft, but clearly not all members of the DPI's Animal Welfare Committee are in favour of the heavy handed approach. While I don't always agree with Steve (respectfully disagree quite often ;) ) in this case I think she's spot on. I don't agree with the proposed Oscar's Law for a number of reasons, including the ones Steve has mentioned. Given the DPI's record on companion animal welfare in Victoria to date, I simply can't understand why we'd have any trust at all in any legislation they write. This is the same people who gave us the recent dangerous dog legislation which is a nice example of knee jerk, pointless legislation. Many Victorian pounds, particularly in remote and rural areas are desperate to work with rescue. The people who run pounds, by and large, don't like killing healthy animals and will do as much as they possibly can to save lives. The fact that they are hindered by antiquated legislation and an antiquated mind set shames Victoria. I think the letter to Councils is more about power and control than animal welfare. On that recent legislation - I was watching it for the rescue issues and was then told it was on hold and didnt really go back to check because even though I didnt agree with what they had on the table at that time it didnt impact on any of our members because they werent pounds or shelters . From memory there was things like foster carers not being able to take orphaned animals and a foster carer only being able to keep a foster animal for around 4 weeks. Im more interested now because if the definition of a shelter is changed then that will affect lots of our members - so did that go anywhere and if not is it gone for good?

Seems audio & video records of law enforcement are commonplace these days. We talked about that when the JG case first came up. Audio and video evidence are not the same as a TV episode though - see the NSW parliamant submissions for the Koala seizures regarding this and RSPCA get paid 50,000 for allowing the film crew to tag along. One person asked if it would be possible to stop this practice and gain their money some other way and they were answered with - even if they got nothing form it the publicity and promoton they get is worth it.Their donations rise and so do reports. These are official documents and statements made by their own.

and that is why i WILL sign the petition is it this one your referring to? http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parl...on%20No%202.pdf best piece of writing you could wish for isnt it. AND he cant be accused of being a stupid hysterical either. Yep thats it. there are some good ones there too - response from Steve Coleman on their accountability and another on their procedures. Its takes a while to work through them all but there is some good info there.

Here is the question do you look at whats going on and duck for cover and put together an advisory board before they make you do it or worse before they just hand the job over the the RSPCA or do you tell them to nick off and we will look after our own business? Will they - as in government - then back down or will they give us no choice. Ducking doesnt really appeal to me much because its sort of like admitting guilt -and Im not that happy with peopel who I think know little about what purebred breeders do to out number us- but there are moves underway now to try to head it off by putting together our own advisory board and its out there right now in Australia. Its not going to be my call anyway as if they decide to duck they will duck no matter what I say but perhaps ducking isnt the answer. can we seriously see a government giving us no choice but to answer to this type of board and is it even legal for them to affect our poroperty right even if they wanted to. edited to add that I know originally they were planning on pushing for this under POCTA but would the government go that far ? This is the question .And whats best for the dogs of course.

Interesting - it raises some interesting questions and explains a bit for me that has been going on behind the scenes.

So is this something they just gave up on and put together on their own to prevent legislation or did they have no choice because of legislation?

Thanks Steve! oooh I have that book - sounds like it's time to read it! @ Steve - I wasn't worried that my dog would have SM (she is perfectly healthy) - I was just interested as I had never heard that SM was present in Maltese and had never heard of a case of it. I'm a genetics major so I understand the genetics of polygenic traits, disease genes, recessives etc. I think it's a very interesting comment that "Pure bred dogs have less types of genetic diseases in higher incidence" - I've always been of the opinion that purebred dogs aren't sicker than crossbreds it's just that breeders, CC's record the incidences of disease in purebred dogs - however there is no similar body recording incidences of genetic diseases in mixed breed or crossbred dogs therefore it's an unknown. My vet has commented to me before that they are actually seeing alot of disease in crossbred (designer dogs) - specifically things to do with structure i.e. hips, patellas etc. But also if 2 dogs of 2 different breeds which both have incidences of a specific disease i.e. PRA are bred together the pups are just as likely to get PRA than a purebred breeding (except that a purebred breeder is likely to only cross normal to a carrier not carrier to carrier)... hope that makes sense. I think that often people misinterpret the reports of genetic disease in purebred dogs - these reports should be used to show the public that breeders are working towards removing the disease from the population/breed instead of a warning to all puppy buyers to avoid a breed as the dogs "all carry SM/PRA/Hip Displasia" etc etc etc Funnily enough I also think that one of the reasons deliberate crossbreds are so popular at the momment is that the public thinks they are "consistant" - you often hear people saying "I want a ?? x ?? as they are hypoallergenic, calm, happy [insert temperament or size characteristic]". What they don't understand is that actually crossbreds are very inconsistant it's basically a lottery. Purebreds on the otherhand are consistant - you want a long haired, single coated dog then a Maltese will be it, you want a large, happy, dip and dry dog then a Lab might fit the bill. An idea might be to market the breeds to puppy owners ... drive home the fact that purebreds have been developed over hundreds of years to fulfill certain jobs, roles that humans want i.e. companion, working dog, utility dog etc etc etc. There is a breed to fit every person and job/role and home... they are just waiting to be discovered by puppy owners! Wish I had of known you were a genetics major I tried really hard to put that post in simple terms . I may just call on you soon to suck up a bit of info. We have had a survey running now for over 12 months on diagnosed health issues and we included every breed ,cross bred as well as mixed breed dogs. The numbers for mixed breed answers are way higher than any one breed. They [mixed breed] pretty well have everything known represented and cross breed have a huge incidence of allergies. PL and HD some have PRA [ unexpected as its a recessive] couple of others in there as well and from memory - last time I looked 2 have been diagnosed with SM.- one was a malt cross cav.