Steve

I wil admit Im unsure of laws in other states and Im probably guilty of assuming this was the case in all states. NSW. (7.2) RECORD-KEEPING 7.2.1 Standards 7.2.1.1 Appropriate records must be kept for: The acquisition/breeding of animals, including the date of birth, date of • acquisition and the name and address of the supplier/breeder of the animals. The sale of animals (except fish), including: the date of sale, and the name • and contact details of the new owner. The death or euthanasia of animals at the premises, including the date • of death and, where known, the circumstances surrounding the death or euthanasia. Veterinary treatment of animals, including routine husbandry procedures • such as worming or parasite control. Trading in animals subject to regulatory control, for example birds traded • under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The date of cleaning and disinfection for all enclosures.• 7.2.1.2 Records must be kept for a minimum of 5 years, on the premises, and all staff must be able to produce the records.

You're right we are up to something and my hope is that when we say what that is that everyone will see that its something they can get behind and become involved in. This is why for me listening to everyone's suggestions and thinking them through whilst openily debating and discussing them is so important. Its easy when you belong to one group or another to be biased and not be able to see it all from a different perspective and lots of animal rights based stuff seems to feed on that . I dont want that to continue because I dont think over all its the best thing for our dogs.If we are going to find an answer its going to take something different , something that hasnt been tried before because so far everything world wide thats been tried has been disatrous for the future of our breeds and our rights to dog ownership. Ive had a couple of tastes of the illusion of being involved and having all groups at the table so that any outcome is supposedly based on what different groups agree is the best thing for the future but it is more like someone telling you that your bill is $10,000 - making you scream and sweat over how you're going to pay it and then saying "oops its only $6000" You then feel its a bargain and you are happy to pay it and shut up thanking God you got out of it so lightly. Trouble is where laws and policies are involved with dogs the consequences are too high for me to be happy with the $6000 - if you get what I mean. I think sooner or later they will get me for much more than the $10,000.

I think this is a great post and definitely needs more attention and exploration. I dont think people had an idea of this stuff ever. In fact Id say that part of the problem is that some of us have evolved and see it on a higher level but lots are still in the spot where people where when I was a child. When I think of some of the things that went on back then which people did as a matter of course they would put puppy farmers in an elevated position! Edited to add back then a dog was truly your property. You got to do what ever you wanted with it as long as it didnt bother the neighbours. If it did bother the neighbours you would get punched in the nose or the dog was shot. I remember lots of people throughout my life who had the odd litter - none of whom would ever consider a whelping box.The dog went under the house dug a hole and had puppies. This was common practice.Dogs still had puppies , no such thing as considering a C section or AI , heater lamps , hot water bottles, why on earth would anyone take a dog's temperature? Who would look in its mouth to see how its teeth were and if it got fleas which might jump on the kids you painted em with kero. As a teenager I did a bit of a stint in what was back then the antz pantz in purebred breeder kennels. They had very healthy and very happy dogs but they lived more like dingoes than battery caged dogs the way we have to house them today.

Yes and further to that, because idiots like that twit in news subforum thought they could just flaunt the law because they simply didnt agree with it, then make a mockery of the whole thing by being such an arrogant asshole. What does that have to do with puppy farms? Nothing :D I've just got a bee in my bonnet about irresponsible dog owners. Sorry for the hijack, Steve. No that far off topic - its still about the same thing really people who know the law but do what they like anyway or people who dont know the law and dont have any basic common sense.

Are you seriously saying that because I cant take my dog to a certain beach or cafe that I'm going to dump it? How funny but I do get the point you're making in a roundabout fashion. Comes back to why puppy farms and pet shop sales need to be trampled on. Ethical breeders will grill a potential owner to make sure they're going to be responsible. Puppy farmers and girls who work in big pet shop franchises wont. Yes but why cant we take our dogs to these places any more? Do you think we have more laws in regard to this now because the people who had their dogs at these places were apathetic and were likely to abandon their dogs? I dont - I think these laws are there because people loved their dogs to a point where they couldnt see that they needed to control them and consider people as well as their dogs.

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies. Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws. If that were the case there would be no crime. I am speaking of our democratic society. You can certainly educate or attempt education to those who want to listen. Small backyards, cute window shop puppies, no compulsary microchipping, little desexing of pet puppies from breeders, internet sites like gumtree,TV presenters who advocate mixed breeds,slack councils,TV stars, lack of real facilities for dogs to go and have fun with their owners, beaches closed to dogs, parks closed to dogs, outdoor cafes closed to dogs, and simple human apathy all contribute to the number of dogs abandoned. Those are actually just a few, you can't control people, you can desex dogs. The shires and RSPCA are the first point of call for people who care and see a bad situation in which a puppy has been raised. RSPCA says food, water and shelter are all that is required, the shire investigates smells and barking. I believe that the councils should have an educated team to investigate and have police power. I believe that complaints from breeders about breeders who are housing dogs in shocking conditions should be properly investigated by the canine body and that if they are deregistered it shouldn't end there but that the ANKC can report to the investigators from council who can close it down. That councils then report to a national body so that it isn't a simple case of moving shires and setting up again, that all licences be approved by a national body. That inspections be mandatory by your shire. So who will need these licences and how many dogs should a breeder have to breed to have these mandatory inspections?

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies. Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws. If that were the case there would be no crime. I am speaking of our democratic society. You can certainly educate or attempt education to those who want to listen. Small backyards, cute window shop puppies, no compulsary microchipping, little desexing of pet puppies from breeders, internet sites like gumtree,TV presenters who advocate mixed breeds,slack councils,TV stars, lack of real facilities for dogs to go and have fun with their owners, beaches closed to dogs, parks closed to dogs, outdoor cafes closed to dogs, and simple human apathy all contribute to the number of dogs abandoned. Those are actually just a few, you can't control people, you can desex dogs. The shires and RSPCA are the first point of call for people who care and see a bad situation in which a puppy has been raised. RSPCA says food, water and shelter are all that is required, the shire investigates smells and barking. I believe that the councils should have an educated team to investigate and have police power. I believe that complaints from breeders about breeders who are housing dogs in shocking conditions should be properly investigated by the canine body and that if they are deregistered it shouldn't end there but that the ANKC can report to the investigators from council who can close it down. That councils then report to a national body so that it isn't a simple case of moving shires and setting up again, that all licences be approved by a national body. That inspections be mandatory by your shire. O.k. Ill concede you probably cant control humans but controlling the numbers of puppies bred cant be controlled by mandatory desexing either. Whilever there is a demand there will be peopLE prepared to offer the supply . You may prevent some puppies being bred by accident but you wont control the numbers because the less which are available via one means will have the void filled via another. Accidental litters definitely have an impact but they dont see hundreds of dogs being kept for years of their lives in appalling conditions either. How will mandatory desexing or limiting the amount of puppies bred prevent people who breed puppies in horrible conditions?

it's called "seeking an audience" .... anywhere and everywhere ..... Part of that audience was Sunnyflower, a cavalier owner who had never heard of Syringomyelia before, but now, thanks to this thread, is aware of the disease, has realised that her dog has many of the symptoms and is having him scanned. Sunnyflower, I really hope Oscar doesn't have SM. LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS. If some Cavalier Folk have been made aware about this Insidious Disease by my comments , that is all that is what this is all about ,I do hope Sunnyflower that Oscar does'nt have SM. I will never Defend my-self in what I am doing ,I believe it to be right , I was once told that ,Softly ,Softly Cachee Monkey, was the best way when I was fighting about the MVD Problem in our Cavaliers, but after seeing the Impact the PDE TV Program has had here in Britain ,the Kennel Club has done U Turns, there is now a Dog Breeding Advisory Council set up,it is only by the Shock Information and the Hard Hitting Facts of the PDE Program that made the Dog Buying Public aware about the SM and MVD Health Problems in the Cavalier Breed. That there are many Cavalier Breeders who would prefer to to Cross their their Fingers and Hope , rather than spend Time and Money on the Health Tests available. Would many Cavalier Breeders who are Breeding from Show Winning Stock ,really want to discover that their Young Champion should not be being used at Stud ? As was said by the Previous CKCS CLUB CHAIRPERSON a few years ago. "There are still Members who are still not Prepared to Health Check their Breeding Stock ,and of Those who do, it would Appear that many would not Hesitate to Breed from Affected Animals." Finally ,on a Personal Note ,there was one Cavalier Forum I was removed from because I was Rocking the Boat with my Views,the other Cavalier Forum I Resigned from, because I did not like their Snide and Innuendoe Remarks about the Cavalier Researchers who are trying to give our Cavaliers a Future. As for Steve Dean's Article, he also has made quite a U Turn about the mention of the Significant Incidence of Heart Disease and Syringomyelia in the Cavalier Breed. Before he had said those two Diseases were really not much of a Problem for our Cavaliers. As WE SAY Here in Scotland . WEEL, HE KENS NOO !!!!! Bet Hargreaves God save our dogs.

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies. Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws. Is that you, Khmer Rouge? Ive much experience in controlling humans . Im a mother to 8 kids 6 of which are adults,grandmother to 13. I worked in juvenile justice and the biggest battle I fight every single day of my life with being responsible for ensuring two teenagers make it to reasonable maturity without a disaster is peer pressure.

That was a nice read, nice to hear some common sense. It was written in 1995, did she do any follow up papers later? I havent found any but Im looking for her. Id like to have a cuppa with her. Doesnt look like she had much success in holding them off though does it?

How will this help in stopping dogs being bred in adverse conditions?

I think this is a great post and definitely needs more attention and exploration.

Pets shops have to keep these records and have to show them to anyone who asks for them already including councils.

So you think that if someone breeds more than - how many- they should come under the notice of their state canine association and be treated as potentially people who keep their dogs in sub standard conditions? What happens to the ones who keep their dogs in poor conditions but only breed now and then, or those who have 3 or 4 different prefixes , or those who breed one litter of purebreds to 10 litters of cross breds? What is this magic number which demonstrates a breeder is breeding commercially rather than breeding more often in order to identify or breed out an issue in the breed?

unfortunately they can, they can neglect and abuse, breed and abandon. You can't control people, you can control the number of puppies. Of course you can contol humans and not just by new laws.

Yes and Im waiting to see how long its going to be before pet owners who have been given no choice about having their animals desexed or microchipped mount class actions against councils when their animals get sick. peopel who breed puppies in back yards because they can are not puppy farmers and mandatory desexing wont stop that becaus ethey are breeding them for themselves and each other. Even if you stop them from advertising on line , in newspapers etc people will still buy from them or they will still sell more of them to pet shops and agents. Stopping a breeder from advertising when they have puppies doesnt prevent dogs from being bred in rotten conditions and it is against fair trading laws.

In order fo this to become a possibility basic contract laws would need to change and that is something that its not realistic to advocate for no matter how much we think it should be the case. The ANKC are pretty good at policing their codes of conduct but so what .No code says they cant breed hundreds of dogs, or cross bred dogs, or sell to pet shops so what part of the code of conduct is going to ensure they are not breeding puppies in rotten conditions?

Believing that we shouldnt be breeding as much as we are is a minefield. There are way too many legal, political, and economy reasons why making obvious attempts at stopping someone from breeding dogs based on a presumption that we as a group are breeding too many especially when there are so many sub groups will be given a quick flick. The last thing we want to see is where dog breeding is made illegal which is the big deal thing that I have against introducing a new law to licence breeders. When we agree to license our dogs or what we do with 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 or breeder licencing 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 and dog breeding 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. When you add to that power to an organisation with no method of being held accountable to police these things we get closer and closer to having no one BUT large scale puppy farmers breeding dogs because no one can stay in the game.

So you are seeing that part of the answer is to know who is breeding them and where they are coming from? O.K. So how do you think this would stop people from breeding them in horrible conditions?

Way back when the Magna Carta was signed people didnt see animals as property [ animals as in cattle, sheep , horses etc] If they werent seen as property it meant anyone could just come along and remove them and take them home and it meant that no one had to be responsible for them.The fact they are called chattle which is so close to cattle is no co incidence. So if we dont see them as property or possessions how then do we keep them as our own and be made responsible for them ? If not possessions then what is a viable solution? How do you think introducing such a system would stop people from breeding dogs which are kept in horrible conditions? I can see that it may give a heads up about any puppies which have developed helth problems or temperament issues but that can happen even if you give the parents everything they need and then some by way of treatments and care.

This is not true I accept many answers and explore them - some Ive hung onto. If I had to make up a definition of what is a puppy farm I would be right there with yours and personally I think just as a sheep farmer is someone who breeds sheep for a profit and sees their animals as stock that this should also apply to any definition of any other farmer. Therefore if a breeder farms their animals for profit and sees their dogs as stock then the term should apply to them. There are several problems with that but one of the biggest is that those in power who are at the end of the day calling the shots regarding policy and laws dont agree. Its that simple what you or I think should be the defining criteria doesnt really count so for the purposes of this duscussion the definition of a puppy farmer is someone who breeds dogs in sub standard conditions. This is against the law and commercially breeding dogs under standard conditions is not so if we are going to address the issue of both the need to be addressed separately. Instead of continually raising the same question why not ask your registering body to make a submission to the government, or make individual ones yourselves. I have no desire to ask my registering body to make any submission to the government in fact based on recent activity I'd rather they didnt and there is much happening on a more individual level than you or most could know at this time. Before any submission or even any suggestion of a possible solution can be formulated with any confidence I would prefer to have a varied input to allow us all to be involved and debating the issues so that when we do move we can do so having our idea tested and challenged by people who have the welfare of dogs as their first priority who actually know something about the subject from a varied start point. So if you think its all a waste of time thats your take but I dont think it is which is why Im asking the question.

O.K. Great stuff is coming out and Id like to discuss them all and debate them as we go through but the intent here is to find possible solutions which dont entail introduction of new laws. I agree with this lady. http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Regulatory_co...95Jackson_0.pdf

I am not sure what you are asking, how to prevent any pup from being born into substandard condiions? I believe that is impossible, even with every law you can think of and constant policing, as long as people are allowed to breed at all someone will breed in substandard conditions. I have often thought that is the desired end point of having the laws. Someone will always do a bad job proving that no one should be allowed to breed dogs. One way to get rid of pupy mills would be to make it illegal to sell dogs. But there would still be some idiot around that does not desex his bitch and it gets preg and he does a horrid job of it. Sorry just rambling now, not much help. True - I think most people who are thinking on can see that there will always be someone who is mucking it up but how to make it potentially less rewarding for those who do cut corners to such an extreme that they cause their dogs to suffer and how do we be seen to be addressing the problem without pushing for laws?

By now I guess anyone who has read more than one or two of my posts would get that Im against any new laws being introduced and most definitely against giving any more power to the RSPCA until they can assure us that they have some kind of accountability for what they are doing. However, I acknowledge that some people are definitely breeding dogs and causing them to suffer,that this is unacceptable and we need to try to find a solution. So I think that there is a whole lot of knowledge and creativity and resource on this forum and that its a very good starting place to start thinking of new ideas and maybe tossing over old ones to try to find a plan of action to create a solution without the risk of too many unintended negative consequences. If we are to ever get one foot in the door and ever hold off where we seem to be heading we will need some idea of what the alternatives are to solving the problems that have been given so much attention in order to introduce more laws. There are several which come to mind, BSL mandatory licensing and mandatory desexing,paying bonds if your dogs are seized before you are found guilty, are a couple but there are several others as well. For now Id like to chat about only one in this thread. Puppy farmers. Definition. People who breed dogs in sub standard conditions [As defined by the RSPCA roundtable conference] If we all agree they have to be stopped but we all dont agree we need new laws with a quasi police force in charge of policing them can we as a group discuss possible solutions which we might all agree on and work together on?

For someone like Peter Higgins to be calling for this it just astounds me. Obviously its been said in response to BSL and dog attacks but think it through. At best with this in mind you see people who own the targeted breeds or who own dogs which look like the targeted breeds villified and made to look like crimminals not for what they do or dont do with their dogs or even for what their dogs do or dont do but so the public wont get upset about them just taking out the dogs. The owners become victims of hate crimes just as people who breed dogs have become and its initiated by people calling for more and more regulation and governments gone mad and not giving a hoot about our rights as property owners. Communities sit back and feel all warm and snuggly as they take out the dogs and bump them off under the belief that they will actually stop at just a few breeds ! If a government came out tomorrow and said - thats it no more dog ownership we're coming to get them and they are no longer able to live with you there would be a riot and every dog lover would kick and scream at the notion.It would straight away be seen to be an attack on our property and basic rights. But take away the breeds because they are killers and others because they are suffering because of their breed standards and the bad breeders who have in bred them and society says O.K. Its about governments criminalising ownership and breeding of dogs by breed and chuck in a bit of hate for people who breed more than a litter a year of any breed - worse if its a cross breed and we're on a roll. Say no to more laws.