Steve

Maybe - except that most of us are not able to become a participating member of their local, state or federal government and like you I have no doubt that councils do what they think is right based on what they have been advised is whats best for the residents etc . My main issue isn't really with councils it's with the people who want to yell and scream and demand more laws because people don't follow current laws. I totally agree. However, thinking back over the decisions I have made and the opinions I have held in the past, I too was one that called for more laws once. I had little understanding at the time of the bigger picture and the consequences and potential consequences of more laws. I am now educated and have a much broader view of animal control and animal laws (I might add, in part becuase of you). I would think that the narrow view thinking and the enlightenment scenario is a common one amongst doog owners. If I can learn and alter my view, why can't decision makers? Through joining them and participating we can gently effect change in the way thigns are viewed perhaps. Pie in the sky stuff maybe, but I'd rather do it this way then become cynical, hardened and frustrated. I agree Im a tad cynical and frustrated though Id probably challenge hardened but I dont think its as easy as joining councils,state governments and federal governments - in fact I know its not. I think its about education and holding them accountable because its my experience that unless there is outside accountability and outside pressure and education they wont learn and wont consider too much past their own understanding or comfort level. Now and then you can place someone with a bit of brains in there and they may be able to educate em a bit and maybe even sway them a little but usually there's too much politics going on to get too far very quickly.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd...-conference.pdf State Government Funds New Animal Cruelty Hotline: Whan October 30, 2010 Primary Industries Minister, Steve Whan, today said NSW has a new weapon in its fight against animal cruelty, with the State Government funding a hotline phone number for people to report suspected animal cruelty cases. Mr Whan announced the hotline at the inaugural RSPCA conference in Sydney, where hundreds of RSPCA staff including inspectors, shelter staff and vets gathered for the first time together under one roof. "This year our Government has supplemented its annual grant of $424,000 to the RSPCA with a further $30,000 to create a hotline for reporting animal cruelty," said Mr Whan. "Mistreated animals can’t communicate their suffering, but this is another way for the RSPCA to give them a voice. "The 1300 CRUELTY hotline for reporting animal cruelty will make the RSPCA more accessible to the community, particularly for those outside the Sydney metropolitan region. "The hotline will complement the current cruelty report pages on the RSPCA NSW website and will actively highlight the plight of abused animals in our communities. "I commend the RSPCA for this new initiative and am sure it will be a valuable way for the public to bring animal welfare abuses to the notice of authorities." RSPCA Chief Executive Officer Steve Coleman said the organisation was thrilled to be supported by the NSW Government with the 1300 CRUELTY number. "The hotline will greatly assist our regional branch network and hopefully encourage residents of regional NSW in making contact with us so we can help," he said. Mr Whan today told delegates at the RSPCA NSW annual conference that the NSW Government continued to support the organisation because of the value of its work. "Since the introduction of the first prevention of animal cruelty legislation early last century, the RSPCA has acted on behalf of the NSW Government as inspectors of animal welfare. "The RSPCA has been working this way for more than 100 years, and has been especially active in enforcing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 in recent years. "We recognise the services provided by the RSPCA and its ongoing efforts in reducing cruelty to animals, and provide significant funding in recognition of its’ work. "In addition to its enforcement role, the RSPCA also provides assistance in response to emergencies and delivers programs which help communities across the State respond to animal issues." To report animal welfare abuse, you can now call 1300 278 3589 (1300 CRUELTY).

There was an issue regarding copyright with some.

Yours has to travel further.

Maybe - except that most of us are not able to become a participating member of their local, state or federal government and like you I have no doubt that councils do what they think is right based on what they have been advised is whats best for the residents etc . My main issue isn't really with councils it's with the people who want to yell and scream and demand more laws because people don't follow current laws.

You will find Bet Hargreaves on quite a few dog forums preaching the same thing day after day .... and usually constantly "breeder bashing" the UK Cavalier breeders. When the going gets tough she will retreat to a forum where those she criticizes have no right of reply as they are not allowed to join that forum. Often BH will misquote or take completely out of cpntext what people have said ... and rarely posts corrections. To my knowledge she has never breed Cavaliers and I believe she has not owned one for some time. LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS I will not be making any Excuses or Apologies because we have never been Cavalier Breeders , though what that has to do with me being involved for at least the Past 20 years with the MVD Trouble in our Breed ,I just cannot understand. The reason for my Involvement in the Cavalier Breed is because of the Heart Ache of some of our Cavaliers dying at such Ages because of the MVD Problem afflicting our Cherished Cavalier Breed I have collected around 400 Pedigrees of Cavaliers suffering from Heart Trouble and sent them to a Couple of Universities here in Britain and One in Austria,to the Researchers who are Researching the Cavaliers MVD Problem. In-fact some are being used at the moment with the Genetic Research into MVD in Cavaliers. It is a Myth to say I am Cavalier Breeder Bashing ,I will always say ,and continue saying ,that the Cavalier Buying Public ,should be made aware about SM and MVD in the Cavalier Breed and be advised only to buy from a Cavalier Breeder who Health Tests and follows the Breeding Guideline Recommendations for SM and MVD in their Cavalier Breeding Stock.How can that be Termed Breeder Bashing,I would sure like to know. This way the Puppy Farmers and BYB's will also be being involved when they are asked those Questions by the Cavalier Buying Public. No ,we do not have any Cavaliers now, we are Pensioners , and when we did have Cavaliers , the Vet's Bill was over £100 a month , the MVD Pills cost at least £1 each, and now with SM in the Cavalier Breed , we just can't take the risk of the Expense that we could be involved with. I don't know the Price of the Pills for SM but I believe they could also be around £ 1 each, . I am unaware that I have taken Quotes out of Context, and to say when the Going Gets Tough ,I will retreat ,... The Going has been Tough for me the Past 20 years, being involved with the MVD Problem in our Cavaliers. The best Hope that I think the Cavaliers have ,will be when the Genes are found for SM and MVD ,then the Carriers will also be found. At the moment though, all I can think of for our Cavaliers ,is to get the Cavalier Buying Public ,only to buy from Cavalier Breeders who Heath Test and follow out the Cavalier Breeding Guideline Recommendations, in that way ,the Folk who buy a Cavalier, could be saved ,just maybe ,the Expense of the Medication for SM and MVD Bet Hargreaves Yes I agree however, we both know that its more than likely that this wont be the end result of the focus thats been put on this breed - don't we.

True except in the case of both MVD and SM no one knows the mode of inheritance which complicates it even more.

I would like to know what they expect to come next. Mode of inheritance is not known, its said to be polygenic. Breeding dogs which are not affected- A grade gives no affeteds but what happens next generation. In recessive disorders carriers are clear and are not affected so what happens in the next generation is the proof of getting somewhere for the future of the breed really isnt it? How do you know if an A is capable of giving the gene to the kid?

http://cavalierhealth.org/smprotocol.htm Statistical Results of Following Protocol In an October 2010 interim report of the statistical results of following the SM protocol, Dr. Rusbridge stated that: (A) Offspring without SM only occurred when there was at least one parent of Grade A status; (B) There were higher numbers of SM clear offspring it both parents had Grade A; © All Grade A* offspring (SM clear over 5 years) had at least one parent that was Grade A*; (D) 100% of offspring were SM affected if both parents were SM-affected; (E) SM also occurs in Grade A x Grade A crosses (approximately 25%, but this figure might be improved if more older dogs are screened dogs); (F) Using dogs of unknown status was risky for SM affectedness; (G) 50% of dogs in a Grade A x Unknown cross were SM affected. *Note: Grade A* means that the dog had no SM at all and no CM at all. Dr. Rusbridge provided these interim statistics: ● Matings of Code A CKCS to Code A CKCS have produced 75.9% offspring with no SM. ● Matings of Code A CKCS to either Code D, E, or F CKCS have produced 41.9% offspring with no SM. ● Matings of Code A CKCS to unscanned CKCS have produced 50.0% offspring with no SM. ● Matings of Code D CKCS to Code D, E, or F CKCS have produced no offspring free of SM.

The dogs suffer because they ARE owned by a dick head so lets hope they do their job and do something about the dick head instead of making all of our dogs and allof us pay.

Yep call for a new law for a little old lady who lives alone on a pension with a little lap dog because somewhere someone owns a dog which isnt contained or controlled. Call for new laws for the breeder who has a litter now and then in their lounge room because somewhere someone might breed dogs in poor conditions. better yet lets put peple in to write these mandatory codes who dont own a dog or breed a dog or maybe dont even like dogs. That will do it.

It is so beyond belief. Maybe they changed who they are representing but for got to tell the membership? What is the economic status of Blacktown? Is it really the only way to help the folks in Blacktown get control of their dogs to license all pet owners in the whole state? If the government was held accountable like a business they would never be allowed to take off in this sort of wild direction of massive costs without a hint of evidence this will improve things in Blacktown, never mind the rest of the state. Im a Blacktown girl and all of my family still live there. All they have to do is walk up and down the streets and call in to see if the dog barking at them as they approach the back yard is microchipped and registered - if not fine them.In fact they should already know that because they have been keeping a data base of chipped and dogs registered with council for ever. In one street they will collect enough in fines to pay their wages for a week .the type of people they are trying to pull into line wont get a licence and even if they do how is anyone going to know whether they have one dog or ten, one small white fluffy or a man eater? Idiots. Is that all of the states canine associations gone to hell? licences, registrations, memberships - thats looking after their members alright.

Why is it that people jump up and down and go to war because councils are not being seen to be doing their jobs in policing planning laws and mandatory codes for breeding dogs and call for more laws and licencing of dog breeders in the belief that making it harder for the people who are already doing it right is the key. The kind of people they are aiming to ping are the very people who will find new ways of ducking any laws anyway and avoiding getting a licence. Then we start to hear calls for new laws to licence dog owners when the same applies because only a handful will get the licences anyway.It wont make them keep their dogs on leads, it wont make them have more secure fencing or grow some brains In the meantime none of us can walk our dogs or our kids around the block without a bloody big stick or a recon to know where the nutty neighbours are who let their dogs charge at you because the laws that are already there are never bloody policed people waiting for a train get attacked by dogs which should have been in their owners yards and every time you turn around there are more places you cant take your dog and more thing either have to do or not do because some idiot now and then ignores the laws we have and thinks they have special dogs and they are special too. What on earth makes anyone think any new laws will make any difference ? They told us in NSW when they started to take all of this loverly money from microchipping and regsitration they would use the funds to police the laws. Nup not true. So what they will use the money they get in for licences to police the licence laws ? Sure they will. They already know less than 20 percent of dog owners have their dogs registered so why dont they police these laws, use the money for either increased regsitrations or fines and do something with it to ensure the leash laws and the rest are enforced. Every day its harder to buy a dog, breed a dog, live with a dog,choose the breed you want to live with and take your dog out of your yard and to find the money needed to keep it and maintain it. We have to stop this call for new laws and more power to council and RSPCA. Why arent we screaming just as loudly [ more loudly] about councils not doing their job and enforcing dog owner laws as we are about puppy farms ? Why arent we demanding more rangers and more fines more preventative checks and education when these thing affect PEOPLE and not just their dogs no matter where they live whether they are dog owners or not ? I think perhaps the world has gone mad and for Dogs NSW to be calling for licences to be introduced for pet owners it leaves me dumbfounded. Say no to more laws.

So no to any more laws. Enforce the ones we have. Bloody hell the reason they give now for not enforcing whats there is that they dont have the money or the man power. If they did a house check of who has a dog what kind of dog it is and tell them what they need to do to ensure its safe and people are safe from it then thats prevention and the bloody fines they would pick up would fund it all. World wide its a known fact that licencing doesnt work and this would enable them to be sure the need for fencing and all the rest are in place regardless of what breed it is. What on earth is Peter Higgins on about? ANKC and Dogs NSW stood against licences for breeders and push for microchipping to do the job but now they are asking for them for pet owners ????? - Arent they capable of seeing the consequences - Its just gets worse and worse every bloody day. So no to more laws, say no to more laws, say no to more laws, say no to more laws, say no to more laws ,say no to more laws. Say no to more laws.

So, by rights, the OP should have called the local Council, and asked for a Ranger to inspect the premises...because Council officers are responsible for ensuring 'puppy farms are comlying with the code for breeding facilities? Why then, when the OP called the RSPCA, did they not say..'Unless you have witnessed actual cruelty, you should call the local Council and ask them to investigate'. You could then assume that if a Council Ranger encountered any abuse, they would then call in the RSPCA? It seems like a lack of communication all round? The OP sees what looks like a puppy farm, which concerns them and is worried that there might be neglect occuring due to the number of dogs and the disrepair of the premises, so calls the RSPCA, thinking they are the correct authority to call. They hear nothing back, so calls again, and again...and still hears nothing back from the RSPCA.......but by rights, should have been told by the RSPCA to call the local Council to report their concerns in the first place. :D Yes but you also have to remember that different rules apply to different places too. I agree that it would have been a much quicker process to simply say this isnt something we would normally look at however, I know they do record info which lets them know where possible puppy farmers are and when they say they arent interested they would get kicked around a bit too. In Victoria at least until the next election it is most definitely a local council issue unless its a definite act of cruelty in Prevention of animal cruelty legislation. Who ever was on the other end of the phone most definitely should have explained that to the OP in my opinion but thats assuming the person on the other end knew. Perhaps they take the calls and a second party looks them over and decides what to do next.

Whew 2 down - 298 to go

I bet when he started he never dreamed how big DOL would become :D I bet he did. Come on lots of you should have them by now.

Its not only that while the breeder is out the back scrubbing out concreted kennels, and making sure the areas set aside for the dogs are all squeaky clean and in order as well as playing with her dogs and socialising her puppies that means they might not get to the front sign area as often as they would like. I live on 30 acreas and since this thread I sort of took more notice of what the footpath and front gate area of my property looks like which is about 800 metres from my house yard [which no one can see from the gate or the front street ]. Id better get down there and put a bit of lipstick on it so people who drive past dont think that around where we and the dogs live and run is as bad as the front area. But some crazy greenies came through a couple of years ago and planted all of these pine trees on our footpath which is 1.5 kilometres long and the other greenies tell me I cant take away felled trees because native animals like to play in them and because its not my property anyway but it is owned by council they come in now and then and mow down everything in their way - including my front fence to spray silver nightshade , locusts and brambles. The noctious weeds people are terrorists! The paddocks between the front and the house block look pretty good today because yesterday the boys went through and ploughed in the patersons curse some of which was over my head because of the rain to prepare it for sowing any day now and right now as I type the trucks - 2 B doubles are here delivering the hay and straw for storage in the side paddock area. Inside the fenced house area its all LOVERLY though and tomorrow when my puppy buyers arrive to take home their baby Im proud to have them here and I hope they understand that my front gate is the least of my worries [im not sure its my job anyway]

O.K. - Part of what the RSPCA want is to know where people - thats why they are pushing for a licencing system - are who breed dogs and just ringing them means that the fact that these people are breeding dogs will now be logged with them. Currently in no state other than NSW do the RSPCA have the power to police any laws other than those which are under prevention of cruelty to animals acts.Nothing the OP has said in her posts goes anywhere near breaching POCTAA so its not something an inspector is going to race out and jump in their car for to save any animals. They may make some discrete enquiries regarding whether or not they do have planning approvals in place and maybe speak quetly with council to give them a bit of heads up about possible issues which may be breaching council laws but nothing said in the OP would indicate they have a right to investigate or go snooping in case - especially if there are a couple of hundred definite cruelty complaints they need to look into which would take a definite priority. Around here there are no close inspectors so if its a complaint such as someone is beating a dog to death and its out back suffering, that there's dogs with no water etc the cops turn up to take a look - if its less urgent like a dog has been debarked without the correct paper work then they swing past and call in when they are next in the area.Currently they dont get to just stroll in to see whether or not you are breeding too many puppies - what ever too many is- because the property looks a bit unkempt from the road or because you have a sign up advertising more than one breed of puppies for sale. they cant come back and tell you the outcome because its logistically illogical and it would mean someone would do nothing else but call back people who do this stuff without evidence and without anything else to indicate that an investigation is even warranted. Lets be honest about this - based on the fact that the RSPCA can and do sometimes simply sieze animals and there are so many stories around about how people have lost their dogs unfairly, and how hard it is to prove you havent done anything wrong if they say you have do you want them just being able to call in and check you out without fair reason? How many pet owners would be squashed for dogs with bad teeth, not worming them, fleas, dirty water bowls, being fed off the ground etc if they could just decide because you owned a dog they could check you and your dogs out? What are your chook pens like ? How many dogs do you own over your council requirements, where do they sleep / Think it through.

Considering that MVD is the most common heart problem in all dogs as they age I guess anyone looking at getting any dog regardless of breed has to consider the same question - maybe a bit later but still in the sooner orlater probably range especially considering its even been linked to rotten teeth.

Its Aloe juice.

I do not like the thought either but feel something drastic needs to be done and soon. What are other options? As far as the ANKC taking action, that would be another issue that would be addressed if breeders stopped breeding. Again the outcome is not certain. But if everyone lets their prefix laps, which you then have 5 years to reinstate, for those 5 years you are not a breeder and you are not paying prefix dues. There would also be no pups registered. All loss of funds. ANKC would have to reorganize due to the loss of funds. Now more people are affected, ribbon supplies, dog shows connected such as motels and restaurants, agility trials and so forth would all be at risk. No dog at the Royals would attract more attention provided their several ANKC booths handing out information. It would also demonstrate clearly where the ANKC needs to reorganize. Their role needs to be much more than just keeping records and insurance providers. Anyway it is just an idea, but truly we have reached the point where something has to be done. As far as breeders being afraid of loosing their dogs, Steve is totally right. As much as those who want to bring an end to dog ownership might unfairly paint most dog breeders as a bunch of criminal dog abusers, we love our dogs. We would do anything, including not breed, if that is what it takes to keep our dogs home and safe. We should not be held emotional hostage. Hold that thought I may just have an idea brewing. You may be onto something shortstep so is Jaxx's buddy - Im not giving into them.

The answer is to choose the subject and stick to it. Dont get caught up in examples or what if's dont sound like a bigger redneck than you have to and dont deny that some people including some registered breeders are crook and need to be bounced. The subject is either take away the power or make them accountable. Its the one thing that all Australians regardless of what they do , how many animals they own or any thing else that makes us different to each other has to agree with and Rescue will go down under the current system just as easily as anyone.

Yes but most days it feels like we are weeing into the wind. Unless the Canine Councils back up a call for more accountability it really is looking like a done deal and over time its bound to get worse rather than better because as they feel more power its more likely that people will feel more and more like they have no way of being able to defend themselves. Everything thats going on in the anti puppy farm is directed at more power and more laws for the RSPCA.There is no point in me saying what comes next because the point is what ever comes next has to be given accountability. Of course the added ingredient in the mix is that people really do feel that their dogs are their family almost like they were children and until recently owning a dog was a pretty simple thing to do. Lots of people have much of their lives tied up with their animals and the people they have met through them so if someone - anyone comes in takes your pets you loose your animals, your mate, your companion but it pretty much ruins your life and your reputation as well. Its not like putting a yellow slip on a car and calling it unroadworthy because we want peopel to feel these animals are their family but dont understand how taking that family from them or living in fear that someone can take that from them impacts.Even if they come to look you over and they are nice to you and they find nothing wrong the simple fact that someone thinks they could - that they are feeling powerless is enough to cause many to be extremely stressed and live in fear.This is unacceptable and its not enough to keep telling us that no one has anything to fear if they are doing the right thing because while ever this is the situation people will live in fear knowing that its a possibility.Fact is that its a possibility anyway but as Australians we should have the right to feel that there is a process in place which will allow us to protest and be heard.They should know there is a process in place which will keep them transparent and accountable. Flippantly Hugh Wirth can say the purebred breeders are worried they will come after us ha ha ha but thats not what this is about - its about absolute power which history tells us is corruptible and we would have to be morons to believe any system is infallible - its about accountability and it really is that simple.

Most of us who didnt live it would be aware of the fact that pre ombudsman and pre anti corruption legislation some pretty crook things went on. If a cop comes to my door now my apprehension at opening the door to him is different to that my Dad felt if a cop came to his door. There are things now which are designed to enable ordinary people to report incidences and behaviour which may be corrupt to various places and feel that the people they are complaining about or the treatment they have recieved or the behaviour they have witnessed is un just or corrupt. No doubt about it there will still be incidences when a cop colludes,loads the witness, plants false evidence,falsifies notebook and occurance pad entries,takes a bribe or protection money, shouts a magistrate a beer etc and there is also no doubt that many people who go through the system feel they dont have a voice and that justice is blind BUT I promise you that peopel at least feel now they have someone other than the people who are policing them to go to to have their complaints heard and the entire police culture has changed and its more difficult for a rotten cop to get away with that for as long as they used to. When you have one private agency who is not accountable to any outside independent commission against corruption, or ombudsman which has police powers of a special warranted constable but is not restricted in some of the things a cop is - such as collusion etc and the entire process and system allows even the possibility that there may be something crook without checks to ensure its not surely to God people can see the potential. When someone can enter your property,take your animals saying what they like without the ability for you to have a witness, a second opinion, where they have their own "expert witnesses" their own vets , their own prosecutors the ability to bump your dogs off "they were suffering too much to let them live" yet they can keep a burned cat alive and suffering for 12 months of burns recovery without it being considered suffering too much - cremate the evidence without you or your vet being consulted or an independent being able to give an opinion - where even consulting with your own vet is considered a potential conflict of interest all in the name of enforcing the laws including seizing your animals, not telling you where they are being taken or for how long putting them under a general and maybe returning them to you BECAUSE YOU TOOK THEM TO A DOG SHOW - even if there is never ever ever ever anyone who exaggerates a little or who gets it wrong even once there is still no way for the owners to feel they can do what they can if a cop busts them using undue force etc. So until there is an independent method of checks being able to be kept on the system Im not backing it. That would be the case whether it was animal related issues or any other. I live in Australia and I believe that every person who lives here should be able to feel they have someone to complain to if they feel they have been treated unfairly which doesnt include the courts and I believe that everyone has the right to be treated as innocent until provenm other wise. that the onus is onthe accuser to prove guilt not the accused to prove innocence.