Steve

Yes. Look up what each state classifies as a business of breeding dogs and then look at what shire by laws cut in. NSW is anyone who breeds a litter. Victoria is 5 or more entire bitches.

Beaudesert local laws Prescribed activity 5 For the purposes of the definition of animal keeping in section 2 (Definitions of prescribed activities) of the Schedule of Local Law No 7 (Licensing), the prescribed activity of animal keeping shall include: (a) the keeping of a guard dog; or (b) the keeping of an animal work dog; or © a hobby kennel or commercial kennel; or (d) the keeping of 3 or 4 dogs as part of domestic dog keeping; or (e) the keeping of more than 4 cats over the age of 6 months; or (f) the keeping of more than 20 poultry over the age of 3 months (other than as part of the environmentally relevant activity of poultry farming as defined under the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998). Grant of a licence 8 For the purposes of section 7(1)(f) (Grant of a licence) of Local Law No 7 (Licensing), the local government may grant a licence for the operation of animal keeping if satisfied that: (a) the operation of animal keeping can be lawfully conducted on the premises; and (b) the operation of animal keeping does not contravene the Animal Protection Act 1925; and © the matters which are the subject of the conditions specified in section 9 (Conditions of a licence) of this subordinate local law which are relevant to the operation of animal keeping can be adequately addressed by the imposition of those conditions. Conditions of a licence 9 For the purposes of section 9(3) (Conditions of a licence) of Local Law No 7 (Licensing), the local government may impose all or any of the following conditions on a licence for the operation of animal keeping; (a) All animal enclosures must be provided and maintained in such a manner so as to: (i) be clean and in a sanitary condition; and (ii) prevent any animal from escaping from the approved premises; and (iii) be kept within an area on the approved premises which is specified in the conditions of the licence; and (iv) not become deteriorated; and (v) avoid injury to the animal; and (vi) permit regular cleaning of all the internal and all external surfaces of the enclosures and regular checking of any animals within the animal enclosures; and (vii) be impervious and able to be easily and readily cleaned and effectively disinfected; and (viii) ensure the comfort of animals and the prevention of disease. (b) All animal enclosures must be sprayed or dusted with insecticide, larvicide or disinfectant, for the purpose of fly, insect and disease control; (i) to the manufacturers’ instructions; and (ii) whilst the animals are removed from the animal enclosures. © All animal enclosures must be treated with effective and appropriate disinfectants at least once a week. (d) All animal enclosures must be cleaned and disinfected and if necessary insecticided or larvicided before the introduction of a replacement animal. (e) Waste waters from animals from the washing down of floors, surfaces, enclosures and other ares must be collected and drained to an approved pre-treatment device before discharge to the sewerage system. (f) A trade waste approval must be held by the holder of the licence in accordance with the Sewerage and Supply Act 1949; (g) Manure and offensive matters must be cleaned up at least once each day and then placed forthwith into a flyproof covered waste container. (h) All waste containers must be collected from the premises at least weekly and the contents disposed of in an approved manner. (i) Feed must be stored in fly and vermin proof containers (j) Feed and water containers used by the animals must be of impervious, smooth construction, non-toxic and able to be easily cleaned and disinfected. (k) Feed that has spoiled or deteriorated must be removed and disposed of in a waste container. (l) Spilled feed must be immediately collected and disposed of in a waste container. (m) The holder of the licence must upon discovering the existence of a dead animal remove such an animal to a lawful place of disposal. (n) An animal which contracts or is suspected of contracting any disease must be isolated and a veterinary surgeon must be engaged as soon as is reasonably practicable to treat the animal. (o) The approved premises including all surfaces such as walls, floors, ceilings fixtures and fittings must be kept clean and disinfected at all times. (p) An animal must not be displayed or exposed for sale as part of the approved premises. (q) Cloths, towels or material used in the animal keeping must be maintained in a clean condition and washed in an effective disinfectant. ® The approved premises must at all times to be kept free of flies and vermin. (s) The floors, walls and ceiling of the approved premises must be finished with an easily washable surface coating. (t) The floor must be covered with an easily washable smooth finished surface and must be sealed so to be free from cracks and crevices. (u) A wash tub of sufficient size to clean cages must be installed and fitted with hot and cold running water. The wall behind the tub must be provided with splash back tiles to a minimum height of 300mm (v) The animal keeping operations must be suitably and continuously ventilated to ensure that all the animal housing areas are free of dampness, nuisance odours and dust emissions. (w) The situation and nature of the approved premises must be such that the operation of animal keeping must not cause a nuisance to neighbouring premises. (x) The operation of animal keeping must comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1994. (y) The animals must wear or display an identifying tag specified by the local government.

This one is for Bundaberg - any more than 2 dogs. Kennels comply with the following requirements: a. All animals are housed within the kennels between the hours of 7.00pm and 7.00am. b. Noise levels do not exceed background noise level between the hours of 7.00pm and 7.00am when measured at the boundary of the site. c. The owner or his/her representative is resident on the property. d. All animals are exercised only within the property boundaries. Kennels comply with the following requirements: a. The animals are at all times kept in an enclosure located not less than 15m from any residential building on the site, except for veterinary facilities provided in connection with a kennel. b. The kennels are constructed of brick, masonry, concrete or other similar soundproof materials and include a fenced enclosure to effectively lessen noise and to form a visual barrier; and c. The minimum size of an allotment upon which kennels are constructed is three hectares. d. Fencing is provided and maintained to prevent the escape of animals; and e. All wastes are disposed of into an approved waste disposal facility. Setback Stockyard, Kennel or Cattery Road Frontage 50m Side or Rear Boundary 30m Any Dwelling on surrounding land 400m Land in Residential Precinct 800m

Here's some homework. Today pick up the phone and call your local shire councils.Ask to speak to the people in planning not in animal control - just for a minute forget about the mandatory codes for breeding dogs associated with POCTA and companion animals and ask them what you have to do and what you need to cover to be able to run a business of breeding dogs or keeping rescue dogs from time to time from your home. Remember in NSW that definition is anyone who is involved in the activity of breeding dogs even one litter or anyone who ever has a rescue dog waiting for rehoming on their property. In Victoria its anyone who owns more than 5 fertile bitches - even though ANKC says you can own 10 if you are one of their members most councils will say 5 anyway etc.

Pet shops source 70 - 90% of their stock from puppy farms. I don't care who said what and who is ducking and weaving, that is fact. The puppies are presented in good condition, and eminently purchasable, apart from the ones with parvo, as those regularly supplied by a recently prosecuted Qld pf. The pups dont look llke the parents, you know, it takes a while to get dogs into that despicable condition. Just to clarify - my definition of a puppy farm is an agricultural establishment, were dogs are kept as agricultural animals, in sheds or paddocks,with only sufficient human interaction to maintain life Steve I hope you disenfected your hands afterwards. That may be so, but the definition of a PF by the RSPCA is incorrect, and is intended to be be used to control registered breeders, not necessarily puppy farmers. Breeders will not lie down for that. BAN THE SALE OF PUPS IN PET SHOPS. IT IS POSSIBLE. IT CAN BE DONE ONE A STATE BASIS, ON WELFARE GROUNDS, AND NOT ON FAIRTRADING LAWS. There can be NO 'IMPROVEMENT" TO PUPPY FARMS. There can only be bans. For the sake of the dogs. voiceless and suffering horrible torture day after day The RSPCA has the means to inspect and remove dogs, councils have the right to make determinations in some areas Force them to do that. And I still think the rally was a good thing Some Pet shops may source 70% of puppies from what you call puppy farms. What you call puppy farms are regulated,have to fit with state building codes and mandatory codes for breeding establishments. Pet shops are regulated and have to fit with mandatory codes, constant inspection by the public and spot inspections.The pet shop industry says they dont source any puppies from what the RSPCA call puppy farms and there is no evidence to prove thats not true. I have heard pollies from both sides give speeches to tell us if they gain majority that they will give RSPCA more power.So far the only politician Ive heard who made any comment or move to stop puppies being sold in pet shops was Clover Moore. There are people working right now with AAWS which is designed to look at animal welfare issues at a federal level and that isn't showing any signs of considering abolishing pets in pet shops either.Considering who is on that panel its highly unlikely and its being seen to be an animal rights issue rather than an animal welfare issue. Yelling about banning puppies in pet shops isnt going to get puppies banned from pet shops all its going to do is get more regulations on breeders. Licencing all breeders especially if they do what they want to do and use the gold coast pilot as a model will shut down more registered breeders. Owning one entire bitch brings an inspection and a fee and already we have heard what some are doing to avoid it. Selling one puppy without a licence number brings you under the gun and every puppy sold by you is recorded on their data base. Gone are the days when some breeders had more than their shire said they could have on their property living in their homes,where if council was coming they could take the dogs off to another property until the inspection was done because now they have methods of spotting you anyway. They could still manage to have the dogs inside their homes and whelp their puppies under foot.Now building codes tell them where to have their kennels and how they will be constructed IF they are able to own more than 2 dogs anyway and so the breeders who were breeding puppies in their home with their breeding dogs living as part of the family become those breeders who have to house their dogs in kennels because if they want to continue to breed they have no choice. Spot inspections by RSPCA turning up 20 or so dogs living in your house against the laws? Nothing to worry about - right? Breeders on the gold coast have worked out some great ways of getting around this licence and getting caught but there is one thing that will happen which will stop that and its coming because its what this is really all about - giving the RSPCA power Australia wide to do spot inspections on breeders and police council laws and mandatory codes - the pollies in Victoria have now promised they will get it there. Queensland has just hit the news with petitions to stop sales of pets in pet shops and its only a matter of time before they are given more power there to police council regs too. One more thing - just as we see happening in NSW where rescue are being told they have to have concreted pens to fit council by laws by the RSPCA or shut down it wont be only breeders who pay for this push for new laws.

GayleK asked the big question five pages ago and unless i'm blind i can't see anyone that has specifically answered it. Oscars Law should be a good thing. It's about stopping/improving large scale commercial breeding facilities and the sale of pets in pet shops. There would be many thousands of dogs around Australia that would benefit from these proposed changes and who knows, if Australia implements them perhaps other countries would follow? The greater good people. In July I sat at a table beside kate Scoffeld and Fiona Douglas - the president and the CEO of the Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders and any hint that Oscars law or any other will ever stop commercial breeding of puppies is so far off being even conceivably possible its a joke.The RSPCA know this and its why the definition of a puppy farmer si someone who breeds dogs in substandard conditions to keep us all on the same level and under the same conditions regardless of how many we breed. No matter where any one lives there are already ample laws in place to ensure that dogs are kept the way they tell us they should be kept via council planning laws - see the photo of Banksia Park earlier in this thread. Steve, 'will ever stop commercial breeding of puppies' I bet. Aussiedog I appreciate the way you are qualifying the language now. Time to start to changing the rhetoric, from 'Close down puppy farms' to 'Improving large scale breeding facilities'. More to the point and it sounds so much nicer to call them facilities. Ta I think we can all now start to agree on the adgenda and outcomes. The more regulated dogs breeding becomes, the more pups will be produced in large breeding establishments. Home breeders can not afford nor will want to, turn their homes and their lives with their dogs into a highly regulated dog breeding business. Especially when purebred dog breeders are continually promoted as producing inbred sick puppies. I would think the puppy farmers are happy, in agreement with the animal rights protestors and fully support the idea of heavy regulations on ANKC small home breeders. They know most small home breeders will stop breeding under this pressure and this means their sales at the "large scale breeding facilities' will go up. We can rest assured that the new government approved and RSPCA inspected large scale breeding facilities will do a good job. No more concerns that puppy farm dogs and puppies, opps I mean large scale breeding facility dogs and puppies are a welfare issue. Once the dust settles, they will take on their new role as legitimate, inspected and approved facilities and become the primary producers of pet dogs for Australia families. For the greater good. yep.

GayleK asked the big question five pages ago and unless i'm blind i can't see anyone that has specifically answered it. Oscars Law should be a good thing. It's about stopping/improving large scale commercial breeding facilities and the sale of pets in pet shops. There would be many thousands of dogs around Australia that would benefit from these proposed changes and who knows, if Australia implements them perhaps other countries would follow? The greater good people. In July I sat at a table beside kate Scoffeld and Fiona Douglas - the president and the CEO of the Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders and any hint that Oscars law or any other will ever stop commercial breeding of puppies is so far off being even conceivably possible its a joke.The RSPCA know this and its why the definition of a puppy farmer si someone who breeds dogs in substandard conditions to keep us all on the same level and under the same conditions regardless of how many we breed. No matter where any one lives there are already ample laws in place to ensure that dogs are kept the way they tell us they should be kept via council planning laws - see the photo of Banksia Park earlier in this thread.

Hhhmph. OT ..... But the same Joe Helper who reinstated the PPCollar ban? And the same Joe Helper who proposed and bull-dozed through the latest Bill comprising of laws that give Councils power to kill our dogs on the spot; to kill our dogs after holding for only 48 hours; to fine us just for not having a Council tag on our dogs' collars (unless we've trotted them around the show ring within the preceding 12 months, of course ); that extend the BSL? I'd like to see what a Liberal candidate would be willing to do not only in relation to a tidy up of indiscriminate and poor breeding practices but of all the other laws that affect our dogs and see if we can't score something better. No hope there.They are agreeing with them. They have posted a similar statement and they havent even made a whimper in the last few years over the crap laws Victoria have introduced.

Hmm, not always, as you know. And I am NOT having a go at you. I would never do that. Never None of these moves to licence/inspect/regulate/harrass/torment and annoy breeders will improve the lives of registered purebred dogs one iota. Steve (another thread) There are no hard stats. Why does federal law need to be changed to outlaw pets from pet shops? the opinion I got didn't think so. I don't give a rats what people breed, as long as the pups are as healthy as they can be, and the parents are kept as they should be kept. Which is NOT in those abortions called puppy farms. OodlieDoodlies which I think are a bit of a joke, and cross breds are all good with me. Not purebreds, but not their fault, and purebreds are not always what people want. 50 years in the future, if there are any dogs remaining - the citizens of the time will be appalled that the primitive people of the 20th and 21st century were so very backward that they thought it was satisfactory to keep such a social intelligent being as a dog, which had proved time and again, his worth to man, in squalid, disgusting conditions, where he suffered terribly and didn't develop his full potential. And that governments failed to take the necessary steps to free him from this cruelty. Unfortunately there are always too many people with different agendas involved in things of this type, and the altruistic ones who want only freedom and happiness for the dogs, are bulldozed, and the dogs continue to suffer. Why do I bother? The parents are kept as they should be kept? Who decides what is the way the parents should be kept? Many people who keep their dogs in kennels on concrete floors do so because they have no choice because that is what their council says they have to do to own them. In fact most people who keep their breeding dogs in numbers of more than say 3 or 4 which sleep in the house and live the way I think they should live are doing so illegally. They are the rougue breeders and they are the ones who will be pinged with any new laws - not the ones who have complied with council planning laws and have lots of pens with concrete floors. The dogs are removed from their loungerooms though many would prefer they could keep their dozen or so small breed dogs inside the house with them. Most of us are breaching council by laws and most of us do everything we can to avoid council or RSPCA visits because we know they will make us keep our dogs differently if they allow us to keep them at all. I spoke with a registered breeder today from Queensland She owns 160 acres and owns 6 dogs and has been living where she does for over 10 years in a rural zone. She now has to pay $1500 permit fee to be able to breed dogs on her property as well as yearly rego fees and council engineers are now assessing what she will need to do to be able to get this permit as far as housing for her dogs are concerned. Her breed doesnt cope well with being separated from each other and they have lived in the house all their lives. She is going to desex her dogs and never breed again if they make her house them in kennels to be able to breed them. I dont blame her. She is a rougue breeder. Steve if you are referring to my comment as to rogue breeders you may have misunderstood my meaning. I meant the breeders doing it for rip offs. Nothing to do with caring breeders. No I didnt even see your comment - I was referring to the statement made by Jo Helper saying they would bring in new laws if he is re-elected in Victoria to shut down rougue breeders.

Hmm, not always, as you know. And I am NOT having a go at you. I would never do that. Never None of these moves to licence/inspect/regulate/harrass/torment and annoy breeders will improve the lives of registered purebred dogs one iota. Steve (another thread) There are no hard stats. Why does federal law need to be changed to outlaw pets from pet shops? the opinion I got didn't think so. I don't give a rats what people breed, as long as the pups are as healthy as they can be, and the parents are kept as they should be kept. Which is NOT in those abortions called puppy farms. OodlieDoodlies which I think are a bit of a joke, and cross breds are all good with me. Not purebreds, but not their fault, and purebreds are not always what people want. 50 years in the future, if there are any dogs remaining - the citizens of the time will be appalled that the primitive people of the 20th and 21st century were so very backward that they thought it was satisfactory to keep such a social intelligent being as a dog, which had proved time and again, his worth to man, in squalid, disgusting conditions, where he suffered terribly and didn't develop his full potential. And that governments failed to take the necessary steps to free him from this cruelty. Unfortunately there are always too many people with different agendas involved in things of this type, and the altruistic ones who want only freedom and happiness for the dogs, are bulldozed, and the dogs continue to suffer. Why do I bother? The parents are kept as they should be kept? Who decides what is the way the parents should be kept? Many people who keep their dogs in kennels on concrete floors do so because they have no choice because that is what their council says they have to do to own them. In fact most people who keep their breeding dogs in numbers of more than say 3 or 4 which sleep in the house and live the way I think they should live are doing so illegally. They are the rougue breeders and they are the ones who will be pinged with any new laws - not the ones who have complied with council planning laws and have lots of pens with concrete floors. The dogs are removed from their loungerooms though many would prefer they could keep their dozen or so small breed dogs inside the house with them. Most of us are breaching council by laws and most of us do everything we can to avoid council or RSPCA visits because we know they will make us keep our dogs differently if they allow us to keep them at all. I spoke with a registered breeder today from Queensland She owns 160 acres and owns 6 dogs and has been living where she does for over 10 years in a rural zone. She now has to pay $1500 permit fee to be able to breed dogs on her property as well as yearly rego fees and council engineers are now assessing what she will need to do to be able to get this permit as far as housing for her dogs are concerned. Her breed doesnt cope well with being separated from each other and they have lived in the house all their lives. She is going to desex her dogs and never breed again if they make her house them in kennels to be able to breed them. I dont blame her. She is a rougue breeder.

Hmm, not always, as you know. And I am NOT having a go at you. I would never do that. Never None of these moves to licence/inspect/regulate/harrass/torment and annoy breeders will improve the lives of registered purebred dogs one iota. Steve (another thread) There are no hard stats. Why does federal law need to be changed to outlaw pets from pet shops? the opinion I got didn't think so. I don't give a rats what people breed, as long as the pups are as healthy as they can be, and the parents are kept as they should be kept. Which is NOT in those abortions called puppy farms. OodlieDoodlies which I think are a bit of a joke, and cross breds are all good with me. Not purebreds, but not their fault, and purebreds are not always what people want. 50 years in the future, if there are any dogs remaining - the citizens of the time will be appalled that the primitive people of the 20th and 21st century were so very backward that they thought it was satisfactory to keep such a social intelligent being as a dog, which had proved time and again, his worth to man, in squalid, disgusting conditions, where he suffered terribly and didn't develop his full potential. And that governments failed to take the necessary steps to free him from this cruelty. Unfortunately there are always too many people with different agendas involved in things of this type, and the altruistic ones who want only freedom and happiness for the dogs, are bulldozed, and the dogs continue to suffer. Why do I bother? Thats right there are no stats so when one side says most puppies bred in puppy farms - remember their definition of a puppy farm is not a commercial breeding establishment - and the pet shop industry says thats not true - we dont source our puppies from puppy farmers - which one is telling the truth? You have the ANKC and the AVA backing PIAA and no one is going to sign off on any laws which are going to restrict trade without a whole lot more going down than what is in the mix now. In Australia we have different laws to UK and USA called Fair trading laws and they are federal. That means in this country the ACCC will override any laws which are more prohibitive trading laws in any state. Why on earth would pet shops buy puppies which come from people who are puppy farmers - according to the definition the RSPCA round table came up with - they dont need to and if they did they would have more dropping dead and more complaints than they could deal with. A puppy farmer is someone who breeds dogs in substandard conditions - no one can prove that they are sold to pet shops and pet shops say they are not. If in fact they are before anything is ever going to go anywhere someone had better show the figures to prove it because if we dont all thats going to happen is breeders are going to get more and more and more crap on them in case they too are puppy farmers.

Are you sure? They are breeding cross bred dogs (read mutts) and have no code of ethics to answer to. They have nobody keeping an eye on how many litters they are breeding because there is nobody registering the pedigrees, because they are not paying any registration fees to any registry. They could be breeding every season and nobody knows nor cares. They are just the type of breeder that puppy buyers should be warned to stay away from .... they are answerable to nobody. Big statement to say that such a breeder is not a puppy farmer! Souff Around and around the merry go round. Way back when I first came in here I asked - what is a puppy farmer and told everyone the definition according to the people who are pushing most for new laws but still its obvious there are a hundred or so definitions of what a puppy farmer is.

It wont happen. Every time this comes up it has no hope because when they start pushing it they dont think it through. Im disappointed that people who I would have thought would know the laws and the need for real research which will impact dont do it all before they start it all going again. Before they can stop pets being sold in pet shops they have to change federal law . They have to have real stats and figures and not quote numbers which are so easily refuted. While ever any push to stop pets being sold in pet shops is based on opinion and assumption those pushing it will be seen as rednecks.

Kate was Peter's daughter - not Kate Scoffeld who is the leader of the AAPDB but another Kate.

yep.

The UQ study found the trend was towards registered breeders getting it right in socialising their puppies & controlling their litters. That means the significant number must be complying with the ethical guidelines of their Canine Association. Because you've have to do that, in order to get those outcomes. There you have a ready-made case that the ethical guidelines of the Canine Associations are already making a significant positive impact on the breeding of purebred dogs. It's logical, then, that further emphasising self-regulation by the professional association would be a way to go. If something is working, just make the same thing work even better. Simply introduce keeping of basic health care record cards plus Canine Association ethical guidelines in the form of self-checklists, and insert a requirement that a registered breeder is willing to have an Association representative visit. (Note, just be willing, not some schedule of visits). Rogue registered breeders can be picked up via these means & by (what others have mentioned) current council/kennel licensing requirements. It's at that level, there'd be a role for the RSPCA, which should be grateful that self-management would already have screened out as fine, the majority of registered breeders. Those arguing for further laws to combat puppy-farming should be made aware of the UQ study findings.....which clearly found the worrying trends were more towards unregistered breeders. Yes but thats what we are already doing - see MDBA code of ethics for breeders but that wont make any difference. we will all be treated as if we are potentially pond scum. there is something else here which is really bugging me and that is that everyone is just assuming that no one can possibly be doing the right thing by their dogs if they are not registered with the ANKC. Thats just not necessarily true and this constant push just makes it easier to knock us down when we keep telling them we are better just because we are registering our pedigrees. If it were that simple we wouldn't be where we are now.

Look there is a big difference to having someone like me coming in to have a look at where you breed puppies and council and RSPCA coming in with checklists. We all know if the whole thing comes in the way its shaping up it wont be someone like me coming in to look at where you whelp your puppies or how you house your breeding dogs. There is never any real figures shown as a result of solid research. No one really knows how many of these terrible breeders there are or how many puppies they breed are sold via pet shops, or how many end up unhealthy or poorly socialised or how many from pet shops end up in pounds. Tens of thousands of breeders are expected to be penalised and legislated out of existence because how many get it wrong?

Have you read it fully. Are we talking about the same document the 117 page document. ok shortstep. i'm officially confused. what is the 117 page document you're talking about? because a lot of what you think should be is actually included in the proposed oscar's law. we were asking for legislation to be drawn up, unless you are privvy to information that the rest of us don't know i think you may be confusing what we are proposing in victoria with what is in place in other states. seriously oakway. i'm happy to discuss these issues because they are important. but i can't do that unless i actually know what you're trying to say. and generally, yes. every time anything to do with legislation gets pulled into dol, we have the same argument. the RSPCA is evil, power hungry maniacs. i am getting a bit sick of it, but i will continue to say, i don't agree with the fact that they have a serious conflict of interest but someone needs to act, the state government has decided to give them that job, and they do it. are they perfect, no. do i believe they can fight dirty? yes if they think it is needed, as politicians can too. it is because they can be like a jrt after a rat that i think giving them the opportunity to go after puppy farmers is a good idea-they are waiting to be able to do it. (i'm not persoanlly 'up' on the debarking case you guys have mentioned, so there is no way i could ever make an educated comment on that) BUT if that conflict of interest is your main bugbear then why not prepare a nicely worded and well researched document stating why this is the case and send it to honchos in police, and members of the upper and lower houses, even the mayor's office. nothing gets changed if you don't try, but if you come angry and full of hatred you won't be listened to. we know it is easier to get things done rather than undone, especially in victoria-which is the state we are talking about here, not nsw, qld, tasmania. honestly, a lot of what you guys seem to be arguing about doesn't make sense when we are talking about the rally yesterday. no-one was trying to shut down breeding dogs, just trying to ensure that it occurs in an ethical way. nothing is set in stone and i'm sure that the organisers of the rally would have loved to have practical imput from registered ethical breeders to help define what constitutes unethical and how to shut it down. yes, there is the issue that all breeders may be targeted if the legislation is not drawn up carefully, a point i expressed to ted baillieu and he agreed. but the only way to ensure that the only 'breeders' we catch under the net of any new legislation is by talking and developing it so that it won't, that process should include registered breeders and their governing bodies, if they want to come to the party they are most welcome, even needed. seriously, i've never heard people bashing regsitered breeders. i've only ever heard the fear from registered breeders that this is the case. perhaps i move in very educated circles? though i admit, i am frustrated that some people on dol get so angry and irritated about people buying from oet shops and don't seem to want to change that, in education or in legislation. it baffles me... steve, i'm sorry, but if it takes your sense of justice to be offended to shut down these kinds of operations, then yes. i think a lot of people will have that be the cost. privacy is all very well but we can't fight secrecy and cruelty without dotting 'i's and crossing 't's. would you rather have your privacy and know that the ability to shut down those people in 'the back of boonies' are churning our poorly bred pups, with no thought for the bitch's and dog's welfare? i'm not sure, privacy is valued differently to everyone, but i reckon that having someone come and tick off your dogs conditions (which i don't doubt are fantastic, i'm not saying you don't care seriously for you animals and future homes) is a small price to ensure that sentient animals don't live in cages and unhealthy conditions (mental and physcial). though i'm sure we could have legislation that doesn't include someone ticking you off, as long as you abide by council and state laws, unless you are breeding more than a certain number of bitches/ or have a certain number of entire females-and in that case, a tick would be all that's needed...? phew! sorry it is an essay! If I thought that there was a snowballs chance in hell of shutting down rotten breeders by small hobby breeders having to give up their rights Id be backing it and agreeing its worth the cost but it wont happen and the only ones it will stop breeding dogs is people who should be breeding dogs.

Why on earth would anyone put non smoking in an ad for a puppy? Gad I'm must be getting old.

being spot on for a family or individual buying one pup/dog as a pet. Of course the animal is not going to do well on it's own isolated. A dog alone on its own away from other dogs and humans is not what we want. Dogs living in a breeders or exhibitors establishment where the number of dogs and or sexes means that for some of the time at least they need to be kennelled etc are not alone, they have the rest of the dog pack to interact with. I don't see this as unacceptable and that the dogs are missing out on anything, they have their dog family around as well as the times they spend with their humans. So I don't see this as contradictory. Does this change anything for you? Thanks Crisovar, this does change things for me, somewhat. I am now thinking of my 2 dogs while we are at work. I'm only comfortable with this situation, as I think their lives are 'fulfilled' for want of a better word, when we are home, and they don't display behaviours which would indicate otherwise. So, yes this could be achieved in the kennel situation described, but I still don't think it would be as easily maintained as in a home situation, and therefore, would probably not be an overly common situation in a large kennel. Which, once again, is why I think breeding operations need to be judged individually. And, just out of curiosity, in a large kennel such as the one mentioned, when you say they have each other to interact with, do you mean they are in the same pens, more than one dog? I've never visited a registered 'kennel', but have had a few described to me, that always sounded more like boarding kennels to me, one dog per pen, with basic needs met, but no 'playthings' to keep minds stimulated, etc. I think the DOCS comparison is a tad ridiculous, unless you're breeding and selling children. I have been breeding children - 8 to be exact and I have more rights to how I house them than and treat them than I do in how I raise my dogs and that is a much bigger piece of ridiculous in my opinion. I spend a major part of my life in getting it right for my dogs but its all negated because someone who doesn't breed dogs - never has and never will wants to stop someone else who has nothing to do with me or my dogs.

Steve, I know what you're saying. The registered breeders that I've adopted my adult tibbies from stay in touch & always ask 'How is my girl going?' And I love them for it. Just shows with how much love, care & personal attention those dogs were raised. OK, they're my dogs now, paid for (with money the breeders didn't care much about), microchipped and registered in my name. But there's a lovely bond that will always exist between their breeder & them. So, of course, they still say, 'My dog'. That's the precious, secret ingredient in the best produced purebred dogs. Pet-owners should know that's what to look for! It's the key thing that puppy-farming (whoever does it) does not do...& hasn't a clue even exists. Hi Mita And there is no better feeling in the world than when a person who brought a puppy from you either brings it back to see you when it has matured or you catch up somewhere and the puppy/dog remembers exactly who you are and gets so excited to see you again, to me it is quite an emotional experience and shows that the puppy loved you and trusted you. I am sure puppy farmers who produce huge amounts of puppies would never have that sort of experience, how could they possibly form any sort of a bond with the amount of puppies they breed. Pam I love every baby I breed but I bond with the ones I keep a thousand times more as they share my life with me. Matilda was there for me when my Mum and Dad died, she was there to greet me when I came home from hospital with a new baby and she saw me through a divorce and a new marriage. No puppy I send home with a new family shares those sort of things with me and while Im very happy to hear updates and to know they are happy and their new families are feeling for them what I feel for mine if they don't share my life with me snuggle up with me of an evening etc for the first few years of their life its not the same for me. I still care but there is no equal to the love I feel for the ones who are a constant part of my life. When I sit with these girls and watch them giving birth the feelings I have for them are in part because I love them so much and I dont want to just have baby puppies with a stranger.

But Mita thats really the whole point for all of us - it cant be put into legislation and it offends my sense of justice to entertain the idea of some ranger coming into my home to see whether or not my birthing establishment is acceptable to them even though there is no reason why it wouldn't be. Should I have no rights to do what I want within my own home without getting a tick because someone somewhere breeds hundreds of puppies in a shipping container out the back of the boonies without giving a damn about their welfare?

Amazing- How many parents would want DOCS coming to their homes and doing random inspections on where their kids sleep? How many parents don't have the right to choose whether their kids are not vaccinated? I have a 13 year old son who has been to the doctors [except for vaccinations] twice in his life. Thank God I don't have to keep health records for him! I went to the doctors this year on my birthday - the first time for 6 years yet I'm a bad person if I don't take my dogs every year?????

I guess it all depends on why you breed dogs and what you expect to get out of it yourself. When I whelp a litter I share the experience with my bitches. Bitches I know and love as I do my family. For me just bringing the bitch back when she is to have puppies would be like being a nurse or midwife to humans.No emotional attachment - just a job. Thats not what I get out of breeding dogs. My bitches are my mates and I care about them more than I can put into words - if they lived with someone else I wouldn't know them as well and they wouldn't know me either. No bonding not for me.

With respect, I disagree. Situations in Europe can throw up ONE way in which a breeder's purebred dogs can be kept. No one is suggesting, it should be the only way. The champion-stock greyhound girl next door (in Australia) is kept according to that system. Results are...happy dog, happy pet owner, happy syndicate & splendid contributions to the bloodline. MY purebred dogs will never be kept at anyone else's property - never.