Steve

I don't read it that way at all. The dog may be owned by someone overseas but someone still signs the export paperwork. Yep - the owner or their agent . When Dan Mcdougall was operating in Hawaii puppies were sold to his agent Transpet - PIAA registered and shipped out the Monday after they turn 8 weeks. The breeder no longer owned them at the time they flew out.

A member shall not:Sell or dispose of a dog to a commercial pet wholesaler or retail pet shop unless they are accredited by the Victorian Canine Association Inc. and the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA).

Dont you love these two 20.1.17 A member shall not, within Australia, sell or otherwise transfer from that member's care any puppy under eight [8] weeks of age without the approval of the Victorian Canine Association Inc; A member shall not export a puppy under the age of eleven [11] weeks, or such greater age permitted under the livestock import requirements of the country to which the puppy is being exported. So you can sell a puppy and transfer the ownership of a puppy to someone in another country - then its their dog not yours so they can import it into their country when its 8 weeks old.

Waiting until after 18 months for one of my beagles means she may not mate until her 4th heat season - against all science and recommendations for canine reproduction and everything Ive done in the breed for over 40 years with nothing but great results.What a joke.

wrt 2.19 - setting the thresholds at 8 years: shouldn't this threshold depend on the breed?...8 years is pretty old for e.g. a great dane or dogue de bordeaux...?... I think they're assuming that a registered, ethical breeder isn't going to just go ahead and breed an aged dog. Maybe you should write to them if you're so worried about it There are also plenty of breeds that are middle-aged or at least not too old to have puppies at 8 years of age. Especially a dog that's made an excellent mother & is healthy. It would be a shame to cut off dogs any earlier even if they're perfectly healthy. (By plenty of breeds I'm thinking of smaller breeds and some medium sized breeds, I know an Aussie bitch who had a litter at 8 years old - very healthy girl and an excellent mother). You can't regulate every single decision a breeder makes. And a veterinary certificate means that a vet considers a dog fit to breed. Another note, breeding dogs can be a time-sensitive exercise. Sometimes you'll only have access to certain bloodlines that you want to mix with a certain bitch, by then it may mean she's a bit older...it's good that there is a way to get permission through a vet certificate if necessary. Too bad they couldn't just simply trust that the person who is living with them will make the right decision and not do something that would be against the welfare of the dog. But of course purebred breeders are potential animal abusers and criminals so best to placate the loonies and write it into their regs.

Its different in every state and in at least 3 states it has to be considered in conjunction with state law and codes of practice.

BSL is stupid and everytime this comes up there is the same old crap that never goes anywhere. Fighting for one dog or one breed or threatening people that if they don't take up the good fight that they or their dogs or breed will be next is pointless. Im not sure how long the same old thing can be carried on without result before the message sinks in. Its about politics and votes. Its nothing to do with the KCs or their rules and restriction other than they would kick and yell louder than anyone else does now if it were one of their breeds. For every bad thing said about one of their breeds there is easily found counter argument about how great that breed is and lots of voters own them. The public get outraged when some dog gets out and turns up in a neighbour's lounge room and kills a child. They get ticked off when they cant take their own family or dogs for a walk without some crazy dog attacking them or threatening them they want to go to parks and push their kids on a swing and run around an oval without fear of being attacked by a dog. Governments want to find what looks like they are looking after their community and keeping it safe and the statistics and propaganda supports them in being seen to be doing something without fear of losing too many votes. If you want to fight BSL you have to fight it at a political level with a strategic plan to get it to a place where those who make the laws see a benefit for them in reconsidering. Rather than chasing possible supporters off and beating your hands on the table and allowing emotion to interfer with a long term goal it is going to take someone to shut up and look at it differently so it can be fought differently in co operation with identified stake holders. All of this nonsense about the environment , exclusion, "you and yours is next" and the like and the "does anyone care" and a wait and react to any opportunity that comes up to state your case strategy - stand back and reconsider where you have been and where you want to go. How about considering making it a pro campaign rather than an anti campaign?

Busy indeed - Good luck

Good luck to you too we missed last time as well so hae everything crossed here

10 days . I bet they feel like 20 for you Im holding my breath for you and seven.

Its not a rule that demands the KCS be the only refuge of values and purpose for dogs.In fact in the year 2016 that's simply crazy. The KCS represent a minority group who breed a vast minority of dogs. Take a good look at state legislations , RSPCA AWL, AAPDB, the MDBA, working dog groups etc Hanging out here on this forum it may be easy to believe that they are pushing the values and purpose for dogs but best you get a better look around at the current environment. Last year in NSW there was a committee into the welfare of breeding dogs in NSW and Dogs NSW was one voice out of over 300 and as far as I can see NOTHING they wanted as values or purpose got anywhere.

Thank you. No, thats not what I mean. They should be permitted to be bred, BUT: Cross breeds should NOT be registered - Until and unless they become a recognizable type in demand, With enough following to support a breed club. They don't have to be predictable, As long as there is a purpose. If that purpose leads to a distinct type, with clear value to the purpose, that is how your breeds were formed. The ability to do that is the foundation on which the K.Cs stand. To not recognize that, is to undermine your own foundations. Pedigree breeders must have the option to breed dogs that WON'T be eligible for registration. Or showing. Just like every one else who hasn't signed up the the K.Cs constitution. For Biophysical reasons, they can't survive long term with out that. The SPECIES needs that change to survive. Pedigree dogs are interdependent with breeders who DON'T work under a pedigree system. When pedigree breeders suffer a blow, so do those who aren't. And It works the other way too. All BECAUSE of that rule. There needs to be recognition we are serving the same values. That is NOT the pedigree. Its the dogs, for the purpose we find in them. The pedigree has value as a tool. For its purpose. But it isn't THE purpose. Or else you are serving the pedigree, not the dogs. Any values we have for dogs and how we should be responding to them as a species is dependent on the purpose we as individuals get from the dogs. The pedigree is one way to access and possibly increase the value. Nothing more. It does not, in reality, divide the species into a value system Vs none, because any value is in the Dogs. That rule irrevocably divides the environment into two incompatible halves. It sends a message to divide what CAN'T be divided, so the only option is to divide again. And again. And again. Decreasing each time because the only way to put all the value into one environment is to decrease the environment able to hold those values. We lose our ability to respond to the species in the ONLY way that can see it evolve effectively AS a species. Under that rule. Take it away, and pedigree breeders AND those not in a breed registry, can BOTH become much more responsible and effective, with pedigree breeders representing the breeds much more effectively and EARNING a favored role in direction. The quality of membership would rise with the quality of the environment they come from. Against my better judgement I will say this again. I believe that you do not understand the value of the pedigree . Any body breeding any dogs whether they be cross bred, purebred or otherwise can make better breeding decisions if they know the ancestry of the dogs they are breeding .Every single time you use a dog for breeding which you dont know whats in its pedigree there is a greater risk that you will bring puppies into the world which will break someone's heart .Not much point in a dog being a great worker if it develops Degenerative Myelopathy at 6 years and by then it has spread its genetic material to a couple of generations. There is no such thing as a KC which does not have provision for allowing the stud books to be opened and for dogs to be entered which are not already registered with them. Right now in the UK every single breed's stud book is open. Yes there is a requirement for anyone to wants to use outside dogs to go through a process for permission and show cause as to why a particular dog which is not registered would benefit the breed but this serves the purpose and protects the breed. A KC may have as part of its rules that you cant breed other dogs if you are one of their members but they cannot restrict what a breeder does with dogs which are not registered as long as they don't breed them to dogs which are registered. In other words a purebred breeder in Australia is able to breed purebred dogs and cross bred dogs as long as they are not inter bred without approval . A KC has no ability to do anything about someone who is doing something different with dogs that they don't have any control or say over. Registered breeders of Working dogs have an even greater ability to have working dogs included in their breeding program if they are not already registered .

Yep but its common practice around here so therefore I assume its relatively common throughout the state. If they haven't done anything to enforce it in all this time why would we believe that its going to get better rather than worse. When breeders work out that they can be exposed as to how many litters they breed and its been stated that if they breed higher than average numbers it will alert a potential issue for them its hardly an incentive for those not doing it to begin doing it. This whole load of crap about breeders having to have an ID number or chip number in their ads has already shown it cant be enforced and doesn't work. There is a lot they need to fix before they proceed. You have people who get their staff to take puppies to get chipped and the name and address on the chip paper has to be of the person present because you need a signature. If the breeder isn't present or if they say they are not the breeder the pup is never chipped in the breeder's name. So how will they record who the breeder is if the breeder isnt present etc? No ID is ever required so you can give any name and address anyway. If you sell a puppy with no chip you have to be pretty unlucky to get found out and many claim its worth facing the fine rather than comply. There are so many honest mistakes made and things that cant be controlled. Over the last 6 months Ive had puppies chipped and a week later when its time to send them home there is no chip scanning. If I didnt have my own scanner I wouldn't have any idea that the chip had gone missing. Ive had girl dogs chipped as males and vice versa.Dogs with chip numbers going home with chip numbers of dogs sent to another state before I had the scanner because the vet recorded the markings wrongly. I had one litter of puppies all chipped on the same day form the same litter who's paperwork was processed by council with 3 different dates of birth - error made by a vet nurse. So now I stand and read every single chip form before I sign it which I never did before. Then you get the vet and the breeder signing off on what breed the dog is and those who process it change it so the dog is registered as a different breed to what it is! Its impossible to get the breed changed to what it really is. There is one dog which I sold , changed the papers over and then 2 years later found out its still in my name with council at the new owners address and its been registered with council in another town and desexed. The new owner attended council to pay the registration fee and they changed it back to my name but kept her address. I hope they listen to people who see these things so they can work on solutions as they are putting the thing together but experience tells me that they have an idealistic view of how things are and should be and go off half cocked. At the end of the day no matter what they want to do to placate those who think more regulation is the answer its about the integrity of the breeder. They need to promote and reward those who are doing it right rather than make statements about how if you do it right its a way of them being able to find potential problems with you.

Nup - she told the vet she had been breeding dogs for 40 years and always vaccinated but never chipped and she wasn't starting now.

Unlikely if they are only investing $200,000 into the whole of NSW! :laugh: Or am I reading that wrong? It sounds next to pointless. Just a waste but keeps them sounding like its progress .I was in the vets office last week when she received a phone call from another breeder booking in a litter of puppies .She wanted to have them vaccinated only - no chips. So I listened while the vet tried to encourage her to go with chips . The breeder told my vet that if it was something she didnt feel comfortable with and wanted to lecture her she would go elsewhere- so vaccs and no chips it was. My vet told me that was common. Hope they have some plan to enforce it but I can already think of 10 ways around it

Final report - looks to me that they will be able to know where breeders are and how many dogs they own anyway - if breeders comply and if someone is tasked with enforcing it My link

The PETA one is a crack up. Emotional rant. Desex everything. No more breeding. Yep and no more dogs at all is the result. At least other animal rights groups took the care to use facts in their submissions. Maybe - there were some that were kept secret and they were interviewed in camera. In other words they could say what they wanted. Why? Dunno - explanation wasn't given to us just that they had elected to keep what ever it was they had to say and use to press their point confidential and it was.

The PETA one is a crack up. Emotional rant. Desex everything. No more breeding. Yep and no more dogs at all is the result. At least other animal rights groups took the care to use facts in their submissions. Maybe - there were some that were kept secret and they were interviewed in camera. In other words they could say what they wanted.

If anyone is interested the submissions for this enquiry are available here The MDBA one is number 214.

We worked pretty hard to get our points across and show that it was not likely to stop any dog suffering - it feels good to have a win. I also note they threw out the idea of limits to numbers.

My link NSW Government baulks at puppy farm licensing scheme, against advice By state political reporter Sarah GerathyUpdated yesterday at 11:02am Animal welfare groups say they are disappointed the NSW Government has shied away from implementing key recommendations from an inquiry into the mistreatment of animals at puppy factories. Key points: Inquiry into NSW puppy farms received 300 submissions Among them were that dogs cannibalised each other at farms Instead of licensing scheme, Government opts for review of regulations and microchipping register The inquiry, which received more than 300 submissions, heard horrific allegations of neglect and abuse of animals at puppy farms, including accounts of hungry dogs cannibalising other animals and pups only being fed roadkill The inquiry recommended the Government set up a stand-alone licensing scheme that would require all breeders to register and include a licence number with the sale of each animal. Instead Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair announced the Government would conduct a review of the way the industry was regulated and ensure breeders were identified on the NSW Companion Animals microchipping register. "We know there's many breeders out there that are doing the right thing," Mr Blair said. "We believe that enhancing and working on the existing system will not only try and stamp out those that are doing the wrong thing, but won't put that extra burden on the many breeders out there who are doing the right thing and following the rules." He said the Government would also review whether prosecutions handed out to those who broke the law were adequate. The Government will spend $200,000 on a targeted compliance and education operation in relation to animal welfare standards in the pet breeding industry. , Premier Mike Baird uploaded a series of photos of puppies playing on his desk. "Today we announced that we will be reviewing penalties and enforcement measures to ensure that dodgy operators can be dealt with seriously and shut down where necessary," the statement reads. "It is simply unacceptable for people to be treating puppies or other animals in a cruel manner in an attempt to make a quick buck. We need to act and we will." Government response inadequate: Animal Justice MP But animal rights activists were less pleased than the Premier with the Government's response. Mark Pearson, an Animal Justice MP who was on the committee which conducted the inquiry, has slammed the Government's response. "It's extremely disappointing and it's really going to come back to bite the Government because they haven't addressed the fundamental concerns as to why the whole inquiry occurred in the first place," Mr Pearson said. "And that is because these puppy farms were operating and not being detected by regulatory authorities that are in place at the moment or by any that were recommended." He said without stronger action the cruel treatment at puppy factories would continue. "This issue is not going to go away," Mr Pearson said. "It's going to eventually embarrass the Government again and I'd say we'll be having [an] inquiry investigating all this within two years." The RSPCA's NSW chief executive Steven Coleman said the changes the Government was making were a step in the right direction, but they did not go far enough. "It is frustrating, we have had review after review, our ultimate approach to this now is we've exhausted all review opportunities," Mr Coleman said. "We've given the information that we saw fit from a practical and compliance perspective, now we just want to see some runs on the board."

Why are whole communities so complacent about their basic rights being taken away? Even if you don't own a pet or you think that if everyone desexed their dogs its the solution to animals in pounds that doesn't give the right to take over the property rights of people and enforce them to comply with t unproven and potentially harmful enforcement of knee jerk minority shouting. If the RSPCA think its a great idea to have everyone desex their dogs then why not do a targeted education campaign with the council and local vets or something similar to get their opinion across? Why is it necessary to interfere in a decision which should be made by a dog owner in conjunction with their vet as to what they believe is best for their dogs when all previous attempts at using this to control and bring down numbers in pounds has shown not to work? Its time dog owners started to consider suing councils who gave them no option but to desex their dogs when the dog later develops health problems which can be linked to a lack of hormones.

So if I decide to keep my animal entire and pay the fine - what then ? Id like to see them make the necessity to pay a fine stick . Also note that he says how many animals have been in care a but half of them may be mice and the number has reduce by a fair amount without this - so why is it needed? Proven not to work anyway - take a look at the stats in the ACT - no change.