Steve

There is another huge issue here that isnt politically correct to discuss - however in this country if you own a dog or 100 dogs regardless of what breed they are you can decide you want to have them go to god. As long as you do so humanely without suffering because its your property its your call. So some people think its cruel to breed dogs which will mean that some wont cut the grade and be destroyed.But its not cruel to breed a dog, to look after a dog well while it is alive and to kill the dog when you get the urge as long as you are not cruel to it just because someone else thinks that horrible. You can still eat a dog in this country as long as you dont cut its tail off before you kill it. My point is since when do others get to tell you whether you can have your dogs put down. Its the dog owners right under the federal law.

Who would have thought that ordinary every day people who want to own a couple of fertile dogs, maybe have a litter now and then, on a suburban block or even a couple of hundred acres would be regulated by such ridiculous rubbish and be made criminals? Who would have thought it was possible for someone who didnt get the DAB and had a litter to have their animals stolen from them rather than a shape up or else warning or even a fine.? Who would have thought animal rights would be able to collude with government to eliminate rescue's competition? Who would have thought we would get a labor government minister for Agriculture who was more eager to do animal rights bidding than industry stake holders. There are dozens of potential solutions to the perceived problem but they chose Oscar's Laws all the way - oh hang on what is that problem .Is it illegal puppy farms or people who keep their dogs in the type of housing they were told to?

I have a 4 month old beagle baby here which - what a disgusting thought- I intend to have a litter or two with her. As I watch her run and play and sleep at my feet I cant help but smile. I know that every single ancestor she has was bred by me,held by me, loved by me,appreciated for their qualities for 21 generations. Ive served my apprenticeship made some mistakes and I don't expect that many will get what it really does take to consistently breed dogs generation after generation that enrich people's lives, that don't need to see a vet every other month and live until their mid teens [some older] there are lots of things Ive done in my life I look back on and wish I hadn't done or that I had done differently but Im proud of what Ive done and learned with my dogs and it saddens me that the over regulation has taken away the ability of those who come behind me to know how great it feels.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats.

Agreed - perhaps its time for a Dog Breeders Union.

I just saw a flyer Vicdogs have just sent out to their members after their meeting last night. Looks to me that any members who have more than ten dogs are thrown under the bus and that they have given up on exemptions and no mention of a loss of basic rights. You can see the trade off as now they are saying if you have fertile dogs and don't intend to have a litter in a calendar year from April to April that you wont need a DAB - that protects those who show but don't breed. That's not what the bill said.

Those that are pushing this movement are not interested in the pedigree - they are only interested in dividing and conquering. What we should have spotted and what we all should be protesting about and sending out petitions for is for people who own an entire dog is to not have to surrender their base human rights. Hansard tells us that they have moved through and admitted what some of the rights are that they want to take off dog breeders. The right to privacy, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to free enjoyment of our property, the right to be able to purchase a product of our choice from an easily accessible source, the right to free trade, the right to not have our property taken from us without due process, etc. This isnt made up - its in hansard as part of the plan. THIS is the biggest issue that everyone who owns a dog that they want to breed, whether that be one or one hundred, whether they own a purebred or cross bred, registered or unregistered ,whether they want to source a puppy from a breeder or a pet shop are the real issues. They dont just want to limit numbers, take away exemptions make everyone have a licence They want to leave dog breeders with less rights than a pedophile. breeders should be able to have the same human rights as any other person who lives in this country because it is THIS they are trying to take way from them. Even if the number limitation does not fly and I don't believe it will, even if Vicdogs get their exemptions back and I dont believe they will, even if they change requirements for a DAB or change the codes it still leaves the fact that a person who is a dog breeder has their rights removed if these part of this bill are not removed.

Surely if this is a state based law and code the requirements for a DAB should be the same regardless of which council it is any where in the state.

What about if you own a fertile dog and have a DAB you cant own a pet shop or a rescue shelter.

I was just going to say that. If you buy this type they last for years.

At the end of the day Victoria has a minister for Primary industries who is more interested in animal right s than animal welfare who takes her direction and advice from radicals. The obvious presumption from reading the bill that they worked from was that dog breeders are what AR have portrayed us as. They [ with OL and other ratbags ] gave dog breeders who owned more than 10 dogs no choice but to house them in the way they have because The government decreed that unless they did they were cruel. Now over night it has been decided that everyone that houses a dog the way they have to house a dog to own them if they want more than half a dozen is committing an act of cruelty - great set up from AR who should never had as much input into the code that they did in the first place if anyone is being cruel by following their current laws and codes why did they make us do it - why didn't we fight harder against it and I hate to say I told you so but I told you so. Any one who has a single litter of puppies is considered to be a potential criminal and just in case they are they must lose their rights and any old time they like they can call something else cruel. They will not stop here .this wont work - everyone who has involvement in or knowledge of what came before, what has happened in other places who knows what its really like to own and live with breeding dogs knows its not going to work and its going to take them back to trying to find those who really do abuse their animals living in haystacks. You have a government who obviously believe that everyone other than those who own an entire dogs have a monopoly on caring for their animals and ensuring they live quality lives. Where does it stop - does it stop? Victoria already has a CRUELTY offence for taking a debarked dog to a dog show - even though it has been debarked by a vet .Just in that one alone they made taking it to a dog show a cruelty offence and dog owners let them do it. Bit by bit take away dog owners rights. Vicdogs have played their tune and been spineless every single step of the way and arrogantly thought that they were untouchable . Next month another huge campaign will start run by RSCPA , the AVA and other radical groups to educate the public about why they shouldn't buy brachy head dogs .The CC's and the MDBA have been warned its coming so the CC response is to tell their breed clubs nothing to worry about because their members will be the ones they recommend buying a puppy from. Again going along like lambs to their own slaughter and taking their members with them. Do they need MORE evidence that dog showing and breed standards and conformation issues have been under attack ? Do they really think this is only going to affect BYB? You know the BYB that they are now saying do LESS damage to a breed than show people. Few care more than they are frightened to stand up and fight . Will nothing wake dog breeders up? Will nothing stir them enough to over ride the fear they have of being targeted - not sure many have realised it yet but there really isn't much left to lose. Where are the leaders calling their members to action rather than telling them to settle and trust them to sort it out? The AR nutters know we wont unite because they planned it that way and as long as we are divided and cant fight for what we have in common - our rights no dog breeder will have any.

We are presenting our submission to all MPs but none of our members own more than 10 dogs, none of our members can or do sell puppies to pet shops, and every one of our Victorian Members is a Vicdogs member. Its Vicdogs who have the exemptions and stand to loose for their members. The MDBA doesnt have them and didnt want them because we could see the poo starting to hit the fan. In the main its not our fight. We are very concerned about the loss of a person's human rights across the board as described in Hansard and Im personally amazed that there isn't a bigger outcry over it.

As a pedigree cat breeder I find that offensive. Firstly, average litter size of 4 for cats. Secondly, maximum of 1 litter a year. And thirdly, all my kittens are desexed before they go to their new homes. It's the ferals, and cats at large whose kittens are the ones which majority end up in pounds and shelters! I still don't see why cat people can have 3 cats and dog people can only have one dog. Its most likely that its a glimmer of common sense that they should have applied to dogs. Cats dont take up much space and are small, etc where it might be a pug or a Great Dane so therefore keep it to one in case its a Dane. but seriously how would anyone know they make up the rules as they go along.

Yep fertile includes boys too. Will be interesting how they intend to make everyone who has a DAB - everyone who has a fertile dog and intends to breed that year - stay on the property during business hours. If they don't stick with that - which is the code now then how will they stop people form dropping 10 dogs on a property and just ducking in once a day to feed and water them? But of course you would only have to stay home all day every day during business hours if you intended to breed that year . What a bloody joke.

This is the hansard report of the tabling of the Victorian Legislation Please take a minute to read it especially page 22 to 26. Link

..

One has to question the base for the bill. Reduce all breeders to a maximum of 10 dogs on any one property - even though that's a bit loonie when you consider Great Danes and Chihuahuas ,the amount of people who live and work on a property, property sizes etc and a heap of other things you could actually see that in their ignorance they have said no more than 10 on one property to have only small colonies of dogs in the belief that smaller number regardless of all the variables equals greater welfare. But then they muck it up and put all of these other crazy restrictions on restricting people's ability to own other pet related businesses in case they break the law etc or have any other type of pet related business on the same property. Its sort of like saying a surgeon who owns a private hospital cant also own a facility that specialises in transplants - in case he grabs organs form one and illegal hands it to the other! You cant own a retail pet shop that doesnt sell live animals if you own a property that has less than 10 fertile dogs - That's going to cause em grief because its cuts across free trade and consumer rights and maybe others. Then they ban the sales of animals in pet shops - so we could say they think pet shops are a bad place for dogs on a welfare level but then they go nuts and allow rescue dogs to be sold in pet shops. If they are worried about who breeds and whether they have less than 10 dogs on a property the all they have to do is ramp up the regs on pet shops and they have already stopped anyone owning more than ten on one property anyway. But effectively they have squashed their own argument,allow one group who is technically competition for those they have banned to have a monopoly on a market and again bought into play all the things Clover Moore's ban on sales of animals in pet shops bill was bounced for - restriction of trade. federal laws haven't changes since then. You cant shut down someone's business in case they use an illegal supplier or in case they breach codes or laws. All they had to do was stick to the welfare thing and have NO live animals in pet shops and they may have stood a chance. They have clearly underestimated the work load for council if everyone who owns a fertile dog and want to breed it does what they want them to do. Thousands of Vic dogs members, tens of thousands of people who have three or less. Money for public education so people know their obligations Re issue admin every year, inspections, reports, complaints - will there be any money or people to look out for the really bad guys who will dig in? The Rangers on the Gold coast who were involved in pilot program that resembled this told me that originally they had a dedicated ranger to handle breeder licenses for those who owned fertile dogs. This was abandoned because no one - none applied for a permit and the only way they knew who some were was after complaints - No difference what ever to what it was before the pilot program. It failed so why on earth would they want to replicate it .laws to stop BYB and puppy farmers from advertising on line ideal strategy is a microchip number to be included ? Would all be funny if it weren' so serious. They always push for laws that are well intentioned but have gaping holes in them and then they whinge about their disappointment and start to push for harder and harder laws that atively impact on the small good guys How will it be assessed and reviewed and we all know what comes next is periodic harder and harder codes which only those who already comply will follow and more and more laws that people get a little upset about but on the whole carry on because no one ever enforces them anyway. Scoff laws.

Even if they only need to register as a DAB in the year they breed a litter they still need development approval which is a one off and doesn't need to be renewed.

Re the exemptions Victoria has been the only place in Australia and as far as I know world wide where members of a group were able to have these knd of exemptions . In some other states in Australia breeder members of applicable orgs get at most a slight reduction in registration fees but in Victoria a situation has come about whether by design or accident which has created the current situation. So back when everyone at VD was nice and snuggly warm about how they were better and different and special and would not have to deal with the nutty codes of conduct as long as they either stayed under 10 dogs or didn't tell anyone they had more than 10 dogs VD board and many of its members advocated for the codes to be so hard and have very little to do with best practice or because they thought they would never affect them.Wrong. Everywhere else people who breed dogs have had to comply with laws and codes equally regardless of whether they bred purebred or not, whether they belonged to one group or not and the world hasn't gone to hell and purebred dog breeders and their dogs are O.K. So now we have a situation where without exemptions registered breeders in other states have been able to cope and have survived nicely. In the big scheme of things if it were just exemptions it would be no big deal - but without the exemptions being a hobby breeder in Victoria is a much harder - because they made it that way because they wanted hobby breeders who were not VD to bugger off. The word is that because they think there will be no puppy farmers left in Victoria they will amend the code to be a bit less nutty. But how would you know what they will do or if you could trust them to get it right if you stopped yelling about loss of exemptions and beleived the codes wouldn't be so stupid. But wait - you see the real issue here is that if you intended to breed your dog anywhere in Victoria you already needed a development approval whether you needed to get a DAB or not . So if you were a VD member and had one litter of puppies without that you were breaking the local laws. MOST VD members never ever got these development approvals. If now they have to have a DAB then council will know who they are and where they are - up till now they didnt. So without the exemptions they have to follow harder codes AND they have to get a Development approval . That is where the major fear is . What if they don't get approval to breed dogs on their property because its in the wrong zone or any number of silly things they use to restrict dog breeders or until they have all they need to be compliant with the Code of Practice. Small breeders who had less than 3 dogs are in the same position. So effectively they don't want to loose the exemptions because they were breaking the law and if they get a DAB means they cant hide as they have been able to with the exemptions.

Its pretty amazing that in order to produce this bill that 100% affects breeders that the only stake holders that were included were RSPCA and Oscars law The minister for Ag made a statement that these amendments will only affect 90 people in Victoria - Screaming hot headline- she was way way off the mark

Im not DV member or management but. Up until now VicDogs members didn't need to comply with codes for breeding and rearing establishments if they owned less than ten dogs. They did have to comply with the code for keeping dogs and their VD codes. If everyone who owns a fertile dog has to now comply with the DAB where prior to this they only had to comply with the code for keeping dogs then many of them will find it impossible to comply on their current properties and without massive costs. VD have always maintained their members followed codes and they agreed to police their own codes and the code for keeping dogs not for DAB this was always council responsibility for their members who owned more than 10 dogs and didn't have an exemption. There is no mention in the application or requirements for exemption for an applicable org to police their members under the DAB codes as their members never had to comply with them unless they had 10 or more and had no exemptions. The consequence of this is that few of those VD breeders who have less than 10 dogs will now be able to comply and be eligible for a DAB and that part of the amendment takes place straight away as soon as its passed. So it appears to me that none of those breeders can keep even one of their fertile dogs on their properties. It means they have to move all of their fertile dogs out or break the law. It is difficult to see how managing this issue this way is conducive to what is best for the dogs. If the goal was to remove exemptions doing it this way is a disaster. The MDBA didn't want exemptions because we saw what was coming and doesn't have them- we don't think they are a good thing but many of our Victorian members own 2 or 3 fertile dogs that they have been able to breed without issue under the code for keeping of dogs. They also never needed a DAB and most if not all will not be able to fit with the requirements for a DAB. At least some of them too will need to make a decision in whether to get rid of their dogs, move or break the law. What of all the dogs owned by people who have been breeding dogs who own 3 fertile dogs under the keeping of dogs code who are not a member of a group who will now need to become a DAB ?

you only have to read the subject below this one. Vic dog breeders are in serious trouble if this gets through. Jaala Pulford once said to me on social media she didn't want to see the end of dog breeding. If she was telling the truth then she should have discussed the strategies with the peopel this law will affect .She stated publicly the current amendments would only affect 90 people in Victoria when in fact they will affect 10s of thousands.

Shows Sun and Mon of Cup Weekend are actually at Goonawarra Reserve, Rolling Meadows off Lancefield Rd Sunbury. Sunday is Working Dogs only but most exhibitors come for the weekend, Mon is Vic Womens All Breeds Ch Show And Tuesday is the Cup Day show at Sunbury, biggest single show in Vic I believe, held at Rec Reserve Riddell Rd Sunbury Should be some Corgis there although not many seem to be bred these days Oh no,there are lots and lots being bred. Whether they are being bred by good, registered breeders is the question. Well where are they? I know someone who has been looking for over a year and he is happy to take any about now whether its a good registered breeder or not.

I dont believe Vicdogs will get to keep their exemptions. They have been given heaps of examples of registered breeders who are not doing the right thing, the greyhound industry has shown self regulation and policing is a risk etc. Oscars law have done a good job at handing them all the reasons why they shouldn't keep them. Makes you wonder if they knew that they would loose exemption whether they would have signed off without a whimper to all the stupid codes and regs which will now apply to their members and their members dogs. there a hell of a lot of people who joined Vicdogs BECAUSE of the exemptions who would prefer not to be there - if they get no exemptions membership will make a quick decline too.

You can still own 350 dogs or more you just cant keep more than 10 fertile dogs on one rate able property at one time - No argument against free trade because as long as they own more than one property they can still carry on breeding as many as they want. No argument against people being able to buy a pup because if they spread onto other properties they carry on as they are. My mind is already jumping ahead to see how they can beat it .Will actually be cheaper for them to do that and only have to provide housing for 10 dogs on one property than 350 on one. That's not stopping free trade just ensuring no more than this are one one property .Of course we wont mention you could have hundreds or thousands [puppies] under the fertile age which is I think 9 months requirement at any time on one property. The big questions is how the hell do they think they can possible regulate and enforce it? How funny they cant even get people to register or chip their dogs let alone ask permission first for a litter etc . Notice since that report came out last week about the RSPCA not activating and not policing council codes that RSPCA are not policing it - only council and those they may contract to do it - lots of money to do this and lots of resources spent on minimum risk which will see neglect of the real filthy ones.