Steve

What's the purpose of giving out papers?? What can a puppy buyer do with them? I'd be concerned about the long term use of them - more and more people BYBing puppies and claiming they have papers. Fact is that unless your puppy comes from a breeder registered with the official canine council and has been registered by that breeder then you simply don't get papers. If you're so concerned about having them then buy a puppy from the right sources. Thats one way of looking at it but the reality is that some breeders want to breed cross bred dogs and still be able to give out a registered pedigree certifying who the ancestors are - and in Victoria being able to do is part of the criteria for the breeders in a group to qualify for exemptions - which is why the AAPdb were considering doing the same - not sure if they do.

The address is the same as a furniture removalist in Victoria.

It was a truly beautiful and inspiring nomination - clearly well deserved.

It means that someone believes the nominee is doing a great and positive job for dogs and has taken the time to say so More info on the awards is available here

I think they will fill a demand - we turn heaps away who are breeding cross breeds and want to give papers out to their puppy buyers sure the CC must too.

They say they are

We are doing pretty well thanks Kavik Julie Thanks :) I haven't heard much from you guys lately so wasn't sure how you were going. So with this new one it makes 3 registries? More like 20

Big congratulations to bazilybazbaz nominated for Canine Foster Carer of the year in this years MDBA dog owners choice awards And Hannah Orr for Excellence in Contribution and or leadership in Canine Affairs I forgot to ask Hannah if she was a Dogz member but Im sure many of you know her for the works she does with Rescue and several pounds around Cootamundra.

We are doing pretty well thanks Kavik Julie

The RSPCA and AWL can only operate within the state laws Codes of practice, companion animals laws and animal cruelty etc. If the law says that 30 mins twice a day is enough they cant come in and say its not enough and if the breeder says they are getting it then it’s virtually impossible to prove otherwise. If the law allows one person to look after up to 200 dogs they cant do a thing about it even if its not working. None of us want to see dogs locked in concrete cells all their lives but in some states this is what is required. You cant get approval to breed dogs if you don’t keep them in such a shocking environment. In some states they RSPCA can police the codes of practice in others they cant Councils are responsible for development applications and approvals and Inspections etc. RSPCA Australia has been pushing for laws across states – the same regardless of where you live - but it is really all about management rather than welfare and little of it is based on what is best according to the science of the species. There really is so much to talk about from whether we as breeder should be made to even have the most basic of decisions taken from us such as the need to feed every dog out of a bowl at least once per day and there is a fine line between what is best and or easiest for the humans and making money and a greater line for what really is best for dogs. There are so many loop holes and so much that most are not aware of. There isn’t any point in telling everyone where to buy or not to buy when the places you are telling them they should buy from don’t have any puppies for sale or won’t sell to them.

Agreed Mita Unless we also consider supply and demand - if we make it so hard for small breeders and the demand is constant the big big breeders take up the slack . We need more small breeders so there isnt so much demand for a puppy bred anywhere.

I cant imagine how anyone person could want to own more than 10 fertile dogs either but the fact is clearly some do and some even have what I believe to be good reason - someone owning 10 chis is rather different to someone owning 10 staffies.

Yes If I was in Victoria and voting this issue would turn me off . My point is that while ever we make laws that focus on management rather than welfare we dig bigger holes for the dogs. If his focus is on numbers we don't go anywhere. Breeders have had to spend so much money on concrete cells that they have to breed huge numbers to get their money back. There are better answers.

Pedigrees are about history. The history of a dog's antecedents. People used to give a damn about such things and they valued their dogs enough to record ancestry. They cared enough about dogs and the roles they performed to selectively breed dogs for certain roles. Until not that long ago, that was pretty common. Pedigrees are NOT the problem. They did not cause BSL. What caused it is the fact that people are so isolated from dogs and breeding that they give no thought to the parents of the pups they buy. Many no longer see them. They don't understand dog behaviour and they don't care enough about their dogs or their community to socialise and train their dogs to make them safe. The problem doesn't lie with the dogs and the sooner you grasp that, the sooner you'll stop blaming the KCs for the problem. It's people who breed and buy irresponsiblly and who think dogs are "just a dog". That doesn't describe the pedigree dog world who neither cause nor enshrine the legislation that perpetuates the myth that dangerous dogs are born, not made. They also cannot control the behaviour of people who choose to breed or buy dogs with no regard to their inherent characteristics. Write your book but as far as I'm concerned you are barking up the wrong tree. Stop blaming dogs and pedigrees and start looking at the kind of people who have dangerous dogs and the kind of people too stupid to create legislation to deal with them. If you're interested in health or temperament, pedigrees do a crappy job of recording history. They tell you breed, birth date, colour, and immediate ancestors back three, five, or if you push it, more, generations. They tell you about which dogs are imported and record titles. THEY DO NOT TELL when the ancestral dogs died or what they died of. They do not tell you anything about the dogs' health or temperament. They do not tell you about siblings and half sibs and whether they lived to a ripe old age or were pts'd for health or temperament problems. Mine do.

And when government changes hands you still have the same public servants who advise them so it goes on the same regardless of who is in power - minor changes but nothing that helps.

I hear you and if it wasnt for the "all breeders will only own 10 dogs" I would have been the first to vote for them but they lost me with this one.

Must consistof a minimum of 30 minutes human handling per dog daily So someone tell me how does one human "staff" handle up to 200 dogs for 30 mins each day?

Then look at how long they have to be exercised - adult dog 2 x 30 mins per day !

Here are some of the issues in the mix in Victoria with a push on for the same crap in each state. First one Before this code was changed there was no staff ratio other than enough to adequately care for the animals. This meant that someone could come in and tell them they needed more staff to cover it and they had to comply. If someone can show me how this change in the legislation could possibly make things better for the dogs who live there and see less dogs suffering, and why addressing how many a breeder can own before anything else on the list I would appreciate it Do the sums and work out how many one staff member is able to look after and legally be seen to be having the right staff to dog ratio. Remember– bitches usually come in season together and some breeds have up to 14 in a litter my experience tells me an average of 6 per litter is a fair assumption. According to the code of practice. 2 (6) Staff ratio The minimum of one full-time staff member (includes any staff member including proprietor, operations manager and animal attendants)must be onsite at the business for every 25 fertile animals (or equivalent)housed in the business during business hours. The staffing ratio must be maintained 7 days per week. A single fertile animal equivalent is: • any animal over the age of 16 weeks • a litter and its mother while the litter remains housed with its mother • a litter no longer residing with its mother, but under the age of 16 weeks. For example, 14 females, 3 males, 6 litters residing with their mothers, and 2 litters without their mothers is equivalent to 25 fertile animals and require one full-time staff member during business hours. In addition, the minimum of one staff member (includes any staff member including proprietor, operations manager and animal attendants)must be onsite at the business for every 100 fertile animals (or equivalent)housed in the business overnight. For example, 80 females, 5 males, 10 litters with their mothers and 5 litters without their mothers is equivalent to 100 fertile adults and requires one full-time staff member overnight. In addition, sufficient staff (including those already residing at the business overnight) for a ratio of 1:50 fertile animals (or equivalent) housed in the business overnight must be 'on call' to attend the business in the case of an emergency. On call overnight staff must be able to travel to the property within 30 minutes of contact. Overnight staff must be available to care for whelping/queening animals, sick or injured animals and undertake emergency activities should the need arise.

They are both dead They were both breeding dogs as they lived together in one apartment and were married which equals one union. I rest my case. For the record they were not breeding dogs - they had purchased a pair of dogs which they were intending to breed with when they moved onto a larger property and they made the breeder who sold them the dogs believe they were intending to do it all right. Dont believe everything you read and make assumptions about in a newspaper. The dogs were only 4 months old.

O.K. L.G. Ill rise to the challenge - send me your address via PM and Ill send you a sample of a formulation to try.

Sometimes they can develop an allergy to something which has been used and if her contact allergy is about plants its entirely possible that the dog has now developed an allergy to more plants including the Calendula Im in a rush now but will come back with some suggestions.

And the ANKC is pro pet shops - they stood against calls for bans when Clover Moore was pushing the ticket.

This week Ive had the opportunity to chat with someone who is a puppy farmer - only breeds first cross dogs and un papered purebreds for nothing else but the money. nothing is ever advertised and they are flown out with all expenses paid to a pet shop in WA. She owns 85 dogs - when you listen to what they do to dodge the system makes you realise what is really going on.

10 bitches & limit the number of litters a bitch can have to 5. I wonder how they are going to police that with unregistered backyard bogans The puppy farmers don't register their pups anyway....so how will they know if a particular unregistered bitch has had more than five litters its all tied up with council - assuming someone is within the law and registers their dogs and microchips them etc. In victoria if you are not Vicdogs you have to have a licence for more than 3 dogs now to be able to breed them but it will only affect those doing the right thing as usual.