Steve

Pretty smart really Divided everyone pretty effectively and that leaves small groups fighting some bits and no one joining together. No one other than Vicdogs is going to care if they loose their exemptions and they have lost their exemptions to take effect as soon as the amendments are passed This is what happens when a government listens to screaming loonies and animal welfare animal rights etc who have nothing to do with breeding dogs rather than other stake holders. It is also a product of breeder groups not looking for what they have in common rather than what keeps them protecting their rights on their own. If Vicdogs didn't see this coming then they were the only ones who didn't .

I would also like to say. These days the public and sadly some breeders are educated by animal rights and a variety of other 'experts" and have expectations and a narrow view of how it all should be done so if a breeder seems to be stepping outside of that they start to worry.

Years ago I sold a puppy which was on limited papers to a great couple. I became great mates with them and they told me they were sorry they had purchased their dog on limited as they would love to have a litter from her. I took a long long look at her ,knew her lines so I knew I would have bred her if Id kept her so I agreed to upgrade her papers and allow them to have a litter. She was still registered in my name on the DogsNSW system. They didn't think they wanted any more than one litter so to me it made no sense for them to go through it all when I was helping them so I registered the litter in my prefix as if I still owned her. They decided they enjoyed the process and then joined DogsNSW and these days they breed and show and love the whole experience. I got nothing out of it except a good feeling that Id had the opportunity to help someone get started. Ive no doubt that some wouldn't agree with me but I love seeing new breeders come in and it was sort of like a trial run for them before they paid out a stack of money and had a go of it on their own.

Except getting one at that age doesn't give you much time with them - they have a pretty short life span.

I've been wondering if the dog (I assume it was a bitch) was sold or leased on breeders terms? Why else would anyone let someone use their prefix? Breeders allow people use their prefix to breed dogs they have bred all the time and as numbers get more limited in how many a breeder can keep at their own home it will become more common Some do it formally via contract and call it a guardian home others simply agree that they will do it because the bitch is worthy and the process is either closely supervised or controlled by the breeder and the owner doesn't want to go to the whole process of becoming a member etc. In NSW these days its becoming even more common because there is an 18 month waiting period after you join DogsNSW, you have to do a course and be inspected before you can get a prefix - rather silly if all you want to do is have one litter because of an agreement you have with the breeder. If the dog is registered there is a registered pedigree which for everyone else is all that's required to prove parentage unless there is something stand out to make you question it. If it is questioned a complaint can be lodged with the state CC and they can order DNA tests for parentage. By being a member and accessing the pedigrees online wont tell her any more than what the pedigree tells her that is provided on the pedigree in fact there is less info provided online nor will any info someone at Vicdogs might give her because they have no access to anything other than the pedigree. If she has a registered pedigreed dog and doesnt have a pedigree then whoever took responsibility for registering it and allowing their prefix to be used is held responsible and must provide a pedigree or answer to the state's CC.

Well if you have a registered pedigree dog just look at the pedigree. What else do you want to know?

A Dog Pen - or a yoke is cheap and most effective They cant go over under or through. I think they should throw the book at him - no sympathy what ever.

I suspect microchips are over-rated. Has anyone studied the number of dogs they save? Or the number of microchips that have become useless because the puppy buyer never mailed in the paperwork or forgot to register changes in phone number and address? Seems to me there are much more important things to talk about . . . like people who bring home a pup but don't spend any time with it. IMO chips are mostly a quick feel-good gesture but the problem they resolve is a small one, and they often fail to resolve it. But it's an easy law to write and sounds good. Agreed but the argument is that every one is better than none and it generates money for councils vets and microchip companies. If they were more interested in speaking with breeders than animal rights and animal welfare and vets then they may just find the issues are better addressed.

Well first you have to determine what everyone means by responsible.Responsible to whom or what or responsible for whom or what. For me its about being first and foremost responsible for the health and welfare of my dog - that includes making educated decisions which wont compromise its health, quality of life or its safety.It also means Im going to keep it confined and under control ,ensure it has good manners and doesnt upset the neighbours because this keeps it safe. The fact is we have ratbags who use what ever means at their disposal to stop us from owning animals .They have all kinds of nutty ideas about what they think is best for animals and their usual base start point is speaking up for those which cant speak for themselves because THEY have determined what is and what is not good for them. They have infiltrated governments and welfare based groups where their crap comes out on top because they are influencing the outcome. The animals best interests are allowed to count only when they do notclash with human interests How is it in the best interests of a carnivore to be forced to eat a vegan diet because the owners have chosen not to eat meat themselves? Bunch of bloody hypocrites don't take away their rights but line them all up and desex them even though this can have serious side effects that may impact on its quality of life and longevity. Take away the right of the owner -why? Oh because they know better of course .But any suggestion this is about what is better for the dogs is crap and that goes for almost everything they do and say in the case of dogs including mandatory desexing, limiting their ability to live with a pack of dogs ,digging holes, eating bones and meat, reproducing,how they are housed, how often they should mate,microchipping etc Everything is biased toward what they push including studies at universities. They come up with some cockamaimy idea and the followers all jump in and push for it to happen until we are at a point where owners and breeders are being educated by the very people who have little or no experience with owning a dog outside of the inner city one dog at a time sleeping on satin pillow cases and treated like children. This is way off topic but do you animal rights of the public who buy eggs in Australia are going to give this a glance Link

That's in a minor part of what the intent is now in NSW but vets are saying they don't have the time or inclination to do it and they wont go too far as they wont want to be seen as policing the laws in the fear that people will avoid using them

I'm in NSW...and I'm not a dog, so there is hope that I keep my balls :) the problem with all this 'troubleshooting' actioned by politicians and other authorities is that they think that Australia (and USA) is the centre of the world ...and that such an attitude is easy to sell to the public. I'm more for copying solutions if they proved themselves elsewhere instead of trying to reinvent the wheel again and again....and would like to ask the people responsible for such laws how can it be that all the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Schweden, Finnland, Denmark) can cope with less than 7% of the dogs desexed?....HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?...clearly, there must be an overpopulation, straying dogs, unwanted litters, puppy farmers everywhere.....IT MUST BE HELL FOR ALL THE REPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS THERE....it must be even worse in Norway where dog owners are not allowed to de-sex their dogs at all: how do they survive??? ....How can it be that a behaviorist in Germany would struggle to earn his crust as there are not enough problem dogs? What are the answers of these politicians to those simple questions?... Sorry I thought you were in SA. Dunno why. Its because the same crazies infest us and the USA and they have copied PETA'S strategy.

Willem how will this law affect you?

Its also of some note that legislation for pet shops in Victoria was ramped up a lot only last July 2015 supposedly designed to stop illegal puppy farmers but before there is any opportunity to see if that legislation has made a difference or not this move became the hot pursuit. The agenda isnt about stopping illegal puppy farmers but all breeders who want to own more than 10 fertile dogs - when that doesn't work just keep lowering the numbers. And if you think Vicdogs members will be off the hook Quote The raid is part of ongoing investigations by the SIU into breeders with links to show dogs. It is one of several investigations into large-scale animal cruelty involving dogs currently underway in Victoria My link

There's a number of shelters in the USA doing just that unless breed is known (i.e dog surrendered with pedigree papers). There's enough evidence around now to show that shelter guesses as to breed mix are generally inaccurate at best, so it makes sense. Those shelters are really happy with the choice and seeing increased adoptions. Interesting! But are they recording NO information about the dog in their database or just not putting it on the adoption pen notes - because that's a great idea. But what about dogs that are lost and found? Don't you need something to help people get their dogs back? Its called a microchip but every microchip in this country is also linked to a breed.

double post

Bloody hell FOR ME its about the dogs and the breeds and Euthanasia - the fact that its a list from the RSPCA isnt an issue for me and I would be just as interested if it was any list that itemised what breed type was being PTS and why form any pound or shelter- Because so far Ive never seen one. Of course I dont want the shelter to not record breed or breed type but dont tell me that the breed type isnt linked to dogs that come in go out and die. You had already decided when you came in here that my interest was about making the RSPCA look bad and the fact that Im telling you that's not what I was thinking or why I was interested wont make a scrap of difference. Why you think this would make the RSPCA present in the worst possible light is beyond me as for ME it shows that they didnt just pop them off because there was no room at the inn or because they couldn't find them a home and I assume because they are there on the spot taking advice form vets that what they do they do because they have to.

Some of the no explanation is unassisted death - you have to look across the line. Sure doesn't make the staffies look good does it?

Sorry didn't know I needed a point - simply passing the info on in case someone other than me is interested. I was wondering why it was "news" - because euth stats are publicly available. All this demonstrates is that a past/present employee has "stolen" and published data that is essentially meaningless. I've seen enough dogs be adopted out - that should have been and were destined to be euthanased - because someone felt sure the dog would make a perfectly good pet and/or could be cured. Well it was news for me as Ive never seen a list before that actually tells me what breeds were involved or one by one why they were killed. For me this answers things so far the usual stats haven't done for me and the more I look at it the more questions it answers for me. Wish it was that simple. Sometimes it just means that certain breeds are more popular in that region. Or the types of people who are attracted to that breed encourage certain behaviours. Or there's been a large number of dogs seized or surrendered. Not to mention that breed ID certainly can't be relied upon. I've been inside enough shelters - here and in the USA - to not make any assumptions based on this document. Yes I know all that but I was more interested in the medical conditions that they link to the breeds and a couple of other things including that only one Maremma was listed. I must be missing something. There's not enough information available. They haven't linked anything to breed. Someone IDs the animal when it comes in (to the best of their ability) and someone else assesses it. The medical descriptions given aren't even detailed enough to reach any conclusions. Regardless of breed, they can't release a human aggressive dog back into the community??? Of course they cant release a human aggressive dog back into the community regardless of breed. I simply found it interesting and if they are not linking reasons for death to breed then why describe the breed at all? Why not just dog number and why it was put down? Well EVERY animal that enters the shelter is ID'd - by species and by breed (or the best guess) - every animal that is lost and handed in, caught by council rangers, seized, surrendered, adopted out, fostered and euthanased. It's just the process that is followed when every animal is admitted - scan for microchip is number one by the way. Can you imagine calling the shelter about your lost Dalmatian and being told "sorry we're not sure, we don't record the breed as we don't want to discriminate". Some employee has just lifted a bunch of records out of the very large database. Yes that's right and as a result the dog is identified by its breed or breed type and that info is linked to what happens to it so Can you imagine how such a list could be used to state that a particular breed and or breed type is more highly represented for having to be PTS for aggression than any other etc? That list doesn't tell several other things that I would have hoped could also be included for every dog and I appreciated being able to take a look at it even though when I was looking at it I was aware of all the things you have pointed out. If it isnt news for others and no one else is interested it wouldn't be the first time I thought something was worthwhile looking at and others didn't .

Sorry didn't know I needed a point - simply passing the info on in case someone other than me is interested. I was wondering why it was "news" - because euth stats are publicly available. All this demonstrates is that a past/present employee has "stolen" and published data that is essentially meaningless. I've seen enough dogs be adopted out - that should have been and were destined to be euthanased - because someone felt sure the dog would make a perfectly good pet and/or could be cured. Well it was news for me as Ive never seen a list before that actually tells me what breeds were involved or one by one why they were killed. For me this answers things so far the usual stats haven't done for me and the more I look at it the more questions it answers for me. Wish it was that simple. Sometimes it just means that certain breeds are more popular in that region. Or the types of people who are attracted to that breed encourage certain behaviours. Or there's been a large number of dogs seized or surrendered. Not to mention that breed ID certainly can't be relied upon. I've been inside enough shelters - here and in the USA - to not make any assumptions based on this document. Yes I know all that but I was more interested in the medical conditions that they link to the breeds and a couple of other things including that only one Maremma was listed. I must be missing something. There's not enough information available. They haven't linked anything to breed. Someone IDs the animal when it comes in (to the best of their ability) and someone else assesses it. The medical descriptions given aren't even detailed enough to reach any conclusions. Regardless of breed, they can't release a human aggressive dog back into the community??? Of course they cant release a human aggressive dog back into the community regardless of breed. I simply found it interesting and if they are not linking reasons for death to breed then why describe the breed at all? Why not just dog number and why it was put down?

You don't have to defend them to me - I know what they do and why and I wasn't attempting to show they were doing anything wrong etc . I don't want everything saved and the number was of no interest to me or I would have not been so interested because I can get the numbers already.

Sorry didn't know I needed a point - simply passing the info on in case someone other than me is interested. I was wondering why it was "news" - because euth stats are publicly available. All this demonstrates is that a past/present employee has "stolen" and published data that is essentially meaningless. I've seen enough dogs be adopted out - that should have been and were destined to be euthanased - because someone felt sure the dog would make a perfectly good pet and/or could be cured. Well it was news for me as Ive never seen a list before that actually tells me what breeds were involved or one by one why they were killed. For me this answers things so far the usual stats haven't done for me and the more I look at it the more questions it answers for me. Wish it was that simple. Sometimes it just means that certain breeds are more popular in that region. Or the types of people who are attracted to that breed encourage certain behaviours. Or there's been a large number of dogs seized or surrendered. Not to mention that breed ID certainly can't be relied upon. I've been inside enough shelters - here and in the USA - to not make any assumptions based on this document. Yes I know all that but I was more interested in the medical conditions that they link to the breeds and a couple of other things including that only one Maremma was listed.

Sorry didn't know I needed a point - simply passing the info on in case someone other than me is interested. I was wondering why it was "news" - because euth stats are publicly available. All this demonstrates is that a past/present employee has "stolen" and published data that is essentially meaningless. I've seen enough dogs be adopted out - that should have been and were destined to be euthanased - because someone felt sure the dog would make a perfectly good pet and/or could be cured. Well it was news for me as Ive never seen a list before that actually tells me what breeds were involved or one by one why they were killed. For me this answers things so far the usual stats haven't done for me and the more I look at it the more questions it answers for me.

Sorry didn't know I needed a point - simply passing the info on in case someone other than me is interested.

My link

When chipping first came in in NSW and even now in some states it is up to the new owner to change chip details but now its up to the breeder in NSW. So I years ago I also received threatening letters about dogs that were still in my name prior to the breeder having to notify that they had been sold .I keep pretty good records and my spread sheet is in numerical order so I found them pretty easily but by then some of the owners had moved and some were not able to be contacted - and they wont accept the change of owner form unless the new owner signs for it .Ended up having to work through them all rely - on the new owner years after they bought the pup to send me back a completed form which most didn't do so I ended up having to get stat decs signed to show where they had gone. There didnt care who bred them they just that they were listed as owned by someone and not registered. Then for some time we were able to chip the dogs into the new owners name, Then pet shops had an exemption and anyone selling to a pet shop didnt need to chip prior to sale and the pet shop put them straight into th enew owners name- so breeder and pet shop never showed up on the system even if they could have been able to track them. These days you are not supposed to get the pups chipped into the new owners name in NSW and there is a requirement that the owner of the dog is the person getting the chip put in on the day so if a breeder says they have a different name or they send someone else to take the pups to the chipper the breeder never shows up, No id required to go to a vet and have a pup chipped - just fill out the form and sign here. We were hoping that the system in NSW would be able to identify the breeder [ even if the breeder wasnt with the puppies when they were chipped] which obviously has its own potential issues as each breeder is issued a breeder number - but for now turns out th eonly good of the breeder number is being able to claim them online and you cant do that anyway if you were not there when the pups were chipped. How the hell anyone could even suggest that its possible to know who bred a dog in any system at this time based on chip info is ridiculous.