Steve

The fact is we all have to take responsibility for this - in days gone by the neighbourhood handled it. If someone had a dog that was showing any sign of being a pain it was dealt with by neighbours speaking to the owner and demanding the issue be eliminated - the others who lived in the area had a joint objective and stood as one to ensure their turf was safe and peaceful for all of them. Idiots were quickly educated and if they didn't learn quickly and be responsible themselves chances were the neighbours would do what needed to be done to be safe and avoid problems far greater than what they had at the time. Everyone was allowed to do what they wanted with their dogs and their property as long as it didn't have a negative effect on the rest of the community. Not much point in talking about why and how its changed but the reality is that is has changed and government methodology of doing something about it isn't working.Its going to take all of us taking back our rights and doing something about those people who are mucking it up or who are in danger of mucking it up in our neighbourhoods .Im not talking about dobbing them in because we think they havent taken their dogs for enough walks and the rest of the crazy stuff - I mean being pro active about prevention and doing somethings about it - all of us every one of us even if that means writing letters to editors, nagging councils .It means not just sitting around and saying what ticks us off and how its a disaster waiting to happen but taking responsibility for the safety and well being of our communities i small ways before the really bad things are able to happen.

This is a great discussion and needs to be talked about and tossed over heaps. When we see a problem our first inclination is to make assumptions on what causes it and based on that what we can do about it. Governments do this all the time and its usually because a group of people all have the same assumptions which usually stem from their own philosophy and belief base and not very often based on reality.This creates bigger problems and it inevitably leads to more and more laws and requirements placed on every one "just in case" .Just in case one person cross breeds two dogs and it produces a litter of cranky dogs ban everyone from breeding cross bred dogs etc. Identify the problem without the assumptions - Dogs are attacking people and other animals. Identify the goal - humans want to be able to live in a neighbourhood and move around it freely without fear and be assured they are safe from dogs. So in order to find the solution we have to throw out the assumptions or at least research what we think is causing the problem and objectively take a look at whether that is what is really happening - and dont complicate it . Your assumption is that cross breeding is causing at least a major part of this problem - Here is a good place to go to start objectively researching your theory - NSW stats - link below. The solution for me is a simple one and it covers most assumptions. It doesn't need massive codes and laws and restrictions, fine print about how long a leash has to be, how high a fence has to be, whether we need to feed em in a bowl or cut their toenails every morning etc ,whether we have to desex em etc for ordinary every day people who want to own a dog or two ,who want to breed a dog or who don't like dogs at all etc. We dont need to have laws and all the crap that goes with it which can never be policed or enforced. Dogs are property and the right to own them and use them and do most of what we want to do with them which doesnt breach cruelty laws was given to us via the Magna Carta - no laws are ever going to be able to prevent a dog owner from being able to mate it with a dog of their choice and no laws are ever going to stop people owning a cross bred dog.People who own cross bred dogs,people who breed cross bred dogs would be the first to tell you how flawed your assumption is and there are far more of them than there are of us too. Its simple make everyone responsible for their own property. http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Council%20Reports%20of%20Dog%20Attacks%20in%20NSW%202010-11.pdf

Are you saying that Casey Shire have lied and that there are no charges and its not in the magistrates court ? Quote from Casey Shire - https://www.facebook...151507023752471 We can confirm that; • The business owner has been charged with 80 offences for not complying with the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments standards, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals offences and the City of Casey Community Local Law 2/2010. The prosecution will continue at the Magistrate's Court later this month. Council continues to monitor the welfare of the dogs on-site. and Thanks for your feedback. Council does not wish to jeopardise its prosecution of this case as a result of being seen to condone or support inappropriate and/or threatening comments posted by others on Council’s Facebook page. We will continue to monitor this page and any comments that breach Council’s Facebook disclaimer will be removed.

Hard to tell when its in such poor condition - how sad and Im glad the RSPCA have stepped in to help them

You can debate whether it makes a difference to feed raw foods with kibble but there is no way that you can compare what humans do and how their digestive system works in comparison to ours. The reason dogs can eat raw food and not get salmonella poisoning is because their digestive systems are shorter and meat passes through too quickly to be able to brew the bugs as they do in ours. Theoretically if kibble takes longer to digest and if it really does slow down the process for the meat then its a potential issue. That's assuming the meat will get trapped by the kibble which will slow it down rather than simply assimilating the meat quicker anyway than the kibble which personally based on my knowledge with canine nutrition and anatomy I think is more likely.

In Victoria anyone the premier has given the nod to is authourised - council officers were included as far as I know inthe last legislative up date .This gave greater powers to both council and RSPCA . There are things going on here we need to learn about ,understand and know about - who is prosecuting for example, and why don't they say out loud what the charges are etc. Lots to say about it all - though it needs to be taken off public forums.

nomination? www.mdbaawards.net.au

sounds like a nomination to me www.mdbaawards.net.au

in hindsight May have been a case of bad breeding more likely to be by accident but seriously the chances of a breeder knowing this was there and they may have seen this either before or after the pup was born and not doing something about it to avoid it happening and to avoid you ending up with a sick dog are remote. To get to a place where a vet wants to accuse a breeder to a puppy buyer of making a deliberate decision to breed dogs knowing they have a problem and that it will probably show up in the puppies rather than simply making a mistake because they didn't know ,to accuse them of knowing there was something wrong and deliberately passing it onto a puppy buyer without informing them takes a whole lot of assumptions. When you are in the middle of it all and emotions are so high even changing a single word in a conversation or an interpretation of the conversation can make a huge difference . Im happy for a vet to say the breeder should have known because in an ideal world breeders would have enough information about the dogs they are selecting and enough knowledge to use that information as it should be to know these things and ensure they breed away from them. But to say that in their opinion the breeder should have known is miles away from saying the breeder would have known. Such things are not recorded on pedigrees and unless the breeder has been given the info of where the dogs in the pedigree are which have been affected and know what to do with that info even if they have it - it really is a big ask - and it may or may not have shown up in one dog in the pedigree in many generations or not and this breeder and all other breeders would still have some level of risk that they may breed an affected puppy. There is no simple DNA test for it and if the breeder has two perfectly healthy dogs with no knowledge of it being in the family - how COULD they know ? I have 8 kids both myself and their father had lots of living relatives and we had no knowledge what ever that some of our ancestors may have had a blood disease - nothing to worry about when we were making babies to consider except there was a high incidence of multiple births on both sides as far as we knew. Huge advantage over a breeder who cant talk with the relatives, probably will never see many of the relatives,probably will not have much contact with other people who have bred the ancestors and just as the blood disease some of my relatives must have had are not listed on a birth certificate or most family trees of the past such things have not been easy for a breeder to know. Anyway turns out 6 out of 8 of my kids and couple so far of my grandkids are affected by the blood disorder both me and their father carried. I wasnt tested for the DNA for the gene until after the kids were diagnosed because there was no reason for anyone to know about it or test for it. Now I know and know what the syptoms are and Ive done some more research I can see that if Id been looking for it I would have seen it - I should have known but for someone to accuse me of must have known or to say I would have known and deliberately had these children knowing that the mating between me and their father had a high risk of making babies with a genetic disorder which affected them as it does is just not true and the thought that there could be anyone who would think I would do that or know that and not pass it on to everyone who may need to know is very distressing. Mine is a recessive disorder and so very much easier than polygenic disorders which no one can identify or know what causes them and thats what your breeder is dealing in. My point is when you are dealing with living things there are no guarantees - you can lower the risks and you can even eliminate the risks in something which can be tested for - the blood disease I carry does have a DNA test so we can determine who has it who carries it and if having kids with a particular person will give carriers or affected. The chances your breeder did know this and deliberately did what you think she may have is highly unlikely and she is going to be upset and feeling dreadful that she has played a part in the dog suffering and you having to deal with the loss of your dog, even if she gives you signs which make you feel she isnt The breeder needs to be informed so they can learn from it and go to work on working out what they have to do to ensure they dont do it again and ensuring other potential breeders know and work to eliminating it but once you are where you are and you have what you believe is evidence that the breeder did this some how on purpose its easy to find things which you can say shows more and more how rotten the breeder is. I suggest that you send the MDBA a copy of your pedigree and copies of your vet reports and that will allow the information to be entered into a record system which breeders who come along will be able to use it so they do know that this has happened for generations to come and try to select away from it . Im so very sorry that this has happened and this is something you will carry with you for ever and during this time of grieving part of it all is looking for whys and maybe someone to blame. My advice is inform the breeder and mourn your cherished dog and try to move through it knowing you have done all you could and regardless of what your vet said the breeder would have been hard pressed to be able to predict it.

Hope they work it all out and you are feeling better soon Julie

Yep that's exactly how I feel about it too.

A puppy farm that has no puppies

Fair enough Mita but I'd still like to look at that study if you dont mind and in the mean time I've no clue how she raised and reared her occasional litters over the past 40 years so all I have to go on is assessing the results in that regard.

O.K. But how do you know what kind of breeding and raising standards were used by this breeder? She rarely had a litter so how can we know where she bred them, how she bred them, where she whelped them and where and how she raised them? She is pretty famous in the dog world for the quality of dogs she has bred and owned and I havent heard any suggestion that her animals or any puppy she has ever bred is not sound or well adjusted. What is it exactly that we see here and know for sure is telling us that she is doing things differently to thise things the US reasearch said was the better way to go? Perhaps you could direct me to the research you are speaking of so I can see it myself to help me to understand why you have reached conclusions which you feel tells us her animals were not raised in conditions condusive to the best outcome for the puppies she placed. My problem is that you seem to be speaking of breeding and raising rather than living standards she had for her adult animals most of which were not likely to ever be bred. Is the basis of you saying what you see is against your ethical considerations based on anything other than she appears to have larger than average numbers?

I'm being fair, too, based on the physical evidence. And I can only see it as a matter of ethical standards.... & not anything to do with physical cruelty to animals. I also think it's highly significant that the RSPCA was not involved. As I've already said, not a matter for prosecution. It's not unreasonable to personally expect that breeders keep a balance in the face of expanding numbers. The ones I have respect for....ethically....do so. A good reason why I own retired showdogs from such breeders. They balance their numbers & keep accommodation stresses in check.... so they can continue developing their breed, but in manageable numbers. which allow close relationships with their dogs & a great amount of freedom & stimulation. As I've said.... it's also a consumer issue. Yes that's what Im saying too but ethical standards according to whom? Hard to see that she would be breaching CC ethics and many people will tell you its more ethical for a breeder to keep their older animals, and take back their animals no matter what. Some breeders wear the fact that they do this as a badge to be proud of. Ive got a 17 year old beautiful bitch here myself who ads to the numbers. Im am by no means saying that if she has breached the code or been cruel or what ever that she shouldn't be called to task etc what distresses me is the double standards, the lack of the ability for natural justice to be served, the trial by internet and media and public flogging even without those making comment to know what the real issues are or what may have caused it , what appears to be a total lack of empathy or humanity and by the way I feel the same about what has been done to Marook. and Judy Guard. Is it really O.K. to hound old ladies and break them and ruin them ,is it really O.K. to condone illegal activity used to do this to them. The punishment for both Carol and Lola seems to me to be way way out of line before they have even had their day in court.

I suppose most of it is about what you are comparing it to http://www.abc.net.a.../15/3716465.htm

I have no idea what the specific parts of those 3 laws what this person will be charged with. And I am a great supporter of registered breeders. But allowing numbers of dogs to outgrow reasonable facilities for them is not on, ethically. I know the Kennel Associations are basically registeries, but I'd like to see them do more professional education among their members on how to manage numbers, basic accommodation & care, and stimulation and socialisation. They've already got loads of members who do these things well.... as mentors. As others have said, there's no mention yet of vet reports of serious health conditions. Nor was it seen necessary to provide physical care by taking the dogs into care. Pity there's not a section in the Victorian cruelty laws, like there is in the Q'ld law, which says first intervention by the authorities, like RSPCA, can be on an educational level. That is, helping the person clean up their act in some respects. I think this case fits a category like that. So this case seems to come down to numbers management, stimulation and socialization issues. But, what is annoying, is that the new draft Victorian Code is full of pie in the sky about managing much larger numbers of dogs... & their provisions for stimulation & socialization are inadequate. Mita what do you mean by this - there was only one dog in each pen and they had stacks of space to move and run in - Im not sure what you are saying when you say they shouldnt be allowed to out grow the facilities - to be honest based on the codes and legislations etc and what large scale commercial breeders do even what boarding kennels do and very small suburban breeders do there seems loads of space and nothing appears to be un accommodated. People who know the dogs and who have visited and know the breeder report that they are well socialised and not lacking in stimulation. It's not unreasonable to ask for better accommodation than ramshackle conditions as it appears in those photos. If you're going to own dogs.... any number of dogs.... it's reasonable to require that, as numbers grow, the person has the means to provide decent accommodation. It seems the person had a maximum of 50 dogs at her highest point. That does not fit the level of provision of socialization that would be regarded as standard for someone who will be providing puppies as companion dogs. I don't know what 'people' who visited and said socialization, by their standard, was fine. It would not be likely by mine. I see it as a matter of ethics, not a matter for prosecution, but of education. And a consumer issue. May well explain why the RSPCA didn't become involved. You appear to think the original situation is fine. I don't. But it does appear that the person has already acted by reducing her numbers. Which is why I like the Q'ld legislation.... it gives people the opportunity to make adjustments. There is no evidence to show me that she had 50 dogs and early reports said she didnt either way she didnt have any dogs on her own she had family helping her and I didnt say it was fine or that condone or that I endorse anything she may have done .I said I cant judge and Im trying to be fair.Someone was spending a lot of time with them to have that level of grooming, and training. She rarely had puppies,there were no puppies there and reports tell us she only had a litter every couple of years and how could anyone know based on this information how she managed any litters she had or if she did or didn't raise them under foot - how well socialised her puppies were before they went home etc. The prevention of cruelty to animals act in Victoria gives them the same options as to whether someone will be charged as queensland and its notable that the RSPCA are not involved in this. By the way those kennels dont look too bad and dogs cant tell if they need painting - there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of concrete and penning and exercise areas - Ive known humans who lived in worse looking buildings I reckon there would be a dozen families in this town who live in shabbier conditions.

O.K. I agree but how can you or anyone know if the dogs in question here are not getting all they need as far as human interaction and one on one love? There was nothing there that gave any evidence the dogs are damaged or suffering due to lack of socialisation or that they don't receive stimulation. According to reports the dogs are beautiful , well trained , travel to and from shows and shopping etc well groomed which takes hours each week for a Collie and loved so much that they stay into old age rather than having them PTS or moved to new homes. You cant give dogs the best we possibly can when we cant even agree on what is the best for them and its breed specific what is best for my Maremma working dogs isnt what is best for my beagles. I think walking a dog with a lead on is not what is best for them and Id like to see humans have to be dragged around learning to do as they are told with a choke chain and see how they like it, I hate the use of crates, I think what is best for them is to be given a species appropriate diet , I think what is best for them is to limit their intake of chemicals such as heartworm meds, medicated shampoos and over vaccination ,I cant imagine how any one could consider tethering a dog others think what is best for them is to be led around the block , locked in crates overnight, fed crap commercial food , jabbed and stuffed full of chemicals, given no chance to dig holes,bark and never get a chance to act like a dog. Is a dog sitting on a satin pillow case in suburbia happier than a dog that runs un restrained, allowed to get filthy dirty and to play with lots of other animals as a pack ? Who knows? Part of this particular case is a horror about her serving raw chicken to her dogs which I happen to think is whats best for them - clearly others dont agree but I promise you Ive got better science to back up why I think its whats is best for dogs than anyone has to show it isnt.

I have no idea what the specific parts of those 3 laws what this person will be charged with. And I am a great supporter of registered breeders. But allowing numbers of dogs to outgrow reasonable facilities for them is not on, ethically. I know the Kennel Associations are basically registeries, but I'd like to see them do more professional education among their members on how to manage numbers, basic accommodation & care, and stimulation and socialisation. They've already got loads of members who do these things well.... as mentors. As others have said, there's no mention yet of vet reports of serious health conditions. Nor was it seen necessary to provide physical care by taking the dogs into care. Pity there's not a section in the Victorian cruelty laws, like there is in the Q'ld law, which says first intervention by the authorities, like RSPCA, can be on an educational level. That is, helping the person clean up their act in some respects. I think this case fits a category like that. So this case seems to come down to numbers management, stimulation and socialization issues. But, what is annoying, is that the new draft Victorian Code is full of pie in the sky about managing much larger numbers of dogs... & their provisions for stimulation & socialization are inadequate. Mita what do you mean by this - there was only one dog in each pen and they had stacks of space to move and run in - Im not sure what you are saying when you say they shouldnt be allowed to out grow the facilities - to be honest based on the codes and legislations etc and what large scale commercial breeders do even what boarding kennels do and very small suburban breeders do there seems loads of space and nothing appears to be un accommodated. People who know the dogs and who have visited and know the breeder report that they are well socialised and not lacking in stimulation. According to Casey Shire she has 80 charges some from breaches of the code, some under this local council by law - at least one under cruelty to animals legislation -in other words even if she has breached the code for breeding establishments on a trivial issue she goes for this one as a matter of course. This Local Law is known as the City of Casey Community Local Law 2/ (Incorporating amending City of Casey Local Law 2/2010 (Amendment) Local Law - effective 1 February 2013. The Local Law is made for: Provision for peace, order and good government of the municipality Protection against behaviour which causes detriment to the amenity and environment of the municipal district Controlling activities which may interfere with the comfort and enjoyment of other persons Providing for the safety of road users including pedestrians Protection of Council and community assets Click below to download the Local Law as an Acrobat PDF document. City of Casey Community Local Law No. 2/2010

Yes that's my question - what's the objective and who is pulling the strings.

Someone was grooming them,feeding them well and loving them or they wouldn't look like they did and react as they did in the video Thompson made. The "small spaces" were bigger than the crates many dog owners have their dogs confined in overnight. Im not sure its possible to see sadness in the faces of dogs especially when you dont know the dogs .I sat around for a while tonight and looked at my dog's faces and took special note and I dont believe that I could tell whether their faces were telling me much at all about how they were feeling so I dont think strangers coming in here under cover of darkness and stressing them out would be able to capture whether or not they were looking for some kind of affection and determine that they had been deprived of it from their human family. Nothing what ever in those videos from AA and Thompson tells me they were sad or neglected or under socialised in any way. You cant take any notice of any props you see in the illegally shot video - its too easy to set it up for the cameras and edit it. Where is the RSPCA why didn't they prosecute for cruelty ,why didnt the RSPCA take them away if they were being treated cruelly - how come they were left there? Why is there no reports of vet finding on their poor health and neglected condition? I think we should all wait to see what it is exactly she is charged with and what if anything she is found guilty of because it could be anything from not filling out a form to having a gap that's a bit over size under a gate. I promise you one of them wont be because they looked sad or they looked like they were looking for affection and to be honest no one has the right to judge based on what they think the dogs are feeling in this case or any other. She has been tagged as a puppy farmer because she owns fertile dogs not because she had puppies in sub standard conditions because there were no puppies and she rarely ever had any puppies over the last 40 years. After seeing the Thompson video its pretty hard to understand why she should be punished as she has been already let alone what may come so Im not up for joining lynch mobs - and if that's it - if that's as bad as they have to push their agenda and bring in tougher codes etc for every person who owns fertile dogs - if that's what they call a puppy farmer - it all appears to be a bit weird. Lets all wait and see what the charges are and what the outcome is.

They still come in for the smell of water - they also come after the smell of bitch milk if she is feeding puppies. Not sure how great the risk is where the kennel in question is located because there is a large water source - a creek not far away but I'm not judging her on that issue because if in fact the footage where you couldn't see water bowls was for real I believe its not something that should be judged as it has been.

So is all this happening without RSPCA involvement?

Yep its easy to think based on what we know and live with personally but now I know why you may not give a dog a water bowl over night and I live with mongrel brown snakes I understand why someone may go that way. Whats worse having a dog thats locked up for 6 to 8 hours without water or snakes competing for their water - especially in tight areas where they couldn't get out of their way - not an easy question. Personally I think a dog which is fed a raw food diet would not suffer at all if it had to wait overnight for a drink - evidenced by the ratbag who sleeps on my couch who isn't interested in having a drink while she is inside over night even with a water bowl available all the time. problem is if the law says water has to be available all the time - no one cares why- its a breach of the law - if you have 10 dogs its 10 cruelty charges and you are guilty - no way out of it.

From memory there was also accusations made that the people who were filming actually moved some of the dogs to an unused kennel area to make it all look worse too.