Steve

Ness dogs can and do over dose on vitamin C and they dont need to eat vitamin C. If they get some in their diet its small amounts now and then not massive amounts every day Better absorbed doesnt have to equal better for the dog as it does for people who cant make their own. Dogs make up to 1000mg of vitamin C a day why would they need any more unless they are in a very high stress state where they use more.

Yep - if humans dont eat vitamin C they die after they get immune system issues and scurvy etc but dogs manufacture their own vitamin C which is not quite the type it eats so it doesn't do it as much good and isn't the same as when it makes it . If you just decide to treat the dog with this indefinitely the ability for it to produce its own shuts down .O.K. You can continue to supplement all its life but there is a difference between vitamin C which is eaten and vitamin C which is made via the dog's own system. Giving dogs vitamin C should be approached as if the vitamin C is a medicine for short term use in cases where the dog is under huge stress. Remember all of the usual foods and even raw food diets have some levels of vitamin C already. Now part of the problem is that in studies they may give the supplement and there is a difference so it must work and when you start to supplement you may see an improvement so you stick with it but no one knows the long term differences either between the dog being able to manufacture enough or taking it long term. There are lots of people and companies making loads of money out of foods and supplements for dogs and Im not adverse to giving a supplement per Se but think it through - as the dog manufactures its own vitamin C wouldn't it be better if we ensured the dog was eating a diet which provided it with the nutrients it needed to manufacture the enzymes required to produce its own vitamin C . If we replace it's need to manufacture its own vitamin C then what happens to the other stuff that it would ordinarily use to manufacture it - how does this impact on calcium to phosphorous levels in the blood stream - how does it impact on calcium and copper etc. none of these studies have been done and certainly not over extended periods of time. The danger of vitamin C overdosing is that symptoms may not appear until permanent damage has been done developing calcium oxalate crystals or stones in the urinary tract.

Steve Moore from the DPI can answer questions email but her council should be able to as well.

Yes its all good and doesn't overdose on anything - the point is you don't really need them anyway its just that for what ever reason dog owners are more worried about how they feed their dogs and whether they are lacking in something than they are concerned about how they feed their kids. Problem with canine supplements is that they dont have the same controls and requirements for labelling etc that human ones do. The augustines superboost hasn't had the chemical analysis done anyway so you have no way of knowing exactly what it is the dog is getting out of it so you cant take a realistic look and see whether it should be treated as a medicine and given for a short period or whether its O.K. to use all the time. You see dogs have different digestive systems to humans and they have different reqirements for amino acids and vitamins and minerals. For example as long as the dog has the other nutrients and enzymes required it doesnt need to eat vitamin C because it manufactures that in a different form. Now sometimes such as under stress etc dogs cant make enough so they may need a supplement vitamin C but if you just give it as a supplement as you do with humans rather than as a medicine the dog will stop making the vitamin C itself. Just because you see instant improvements - as you do if you take an anti biotic etc doesnt mean it should be given all the time .Before you can make an educated choice you need to see the analysis.

The old rules and regs already controlled how many animals you can own without a permit or a planning approval - everyone including Vicdogs and rescue should have been complying with this for decades. The other stuff - new codes and laws impact on how you have to house them and that means even those who have had the permits and planning approvals are in trouble being able to comply now and those who want to do the right thing have much more to comply with. This topic OP is about someone who has been breeding, rescuing and pretty much doing whatever she wants for decades without ever having approvals, that doesn't mean she didn't need approvals until now - just that she is now being held to what she should have been doing all along - all be it though now its harder to get and keep the approvals due to the crappy codes and there are much bigger potential penalties. In that way you are right they advantage and in fact encourage larger scale commercial breeding. If you are going to make people spend tens of thousands of dollars to built a purpose built factory to be able to produce puppies then you Have to expect they will produce more in order to pay for the expenses. One of those proposals in the recent proposed changes in the codes which would affect rescue and breeders alike was an attempt to calculate how much time it takes per dog to do what needs to be done to ensure the dog's welfare - what a joke - one of the biggest messes Ive ever seen but part of that was about calculating how many staff per animals is required. They wanted one person per 25 dogs where 1 litter equals 1 fertile dog. So given that bitches all come in season at around the same time lets assume a breeder has 10 litters at varying ages at any one time - according to the calculation they would still be counted as having less than 25 if they owned 15 dogs. First cross labradoodles and many purebreds have around a dozen a litter so one person could have 125 dogs at any one time to look after. They can have 2 litters per bitch in the second year so thats around 250 puppies per year @ $1500 [low estimate] each a bit less if they simply pick em up and sell them to a pet shop pretty good wages isnt it and sure does pay for the new shiny factory.

Well we have been yelling for years - no new laws - police the ones we have and if they are doing what they were supposed to do to prevent dogs being kept in conditions they shouldn't be in then not much to be done in the way of calling for more laws. Some Vicdogs breeders think they are special and don't understand the laws until someone comes in and bounces them, and some people think because they rescue they are above the laws too. Because the laws are so over done and cover the most ridiculous things it gets harder and harder to comply and it would be difficult to find anyone who couldn't on any given day be pinged - because they hadn't filed out a form or allowed more than 2 dogs to sleep in the same area etc or owned more than 2 dogs without permits etc. Most of us would go a row because we have a litter in or near our homes when regs say that anymore than two dogs have to be housed at least 15 metres from a dwelling. I seriously don't know what it is that makes people call for more laws and then get surprised that they will be impacted by them as well as those they thought should be affected. BUT these things are not new - though the penalties, the power the RSPCA and council have and the pressure for them to police them is increased.

Submissions have already closed and in my opinion its better to wait until we see what the final deal is which is going to parliament so we know exactly what it is we are arguing against.For al we know they have looked at what we had to say and chucked most of it away- wishful thinking I know

I read it as a breakdown of the nutrients in the Superboost product rather than the diet. I thought it would just add some balance to home made to make sure he gets all the proper nutrients. Better to feed balanced than add a powder, really. I think it gives us peace mind, if nothing else. I'm always questioning if I'm giving the right balance, even though I have shiny coats, good teeth, fresh breath (the dogs, not me), nice firm poos. As far as supplements go, I think this one is fairly reasonably priced. But how do you know its the right balance? I don't. I certainly haven't been feeding this supplement in the amounts it recommends. I'm not even sure if what I'm feeding is the right balance. I try to give plenty of variety within the scope of what the dogs are willing to eat. (Dory won't touch offal with a 40ft barge pole, no matter how much you try to hide it). I've read multiple books on raw feeding and all of them give you a different breakdown, most of them recommend this supplement or that supplement. Which annoys me, because I begin to question the credibility of an author that is pushing their supplement, whilst bagging out commercially produced foods that push their product as the best for balance and nutrition. Bit pot calling kettle black. An over riding question I have is...how do we know what nutrients they need in what balance...and how did they work that out? From my observation of Dory's changed appearance, what I'm doing now seems to be better than what I was doing before. (raw vs dry food). Is it the best? I have no idea. The yanks did a big deal and determined the levels of nutrition determined to be the norm for our dogs not that this really means much. Its about understanding what happens inside the dog's body when some things are lacking or when some things are over represented. So for example lets look at calcium - dogs need calcium - right? But in order for the calcium to do what it needs to do it needs things to ensure the calcium assimilates. just giving the dog calcium and neglecting the rest has huge long term consequences - you need other minerals such as zinc and magnesium and the right level of phosphorous and it needs vitamins in the mix vitamin D and E. So you dont need to be a kitchen whizz or a scientist . When you look at feeding yourself or your child you know already that no matter what you cant get everything you need in for long term health .the way we deal with that is to eat a varied diet and try to balance it with a bit of everything over a period of about a week. When you feed commercial foods the enzymes needed to assimilate these things which are found in fresh food are dead , the vitamins are dead - cooking and storage makes sure of this and you are left with a bag full of minerals which need others things to assimilate.everyone says they are a complete food and every one says they are the best and they are all different to each other. At the very minimum if you feed commercial dog food you need a multi vitamin and enzymes suppliments - but you can see what the vitamins are and you can see what the enzymes are when you determine you will use them. you see people who change foods and see a good result maybe its got more oils or fats etc for shiny coats so they stick with it but over time it cuts the immune system to the bone - because its just not possible to feed everything the dog needs by feeding only the same thing and little else. If you are feeding raw and try for variety with whole foods rather than suppliments I promise your dog will be healthier than anything else you can do. But just be aware of some of the common mistakes mainly the ratio of bone to meat and chuck in everything else when its in season or handy and all is well. My big argument about products such as this is that the chemical analysis hasn't been done and you are either wasting your money and or setting up future problems. If you are feeding raw and you are a bit concerned that you arent covering it all then all you need is a children's multi vitamin. You dont need to spend a bucket on something that is being marketed as a suppliment but which hasn't even done the analysis.

it sounds better to say they are strung up when still alive but it would be hard to do and certainly hard to keep them there until they died. Shooters around here hang them to let the farmer who owns the property know they are doing their job but it also brings the foxes in the next night too. Honestly I doubt they are alive when they string them up and I do think they have it wrong. Cant see how they would know if they were alive or dead when they are hung without forensics.

They dont say it in their documentation because every one is taken on a case by case basis. Based on what the ranger saw as to what kenneling is in place and a bunch of other things as long as all stays the same he is saying that in his opinion its not possible for her to get a permit for more than one extra dog. The only way for her to test that is for her to apply for a permit BUT if she wants to have more on her property she will need to show how she will house them and care for them which complies with the mandatory codes and planning laws etc. What will she do with poo, how will she keep the noise down, how will she keep the place clean ,where and how will she quarantine, how far is she from neighbours, does it mean more traffic on her road than it would if she didnt have dogs, does she need parking areas blah blah blah .You dint just get to front up and ask for a permit for more dogs without saying what you have and what you will do.

Look probably more than most here Im all for people having rights as dog owners. I resent the fact that a quasi police force has so much power and no third party accountability. I think its all way over regulated and much of it is not based on science or really what is best for dogs BUT. I have also seen people who are in a hell of a mess and as a result their dogs have a lowered quality of life. I dont think all dogs should be sleeping on satin pillow cases and I dont think they notice if the place needs painting etc Now - Surely most of us would like to believe that before any of us get past first base that we at least like dogs so the assumption is that no one begins with an intent to have animals living in conditions that they shouldn't be in. Even if they don't like dogs much anyone that doesn't look after them well cant expect to get any money for their product. Neglect = more expenses, less productivity and less value on the product so sure there may be some cowboys but Id like to live under the belief that most begin with a reasonable desire to treat their animals well. Being in a position where it crosses the line creeps up on you. Many don't really understand the extra expenses and extra work involved that mounts up with every dog you decide to keep whether you love it or not especially if it has special needs and that it doesn't happen over night. Others don't anticipate well enough how growing older and personal disasters might impact until they are in the middle of it. Now I don't know who this breeder/rescue is or whether she is at risk of trying to do the right thing and overdoing it but the reality is that its pretty common that dog owners, breeders and rescue look up one day and its not as easy as was expected. This isnt just the risk of any one group though there has been more focus on breeders and in some areas it appears that people feel its O.K. for rescue dogs to live in rotten conditions because its better than being dead or homeless but dog owners who own too many and rescue who try to save too many at once are equally in the mix. Now just because you are a breeder AND you rescue your own breed doesn't let you off the hook and it doesn't mean you don't have to be held to the same standards. You cant just have as many as you want regardless of your motivation without some kind of checks to ensure the dogs,your neighbours - and you are going to be O.K. So whats the answer ? How do we have people who own dogs and or ,breed dogs and or rescue dogs without compromising on what is best for the dogs- and who will decide what is best or better for the dogs? Lots of this is impacted by mythology and community expectation too. We want breeders to love their dogs, bond with them and see them as part of the family.Theoretically if you love them and have bonded with them you are less likely to neglect them. Raring puppies underfoot and living with them as part of the family is better for their long term outcomes. Many cant understand how a breeder can simply rehome them when they no longer breed them and from a personal perspective making the decision that if I want to continue breeding I will need to find a new home for one of my dogs is one of the hardest things Ive ever done in my life and there are some which I could never part with and if i had to choose I would stop breeding. Because animal rights have given breeders a fair public flogging and some put pressure on breeders to rescue some breeders think this will take some of the pressure off and they will be seen as one of the good guys- but at what cost for their own dogs? So we all have choices and we should all be trusted to be grown ups and make decisions which are best without interference but we cant just decide we will have loads of dogs because lots of us put wanting lots of dogs over whats best for their welfare and the neighbours etc. There has to be some kind of system which ensures that the focus on what is best for dogs is not compromised and minimise the potential consequences and like it or not its up to everyone to make it their business to know what the rules are and what they have to comply with in their own area. When there is no self regulation there has to be someone who will be the bad guy.

Both need the same licence as a domestic animal business , both need planning approval to have more than 2 dogs, but even thise some things such as requirements for housing are the same in reality its a Completely different requirement as far as mandatory codes. This one is for breeding AND rearing establishments - so thats anyone who whelps puppies from pregnant rescue dogs too here This one is for shelters and pounds link She will need to take a good look at the definition of someone who is operating as a shelter to see if that's what she comes under in that regard as she may come under a community foster carer depending on where and how she sources her rescue animals here But regardless of what definition or mandatory code she may come under you cant just have unlimited numbers of dogs on your property no matter what your motivation or what they are used for without council approval to have that many on your premises. By the way if you think at the end of the day its that much different in other states you may be surprised when you look a little closer and take into account planning laws.

Lovely isnt it. Firstly in Victoria a permit to have a domestic animal business licence is different to council approvals to keep more than 2 dogs on your property or be involved in an activity on your property. If you are Vic dogs you get to have 10 fertile dogs before you need to get one of these permits to have a domestic animal business and currently you still have to comply with all of the crap mandatory codes no matter how many you have or what group you are a member of...... but proposed laws exempt them from needing to comply with mandatory codes if they are Vic dogs and have under 10 fertile animals. And you are right in Victoria there is no such thing as a council which allows you to have more than 2 dogs without approvals. Now here comes the bit that worries us all. You cant just look up something and know what you need to do or have in place to be able to get approval to breed dogs on your property because each and every application to have approval to breed dogs or even to own more than 2 dogs on your property no matter how big it is and no matter what zone it is in is taken on a case by case situation. This of course makes it susceptible to corruption and one breeder or dog owner being treated completely differently to their neighbours. Lots of Vic dogs registered breeders have been of the belief that their exemptions meant they were exempt from having to have the planning permits for the dog numbers when in fact right now all it gives them is an exemption from having to pay for a permit to breed dogs no matter what if you own more than 2 dogs in suburbia you have to have an approval to have any more if you live in a rural zone you can have 5 [usually] but if they are fertile and you are not Vicdogs you need a DAL because you are then considered a breeder even if you never breed them or intend to breed them. Now then you come to the legislation which covers rescue and if she is acting as a shelter she is very much restricted in that area as well. Either way in Victoria you need planning approval, on top of that you need a domestic animal licence if you are not Vicdogs and own more than 3 fertile dogs or if you are Vicdogs and own 10 fertile dogs. If you are a shelter you need a planning approval, and you need to comply with mandatory codes and laws pertaining to that - including how long a rescue animal can stay on your premises, and what conditions the dogs must be in to be offered for re homing etc. Nothing in Victoria pertaining to dogs is uncomplicated but the fact is whilst you may be able to argue some council's policies are not counted as a council cannot put harder laws on that state laws but in the main they are covered in state legislation.

I read it as a breakdown of the nutrients in the Superboost product rather than the diet. I thought it would just add some balance to home made to make sure he gets all the proper nutrients. Better to feed balanced than add a powder, really. I think it gives us peace mind, if nothing else. I'm always questioning if I'm giving the right balance, even though I have shiny coats, good teeth, fresh breath (the dogs, not me), nice firm poos. As far as supplements go, I think this one is fairly reasonably priced. But how do you know its the right balance?

I read it as a breakdown of the nutrients in the Superboost product rather than the diet. I thought it would just add some balance to home made to make sure he gets all the proper nutrients. What nutrients - it speaks of ingredients not nutrients that I can see - am I looking in the wrong place?

Yes I saw the ingredients - I want to know ratios and the end product analysis When you just start feeding a supplement without knowing these things you could easily be setting up an in balance that creates bigger long term problems.

I would want to see vitamin and mineral compositions - a chemical analysis of the finished product first.

What being legal, restricting the maximum numbers of say dogs you are allowed to have on a specific property across the state, of course they can. There are council limits in various parts of the country, in the ACT if you're not a registered breeder you cannot have any more than 4 dogs. All they are doing in Victoria is extending this thinking to the breeding community. I meant taking dogs and killing them for simply being over numbers...one would think there would be a warning system / an opportunity afforded to the owner to reduce numbers first. That's usually the way and unless there is a welfare concern - sick dogs or filth etc it takes a court to have the animals removed See this case recently dealt with in the courts in Victoria - these guys were lucky too because the current laws were drafted to be able to close them down and even take their assets - lots not happy with the outcome and its no guarantee that all will end this way. Quote - link no longer current A TOORADIN puppy farmer has escaped conviction under new laws designed to stamp out puppy farming after a vet described him as far too kind for his own good.Koo Wee Rup vet Luke Morrison told the court Derul Van Hollis and his wife Judy ran one of the best dog-breeding establishments he had encountered, with dogs well cared for even when well beyond breeding age. Mr Van Hollis could have made a lot more money if he'd got rid of them," he said. "As far as I was concerned, it's a totally inefficient business and that's due to their passion for looking after their animals.In the Dandenong Magistrates Court last week, Mr Hollis and his company Demfield Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to 115 charges of running an unregistered breeding business and failing to comply with the code of practice for breeding and rearing establishments.The case, brought by Casey Council, was the first prosecution in Victoria under 'Oscar's Law', named after a puppy rescued from a dog-breeding factory in central Victoria in 2011. Magistrate Brian Barrow fined Demfield a total of $11,500 plus $6700 costs, but did not record a conviction or penalty against Mr Van Hollis. He said he was satisfied from the evidence that he was not one of the rogue puppy farmers targeted by Oscar's Law.Prosecutor Brett Melke told the court council officers visited Mr Van Hollis' property on January 12 last year and found 112 unregistered dogs and 11 puppies on the premises.Counsel for Mr Van Hollis, David Starvaggi, said this was not a case of animal cruelty. He said Mr Van Hollis had previously had a permit for 84 dogs but he had let certain regulatory matters lapse after his wife suffered a stroke.Mr Barrow said it was clear from the evidence of Dr Morrison, and that of two other animal welfare experts, that Mr Van Hollis was highly conscientious in his care of his dogs.Mrs Van Hollis gave a cry of relief when Mr Barrow said he would not make an order for the removal of the dogs "from what I'm satisfied is a caring environment".He said Mr Van Hollis was entitled to benefit from his good record and discharged him without conviction or penalty on condition that he register the dogs and the business and comply with the code of practice. Casey mayor Amanda Stapledon said the council was disappointed in the verdict, which did not reflect the council's repugnance about puppy farming.

Lets be clear about this - the current laws in Victoria - not new codes which are proposed the current laws see anyone who breeds dogs without the necessary permits to be an illegal puppy farmer. No matter where you live or what size your property is or how long you have been doing or what your motivations are or whether you have the best dam facilities and healthiest animals in the world etc that is the way it is. They have given her a chance to sort this out without seizing her dogs and charging her and she had better take it and quickly. She needs a permit to keep more than 2 dogs , there are requirements she has to work under if she is a shelter and there are codes she has to work under if she is a breeder but she needs the permits.

Ive spoken about this in the news section - but this isnt about any proposed new legislation. These laws and codes have already been in place and have been actively enforced for some time now. The simple fact is that council gets to say how many animals you can have on your property at any time. The new codes which are on the table will make no difference to this - in fact one of the proposals actually will allow a breeder to have up to 120 dogs on their property with only one person looking after them. The codes and laws pertaining to breeding and shelters cover such things as how many fertile animals you can have on your property with and without permits but no matter where you live in Victoria if you have more than 2 dogs on your property whether you breed or not you have to have council approval. This exact situation is common but its also a risk factor for too many animals for one person to cope with, too many animals for the neighbours to enjoy living beside etc. Recently we saw a 'PUPPY FARMER' splashed all over the news but at the time of the illegal film footage she only had a couple of breeding animals on her property and no puppies.Her numbers had gradually increased due to her older dogs staying with her all their lives and the dogs she had rescued of her breed and she was having trouble coping with the work load. Someone dobbed her in,her dogs were in good nick and she was given a dead line time to update her kennels to fit the new codes which are already in - which she didn't make on time - that had nothing to do with the proposed codes either. All of us - ordinary dog owners, breeders and rescue have to be clear about the numbers we are legally able to own and the numbers we can look after without compromising their quality of life. We all have choices and I feel for her but if we want to breed or rescue we need to consider how we manage that will impact on how many of our own animals can stay and whether we are prepared to keep the number to a legal and welfare limit. This isn't about why you keep the animals on your property or motivations its about the level of care and the number of animals a property can cope with depending on the infra structure etc. There isn't any point in petitioning and yelling about it and calling it that someone has done the wrong thing - she needs to see that she is one of the lucky ones - could have been much worse - and make the necessary decisions to help her to sleep at night and comply with codes and laws.

Council have a right to enter your property/land but RSPCA have no legal powers to enter without a warrant. Useful info on your rights in link below. UK based but same here. http://the-shg.org/B...et%20owners.htm Not the same here in all states at all.

Not true. Council and the RSPCA have the right to enter a property to check on breeders now under the current legislation. They can ensure that the correct numbers the breeders has approval to keep is adhered to. Sorry, Im against the new laws but it would be no different if the new codes had never been proposed. This breeder was spotted because she breeds and rescues and she has been told all is good as long as she doesn't end up with more dogs than she can cope with.She is one of the lucky ones. Nothing to do with the proposed new codes at all. Council and RSPCA have been moving around Victoria since the last lot came in and many breeders have been told they have to pay money to provide the necessary housing etc. Nothing new here.

A couple of Maremmas I bred live with birds -Parrots etc and its nothing for them to live with poultry - I mean really live with them as in with them 24 hours a day - looking after them as they are doing with the penguins.

Yep Job well done - good to see.

Wonder how they tested immaturity.