Steve

+3 T. + 4

Wow!!! Wow!! Wow!!!!

And that's where it's possible to be proactive. Get the information to the consumers.... about companion dogs & how they're best bred and raised to be so. Information that's based on evidence. CHOICE (the Australian Consumers' Association) took a first step back in 2006 with their advice on how to buy a dog. Gently & rationally, they point people towards registered breeders... & to responsible rescue. Away from a 'farming' style of producing puppies. With a little tweaking to add more explicit evidence .... like socialisation of both puppies & mother dogs, & what constitutes a home-style setting .... this kind of information should be got out to the public. http://www.choice.co...ying-a-dog.aspx Better information will allow pet owners vote with their feet when getting a puppy/dog. And also gather support for criticism of any proposed laws that could reduce the best sources for getting sound companion dogs. This. There is a huge un tapped human resource thats being ignored. We are ALL focused on cases that are used to illustrate a need for regulation. Its not just peta using these tactics. Many of us here use the same to denigrate non ANKC breeders.They in turn use the same against pedigree breeders.Shocking things happen and they will always happen,but we aren't hearing about how people are spending more than ever on their pets care and veterinary treatment or any other positive change in pet ownership.There are plenty. People are much more aware of animal welfare issues and society is changing . While every one is busy pointing the finger at where legislation is needed, none are promoting practices that are shown to work for both welfare and pet buyers.Regardless of whether they are ANKC or not. Not everyone is pointing the finger at where legislation is needed and some ARE promoting practices that are shown to work for both welfare and pet buyers regardless of whether they are ANKC or not My link

Great stuff - even better when you get to live with them and watch them close up.

Im happy to be corrected but as far as I know you cant breed Scottish Fold Cats in Victoria - dont have time at the moment to look it up.

Agreed - however the issue is this was banned by law not a Fancy in Victoria and that brings new things into play. Why didnt the Australia fancies self regulate and ban them without government intervention , why have other state's Fancy members been able to continue? If it is to be government intervention over self regulation who will make the decisions, based on what criteria and how? Can any of you really see the ANKC banning the breeding of any breed or genetic characteristic without a law and with only self regulation? clutching at what they can do to appear to care about the welfare of animals they have introduced restrictions on when a bitch can be bred and which dog she cant be bred to with disregard for science but that wont help at all - in fact it makes it worse. Eventually there will be legal intervention. No way out of it and the stage is set especially in Victoria to simply add them in to existing laws without the need for debate or parliamentary looks and momentum for that is building. Instead constantly looking out and blaming those things impacting we need to focus on the positive things WE do - stop giving into them and stand our ground - exposing some of what is being pushed as ill informed and crap. Ive recently had the honour of speaking individually with numerous purebred breeders, some of whom are working with breeds in development and without exception they are inspirational , the work they do to ensure their breeds will continue on with animals with great quality of life is outstanding and breeders like that will never be shut down by any outside interference .Its those things we need to be talking about in forums such as this. Problem is saying one breeder is doing a good job usually leads to dozens disputing that . If animal rights have been successful at anything its destroying any chance of unity and without unity and combined voices even if there are some things which we all don't agree on there is only a whisper to fight it.

Agree says nothing about anything - Means nothing except that there's a push on Australia wide for a licencing system and they pretend its about somehow stopping puppy farmers - how licensed doesn't mean they go away or stop breeding.

It has become a runaway train and we simply ran out of time and struck some pretty big unexpected hurdles including a death in the family so we had to handle some categories without the usual calls depending on how many nominees in that category didn't have correct contact details or didn't answer the phone or didn't call me back etc. Im now starting to work back wards so as many as I can reach if their contact details are correct will still get a call and a certificate. Several things have changed for next year to take it back to everyone getting a call and for it all to run more smoothly to handle the work load to get it done in the time frames we have. We have cut out and combined some categories , nominations close end of Jan instead of end of Dec and the big night in Melbourne is in May instead of March with some other big surprises for those who can get there.Ill start calling nominees sooner too. We will also be taking on a paid employee in the next 2 months to help out with calls, advertising, sponsorship etc and another around January to work in admin for us which will free us up a bit to do more of the fun stuff.

Everything else you said was top notch and all excellent ideas. Unfortunately and sadly, anyone whose name is mentioned in the same line as animal cruelty loses any chance of sympathy let alone help in most cases. At least the Lady from the Horse rescue was trying her best to help him. I feel so sorry for her, she must be devestated. But timely warning, end up with too many (managable or otherwise) and slip over the new crime line "hoarder" (is it worse or as bad as Puppy farmer?) and you can be toast. no matter like this chap was actively working to solve the problem. only a nice prosecution and public humiliation, will clean the public slate. (I am told any numbers 6 or over is been asked to be considered as "hoarding" for legislation? Is this true , or more rumours?) If it has been presented for legislation Id be surprised and I haven't heard anything of that but putting it or similar into policy for people or groups charged with policing laws or helping people is probable and Id be surprised if its not there already that it will be any time soon.

Horrible coats

Lap it up Sheila - the competition was tough and you didn't take it off without putting up a good fight .Its an honour to be associated with you and a pleasure to bring you the news! Sending you your new logo now

Lap it up Sheila - the competition was tough and you didn't take it off without putting up a good fight .Its an honour to be associated with you and a pleasure to bring you the news!

that still doesn't cover the public persecution - this case may be warranted intervention though charging him seems counter productive especially after someone was in there helping him but that part of it was done according to the law - the issues had been resolved but some of the other cases sited it may not have been - with no one charged etc . There have been many cases of this type of animal rights attacks on those who stand accused by fanatics where it ruins their lives and reputations indefinitely even when they are not hoarding or doing anything wrong. I understand why it may be necessary for this type of clandestine operation in places such as over seas abattoirs etc but we have laws in this country to be able to inspect and take action via legal means if a person is doing the wrong thing by their animals. reports of animal cruelty are followed up and action is taken via legal channels there is no need to escalate it to death threats and destroying property and stalking etc.

This. Even if you are declared %100 innocent and even if there was an ombudsman and ways to appeal and all the rest, once your face and name are out there, that's it. The social media court does not need a legitimate conviction and any nutter, psychopath and loony can become a part of it. People get harassment and death threats for the rest of their lives as you have described above. I realize puppy farming is bad, but destroying people's lives for unproven allegations is completely unforgivable. I still feel bad for the breeder whose place was featured on Today Tonight. That whole thing really made me aware of the powers that can be brought against you without any actual legal action needing to be taken. Personally, I think people who break and enter and trespass in pursuit of damning video and photographic evidence should be exposed to the same harassment as the people they are supposedly exposing. Maybe they will learn some compassion that way. Puppy farming is worse than bad and those that profit from the misery they inflict on dogs until they are no use anymore, are the lowest of the low. They are ONLY interested in profiting from the animals, they are not interested in the welfare of the animals they own nor the ones they ship off to petshops. Agreed but there are adequate laws to enable those in authority to investigate and charge and take action against people who are guilty without the need to have someone who is a fanatic creep around in the night and ruin someone's life often when its not justified. Not all of the people they expose and ruin are puppy farmers but if they are and keeping dogs in poor conditions there is no need to crucify them when the courts do that . The breeder I spoke of in the previous post isnt a puppy farmer - in fact very far from it but she is still hunted relentlessly.

Yep depends what suits their need for sensationalism and propoganda.

Lack of outside accountability is a biggy but any case regardless of whether its got any credibility or humanity is used by them and the loonies to generate support for their causes - they have no concept of how what they do impacts on people lives when they are often in very vulnerable situations . the journalists who use their illegally obtained film without any concern for the legitimacy or the impact on those they run this crap on have much to explain as well. even when there are no charges and no verdict of guilty those accused lives are in tatters all because its sensationalised to get more donations and drum up public support for their ideologies. Ive seen this type of bullying and vendetta targeted at anyone who is handy for them. One breeder in particular has had to endure constant RSPCA raids in which there was never anything found to be an issue and she always got a tick on her dogs and how she manages them.They put their crap on a word press site which stays there for decades accusing her of the most incredible things, they tell lies and edit photos and hunt the person for ever. Type in the person's name or kennel name and there are tons of disgusting accusations - about really personal things which have nothing to do with dogs - accusing her of being a slut because she has supposedly had three marriages [she hasnt] etc none of which are substantiated or true. They track her every where she moves .Publicly they tell her they want to track her phone via GPS To a point where she is now in her mid seventies and lives In hard conditions - no power or water - trusts no one so she is isolated geographically as well as emotionally so she is not easily found with her 4 dogs which she only allows out to run at night and she is up all night watching for spot lights from the loonies. she has her mail redirected to three different addresses and the things she does to prevent them form finding her are harsh and extreme. Why? Because one person had a personal tiff with her and they went to animal rights to pay her back. There is no evidence to show that anything they say about her is true yet she suffers still with constant threats and swipes and Ive no doubt they will hound her to her grave. Anyone found to be in contact with her or "on her side" is also targeted and threatened , any group she is a member of is threatened with bad PR if they dont throw her out . its illegal its defammation, its slander, its stalking and bullying but nothing to be done to stop it. Pay $5000 to get a court order to keep one person form having a website and another pops up. Take out an AVA against one person and the rest of the group keep coming. the RSPCA need to keep confidentiality and animal rights groups who sneak around at night taking photos should be charged.

Lots to talk about here - though remember this is the UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334136/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Five-suicides-One-common-thread-They-fell-foul-RSPCA.html?ito=feeds-newsxml The last person to speak to Clwyd Davies was his best friend, Michelle Crowther, who telephoned his ramshackle farmhouse just outside Wrexham at around 8pm on Sunday, April 7. It was just two days after the 69-year-old horse breeder had stood before a magistrate for sentencing at the end of a long, harrowing and high-profile court battle with the RSPCA. Distraught at the verdict — he’d been banned from keeping horses for five years — Davies was coming to terms with the imminent loss of a herd of animals that he would call his ‘children’. ‘Clwyd was very angry and unhappy, and upset,’ says Michelle. ‘Those horses were his life, and the thought of having to give them up left him deeply saddened. The outcome of the RSPCA case was a huge blow, and he felt persecuted.’ That night, Davies vanished, leaving the door of his home ajar, and his wallet, keys and overcoat on the kitchen table. He left no message to friends or family, and showed no sign of having planned a long trip. His most treasured possession, a stack of photos of the prize-winning horses and ponies he’d bred over the years, was found in a bedroom Police have since used a search-and-rescue helicopter to comb local hillsides, and deployed dog teams in a fruitless effort to track Davies down. He’s now been officially classified as ‘missing’ for eight weeks. ‘It’s a long time. He’s a distinctive man, and he ought to have been noticed,’ adds Michelle. ‘I’m obviously very, very concerned about his welfare.’ Though still hoping for good news, Michelle admits she is preparing for the worst: she finds it ‘increasingly unlikely’ that Davies will ever be found alive: ‘I never thought Clwyd was the sort of person who would harm himself. I mean, he’d lived through some very tough times. But at this stage, I’m afraid, you have to treat suicide as a distinct possibility.’ An eccentric, bearded figure, Davies became known to millions of TV viewers as The Horse Hoarder, after Channel 4 broadcast a documentary in January about his gruelling court battle with the RSPCA. The deeply moving film told how his life had spiralled out of control following the death of Hayley, his 18-year-old daughter, in a road accident. Suffering from depression, he’d thrown himself into breeding horses and ponies, keeping the animals first at his tenanted farm and later on a 75-acre plot on the outskirts of Wrexham. The financial crash of 2008 and the subsequent recession dealt a heavy blow to the horse trade, however. By early last year, Davies was having difficulty selling his livestock and his herd had ballooned to more than 50 unsold animals. Scraping by on a pension of around £100 a week, Davies was unable to afford to properly feed and care for his animals. Many looked underweight, and some were suffering from the effects of untreated parasites. He duly contacted Michelle, who runs a nearby horse rescue centre, and she began helping him to reduce the herd to a manageable level by finding homes for some of his stock. By late last year, just 22 remained. This summer, we’d have been able to get the number down, probably to a handful, which he could properly care for,’ says Michelle. ‘But, sadly, we never got the chance.’ The reason, she says, was the RSPCA. Early in 2012, before Michelle had begun to work with Davies, the charity had seized six of his horses, which had fallen ill. Later that year, it decided to charge him with 18 counts of neglect. ‘Clwyd didn’t need to be prosecuted, he needed help,’ says Michelle. ‘My work with him showed that. But the RSPCA seemed to treat the courts as a first, rather than a last, resort. From the moment it dealt with him, it was gathering evidence.’ However, the RSPCA says this is not the case. It prosecuted Davies only after giving him two warnings, one of which had a time limit extended On Channel 4’s The Horse Hoarder, RSPCA officers were shown shooting Davies’s horses with dart guns and loading them into the back of lorries. ‘They looked like police, acted like police, and Clwyd found the whole thing very stressful,’ says Michelle. ‘He was vulnerable, and it was sadly all too much.’ Last October, Davies later pleaded guilty to six of the 18 charges of neglect. He was asked to return to court six months later for sentencing. That hearing, immediately before he vanished, did not just see him banned from keeping horses. He was also fined £500 and ordered to complete 200 hours of community service. For Clwyd Davies, the sentence hadn’t been the half of it, either. Indeed, soon after the RSPCA’s charges were filed, he became the target of a sustained hate campaign from animal-rights extremists, who set up a Facebook page billing him ‘no better than a paedophile’. Sioned Morys, the award-winning documentary maker behind The Horse Hoarder, says the tyres of his tractor and other farm vehicles were slashed and water was poured into the diesel tanks of machinery. Power cables at his home were cut. At night, vandals began knocking on his door and waking his dogs. By day, mysterious figures would lurk in undergrowth, taking pictures of Davies and his animals, which were later uploaded to Facebook. ‘He wasn’t prone to self-pity, but I certainly felt sorry for him,’ says Michelle. ‘It felt like a vendetta. It was pure persecution.’ The harassment was reported to the police, yet it continued unabated for months. There is, of course, no suggestion that these actions were carried out by the RSPCA, but were rather the by-product of the publicity that came with the charity’s action. ‘I don’t think anybody is prepared for the degree of hate that comes towards you when you are caught up in one of these RSPCA cases,’ says Clive Rees, the lawyer who represented Davies. ‘The only thing I would compare it to is the treatment of child molesters or murderers. It’s that extreme.’ Rees believes that the sentence handed down in April came as a huge shock to Davies. ‘There was never any suggestion that Clwyd ever did anything deliberate to harm his animals,’ he says. ‘He loved them and wanted to continue to look after them. We pleaded guilty to neglect because the Animal Welfare Act expects you to keep animals 100 per cent fit, 100 per cent of the time, and he obviously hadn’t. ‘But, in my opinion, the ban wasn’t justified.’ Whatever its rights and wrongs, the Clwyd Davies case certainly throws an unforgiving spotlight on the RSPCA at a time of increasing scrutiny over its pursuit of expensive and high-profile legal cases and PR campaigns. In May, for example, the charity faced a public image crisis following the death of Dawn Aubrey-Ward, a former RSPCA officer found hanged at her home in Somerset. Aubrey-Ward — a mother of four, who left the organisation in 2010 — had given an interview critical of the RSPCA to the Mail on Sunday five months earlier. Speaking to the newspaper, she had described her horror, during her time as an employee, at having to euthanise what she called ‘healthy animals’. The comments sparked widespread controversy. In response, the RSPCA issued a statement which suggested that its whistleblowing former employee was a liar and a suspected criminal, who was motivated by malice. It began: ‘Please be aware that Dawn Aubrey-Ward is a disgruntled former employee of the RSPCA who was subject to a disciplinary investigation for alleged theft of animals. She left the organisation with matters still pending.’ The RSPCA’s statement was then picked up and circulated by animal-rights extemists. Over the days that followed, Aubrey-Ward endured a torrent of abuse on Twitter and Facebook, telling friends that she was struggling to cope with the tide of hate mail, death threats and abusive telephone calls from extremists. On her own Twitter feed, she claimed that the RSPCA had ‘ruined my life’ and said that its PR statement was ‘evil’. An inquest will soon rule on the cause of her death. Whatever conclusion it reaches, her case seems far from isolated. Indeed, recent years have seen several documented suicides involving men and women caught up in disputes with the RSPCA. Last year, for example, a Norfolk pig farmer called Stephen Brown shot himself in the head three days after the media was informed that the charity was investigating cases of animal cruelty on his property. It would appear that animal-rights activists videoed evidence of abuse of animals on his farm and circulated the video on the internet. The RSPCA was appalled and began an investigation. In 2010, Alan Brough, a Shetland pony breeder from Cumbria, hanged himself after the RSPCA confiscated his livestock. Recording a verdict of suicide, the local coroner said that, as a result of the raid, his ‘world fell apart’. Also that year, a gamekeeper called Graham Key killed himself after being found guilty of firearms offences following an RSPCA and police raid on his home. And, in 2008, a Cornish farmer called Richard Barrett died in what police called a suicide, the day after RSPCA and vets from the Department for the Environment, Food and Agriculture visited his property. The coroner recorded an open verdict. Clive Rees — who in addition to Clwyd Davies has represented many defendants in cruelty cases brought by the RSPCA — believes these tragic deaths are only the tip of an iceberg. ‘There are too many other cases to list,’ he says. ‘A few years ago, for example, I represented a chap in Stafford on a dog case. He was acquitted, rightly, but within two months was found hanged. That never even made the news.’ Rees says lawyers can also find themselves in the firing line of animal-rights extremists. He’s had bricks thrown through his office window and paint daubed on his front door after acting for clients accused of animal abuse. Others face more gruelling opposition. Take Jonathan Rich, a leading barrister who last month revealed that he has been forced to turn down defence work in cases brought by the RSPCA after a string of formal complaints were filed against him by the organisation and its supporters. In total, he’s faced a dozen misconduct complaints to the Bar Council. None has ever been upheld (although three remain active) but defending them has cost him around £1 million. The experience might have driven him to suicide, Rich said, ‘were I not a person of more than average firmness, with a very loving and supportive wife and family’. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be so robust. And many critics of the RSPCA believe that the number of reported suicides involving men and women in its firing line represents a trend. The truth, it must be said, is likely to be less straightforward. Suicide is, after all, a complex phenomenon which tends to be motivated by a variety of factors. The RSPCA also points out that it investigated 611,558 allegations of animal cruelty between 2009 and 2012. Yet RSPCA interventions and PR statements about people certainly seem to set off a tirade of abuse on Facebook or Twitter and other potentially distressing actions by animal-rights extremists (acting independently of the RSPCA) against the subjects of the charity’s actions, which may well be a core factor. Asked about the issue, the RSPCA said in a statement: ‘It is deeply saddening to hear of someone taking their own life. ‘However, we are appalled at any suggestion that the RSPCA is responsible for the tragic deaths of individuals. In the wake of recent events, it would not be appropriate for the RSPCA to discuss the circumstances of personal matters and specific cases beyond the information already in the public domain.’ With regard to the charity’s prosecution policy, the statement added: ‘The RSPCA will investigate any allegation of abuse or neglect and, if appropriate, prosecute those responsible for animal abuse.’ The charity also said prosecution is always a last resort and that it tries to help vulnerable people. That policy is, nonetheless, the subject of growing controversy. In January, MPs held a debate on the subject. Its sponsor, Simon Hart, a Tory MP, pointed out that in 2012 the charity secured 3,000 convictions at a cost of £8.7 million. That is more than twice the number of prosecutions it brought in 2008. The charity, Hart claimed, has become ‘possibly the most prolific private prosecutor in the UK’. As to the Clwyd Davies case, it will return to the public eye on June 12, when a follow-up to The Hoarse Hoarder is due to be screened by Channel 4. The film seems likely to make uncomfortable viewing for supporters of the nation’s largest animal charity. ‘I was at Clwyd’s house the day after he went missing,’ says Sioned Morys, the programme’s director. ‘While I was there, an RSPCA inspector turned up to talk to the police. She offered to assist in looking for his body. ‘At that very moment, I realised that it was the only time, in all my time covering Clwyd’s case, that I’d seen someone from the RSPCA offer to actually help.’

you dont need a licence to be offered and accept donations - idiots. thats like saying if I give you a dollar for a loaf of bread you cant take it - sheez

Not worth worrying about - male sperm can remain viable inside the bitch for up to 8 days so with this in mind theoretically its possible for sperm from just one mating to fertilise the eggs on any of the fertile days anyway - assuming you are mating at the right time the potential to have puppies a bit under cooked is the same as if it were just one mating and the bitch only ovulates once so there is only a couple of days anyway when she is likely to fall pregnant . So in any litter you may see one which could have done with a day or two more. All part of the reason why bitches have such a high chance of falling pregnant - because the male sperm hangs around waiting for the right time if the mating is done before she is fertile. It also true that matings done at the end of a bitches cycle will be far less chance of success of a pregnancy for the above reasons.

yep I rang Dogs NSW they tell me no max age except I cant mate a bitch over 8 without a vet certificate.

Some part has to be genetic as its a breed thing and the health of the parents and grandparents impact too, but I believe its about the immune system. Stress, chemicals and nutrition,exercise.

It sort of makes you feel that you havent heard all of the story doesnt it?

My link Charges of animal cruelty against a man accused of going on holiday and leaving his dog to die have been dismissed and the RSPCA has been ordered to pay more than $5000 in court costs. Laurance Guilfoyle, 46, faced a charge of not taking reasonable steps to alleviate harm for the pet which was found suffering at his home in Fremantle while he was away. In court on Tuesday it was alleged that RSPCA inspectors attended his Fremantle home in January last year after neighbours complained about an animal in distress. The inspectors found a blue heeler dog, known as "Bessie" laying on its side under a tree. Advertisement The animal appeared to be gasping for breath with dilated pupils and bright red gums, the court was told. Mr Guilfoyle told the court on Tuesday that he left a bone and buckets of water for the dog who was suffering from cancer while he went away. He said he did not take the dog to a vet before leaving for his holiday, as it would have "stressed her out." After the RSPCA found her a decision was made to have the dog put down on humane grounds after a vet examination found the dog was suffering from a state of infectious shock and would not survive longer than a few hours. The matter was dismissed in court on Wednesday and the RSPCA has been ordered to pay Mr Guilfoyle's legal costs of $5478. Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/rspca-to-pay-for-taking-dog-owner-to-court-20130529-2naev.html#ixzz2Uit4tRHE

Its not the ANKC which has limits on maximum ages for bitches - some states do but not the ANKC .

yes, whats gone so wrong. Although an awful lot died under car tyres too in those days if they didnt get street smart fast. But - if dogs didn't behave and or their owners weren't responsible the dogs copped a bullet . People still owned some dogs which were capable of biting and being a bit nasty but they were never given the chance - any sign that they might be a bit nasty ensured the owner made sure the dog never got out and never had the chance to bite or hurt someone or the neighbourhood would take action and the dog would be shot if the owner didn't do it themselves. All of those dogs we used to play with and accept as part of the community were judged safe - as kids we may not have understood how it came about that all of the dogs on the street were safe but behind the scenes our parents and other adults made sure that a growl or body language that wasnt quite right meant teh dog stayed home. Im older than you and I was one of the kids but also one of the parents.