Steve

you'd be crucified for doing it now, regardless of the bitch being up to it or not. Of course there's no science, it's pen pushers and animal lib drawing the lines in the sand these days, regardless of them being wrong. But hey, they have to protect the dogs from the puppy farmers some how Meanwhile, thanks to 'improved' and often very costly fertility therapies, women are having babies into their 40s and 50s. Go figure! Yeah I had last baby at 45 and it was good for me.

Well that's not my experience prior to all of these beliefs when breeders did mate their bitches every season the bitches were healthier and lived longer. Sad really that breeders who have come in over the last 15 or 20 years will never get to know the difference but when we were able to do it the bitches thrived and made beautiful babies. I believe due to what Ive seen pre breeding mythology that bitches take a break themselves if they are not ready to go again - they have a delayed heat, or don't mate or don't get pregnant for a season or two and then go again. Im more than happy to be shown evidence that its better for bitches to be held off and rested which isnt based on assumption rather than experience or studies but in my opinion based on what I have seen and experienced bitches in good health are most times ready to go again next season and if they arent then the breeder should be the one determining this . Here's my three big beefs 1 even if I take my bitch to a vet and he determines she has bounced back and is healthy and more than able to have another litter that is taken out of my hands due to laws and codes. 2. Even though the bitch's reproductive system is unique to only this species it is manipulated by what has become the norm pushed by those who never bred dogs and the basic science of canine reproduction is completely thrown in the bin 3. That modern breeders are educated by animal rights propaganda and real research and experience and science is no longer needed because its taken out of a breeders control.Most of us believe it because we couldn't challenge it even if we wanted to. All in case some puppy farmer does mate dogs in poor condition though in my opinion if a bitch really is in poor condition she wont get pregnant any way. She will go down hill during a pregnancy and feeding and raring if she isn't fed adequate diet and treated appropriately but that's not the same as whether she will be fit to be mated again next season. We should have the right to test it and do what suits our girls and our breed and what is best for the species - but those days are gone and based on whats on the table in 5 years time new breeders will be telling us that we shouldnt mate a stud dog after 6 because its hard on them and having too much sex is a terrible life.

What is it we are compromising on though? If you are a a breeder and you determine your bitch is in good health why do we need to have to jump through hoops to get approval to do so? I think that it is, per normal, a case of the rotten apples spoiling it for everyone - the sorts of breeders who are so keen for another litter that they do not take account of the bitch's health. A vet certificate of health means a professional disinterested person makes the call. I don't think it is a big deal to get a certificate, not when you see bitches who have had a litter (average number 10 pups) every year since they were 2, bred yet again at age 9. That sort of thing is one of the reasons we are facing draconian regulations. O.K I hear you except why is it bad for a bitch to be bred every year since they are two until they are 9 ?

What is it we are compromising on though? If you are a a breeder and you determine your bitch is in good health why do we need to have to jump through hoops to get approval to do so?

Back in the dark ages where no one was telling us how old a bitch should be before she shouldn't have a litter it was nothing for bitches to be mated and have wonderful healthy lives and superb litters well into their teens and every sign showed they thrived on it. There isnt any science to say they should stop at any given age or time in their lives and in all honesty unless you have actually had a bitch that whelped in her teens how can you assume its too hard on them? So much is dependent on breed and its about her health not her age.

Yeah thats what I thought but it shows what can be done with rescue if its managed well and you keep an eye on theft. Why didnt she just draw wages I wonder?

Why on earth would they put a stop to males over 6 years mating? In some breeds certain health problems can take a few years to show themselves (and there is no dna test for). Actually to be honest when I saw this in the proposal I went looking for why on earth would they do that and I wasnt able to find even a tiny hint as to why - .The proposal wants then to only mate one bitch at a time - though Ive never known a dog with an extra penis so not sure how that could happen anyway .Puppy farmers may know more than us and why they have all of those dogs with doodle in their name They also said it was O.K. to mate them every day for 60 days straight if you gave them 2 days rest after the 60 days. That would be something to see wouldn't it ? Might make the Guinness book of records!

Same here

My link BANGOR, Maine — A Glenburn woman was sentenced Tuesday to three years in prison with all but 18 months suspended for stealing nearly $100,000 from B.O.N.E.S., a beagle rescue organization, over a four-year period while she was its president. Leanne Parks, 39, also was sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to pay $94,655 in restitution. Before being sentenced, Parks pleaded guilty to one count of Class B theft. District Court Judge Gregory Campbell stayed her sentence at the Maine Correctional Center in Windham until June 21. Parks, who co-founded Beagles of New England States in 2003, systematically diverted funds intended to pay veterinary bills, buy dog food and supplies for the rescued dogs, and to reimburse volunteers for expenses, Assistant Attorney General Leanne Robbin, who prosecuted the case, told Campbell. Between July 2005 and June 2009, when the theft was uncovered by other B.O.N.E.S. board members, Parks diverted more than half the checks written to the organization to a secret bank account, Robbin said. Parks spent the money for personal expenses at retails stores, including Bed Bath & Beyond, Victoria’s Secret, Linens ‘n Things, T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, The Children’s Place, the Gap, Old Navy, L.L. Bean, Dollar Tree, Reny’s, Payless Shoes, Target, Walmart, Kohl’s, Shaw’s and Hannaford Bros. The amount stolen totaled $114,930 but due to the six-year statute of limitations, Parks could only be charged with stealing $94,655, Robbin told the judge. The prosecutor said after the hearing that Parks had paid nothing toward restitution before sentencing. Sharon Vartanian, treasurer of B.O.N.E.S., said that the organization had lost more than money. The New Boston, N.H., woman said the trust in the organization had been damaged, volunteers had left and it was unclear whether the group would ever regain its former status. While the theft had been hard on members of the organization, the dogs suffered the most, Vartanian said. “While these numbers will change depending on who you talk to, assuming the average medical cost per beagle, during 2005 to 2009, was about $400, we were not able to help approximately 285 beagles,” she told the judge. “On average, we take in about 100 to 110 beagles a year. Two hundred eighty-five beagles is almost three years’ worth of animals. Imagine what it would have been like if we could have saved all these dogs or taken in very sick dogs and helped them recover versus euthanizing them.” She estimated that 190 dogs may have been euthanized because B.O.N.E.S. did not have the funds to care for them. Defense attorney Walter McKee of Augusta submitted more than 30 letters in support of Parks. Some of them were from other B.O.N.E.S. volunteers and her former colleagues at the Bangor Police Department, he told the judge. Parks worked as a dispatcher for the Bangor police from June 16, 2009, until Feb. 4, 2013, when she resigned from the position, according to Melissa Borden, human resource specialist for the city of Bangor. Parks was placed on paid administrative leave May 14, 2012, and unpaid administrative leave July 8, nearly two weeks after her indictment June 27 by the Penobscot County grand jury, Borden said Tuesday after Parks was sentenced. She also served on the board of the Bangor Humane Society for several years beginning in 2002. Parks’ ex-husband said the mother of the couple’s two children, ages 7 and 9, was a woman devoted to her family and animals, especially the dogs she helped rescue. “Not one dog was ever left in a kennel, not one dog was ever left in a shelter and not one dog was ever left in an abusive situation,” Brhaun Brodrick Parks of Kenduskeag told Campbell. “She made it a mission to rescue every dog that she heard about. “And based on facts, she rescued more dogs in a shorter time with the organization than has been rescued since,” he continued. “Because if no other foster home would take the dog, which was the case time and time again, we would take that dog in until room was available.” Leanne Parks told Campbell that she took responsibility for her actions. “I have never wavered from my commitment to rescue dogs,” she said. Parks said that due to her efforts, about 800 dogs had been rescued. “About 500 of them, I personally handled,” she told the judge. Parks said the she might never recover financially from the sentence and restitution order. She said that in order to pay it, she might have to sell her home and car. McKee did not recommend a specific sentence but asked that it be nine months or less so Parks could serve it at the Penobscot County Jail so it would be easier for her children and family to visit. Campbell imposed the sentence Robbin recommended. Parks faced up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $20,000.

Maybe not in Victoria

Have to be careful what you say these days as they want to make it illegal to breed a male dog over six but I have had a beautiful litter or two of puppies out of a 13 year old boy and probably had some older than that over the last 30 plus years.

Congrats - a truly great achievement - well done Sway.

Try this - its the HTML version My link

O.K. I get what you are looking for now I have a code of practice which was introduced for SA in 2003 and adopted as policy -covers all of it for shelters and pounds etc it goes out as a part of our rescue course no website address but Ill keep looking as it must be on the net somewhere for now I need to send it via an attachment as it wont load here either Say where and what address and Ill send it through for you

I dropped the pup off myself and it was collected by new owners. Within hours a cough developed. It all depends on what the cough is caused by .Im assuming its not kennel cough but you need a diagnosis to enable you to know if its something the pup has which became more obvious due to the flight, whether it was an allergy to something it was exposed to etc but simply flying shouldnt give the pup a cough.

You may be 'aware of all that'.... but you don't grasp it. You need to think about what socialisation entails. What is enabled in home-style settings, allows for it (the evidence is in), but those factors are not present in large-scale commercial settings to allow for it (the evidence is in). I follow the evidence. End of story. Except for consumer action. The pet buying public needs to be made aware of the evidence.... which isn't rocket science. And vote with their feet. It's as much a consumer issue as a welfare problem Presently, the large scale commercial puppy farms are seen as 'all business is good'.... & some state governments' legislation is working on that financial benefits model. But, amazingly, at the same time, they're wrestling with the high costs associated with the dumping of dogs in pounds/shelters .... as well as trying to make the community safer from dog bites/attacks. It needs to be pointed out to them that they can save in both areas, if they track back to associated causes. Again, the evidence is in....lack of socialisation of puppies is associated with later dog 'problems' that lead to dumping. So, down the track, any 'business' financial benefits from 'farming' dogs gets translated into local government & community costs. Yeah well I follow the evidence too and its not just studies its what Ive seen and experienced .I breed home raised puppies and I know the difference and how important socialisation is but Ive also been in a house where there were dead dogs stacked on top of each other in a bedroom ,where the stench and crap made all who were exposed to it physically ill as they were cleaning it up. Ive seen dozens of breeding dogs standing in 6 inches of poop imbedded in concrete floors living in cells and never seeing daylight with urine burns and infected eyes from the stench, Ive seen bitches with puppies stacked in crates weeing and pooping into the one under neath and when they are let out once a day desperate to drink the green water form an old wading pool to stay alive - so if its O.K. with you Id prefer to see someplace like this if we have to have large scale commercial kennels. Socialisation is a biggy and we do need to keep pushing that its a huge difference but its only one thing thats out there and needs to be considered. One of the other things is the conditions and believe me this place is looking good. That's a completely different subject to the ethics of large scale breeding for profit,whether its right or wrong and how lack of socialisation impacts on a puppy.

Yes Mita Im aware of all of that but that's exactly what I mean when I say there is two separate issues - one is the facility the other is the fact that they breed large scale for profit.Do they ensure their puppies are highly socilaised so they arent the same as their peers who breed dogs in factory like conditions,who dont socialise them ? No idea but nor does anyone else . Just as Ive no doubt that there are some small breeders who don't socialise their puppies efffectively Im sure there must at least one large scale breeder who might. This set up is more conducive to socialisation than being locked in small stalls until they are due to go off to a pet shop. Given that we cant and wont ever stop large scale commercial breeding of dogs and that we cant expect that someone will keep 80 plus adult dogs and their litters in their loungerooms then in my opinion this is a better situation for the dogs to be living in over and above concrete cells. The concept that we can completely shut down an entire industry which has a tick from all state governments and the ATO is crazy whether we like it or not.

Wow, that is so lovely of you. Ill send you a PM

what the MDBA develops or thinks of things is not the law or the current code which is what the OP wants. Oh OK I thought she wanted a definition and opinions - a start point for research - there are no laws or COP to cover most of it so if that's what its about its going to be a short topic.

Agreed but there is also a valid case for being able to stand up for yourself and yell about what you feel to be un just too.

Well if you are going to talk about the property in difference to their morality for breeding the numbers they do in the big scheme of things it looks like a pretty good place to me to be housing breeding dogs and rearing puppies. It beats the hell out of factory type situations which many breeders and rescue keep their dogs in. Clearly not all of the place is photographed - no whelping rooms,where are the 80 dogs etc and to assess from these photos that they dont have enough facilities, that they dont have a water supply or sewer ,that they have no way of getting rid of their wastes ,that they dont socialise their puppies well enough etc are assumptions. This is Queensland and not NSW Tralee. There are water tanks and there has to be a sewerage system or they wouldn't have the buildings , there is natural water and a dam, probably dont have town water but thats not a requirement in any state they have council approval and the place is clean and well maintained. They could have numerous methods of dealing with wastes which is council approved and must have considering they have council approval to do what they do . All high and dry if there is a flood and easy to clean. It would take more work and more staff to operate as there is more walking than there is when they are all stacked on top of each other in a kennel block . None of us like the idea that someone should own 80 breeding dogs but clearly the powers that be dont see it that way and in every state there is legislation which is either in place or on the table to give them a bigger tick at law and making it easier for these massive enterprises to continue than it is for someone who breeds a couple of litters a year. There isnt a chance in hell that this will be stopped - its seen as a legitimate business activity and after some of the places Ive been in where breeders own less than this Id rather see this type of set up with puppies running on grass with no stench and acting like dogs than any Ive seen based on what I can see in the photos.

OK Steve... If Lola's place was the local pound, would you still feel the same way? Seeing as it seems that it has been running like one with accepting strays dumped on them by the local council, etc If Lola works for a living and her rescue operation is a sideline, then she really should look at the numbers carefully, if only to be able to keep them clean, fed, and watered on a daily basis. One can't rely solely on volunteers to run your sideline business and keep increasing their workload to impossible levels - volunteers are a fickle bunch by nature, and can't necessarily be relied on to front up with regularity and slave their guts out for a lost cause... On a side note, I wonder how many of her FB supporters have ever seen a working kennel operation, or have even the faintest idea of how much hard work is involved in providing the animals with everything they need to thrive and become fully adoptable? With the numbers of animals Lola has, it's just not feasible for it to be run in conjunction with a full time paying job. T. To be honest I dont know how I would feel if it were a pound and Im not defending them in what they have done nor am I saying they should keep operating and clearly they cant unless they do something radical to ensure the dogs dont suffer whilst being saved. Im simply feeling that she is down and in a pretty dark place whether she admits that she has mucked it up or not, her life as she knew it will never be the same and the wheels are already in motion to ensure she isnt able to continue on . Call me soft but I just think she has been flogged enough.

Well for what its worth - I think Lola was trying to do the right thing by the dogs. It would appear there was a lot wrong and pretty obvious that something needed to be done. But I think that Lola has been punched enough and is likely to punched officially,publicly more yet. In all honesty I dont care if they have been asking for donations without licences to do so and I dont care about what her income stream has been . The consequences for her and the dogs and all rescue especially in that state are already going to be far reaching. Its not going to help any dogs for her to be raked over the coals about the nitty gritty of how the place was managed - the focus needs to be on how it will function to be able to ensure dogs are able to be in the best circumstances possible and what help is needed to achieve that. im not up for kicking hell out of old ladies when they are down and that will be the result if we loose focus on whats best for the dogs and start looking at how she should be punished.

If you go here www.mdba.net.au up the top to join now we have developed various codes of conduct for rescue and foster carers. Not as easy as it sounds as there are varying perceptions and philosophies of what that may mean and its why you get lots of conflict in how its done by various groups. Probably most agree its about saving an animal from a distressing or stressful situation but where the problems show are in the definition of distressing or stressful. Some groups like PR believe any thing is better than death and there is a ground swell of where saving and rescuing means saving from being euthanised - others think that its about the quality of life no point in saving it if it lives the rest of a life of less than it should. Some have different views on what is a good life with some groups believing they should all run free and never be "used" by humans. Some would see the need to save it if it was never walked around the block , or if it didnt get much human company , if its being bred or if it sleeps outside. Some will compromise on almost anything to save the dog and not consider it an issue to put the dog , the family or community at risk as long as they "save" the dog from death row or from what they consider a life of misery. Everything that happens to the dog - including breeding it or warehousing it for them is better than dead. All of these will fight because they believe they are right so in our case we had to work out what we thought was right and develop a code of ethics to enable us to gather a group of like minded people and groups and thats outside of any laws because its about motivations and ethics. Not saying that other ethics and motivations are wrong but they are not all the same. So the definition of rescue is the easy bit defining what an animal should be rescued from and at what cost is more complicated.

Thanks Steve. That's very helpful and exactly what I was looking for. Most people can't have 'full quarantine' so the option is either foster in the manner I have been doing or not foster at all but I'd like to see what steps other people take to minimise risks when full quarantine is not possible. As mentioned, I can do things like: - segregate dog from my dogs for 2 weeks - as mentioned, there's a concreted area which we can segregate with a fence and then put a run/crate inside that - when inside, keep the dog crated and in the bathroom - have bleach ready - ideally wear different clothes/shoes I still haven't decided I will take dogs that are out of a pound, I'm still pondering things and seeing what I'm prepared to do. We've had a dog with kennel cough before and one of my own dogs came to us with ringworm so we've treated those things before. I really am most concerned about parvo because it's so horribly infectious and incredibly cruel to the dogs in question. I agree - but even if one agrees to 'take the risk', there are risk mitigation steps that can be taken rather being entirely irresponsible and letting the dog mingle with resident dogs, run around on grass and tramp all through through the house etc. There's clearly a line between all in and all out. That being said, my dogs do go to obedience school and dog park so are no doubt exposed to all sorts of nasties there, too. Nonetheless, I do want to try to take precautions where possible. Just because its almost my birthday Ill shout you a foster carers course which covers all of this if you like. Julie