Steve

Agreed - and while kennel cough is a pain and parvo is deadly they are not the only things which put your dogs and your family at risk. Ringworm, internal and external parasites,giardia etc. So if you have a system which is followed and never short cutted as the dog comes in you can at least minimise the risks. Taking its temp, checking its vitals, black light over it, worming preps given, a bath with a check and application of meds for fleas ticks etc and of course having your own dogs well protected with vaccinations etc. Know what is normal for a dog, heart rate, temperature, hydration signs, gum colour etc know how to spot for signs of external parasites etc So have a checklist that you work through and tick off no matter what before it comes into contact at all with your dogs or before it's feet hit the floor anything at all that's remotely out of wack is a red light -this isnt fool proof as parvo, and kennel cough incubate for several days and a dog can appear healthy and drop within a few hours but it reduces the risks radically.

No never.

I don't believe his involvement is motivated by politics. When I spoke with him I got a very strong impression it was about what he felt was best for the animals ,and his sense of justice. I think that is affecting his judgement, actions and behaviour. Don't think he would have done what he has done the way he has done it if it were more calculated or motivated by politics.

Good grief - Those poor animals.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought microchips were only registered in that State's database, and thus not useful in another state? Apparently thats only in NSW

Not a chance - too late anyway - its no longer as bad as it was when the RSPCA came in. This demonstrates that you dont need AA or Al or OL skating around in the night acting like terrorists to do the job anyway.

Loop hole - everyone find someone in states where there isnt this crap going on and take out a joint prefix - they can be born in the NT and registered with the ANKC there but can still be moved here and chipped and sold here. Im sure the NT would welcome the extra revenue. And if the council come in and find her on your property - hell she only just arrived from her other owner who lives in another state.

I dont believe that there is a way that any legislation can make the ANKC hand over member details to the RSPCA and Dog NSW policies make it irrelevant anyway as we have to leave ownership change to the new owner, we don't notify dogs NSW who the new owners are, we use our own prefixes to register puppies which are bred by dogs we no longer own etc. UNLESS they agree. However, some parts of their records are already able to be accessed anyway. Not a chance in hell they will get into the MDBA . I suppose when you think about it having to show evidence of your street address to renew your membership and having to put in chip numbers in fact is info they can access anyway because its all on the companion animals registry. All they have to do is make it illegal for the chip implanter not to put the first details in any name but the breeder's - no need for them to have access to Dogs NSW info - they have us anyway .

But that really is the main issue here. Dogs shouldn't suffer regardless of where they come from or what someone is keeping them for . If in fact it is in a dogs best interests to live as they make breeders dogs live then why should it be any different for any dog even though its not breeding? If - with breeders - they are complaining about the conditions and the welfare issues and that's why they get so hot under the collar at the suggestion someone might breed dog and gets busted for throwing a bone or not picking up a poop quickly enough then surely the same standards for welfare should be applied to any one who has a bunch of dogs. However , it would appear that they want rescue to have no accountability and that its O.K. for their dogs to be kept in poor conditions. Makes no sense if you are considering and focusing on what is best for the dogs. Unless they really do see that no matter what a dog has to suffer in life that its preferable to being PTS.

Less hobby breeders equals more dogs being kept in factory like conditions - nutters.

The Victorian legislation (Domestic Animals Act) specifically states that it is fertile bitches. Whoever wrote the DPI info did not quote the Act correctly. The maximum number of fertile bitches a member of an applicable organisation can have while remaining exempt from being considered a domestic animal business is nine. Would appear who ever wrote the proposals took notice of what was written in the DPI info then and not the act. Not very re assuring.

NSW is much scarier for purebred breeders because there is a big push for no exemptions other than a reduction in fees.

Also curently Vicdogs members still have to comply with the code they just dont need a permit - new proposals were about them not needing to comply with the code.

O.K. But I just spent an entire week answering the proposals and I didn't turn that up - in fact the parts where they were calculating staff ratios male dogs were specifically included in allowable numbers. Not that this surprises me it was the most tacky unprofessional proposal Ive ever seen. if its changed or the intent is to change it to fertile bitches rather than fertile dogs I haven't seen it. Edited to ad that no where was there anything about bitches under 12 months old and I only saw reference to dogs over 6 months.

Definition of a Breeding Domestic Animal Business? The definition of a breeding establishment has been changed, to maximize the number of breeders required to register with local councils and comply with the mandatory Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments. Registration enables councils to inspect businesses regularly, to ensure they meet the minimum standards for animal welfare outlined in the Code. The new laws require registration as a breeding domestic animal business if you have three or more fertile dogs AND you sell dogs (whether you make a profit or not). This will not affect the number of desexed animals an owner may have (as long as owners comply with any local council requirements regarding excess animal permits) Exemptions The exemption for this registration as a domestic animal business is if the breeder belongs to an applicable breeding organisation that requires its members to operate in accordance with a Code of Ethics. A list of current applicable organisations can be found at www.dpi.vic.gov.au/applicableorganisations Breeders who belong to one of these organizations’ will be regarded as domestic animal businesses, and required to register with their local council, if they have 10 or more fertile dogs. Dogs not bitches. http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/pets/dog-care/new-regulations-for-dog-breeders

Yep. Much better to plead ignorance and simply do as you want with your own property. Trouble is they know who we are and want to know more about who we are and where we live - make it all harder. pretty stupid really isnt it ? If anyone has any doubts about what is going on there was one very telling paragraph - remember this wasn't written by Oscars Law or the RSPCA it was written within a proposal for more restrictions on breeders and in Victoria a breeding establishment is a person who has 3 fertile dogs and is not a Vicdogs member or someone who has 10 fertile animals. When we say they are trying to stop us breeding we are accused of being paranoid and scaremongering but Australia wide its getting harder and harder to breed a dog. Their words not mine. Quote. In any case, both the RSPCA and the activist group known as Oscar's law have run substantial media campaigns over the last 3 years- yet the problems identified in this RIS remain. These campaigns have had considerable mass media attention. The'Oscar's Law' campaign has had some very high profile celebrity support internationally and within Victoria. It has hosted simultaneous public rallies in several states of Australia, the most recent being on the 16th of September 2012 - that have attracted wide media attention. Despite this, neither campaign has been successful in reducing the number of breeding establishments, nor have they reduced the number of puppies purchased from breeding establishments or pet shops.

There's a big difference between someone who says "Id like to help and here is a dollar to put toward Molly's vet bills or her food etc " and someone who actively solicits donations without accountability. Its not against the law to say here's a buck to help you out with X as long as you use the money for x. its not against the law for someone to accept it . You can be a non profit without having to be registered as a charity too and just because you might fit the criteria as a charity you don't have to be registered as one - but that restricts you in how you can fund raise. You dont have to have an ABN and you dont have to be incorporated - they need independent professional advice but considering how long they have been operating that should have been done long ago. Who has been keeping the books and being accountable for money coming in paying taxes etc ? The whole thing from go has been way lacking in professionalism. That puts the animals and the people at risk. Rescue's no matter what size no matter whether they want to be incorporated or accept donations etc need to have a business plan ,they need policies and procedures to ensure animals don't get left down the back for years, to ensure they don't have more animals than they have approval for to ensure they have routines and methods of making sure someone is looking after the cleaning and maintenance etc . Just because you didn't intend for a human to take the profits doesn't mean the place shouldn't make a profit and that it shouldn't be run in a business like fashion. Whether they have broken the law because they accepted or solicited donations is only one issue they needed to have under control. one of the big deals of no kill is how they will ensure it doesn't turn into hoarding. You shouldn't have to call in extra people to clean the place up ready for an inspection - it should be able to be inspected at any time and be clean and the animals being well treated and healthy. When strong legislation for rescue is rolled in across the country it wont be the RSPCA at fault it will be those who havent set up in a business like fashion. Even if you only rescue one dog a year you need a business plan.

Yep she would do it to you and she needs pulling into line.

With friends like that................

Again - someone should tell him to shut up.

They really do need some legal advice - any one can make or accept donations.You don't have to be registered or incorporated. Its all about how you go about things and whether its classified as fundraising. Usually fundraising is stuff like running raffles etc and you do need a licence to do those type of things in some states in others you only need it over a certain amount. If you want to take donations which people will claim as a tax deduction you need to be registered as a charity but if you want to say we need help and people offer donations then there isnt anything illegal in that as long as you use the money as you have represented that you will do. As long as people who donate trust the person they are donating to, to use the money on what they state the money is needed for and no one complains that it hasnt been its all good but if someone starts moaning that they took money and used it for something other than what the donor believed it would go to then any action will be against the individuals who accepted the money unless they are incorporated and then the entity is in the poo. So in all honesty I think Moorook could ask for donations to help them without having to be incorporated or registered but Im no accountant or lawyer .

Sounds like the same ones who were going at me.

By the way anyone who is involved in rescue who doesn't have insurance which covers all of their foster carers and volunteers they need to go quickly now and sort that out too. Without that you can loose your house and live through a mass of stress which is cheaply and easily avoided.

The simple fact is that all over the country people have been operating rescue without doing what is required legally to operate as they do.You cant blame someone who reported Moorook .They didn't make the laws and in all honesty there has been lots of very dodgy stuff going on and it had to happen. You cant just break the law and not be accountable for public donations and then moan when you work out you shouldn't have been doing it. You cant hoard animals under the banner of no kill and expect that people will just ignore the suffering or filth.