Steve

If they arent a registered charity then woolies cant claim it on their tax.

Now they have a staff to dog ratio when one litter equals one dog and a crap breakdown of how each staff member would divide their time to work an 8 hour day. They want staff to have increased training and burdensome record keeping , vetting and medicating but calculate their wages at gross $30,000 None of which takes into account breed or litter sizes or what happens if their is an injury or emergency etc. It assumes that its a well run compact facility where staff don't have to walk to get to the exercise areas or whelping areas food storage areas etc. So if we leave it as it is you have to have adequate staffing to cover it all but under these changes if someone has 25 dogs per one staff member this means they could possibly have 10 litters at a time - especially considering dogs come on heat together and most often get pregnant around the same time. That means that the business could literally have 100 dogs per one person to look after them if its a large breed with large litters. Ridiculous. How will this help the dogs?

So every breeding animal in the state of Victoria may be impacted by these proposals - every breeder dictated to in how they manage their animals yet the only reference they cite regarding max 5 litters etc is not scientific research at all as is stated in the document and is not even peer reviewed. the paper actually says "There is little literature to support many of the recommendations made by veterinarians regarding management of breeding dogs. This limits our ability to guide legislators uniformly and may result in inappropriate legislation or legal findings." Kustritz - the author of the paper they have referenced specifically says that they do not recommend that the review be used in guiding legislation. How can they justify using this paper to add weight to their recommendations? It clearly demonstrates their bias and in ability to be taken seriously.

I love my animals.They are my life and ensuring Im covering it all for them is my motivation for almost every thing I do. I believe they depend on me to make informed decisions to help keep them healthy and have a great quality of life. I would not stop breeding dogs because of it getting harder or more expensive for me and I begrudgingly would comply with much I don't agree with if I have to in order to breed them but I will never agree to compromise the health of my animals in order to be able to comply with things I know will make them less healthy and less happy than they are now. I simply will not do many of the things that a breeder is being ordered to do in that code because first and foremost the welfare of my dogs - not just now but for their whole lives is my priority. I will not put poisons into my dogs which will impact on their health and the health of their puppies and grand puppies. Its not even a consideration. Puppy farmers don't care past now - they see their animals as stock, if their quality of life or longevity is compromised after their breeding life is done so what? Well so what for me is a bloody big deal and I will not put my dogs in that position and how can they justify making us compromise on the health of our dogs in case some idiot somewhere who has a couple of hundred dogs never vaccinates them or drags in dead cows!

So here's pretty much what they want us to come down to. No need to research or attempt any increase knowledge or make any decisions on what is best for your dogs or cats because it has been determined that we should simply do as we are told. Exactly what decisions will still be left up to the breeder even though we know that what they tell us to do is not going to increase the health or welfare of our dogs? Never mind we will all have cleaner carpets anyway.

The audits and accountancy fees are pretty high.Pacers was looking at over $5000 a year before we could move.

Too bad if your into natural weaning at let the bitch feed the pups for you, as nature intended Yep have to run around after her as she vomits to catch it in bowls - idiots.

Not law for breeders yet. The Code fails to include canine cough (Parainfluenza [Type II] and Bordetella bronchiseptica) vaccination as part of the prescribed vaccination schedule for dogs resulting in an inconsistency with the level of vaccination status required for the sale of dogs from the recently revised Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Pounds and Shelters (Revision 1) and for dogs and cats being housed temporarily under the Code of Practice for the Operation of Boarding Establishments (Revision 1).

The reason they want to include kennel cough in this new code is to bring it into line with the current requirements for sale of dogs legislation.

besides anything else lots of breeders only give their pups a C3 so nothing sinister there. It's all I do. Law in Victoria says kennel cough has to be given too.

Shocking isnt it - they want to be picky about whether they are fed from their own bowl when feeding a pup communally is part of learning pecking orders and how to be a dog among other dogs yet there is virtually no importance on even handling them let alone exposing them to different sights and sounds etc - pathetic.

Nor do I.

the proposals in this code is for rearing establishments not just breeders so if you whelp puppies ever or raise them you will come under this code. http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/pets/about-pets/breeding-and-rearing-code-review-public-comment/draft-regulatory-impact-statement

By the way this code is for rearing establishments as well as breeding so if you are a rescue group who takes in pregnant animals - you're it too.

Applying for charity status has always been voluntary - it is only ever been required if you want the tax exemptions and the ability to give tax deductible receipts. As iof anyone ever Had to have charity status - he should shut up.

Why bother indeed - in their own words would appear they are simply trying to shut us down. 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.

Have you got a link for the review, who authored it? Is it peer reviewed? From what I can see they haven't cited any studies at all in regard to this and have simply said "scientific research" . It doesnt exist because its all based on animal rights crap thats been pushed until everyone believes it. If you talk to breeders and vets who were around before the crap started who bred animals and treated them when they were in good health and were not restricted in age or frequency etc they will tell you that their scientific research shows that its a crock and a government shouldn't be interfering in how we manage our breeding programs based on animal rights propaganda. What if a bitch is the last of a line etc - and they already have it covered anyway by saying you cant breed her till she is examined and declared fit to breed. Why do they also need to have the other restrictions on?

the NSW one in the main is way off being law as most of it needs to go through parliament to come in but the Victorian one is simply and amendment to the current codes which they can do over night without any other process.

This paragraph in the introduction would appear to be showing that the intent of this code is to cut down on the numbers of breeders and the numbers of puppies being bred rather than increasing the welfare of breeding dogs. If that is the intent then unless they do something about the demand there isnt a hope in hell they will reduce the numbers being bred.its not up to a government department to devise ways of running us out of our hobbies or businesses. Victoria is now the easiest place in Australia to buy a puppy its a quick click and pay for the big kennels and the puppy arrives a couple of days later. Quick email with the necessary mandatory paper work with no questions asked. Quote. In any case,both the RSPCA and the activist group known as Oscar's law have run substantialmedia campaigns over the last 3 years - yet the problems identified in this RISremain. These campaigns have had considerable mass media attention. The'Oscar's Law' campaign has had some very high profile celebrity supportinternationally and within Victoria. It has hosted simultaneous public ralliesin several states of Australia, the most recent being on the 16th of September2012 - that have attracted wide media attention. Despite this, neither campaignhas been successful in reducing the number of breeding establishments, nor havethey reduced the number of puppies purchased from breeding establishments orpet shops. We are also told that the SCIENTIFIC research shows that It is not viable to consider an option allowing for more than 5 litters per breeding female. Scientific Research recommends that: bitches should not be bred before they are physically mature and should not be bred on their first oestrus cycle; bitches should not produce more than five litters or be bred beyond the critical age for dogs of their breed, as defined by body size; Does anyone know of any scientific research to back this up ? Where is this research which shows it is bad for a bitch to be bred past a certain age for her body size regardless of her health or qualities? Can any one find this? Where is the scientific research which shows that a bitch should not be bred on her first season even if that season doesn't happen until she is well over 12 months regardless of age - regardless of breed? How on earth would a government know if a bitch has already had her first season. There sure is going to be a lot of dodgy record keeping. Why not have two bitches -one which passes the tests and gets a tick from the vet and breed the other which is too young, too old, had too many litters or is too cranky or itchy or too closely related at the same time - say the bitch that's been given the tick had 8 in her litter instead of 4. With a couple of hundred bitches who would know if you simply passed the puppies around the bitches? If anyone gets busted for throwing out chicken frames all you have to do is say its not the main meal of the day which of course you always feed in a bowl when no one else is watching and of course the liver in the fridge is for lambs fry and bacon for dinner tonight not the dogs.

My question is - how is it going to be policed? This could be a great job creation scheme LOL as it might need an army of people to do all the checking of paperwork! And wait - the breeders will have to pay for it, licence fee and inspection fees, courses, paperwork, there will be requirements that an inspector must be able to park their car within a certain distance of the premises, there will be requirements for desinfection, record keeping for water treatment. I could go on and on......... Thats on top of the vet piece. They don't need to police it any different because each year when your licence falls due you have to pass the ticks - if you don't have all the records and if you cant show you have done what is in the code they don't renew it . One complaint or one person who doesn.t like you and they review what you are doing sooner - easier to stitch you up if animals australia happen to have a video of you giving your dog chicken frames without a bowl.

They also say that zoonotic diseases are low risk yet we have to do the craziest stuff ever in case someone somewhere might muck it up. I don't believe we have have an adequate time frame to assess whether the latest amendments to the code are needing to be given such heavy handed regulations on top of what we already have.

Notice that they say they have only had 10 complaints over a 12 month period from consumers - 10 complaints out of tens of thousands bred and they want to do this - why? And those cases they use to give examples of what as happened actually happened years ago and not since the latest codes were introduced so where is the recent examples to allow us to see how the current codes are failing and why we need more regulations?

Yep correct picked it up myself about an hour ago. But he's not allowed to mate two dogs at a time

Its All about how its reported and who is on your side it would appear. He should shut up- the chances they can beat it now are slim and all "rescue" should have a process for incoming animals where they are assessed and treated ,processed with a management plan drawn up for them as and when they arrive.

About a thousand responses - only just over 400 are members of a registered body. We are once again out numbered by the welfare sector.