Steve

Someone forgot to tell the lesbians I know about this - What a crack up. . Its like saying I dont have any female friends because Im not gay - idiots.

Lots of things to be learned here. The level of double standards shown by those who agitate for law changes to prevent dogs being kept in these type of enclosures for any length of time. If a dog has ever been homeless it's O.K. for it to potentially suffer indefinitely and that those working in rescue should be immune to being held to account in the same way any other person is who owns an animal is expected to be treated. the idea that the RSPCA should call first if they have concerns regarding a breeder or any other animal owner would be yelled about and the breeder or owner castigated for even mentioning it yet in this case a big part of the yelling is about how dare they come un announced. OL and similar have been screaming about how they want unannounced and spot checks and logically what is it they are asking for "Hello Mrs Smith, this is the RSPCA we have a complaint that your dog is badly matted, doesnt have water and is full of fleas - we need to come and check out this complaint so when is the best time for you for us to do that? " "hello Mrs Jones we have a complaint that you have too many dogs on your property, that you are breaching mandatory codes for breeding establishments - when is a convenient time for us to come and inspect you ?" i guess there is a potential argument for them to operate this way but what then? Dogs suffer all year and every time they get a "when can we come and check - if thats convenient for you ? " they look like they are doing it all right because they only clean up after the phone call each time? Here's a red hot news flash - when the RSPCA get a complaint they get to investigate that and they don't have to give notice the complaint has been received and that they will be around at a certain time if its convenient for you to check on that. When they have to follow up its in the dog's best interest for them to come unannounced so they know what you have been told to get on top of is done all the time not just by appointment. Not only do the loonies make fools of themselves for banging this drum but it exposes them for the fact that they don't give a shit about the dogs - their aim is to shut down breeders and have anyone accused of cruelty or neglect loose their animals - unless they were once homeless animals of course. For Marook to be the ones saying this - they loose. After all if everything is good and they have nothing to hide what are they worried about? That's what they say to everyone else. they should be grateful that it was the RSPCA and they came in the daylight with credentials and that terrorists didn't creep in the middle of the night and terrorise an old lady with spot lights and cameras to make a TV segment or two to be sure they really ruined her life for punishment - so far they have gotten off lightly. They had a chance to expose a system that needs outside accountability and instead all they have done is show rescue needs legislation and mandatory codes.

the episode where she got a ladder and climbed in the window to take the dog? It was about a 4 month old boxer. The reason given that they were able to do so was that the dog's tail had been docked. Clearly it was a while ago as there was no current suffering unless you assume that because a dog has no tail it is suffering and being treated cruelly for the rest of its life. The ranger knocked on the front door - no one home so she got a ladder from the back yard and climbed up to an pen window to get a look at the dog which was in side the house - saw it had a short tail and we saw her climb in and come out carrying the dog down the ladder - took it back to their vet and Xrayed it and showed it was not a bobtail. She left a note for the owner to say they had the dog and to contact them asap. The owner said she had been given the dog by her ex boyfriend as a gift, who was now overseas somewhere and she had no idea how to contact him, no idea who he bought it from so they returned the dog to the owner because even though it was suffering form tail docking on the morning caused by an owner who couldn't have been making it suffer at the time as she wasnt home it was removed from the house it was no longer suffering that afternoon. We talked about it here for weeks too. I thought the owner should have screamed blue bloody murder but I guess they were happy to get their dog back and not want too much more investigation. Not only that you can only complain to the person who supervises them and most are concerned that this would bring more crap down on them. However, that was about a totally different thing to what is being discussed here. If they have a dog regardless of whether its been a poster dog for them or not no amount of external pressure is ever going to change the fact that they have a right to and in fact a duty of care to assess it and make some hard decisions on whether the dog should go into the community.Some will some wont. if you dont agree with how they do this then dont donate to them but fact is that the government and the majority of the general public want them to do this so they can be sure that only dogs with good sound temperaments are able to be back in the community. It is in their best interests to show that smaller private rescues and shelters keep the dogs too long or are too easy on their assessments, keeping dogs which are suffering because they dont have a home or they dont have quality of life = dead is not suffering. Rehoming dogs especially in the numbers that get rehomed with the type of assessment now is a reasonably new concept. The early days of RSPCA involvement with abandoned dogs was about getting dogs off the streets for local governments and assuming they were suffering because they were homeless. So if anything is to be changed it has to be remembered there are two separate issues.One is the power they have as a qasi police force with no outside accountability.Even if every person who ever accused them was telling it wrong, there is no avoiding the fact that there is a high potential risk of corruption and an ability of animal owners being treated without natural justice under the current system. The other is how they assess animals, potential owners and run their shelters and no one sitting watching can truly say whether the dog should have been rehomed. It was their call and they made it.While those who are on this forum condemn them for that most of the general public feel better that they are able to decide which animals should be in the community without emotional or PR considerations. The end result is that those complaining come off as a bunch of bleeding hearts who want to save everything.

I cant build a fence like that on my property even though Ive got lots of acres and sheep - definitely couldnt do it in town either - because in NSW electric fences cant be used near dogs as its against POCTAA and Id go a mile for cruelty as my sheep always have dogs with them. Also might be an idea to swap from plastic bowls to stainless steel as sometimes the chemicals in plastic bowls cause lightening of the nose.

http://www.dognews.co.uk/research-highlights-biggest-threats-pet-welfare/ Research Highlights Biggest Threats To Pet Welfare This entry was posted by Ryan O'Meara on April 30, 2013 at 11:56 am Research from the Royal Veterinary College, commissioned by the RSPCA, released today has highlighted the most urgent issues that need to be rectified for the improvement of pet dog welfare in Britain. These include owners’ lack of awareness of welfare needs, poor health due to obesity, inherited disease or exaggerated physical features, intensive and unregulated puppy rearing and a lack of appropriate provision for behavioural needs. The research published in the journal Animal Welfare surveyed the opinions of stakeholders working in various different capacities with companion dogs in Britain and found that rather than having a ‘good quality of life,’ the majority of those surveyed considered them more likely to have only ‘a life worth living,‘ meaning that there is room for improvement. Over 200 stakeholders took part to find out what they perceive to be the welfare concerns that exist for companion dogs – defined as a domesticated pet, living as part of a family unit and not kept primarily for sport or work. These included veterinarians, veterinary nurses, behaviour specialists, welfare scientists, breeders, trainers, pet insurance representatives, members of government advisory bodies, welfare inspectors, dog wardens and charity staff. Stakeholder categories had differing views regarding the quality of life of companion dogs in Great Britain. Industry and grooming parlour staff, breeders, exhibitors and judges rated their quality of life the highest, saying that British companion dogs have ‘a good life’, while welfare officers scored it lowest. Although all stakeholder groups agreed on the important welfare issues, there were notable differences between these groups on their relative importance. Veterinarians and Veterinary Nurses viewed puppy farming as of less importance (though relatively still important) than other groups of stakeholders. In particular, Industry considered puppy farming as highly important and urgent to rectify, perceiving the impact on the individual dog as higher and (together with those working in the Charity sector) scoring its prevalence higher than Veterinary professionals. In contrast, Veterinary professionals perceived exaggerated physical features as relatively more important; significantly more so than Government, Industry or Charity sector stakeholders. Veterinary professionals also perceived obesity to be of higher importance than did Industry and Charity sectors. Stakeholder differences in perceptions of quality of life and priority welfare issues are likely to relate to differences in practical knowledge and direct experience of these particular concerns, highlighting the importance of consulting a range of stakeholders to build a comprehensive picture of significant threats to canine welfare. Views were not all negative. Factors perceived by stakeholders to enhance dog welfare included the quality of veterinary care, exercise, educational resources available for owners, responsible ownership and the work of rescue and welfare organisations. Researcher Emma Buckland from the Royal Veterinary College, said: “We have a special relationship with dogs, and the view generally held by society is that dogs should have ‘a good life’; however, on average, stakeholders suggested that companion dogs in Great Britain may have a poorer quality of life, and described over 30 welfare issues that may affect them.” “The study sets out future priorities. Addressing the most pressing welfare issues and maximising positive experiences can improve companion dog welfare and quality of life”. Recent work estimates the companion dog population to be approximately ten million in the United Kingdom. In the past, surveillance of welfare standards within the companion animal population has received relatively little scientific attention compared with farm and laboratory species. Read more: http://www.dognews.co.uk/research-highlights-biggest-threats-pet-welfare/#ixzz2SDaaBBoD

Robin Thompson is in that area - Glendawn prefix she might be able to help.Easy to find via the breeder listing for Maremma on this site.

All I see is a group of Italian show breeders buggering it up. If what you say is true then why do you think there are Italians who are breeding dogs which do work who are upset about what is happening in the ring? Im happy for you to go after fixing what you feel is lacking in the breeding such as improving the eye shape etc but you cant just compromise on everything else to get that . If I get to a point where I no longer want to breed registered ANKC dogs because I and other working dog breeders dont want to breed pink nosed sick dogs that cant work because they are too fat and whimpy even if they have nice almond shaped eyes Im sure most people reading this will understand why.

Certainly leaves little doubt about what Troy thinks makes a good breeder and how he thinks breeders should advertise. Its his business and his call but I reckon he is on the wrong track and this is likely to give him a greater pain in the neck and give em even more to complain about.- bitch is too young, male is too old, they already know about genetic issues with that one and repeated the mating, back to back litters, in bred, scores are too high to be breeding with, breeding with a carrier, only advertising 4 litters here but breeding dozens more anyway, doing shows but their dogs are falling to bits and that dog bit someone and they still bred it, blah blah blah - breeders and loonies always complain about the other guy and there isn't a single breeder who can do it all right according to everyone else no matter what criteria you put on how they have to qualify to advertise.At least if they post in on their own websites they have to answer for it personally and cope with reports to the CC without yet another person to answer to and be judged by and loose their advertising rights on a website with no ability to sort it out past gossip. Animal rights have done some great stitch ups of breeders who posted this type of stuff on their websites and Id be careful what you wish for before you all agree to this type of advertising.

Some people who do chip now will stop chipping if it they think it means they will be easier to find and have to be licensed - if it means that anyone can see how many bitches they have and how often they breed them etc. Those who dont chip now wont chip at all anyway Its been compulsory in NSW since around 97 to chip before sale and its never been policed. No one will know whether a chip number in an ad is legit anyway It takes weeks to have the chip papers done via council so it could be checked even if someone wanted to.then there are chips that move and typos - chipping one pup in a litter and advertising one pup and by the way thats gone but we have another when they ring etc. More scoff laws and the big guys sell to pet shops and via generic ads for their kennels and dont need to advertise individual puppies anyway. They live in lah lah land.

About the only one of those goals that they can achieve is to promote the adoption of dogs through rescue and pounds. None of them have any knowledge or experience of even living with a breeding dog let alone managing them but what is their solution ? Is it that everyone has to stop breeding dogs altogether? Or perhaps all breeding dogs should be living and sleeping on satin pillows. each with their own human in attendance. We already know that if they are able to run on dirt in a drought affected area thats a bad thing, our kids can play on dirt but not our dogs, we know that if they dont have a bath every day to get the dirt out of them that's a bad thing.We know we should completely pretend we know nothing about what is best for the species and treat them like people - no not even like people - treat them like some made up species altogether. We know we should make sure the walls of their kennels are cleaned and painted daily to be sure there is no dirt stains, that they are not to dig up their beds overnight, or heaven forbid eat a bone off the ground! Male dogs have to have a 2 days rest after sex and they arent allowed to mate after 7 . So what is it? How do they want breeding dogs to live? Because no breeder Ive ever met wants them living as they have to via current laws.

But i thought it was created by Debra Tranter? I don't believe she is against dogs being bred all together? Has someone hijacked e message perhaps? She was a member and very active member of animal Liberation - which would appear to give fair doubt. http://www.alv.org.au/about.php

Divide and conquer.

Well I have to admit that back in the early days they almost had me. I believe the whole Oscars Law thing is a about pushing for laws which would prevent dogs living in squalor as it is reported Oscar did. Im all for that and I have no doubt that most of the supporters have nothing but the best intentions for the dogs. I agree with some of their basic comments such as that not all breeders who advertise on dogz are reputable and there is no way Troy could possibly prevent that. Its pretty difficult to say they are not on the ball when they say some purebred registered breeders are rotten - you only have to do a search to see that some have been rolled for having hundreds of dogs etc. Not much point in denying it. Ive also seen first hand some purebred registered breeders who would leave most puppy farmers for dead who only had a handful of dogs. But its not that easy and I found out in pretty quick time that any means for them justified the end and I would never believe a single thing that came from that area and I believe their tactics make it worse rather than better. They have been most active in Victoria and yet the biggest commercial kennels in the country are located in that state. But even better they are legitimate businesses and given credibility from council and Rspca because they comply with the codes - codes OL wanted - codes OL pushed for and the new ones that are on the table in Victoria now will once again suit commercial breeders over small breeders - yet they dont want dogs bred in factory type situations. Whats more it hasnt changed the dump rate or euth rate anyway. All it does is chase off small breeders and give more demand for mongrel bred dogs. My question is that if there are so many puppy farms where are they? Why havent we seen a massive increase in prosecution since the new laws came in via Victoria and if it is as bad as it is reported then why isnt the truth enough - why does the truth have to be distorted and why is it necessary to tell lies. Why is it necessary to break the law when all they have to do is report what they think is happening and those charged with enforcing laws can do what they need to help the dogs. Victoria is a great place to build large scale commercial kennels and have laws which help you make a greater profit and any minute now they get another hand in that regard with new regs on the table OL can take much of the credit for that.

You have to apply to council just as you would if you were intending to use the land for any other purpose which requires council approval - via a planning approval application. I am guessing then that it would depend on your property zoning under the council LEP, which is what specifies what use requires approval and what is exempt. Reading my own council LEP and zoning requirements it doesnt make it clear at all, so I have written to council for clarification. there is no doubt that if they want to they can stop you from being able to breed a litter on your property if its not in the right zone but mostly its about applying to council and telling them about what you want to do and how you will do it and common sense mostly prevails. There are lots of people who are breeding dogs in residential zones with council approval usually with conditions. Of course the big issues are that you cant know whether you will get it before you apply because each is taken on a case by case basis - example a Maremma breeder would have more difficulty,restriction on numbers etc than a chi breeder . If you have a big block with neighbours who are a fair distance away its going to be different if you live in a town house with neighbours all over you. Most times though if you have more than 2 dogs used for breeding you have to house them at least 15 metres from a dwelling or a place used to prepare food but if you had 50 dogs you would expect different conditions. I have council approval to breed dogs on my property - 30 acres rural zoning - but I had to go through 8 months of crap to get it and part of it was they petitioned even the main street businesses which Im 6 kilometres away from to see if there were any objections. I can have cattle, sheep, chooks, horses and as many dogs as pets or working as I want etc without council approval but I still needed a planning approval to use the land to breed a litter of puppies and I can never allow anyone else's dogs to stay here.

Well hers havent, they are all safely rehomed, its just her that misses them. the council had approved the 20 and had been quite happy with that for the past 20 years.She had not done anything wrong or differntly. the ex stirred up trouble, there was a new ranger (with a nasty attitude) who came out instead of the one who has been the normal one to do the inspections was on holiday that week. The point IS. the law already in force is what the new ranger used as the power to change the already approved permission to keep the dogs she did have. So what greater ones will be available for those who decide they dont like someone? She said the ranger who usaully came out did try to get the new ranger to reconsider. The complaint lodged to the deptartment of housing is an interesting outcome which I doubt many dog owners are aware of. That they can increase the rental if you breed a litter and you must (apparently) advise them when you do. Considering the breed produces a 'litter' of one to three pups, thats a considerable difference to the 'litter' of most breeds of 4 to 10 or a friends golden retriver 16 in each of her three litters. A considerable difference in potential income from one 'litter'. I just remembered a conversation with our local ranger, told me that because of the conditions that have to be met now,and the much smaller blocks now compared to those in the old suburbs, that the majority of people in the surburban areas will not be granted a licence today. The lucky ones are those who had applied and been granted before the new rules came in. That conversation took place nearly 9 years ago, so probably be even more so now? Maybe the day is comming if you did want a litter the city is not the place to contemplate it? If in fact this person has had approval to have 20 dogs which she uses to breed with on her property and she has been getting regular inspections she would be the only person in the whole of NSW who is having that happen. I would be surprised if this is being reported as it really is but if she has had approval to use the land for that purpose then they cant just change it on her . The only way the department of housing can make her pay more rent is if she shows an increase in her TAXABLE income.

You have to apply to council just as you would if you were intending to use the land for any other purpose which requires council approval - via a planning approval application.

I am well aware of the fact that most people who breed dogs for any purpose dont have approval to do so - how does whether or not its classified a commercial situation or not pertinent .If you breed dogs as a hobby you still need approval to breed dogs on your property .No matter how many you breed or why you still need to comply with the mandatory codes whether you are Dogs NSW or not. This person has had 20 dogs in a suburban back yard and has been breeding them without council approval which she needs if she is a hobby breeder to use the land for that purpose - hasnt complied with the codes for breeding dogs which she needs to do as a hobby breeder.If Whether or not the land and environment court has determined what is or is not commercial with regard to dog BREEDING Im still not getting it so you need to go slower for me.

Whether she takes money or not - she still breeds dogs on her property and she has had 20 - thats twenty dogs there for a very long time. She comes under mandatory codes for breeding dogs which we all have to comply with if we have one litter and she hasnt been and she still doesn't have to. She needed approval to breed dogs on her property and she didn't have it. They have to put a time frame on her to move some of them out because if they don't it may take until they die to do so. She is allowed to keep 10 dogs and breed them on her property - a housing commission house in a highly built up area - she is still doing a whole lot better than she might be. Id shut up and not make any waves if I were her. All this does is emphasise what the task force is saying - that there are breeders in this state who are breeding dogs without the proper approvals and with out complying with mandatory codes and no one knows who they are or where they are until they get a complaint!.

Yes happens all the time whenever you try to objectively look at proposed legislation for breeders too = .Id like $5 for every time Ive been accused of supporting or promoting puppy farmers when I try to talk about un intended consequences in legislation for breeders or if I dont instantly believe something thats being touted in the media and hold judgement ot challenge what has been said. The fact is whether someone supports or works for what someone sees as the bad guys it shouldn't make any difference anyway. When ever you go after the man and not the ball all it does is stop debate and prevent others from being able to see both sides and make informed opinions. Even if Sheridan was guilty of what she is being accused of and in all honesty its one of the silliest things to think of her she would still have the right to say what she thinks without being accused and attacked personally. If you keep playing the ball and not the man the umpire will send you off.

The fact that she has been able to have that many dogs for that length of time especially living in public housing is a pretty good score. If they have said she can keep 10 she is travelling better than most.

Im dumbfounded at watching the whole thing unfold as to level of hypocritical attitude and the lack of concern for the dogs. If this were a breeder they would have people camped on the footpath demanding to know why its taking the RSPCA so long to shut them down! Im all for making the RSPCA more accountable via an ombudsman or similar but I think they should be thankful they have been given a chance to fix the place up and people cant expect that the RSPCA or any org will be answerable via social media propoganda and ignore privacy issues and policy and protocol. Time they all grew the hell up.

We already have the "some sort of organisation". Its called the state government and local councils manage that .The RSPCA and AWL already have policing powers .Dogs NSW is a group which represents a vast minority of breeders. Breeder licencing has not proven to reduce euth rates in any place it has been introduced. Perhaps its time they started looking at promoting responsible dog ownership which includes buying a puppy that you can predictably assess whether it will suit your lifestyle and have a look at how rescue catch cry of save everything and take a mutt rescue before it is killed and before you consider buying a purebred is impacting that perception and encouraging the concept that any dog will do. In fact having the consequence of increasing demand for mongrel bred mutts from a puppy farmer who breeds dogs rather than from a real breeder. Nothing will work until you interrupt supply and demand. That's not even touching on the "rescues' who manage to put out over 200 puppies a year which are born on their premises. This is about a person who wants to breed a dog having to get a licence to allow their dog to have a litter of puppies on their property.Its about making the act of having even a single litter of puppies illegal without a licence. This is about a person who wants to breed their dog having to have a TAFE course certificate which in no way even gets near how or the ethics of breeding dogs and covers all manner of animals which most dog breeders will never get near let alone own. Most of us would have to travel hundreds of kilometres to even attend the stupid course and spend a heap of money to take us nowhere! Say no to more laws - regardless of which bloody group would do the dirty work.

Im pretty sure I'd be the same, Boronia. I don't donate to the RSPCA but if they had a dog that suited me, why should I give that dog a miss? It doesn't hurt the RSPCA if people don't adopt. As has been noted, they have plenty of money and if no one adopts then it only hurts the dogs. Blind hatred tends to blind. Agreed.

When I worked in Juvenile Justice we had one 16 year old in who had among other things buried a litter of kittens up to their necks and cut off their heads with a lawn mower .He went on to murder - charming little bastard. Why - who cares - everyone has a story we just dont all use them as excuses for being disgusting human beings.

Agreed - The missing words in my post are "more clearly". Please fit them in after "worded". Got that. Except I still think its going nowhere even if it is worded more clearly.