Steve

How would them inspecting all breeders benefit their own members? How would it ensure their members were not disadvantaged when they would have a set of criteria and everyone would have to be judged equally according to the licence requirements? the fact that we are small breeders already disadvantages us regardless of who is doing the inspecting. Of what benefit is it to the government to hand this over to Dogs NSW ? Now if you were telling me they wanted to inspect only their own members I get that but seriously asking for them to allow Dogs NSW to take on this role for all people in this state who might want to breed a litter or 500 is really pushing the ticket in my opinion. Either way they couldn't treat their own members any differently to any other person anyway - that's called corruption. We should be yelling from the roof tops no licencing rather than conceding that if we are licensed we want it to run one way or the other. If we give signs we will simply go with the flow its a lost battle before we start.

Who cares.

Agreed -

same old same old just a bunch of nutters looking for a war to fight. By now the truth and facts are long forgotten and its about pay back and winning a point rather than what's best for the dogs. Lies everywhere.

Look there is a lot of people who are pro no kill or who are anti RSPCA who are in the mix here but the reality is if the RSPCA did determine a dog - any dog was unsuitable for rehoming the onus is on them to determine this and take action. Surely you cant expect that just because a dog is a poster dog and - there is no evidence that it was anyway - that they should get out of being assessed not suitable as any other dog would. The same loonies who have been telling lies and falsifying stories about breeders for years are involved and you cant believe anything you hear anyway. the RSPCA have policies in place that the governments approve of because they know that when they rehome animals they are sure they wont cause more problems for the government . Just because some people decide a dog has been killed which shouldnt have without knowing anything real about the circumstances want to bang a drum it doesnt change the fact that some will see it as a bad thing and others will see it as a good thing. The more the emotional stuff and lies are circulated the better they look to those who dont think everything should be saved and that no kill is a bad thing. Believe it or not that's the majority of the community and government who believe that if the RSPCA decided a dog was not suitable for rehoming it should be bumped off whether it was the face of the MPW or not.

Its going no where anyway. All this does is expose the emotionalism of it all and demonstrate why its a good thing to have policies in place to determine which dogs shoud be rehomed and which ones shouldnt. Governments and the general community dont care about whether dogs are being killed because someone determines they are nasty they care about dangerous dog issues and being seen to be protecting the community which is exactly what they say they are doing.

Wonder how long they stay at the Gympie shelter ?

Perhaps they need to have a think about how they handle things and go after whats best for the animals rather than going after convictions. Surely they can work with the owners sometimes before it gets to seizing them to hep find new homes for them - you know give the owners a chance to fix it and helping to clean the place up before it gets to seizing and court.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-26/dog-cruelty-sentencing/4653306 A man who bashed a dog with a pole and suspended it on a clothesline has been jailed for animal cruelty offences. Hally Jade James French, 21, pleaded guilty to ill treatment of an animal and causing serious harm. The Adelaide Magistrates Court heard he used a pole to repeatedly hit a Jack Russell cross named Buddy, then put the dog on a clothesline and struck it again. The court was told a neighbour heard the dog yelping and saw the attack from over the fence. When police and RSPCA inspectors arrived the dog was lying motionless in a pool of blood and was taken to an emergency vet clinic in a critical condition. The dog suffered rib fractures and head trauma as well as shock and stress, but made a full recovery. The court heard French suffered post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of his disadvantaged and traumatic childhood, and could not cope with the dog when it was in his care. Magistrate Paul Foley imposed a three-month jail sentence for the violent crimes. "This serious offending involved violence towards a defenceless animal who you were charged with looking after at the time," Magistrate Foley said. "While I have sympathy for your position I take the view that on this occasion there is no basis for me to suspend that term of imprisonment. I will require you to serve that sentence." He also revoked a three-month suspended sentence for an assault on a taxi driver, as French had breached a good behaviour bond for that offence by committing the animal cruelty crimes. He was therefore ordered to spend a total of six months imprisonment. Outside court RSPCA inspector Simon Richards welcomed the sentence. "It's a good result, it's very much a positive step forward. It was a heinous crime against this little Jack Russell, it's what we were pursuing and we got the result we wanted," he said. “It does send a signal that the community takes animal welfare seriously and we will be there to ensure that's upheld. "It's an extraordinarily lucky story for the dog, I mean clearly it's sad that he had to go through this but the fact that we were able to get there in a timely fashion and provide the treatment ultimately resulted in the dog making a full recovery." Mr Richards said Buddy has since been given a new home. "I can tell you he's happy, healthy and living a happy life," he said. Magistrate Foley banned French from having custody of any animal until further order.

http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/ruff-deal-for-homeless-pets-rspca/1844174/ IT'S raining cats and dogs at Gympie's RSPCA shelter, but the staff and volunteers are not celebrating. Instead, they're run off their feet caring for the stray and abandoned moggies and mutties filling all available space at the Laurenceson Rd facility. Shelter manager Vanessa Richardson says more people looking to markets and local newspaper ads for free pets has resulted in a decrease in the number of adoptions through the Gympie RSPCA. "We've found adoptions have slowed down in the last month," Ms Richardson said. "Mostly it's because people looking for pets are maybe not thinking of the RSPCA. "They're looking for free pets at markets or advertised in the paper. But these aren't microchipped, desexed, vaccinated and vet checked like ours are. "We make sure our cats and dogs are healthy and have in a nice way. So you know what you're getting." Ms Richardson said there could be numerous reasons for the influx at the Gympie shelter. "There's always the people who get a kitten or puppy and then decide they're just too much trouble, so they abandon them. "And we've had an influx of strays that aren't reclaimed. If animals come in and don't have identification on them, it's almost impossible for us to track their owners down. "Dogs can easily lose their collars - after all the storms we had recently, we had a few dogs come in who had flipped their collars which made it really hard for us to locate their owners. "Which is why microchipping is so important and which is why it's so important for pet owners to keep their microchip information up to date. "We have a dog at the moment whose microchip says he comes from South Australia and we're having big problems finding his owners. "If his owners had updated his details it would be much easier to get him back to them. "What we're really wanting to get across to the community is that if you're looking for a pet, think of the RSPCA first." RSPCA PRICES Dogs over four months $199 Cats over four months $180 (special price $20 until end of April) All dogs and cats are microchipped, vaccinated and vet checked. RSPCA spends more than $400 on every dog and $150 on each cat that comes through the shelter.

http://www.smh.com.au/wa-news/court-tangles-leave-was-rspca-in-limbo-20130426-2ik3k.html The RSPCA's Perth shelter is in crisis, overwhelmed by an influx of seized animals and unable to move them on because of unresolved court cases. The charity warned in February that it was at breaking point after an unprecedented number of neglected and mistreated animals were brought in. More than 350 dogs, cats, birds, rabbits and livestock are currently housed at the Malaga site, which has room for only about 200 animals. Some 300 animals were rescued from just three properties between late 2012 and early this year, including 132 taken from one suburban property in December. AdvertisementCaring for the extra arrivals has cost the RSPCA about $175,000. The RSPCA said rehoming animals was often held up by legal processes and people challenging their convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 2002. But it uses foster carers and other programs to ensure the animals are as comfortable as possible until the cases are resolved in court, RSPCA WA chief executive David van Ooran said. The RSPCA has been unable to take any cats for months because that part of the shelter is particularly overstretched. "We're in a very busy holding pattern," Mr van Ooran said. "The animals seized by RSPCA inspectors remain in the care of the RSPCA until court cases can be resolved. "Once the court case has concluded, we are then able to put the animals through our rehoming process which involves micro-chipping, desexing and behavioural assessment to ensure the animals go to the right homes." Mr van Ooran said the RSPCA was grateful to local legal firms that had saved it hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in fees by working on the cases pro bono. He also urged the public to donate clean blankets and towels to help keep the animals warm during the colder months. The RSPCA's biggest fundraising event of the year, the Million Paws Walk, will be held on May 19 across the country.

The whole thing is fascinating and pretty difficult to believe. Makes me see what double standards people seem to have. I can just imagine a breeder demanding they only arrive by appointment because they have to leave the property as they also have another life.

Translation: "Infact, the club [The Maremmano Abruzzese Club (cmpa)], has proposed to the ENCI [italian Kennel Club] and the FCI [international Kennel Federation] that a modification of the standard, in regards to the head, the weight, the thickness of the muzzle and other measurements, be given merit by the technical committee. As seen, the cpma is not blind but it always works for the improvement of the breed. These comments were made in relation to the dog shown, who is just four and a half months old. Dogs are supposed to be bred to the standard and measure up as closely as possible to the defined standard for the breed. The breed standard should not be altered because of flavour or the month/year or dogs have been bred away from it and no longer meet the existing criteria. Yep improvement of the breed isnt necessarily changing the standard to fit how its been changed - improving the breed is supposed to be it remaining constant .

There is no problem now with which registry your chips go onto - every person who implants a chip sends the paper work to the CAR - this is the law. If you also want to register these with another registry its your choice - good idea if it goes interstate as access to the CAR is currently limited. Every person who has a dog microchipped in this state has their dog entered there whether they go another chip registry as well or not. How would it become much easier to track dogs? This makes no sense to me and I cant imagine that anyone thinks that Dogs NSW registry would replace the CAR and it would still be state based and the same problem would be there for access interstate. However, I can see that Dogs NSW could be given access to the current registry to add or change data which they receive to enable people to do that via them as well as via their council. All this takes is a password - a password for more orgs than we currently have who have access to this - with an expectation that data will be easier changed and therefore more likely to be updated. The RSPCA and AWL want this access to be able to marry up number of dogs a person has registered on their property with number of litters they bred and chip so they can go after them if it shows they are breeding without a licence, or without renewing a licence a bitch too young or too often etc and therefore police it all via the registry. Sorry guys I think its madness to expect that Dogs NSW would keep the registration details for all dogs in NSW and I doubt that they want to anyway other than perhaps getting a service fee for their trouble for doing council jobs by adding or changing current info for them as an agent. It means when someone sends in a transfer of ownership for a purebred puppy that they also change that on the chip registry as well. When someone notifies a death they change it instead of hoping the owner will also notify the council. When this almost came in prior to the last election in Queensland the CC was allowing the RSPCA access to their data base. Info from the pedigree data base would be accessible to the RSPCA as a trade off for some exemptions. Notices went out to members to tell them to be sure only dogs they currently owned were still registered on their pedigree system in their name so council and RSPCA could see how many dogs you had on the CC registry and whether they were registered on the council registry. All squashed when the government changed though the whole thing still had miles to go to get to be laws. That can never happen in NSW as the breeder cant change ownership details on the CC data base - only the new owners can .Over 37 years of breeding and registering puppies I would have hundreds of puppies still registered on their pedigree system that I haven't owned since they were 8 weeks old. Forget all about what might happen happens if we have to be licensed and fight licensing. No new laws.

O.K. all seems a bit dumb to me there already is one only compulsory registry in NSW and every dog on it gets a number anyway - a microchip number - cant see how Dogs NSW keeping it rather than the council as it is now would be of much benefit to anyone and I dont believe that's what was being proposed in the task force recommendations. I thought Dogs NSW were asking that if a licence came in that they wanted to inspect and police and issue licences their own members which would give their members exemptions from being inspected by the AWL or RSPCA - if a licence system ever did come in. I cant see that happening for several reasons including that Dogs NSW are no longer the only group in NSW which are recognised and which is eligible for exemptions and they havent been for quite some time. Go back a couple of years and I was told by someone who was heavily involved in the whole PDE thingy and working closely with several groups at the uni that there was a time line. Back then they were waiting on the Bateson report to come out in the UK,then they wanted laws to stop first degree and second degree matings and the end result was that one panel would oversea all dog related issues - which is what was in that task force paper .That has nothing to do with who keeps or who can add to a registry its about some other org in charge of what can and cant be done over and above Dogs NSW or any other group or individual associated in any way with dogs.

I thought the role was about being an agent - so when a person changes details on a pedigree its changed on the data base etc. There is no way there would be a possibility of two chip registries. It may not be a good idea to have 2 chip registries bUT the case is that nation wide we have 8 or 9 registaries so far. It would seem to me that if the NSW CAR registriy was made available to DogsNSW then it could well work a treat?? I meant one compulsory registry for the state. Im happy for Dogs NSW to have access to the CAR - but anyone or any group can do that with a password and if Dogs NSW get that ability so will many other orgs. Im not sure what it is thats being discussed that Dogs NSW would do. Feel like Im missing something because they dont need any special resources for this.

So are you suggesting that they will allow Dogs NSW to take this over from what the council does now? Nup not a chance in my opinion. i was told that Dogs NSW and similar orgs would be able to change and ad data which they cant do now in order to encourage peopel to change info which they dont do now because its too hard to do. Whats more if its a case of them doing what councils do how would this help registered purebred breeders?

After discussion the MDBA have had behind the scenes I don't believe that is the case. However, there is a push in that task force document to have a single body which will determine what will go on with all dogs - there isnt anything new in that some have been pushing for it for quite a while - the concept that Dogs NSW would be it is never ever going to fly and it would be a body made of of differing group representatives.

Seems lots of people are having the same problem.

I thought the role was about being an agent - so when a person changes details on a pedigree its changed on the data base etc. There is no way there would be a possibility of two chip registries.

I guess its easy to pick a dog up and look after it off site than it is a horse - but Im guessing . Around here they come in and give you a list of things to do to fix the situation and if it isnt done they take the animal - makes no difference what species it is.

Pretty sad that the owner doesn't get a second opinion - We are told the dog had a uterine infection,worms and fleas. Where is the harm in allowing the owner to have their own vet also examine the dog and either agree or disagree? Someone who isnt employed by the Rspca needs to be able to take a look. Im not saying this one is not what its reported to be but surely everyone is a sitting duck without it.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndn.org.au%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2FNorris%2520Jade%2520Legislation%2520to%2520Prohibit%2520Puppy%2520Farming.ppt&ei=avp2UZ_vLaTziAeltYCgAg&usg=AFQjCNFqheJQF6tGVU574Gf8KtHsfF_SIQ&sig2=37iCqGvMuS4vmmoRaaVhMQ&bvm=bv.45580626,d.aGc Take a look at the charts at how over regulated NSW is already in comparison to other states. Definitely an argument to state that we have more laws than any other state and ample ability to control bdog breeding without the need for further legislation.

http://www.heraldsun...7-1226626054410 A LAVERTON knackery recently under investigation for animal cruelty by the RSPCA claimed last week it had been slaughtering horses for the RSPCA for the past 40 years. But RSPCA spokeswoman Emma Watts denied the RSPCA had any relationship with Laverton Pet Supplies. "Nothing comes up in our database under either Laverton knackery or pet supplies," she said. But Anthony Sword, founder of We Were Champions, which rescued retired racehorses from knackeries, said he also believed the company destroyed horses for the RSPCA. Mr Sword and other animal rights activists outbid knackers, including Laverton Pet Supplies, to save the lives of 15 horses at an auction in Echuca last week. Horse buyer for the Laverton knackery George Marsh said last week he attended the auction but did not buy any horses. When asked about the RSPCA investigation of allegations of ill treatment of horses at the knackery, he said: "We're working with them at the moment. "Any horses they have got, skinny horses and that, we have been doing it for 40 years." The RSPCA investigated the knackery last year after animal rights group Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses filmed knackery workers ill-treating horses while killing them. The RSPCA decided no charges would be laid but the company had been issued with a warning and changed some practices. Mr Sword said the RSPCA should not be associated with the knackery.

I dont believe this is going to take us anywhere other than better educating us on how they have us if they want us anyway. The fact that its only now that people are beginning to understand that they could have prevented most of us from having a litter of puppies on our premises because we live in zoned residential areas all along is a concern. Whether we need purpose built buildings if we are deemed commercial is the least of our problems because even as hobby breeders we need development consent to be able to participate in the activity of breeding dogs and we have to comply with mandatory codes for breeding dogs. If there is a ruling in the environment court which says that we don't need this consent as hobbyists then every council still has it wrong and in all honesty its difficult to believe - because even as a hobbyist breeding dogs on your residential property has a potential impact on your neighbours. If a licencing system comes in then it makes the activity of breeding dogs without a licence illegal which means you get punished, fined, dogs seized without a defence - you are guilty - right now if council decides you are breeding dogs in a residential zone you get bullied a bit and you may even have to stop breeding dogs on your property but its not against the law as its being pushed here.It is absolute folly in my opinion to say O.K. let everyone else have a licence but not us because at any minute that can change even if it gets in now and with what else is on the table they have you anyway if you cant even advertise a pup without a chip number or licence number. even if they charge Dogs NSW or the MDBA with issuing licences to our own members we still have to ensure our members are doing it as everyone else is - all that does it put a different person in to do your initial inspection and follow up inspections - you dont get off the hook just because its a different org if having council approval is part of the deal. Victoria had a situation for years where they didnt count those breeding without the intent as a profit in the legislation for mandatory codes. That is now changed - last law change made anyone who was breeding without approvals regardless of whether they were commercial or not have to comply with it all anyway BUT the new laws they have on the table explain large and small breeders and give exemptions for having to comply with the MANDATORY CODES FOR BREEDING ESTABLISHMENTS to Vicdogs members who have under 10 fertile dogs and anyone else who has less than 4 - BUT the thing you can say till you a blue in the face is that these exemptions don't just give you instant approval to be able to breed dogs on your property and no one seems to hear it until they get in the poo. But because its not a licence issue you at least have a shot at no fines and keeping your dogs. All they do is give you an out as far as the codes for breeding establishments and permits are concerned. Most shires - if not all - don't allow you to breed dogs on your property in a residential zone or in any other zone without a permit if you are over their number limit via the permit. Of course though most hobby breeders in Victoria do breed dogs in a residential zone. Say no to more laws - we already have a hobby which is radically over regulated and ample laws to have the same effect as these ones. http://www.aiam.com.au/resources/files/proceedings/AIAM%202012/Wendy%20Brown.pdf We dont stop people from owning dogs in case they bark and upset the neighbours so why should we be stopped from breeding a litter in case that upsets the neighbours - its about property rights.