Steve

Great example of working temperament and an acceptance of what is normal. http://www.standard.net.au/story/1447207/big-rise-in-little-penguins/?cs=383

http://www.chipmenot.org/scientificevidence.htm

Tralee - the issue for me isnt that YOU didnt breed the parent dogs or that YOU have bred one. The issue is that ALL of us need to try to steer away from it and clearly some are not - and that it is a biggy. You are not being beaten up because you bred a pup with less pigment - or at least that's not by me .My concern is your comments as if you shrug it off and I know that some breeders are not doing what is required to breed away from in it as they seek a championship. I know of one litter born with this lack of pigment where half the litter showed this and all of the pups were put out as breeding dogs. Mum and Dad presumably carry it and every pup in the litter may also carry it without showing it and I am pointing a stick at them. You just happen to be here telling me its no big deal. All of us have to decide what the breeders in the country of origin of the breed or any breeder are doing and whether we want to blindly follow - historically not all breeds have faired well under the progressive decisions made by the "fathers" of the breed in their country of origin once the show ring has become a primary focus - so just because the Italians have gone one way doesnt make it that we should just not question what is happening.

Short answer is No. Limited register papers simply means that you dont want them to breed with it and register their puppies with the ANKC and so you have limited their ability to do so and the ANKC have agreed to ensure your wishes are upheld but that doesnt stop them from breeding them and not registering the puppies with the ANKC or breeding them and registering the puppies with another registry which accepts limited ANKC papers as suitable for breeding to register the puppies with their registry.

Let me put it this way. Lets say you have 2 dogs and one has a litter and the neighbours complain - council wont treat you one way if you are breeding for commercial reasons and another if you are breeding as a hobby. they have requirements which they place on you if you are keeping breeding dogs - this usually comes under intensive agriculture. In order to keep breeding dogs and breed them on your property whether that is for a commercial purpose or not you need a development consent to conduct that activity on your land. You will need to tell them all about what sort of dogs you have how many etc and they will tell you what you will need to do if anything to carry on that activity on your property. You can argue the commercial ruling if they get stupid and tell you that you need purpose built buildings etc but at the end of the day you will still need approval in my opinion to conduct the hobby of breeding dogs on your property.Some councils count out any option by saying as Dungog do that keeping breeding dogs can only happen in certain zones and these are usually things they notify you of before you purchase the land. Based on the wording of Dungog if you lived in a residential zone you would never get approval to even keep one breeding dog. There may be some way of us all fighting the whole free use of our property thing but the reality is that breeding dogs does have the potential of impacting on the neighbours and Im not sure that would fly either. The other thing to note is that this is modeled off the Gold Coast pilot program and if they go that way they will give people the nod to breed a litter or two on their property as a development consent and part of the licence without all of this rubbish which in reality we should have been doing. If that's the case and some degree of common sense is within the whole thing then it may even work out easier than it is now - if you comply. Problem is we have no way of knowing what the criteria is going to be for gaining a licence and we have no faith that what we get will remains as it starts. And thats not even getting to saying what we think of mandatory codes let alone making the stupid guidelines law too! Talk to your council PLANNING department Don't do this over the phone - if its not in writing its not counted.if they agree that you dont need a development consent to breed dogs on your property get that in writing. If they introduce licences you may need to show that you have council approval or that you don't need it to breed dogs on your premises. In my case I have council approval to keep breeding dogs and breed dogs on my property and I have that in writing. When we applied hubby and I had an argument because I wasn't even sure I would ever breed a litter and I only had 2 fertile dogs but he wouldnt let it go and pushed for the approvals before we even moved onto the property. Needless to say I'm glad now he was so stubborn.

Makes no difference if you get called commercial or a hobby - you breed one litter of puppies on your property you need council approval and that has been the case for decades. No one has taken any notice of it because common sense prevailed but the minute you have come under attention or a complaint is in they have pulled this for as long as Im aware of and Im pretty old.

This at 8 weeks

More research will need to be done to test this but for me it looks awful, it impacts on what conditions the dogs can work in and it potentially leads to some very serious health issues as the dogs age. I understand I am emotionally involved in this and Im trying to control thinking with my heart and love of the breed over my head but no matter which way I try to look at this I cannot understand why it isnt considered a biggy and it can not be overlooked in the name of going after a desired type. i do not want to breed dogs which have a limited working ability or a lack of pigment and if this is able to continue all registered dog's pedigrees in the breed will be contaminated with this if they are not now. My pups are born with very dark blue eyes but they are brown way before 5 weeks of age.

this happens a lot with cats. If you look up negative reactions to microchips its not that uncommon.

Its also fascinating that there is almost no real attempt to address what impact pound's policy and rescue issues may impact on euth numbers. All they are asking for is a policy document - not laws or codes etc to affect rescue or pounds and shelters. Pounds in NSW dont have to desex before sale.Thousands and thousands of puppies are put into the community which come from rescue which have no regs on them as far as codes or laws are concerned. Some rescues are flying way under the radar because they are actually deliberately breeding and whats more breeding huge numbers in comparison to registered breeders are but calling themselves rescue rather than breeders. They want everyone who has a litter to have a course pass in animal studies but rescue have just been left un touched. Seems to me there is a hefty chunk left out of this and the whole thing has been approached with extreme bias.Though really, what was to be expected - the wolves sat at a table with one sheep [ Dogs NSW] and voted on what is for dinner. the sheep said no to licencing but they were ignored anyway.

Also federal laws determine when someone is in business. When they are doing any activity with an intent to make a profit - even if thise activities are normally considered hobbies they are required to have an ABN, a registered business name and operate in a business like fashion reporting income and expenses etc. So how is it that state laws or even council by laws can contradict that and determine that someone who is conducting an activity with no intent to make a profit is conducting a business from their property and that they must comply with conditions required for someone who is doing this activity with a view to make a profit. If the federal government is going to allow us all to claim expenses associated with building kennels, exercise yards, food, vets, travel. phones, water, electricity uses,grooming, maintenance,fencing etc etc then surely this is more equitable. But as it stands they want us to operate as a hobby with the same requirements and costs and conditions as a business and not be able to claim any of those expenses.

Surely a part of any application for a licence has to be a list of criteria which you can peruse and determine whether or not it is for you. We are being asked to comment on an idea with no clear view across the board of what that would entail. We are told via the mandatory code that such things relate to anyone who breeds a litter and this task force report is explicit that it wants anyone who breeds one litter to be a holder of a licence - it even goes into what someone can do for a short licence if they only breed one litter ever. We know that in other places where licences have been introduced some people have had to do all manner of things to provide purpose built buildings etc.though there is a valid argument that even without a licence you really should have been complying with these things which are in your council area anyway. It would appear that each council reg is different and will remain different - so how is anyone to know what it is we are agreeing to in principal or not agreeing to? How can anyone know before they apply for a licence to breed dogs what that may mean to them, their dogs and whether or not they will be able to fulfill the requirements on their property? Some councils such as the ones I've provided links to have already made the criteria public but most don't and most cant help you if you ask what you need before you tender a DA. The danger here is of course what corvus has picked up and what ive been saying over and over for a very long time. In order for anyone to breed even one litter of dogs from their property they need to have council approval to do so.By this reaction it simply proves what the task force is saying - that dog breeders dont do what they should be doing without a licence. It leaves questions about what is free use of your own property and how on earth someone having a litter of puppies whelped in their laundry could have any environmental impact and why a DA is required but neighbours may disagree and not everyone can be relied upon to keep their numbers , smell. noise etc down. Personally I think we should stop a minute and reconsider the approach. I don't think that we should be saying if this comes in it is the death of us because we allowed them to put things in place a couple of years ago that can kill us off and Dogs NSW gave it a tick. Genuinely most breeders have been ignorant of needing a DA and they havent beeen informed of this usually until there has been a complaint but ignorance is no defence and these sort of responses will alert them to the fact that a licence system is necessary as most of us have been doing what we do without DA approvals. 1: A breeder licensing system should be established and the Companion Animals Register should be updated to capture breeder license information for each animal record. (CA Report p.6). There is no need to introduce a licencing system for breeders to be able to accomplish this outcome. Micro chip laws state the animal has to be chipped when it is sold or when it is 12 weeks old.All you need to do is ensure the animal has to be chipped first and foremost into the breeders name and address with no exemptions. All that takes is a simple small admission to the chip forms. All animals bred by a breeder will be linked to that breeder's details. The system is already in place why not tweak it and enforce it rather than complicate it and make it harder to police and much more costly? Discussion with breeders has already shown that many of those who are now complying with microchip laws will stop complying with chipping their puppies before they leave their premises and instead sell them to markets where they can avoid this in order to operate without a licence and avoid detection. Those breeders who are most likely to be mistreating their animals are the least likely to apply for licences and to go underground further which in fact further compromises the welfare of the animals involved. Small hobby breeders who are clearly a preferred source of puppies are not able to sustain such over regulation into their hobbies and will leave more demand for large scale commercial breeders as they leave . In fact the introduction of a licencing scheme with out discrimination for hobby and commercial breeders wil highly advantage large scale breeders and profoundly disadvantage hobby breeders.

You really have to ask if this is for real - a government is seriously putting into law how often someone who keeps a breeding dog in their home has to have their carpets shampooed ????? A government telling a breeder how long they have to wait to breed a bitch based on her size and then how old she has to be when she is no longer able to breed???? It means a large breed may only get to have 2 litters in her life time - why? A government making laws about how old a male dog can be when it isnt allowed to mate anymore?????Why? Why does a male dog have to rest 2 days between matings? A government determining what matings we can and cant do ??? Wonder if they are poking their noses into who Black Caviar will have as her hubby. It sure does generate a lot of steady business for a vet.

The biggest threat in this for Vicdogs members is this - This paper is a draft proposal and it looks as if Vic dogs members with less than 10 fertile dogs are exempt but do you really think OLaw , ALib and RSPCA and AWL with all of their loonie followers are not writing in and demanding this bit is removed - and if it isn't removed now it will be a constant thrashing from now until for ever for that to happen and it could change at any time. Take a good look at this and ask if you didnt have exemptions would you be good with this stuff and if not have your say because before you know it you may not have exemptions. Remember part of this defines what is a large breeder - one with 4 dogs. This is supposed to be about what we want as well as the loonies for what is best for dogs - not just our dogs all dogs.

Dont think that will do us much good - the terminology is the "business of breeding dogs" and its defined by anyone who breeds a litter whether we make a profit or not is not an issue.

this one is for Wollongong http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/council/governance/Policies/Chapter%20B7%20-%20Development%20in%20Rural%20Zones.pdf

Just out of curiosity,... When I first moved into where i am now back in 1998 I had 4 shelties. Council Regulations were for 2x dogs but I contacted them and the Ranger came out and inspected my house(which would be considered urban)& yard (that has no kennels) and I got permission to keep up to 4 dogs and a litter of pups up till 6 months... Could that permission now be revoked? or am I a lucky beggar I wonder..... No you will need to comply with requirements for keeping breeding dogs .In NSW there is no restriction on how many dogs you own unless they are breeding dogs here is an example of one council requirements - notice For Dogs, commercial includes the operation of a boarding kennel and/or a breeding or training establishment and/or the keeping of dogs for breeding, convalescence, training, racing and/or sale. http://visitdungog.com.au/dungog-business/d_agg_catteries.html

You wont find it in the codes - this is what has been so frustrating when those who have been ordered to do these things have been presented with it.It is within the planning regs and policy for operating a business from home and RSPCA and AWL policy. I can give you dozens of examples where breeders with only a couple of dogs have had to comply with planning laws they didnt know existed because in a DA unless an specific activity is ruled out altogether in that zone each case is taken on a case by case basis. You will need to contact your council and ask the PLANNING department what you will require to do to make a DA for allowance for breeding dogs on your property. Then if you can get a look at the RSPCA and AWL policy on such things. Personally I question how they can call everyone who breeds a litter of puppies in the business of breeding when the ATO wont allow us to have an ABN or operate as a business because we have no intent to make a profit. If the ATO allowed us to this would mean all of our taxable income would drop down and we could claim all of our expenses as tax deductions. As most of us spend much more than we make each year it could off set our income.seems to me they want it both ways and the state laws contradict federal laws which they are not supposed to be able to do. There is also a question of free and reasonable use of our properties and our right to privacy - though all of that is not going to help us now.

for pete's sake Tralee no one is advocating destroying pink nose pups - how on earth did you get to that ? Im asking - no begging breeders to please breed away from it - that's all. We have seen some diseases in the breed which are known to be associated with the same enzyme deficiency including hypothyroidism that is implicated in pigment and snow nose. One gene controls more than one trait, or, a single trait might be influenced by a multitude of genes. It is absolute lunacy for a breeder in 2013 to assume that he can selectively deal with individual genes in isolation. If you select a mating with reference to a particular trait,you are not selecting just for that trait - it is selecting for every single trait located on the same chromosome as the gene controlling the target trait - and of course you are also selecting for all the other traits showing in that particular parent, plus those that are genetically present but not expressed. By not avoiding the lack of pigment you have no idea what you are playing with and a lack of pigment and any colour but white in the coat is known to be linked to the amino acid tyrosine – which is also linked to several other genetic disorders including hypothyroidism. No breeder can take the risk of infecting the breed any more especially when its a non desired look anyway at least until much more research is done makes no sense to me. It may not be a biggy for one dog you know of but it is a potential biggy for the breed.

Yes ... yep and not one breeder among them.

The biggest threat in this for Vicdogs members is this - This paper is a draft proposal and it looks as if Vic dogs members with less than 10 fertile dogs are exempt but do you really think OLaw , ALib and RSPCA and AWL with all of their loonie followers are not writing in and demanding this bit is removed - and if it isn't removed now it will be a constant thrashing from now until for ever for that to happen and it could change at any time. Take a good look at this and ask if you didnt have exemptions would you be good with this stuff and if not have your say because before you know it you may not have exemptions. Remember part of this defines what is a large breeder - one with 4 dogs. This is supposed to be about what we want as well as the loonies for what is best for dogs - not just our dogs all dogs.

I make observations. What is there, is there for all to see. I don't over extrapolate to create issues that don't exist. Much is conjecture and wishful projection, based on correlation that remains unproven. All the data is not in and may not be in for some time. It is simple folly to make judgements, rulings and condemnations when no evidential case can be made. Well thats one way to look at it - I think its simply folly to continue to breed that fault especially knowing the potential for it to be linked with other serious conditions such as hypothyroidism, cancer and a bunch of other things with stacks of evidence to show they are linked to the same enzyme issues that create snow nose and lack of pigment.

1: A breeder licensing system should be established and the Companion Animals Register should be updated to capture breeder license information for each animal record. (CA Report p.6). There is no need to introduce a licencing system for breeders to be able to accomplish this outcome. Micro chip laws state the animal has to be chipped when it is sold or when it is 12 weeks old.All you need to do is ensure the animal has to be chipped first and foremost into the breeders name and address with no exemptions. All that takes is a simple small admission to the chip forms. The system is already in place why not tweak it rather than complicate it and make it harder to police and more costly? Recommendation 2: The Animal Welfare Code of Practice - Breeding Dogs and Cats should be revised to ensure that the existing guidelines it contains become enforceable standards. (CA Report p.8) Not only are many of the guidelines not based on science, they are impossible to police.Many of them are not suited to small hobby breeders and or some breeds. This would advantage large scale commercial breeders and disadvantage small hobby breeders - with those who keep animals is poor conditions even more likely to go underground to avoid detection. People who own a few dogs which live as part of the family which they occasionally breed cannot be expected to treat their animals under the same conditions as someone who has 100 dogs. You end up with small breeders finding it all too hard because they are motivated by love of a breed and their dogs or passion not money ,and with more people investing more money needing to breed more dogs to pay for it . Until you make a distinction between a hobby breeder and a large scale commercial breeder you will continue to advantage large scale breeders with over regulation and all you do is create more scoff laws. Recommendation 3: Relevant animal welfare codes of practice should be amended to require the sellers of cats and dogs to display an animal's microchip number (or the license number of the breeder of an animal) in all advertisements, and at point of sale in the case of pet shops, markets and fairs. (CA Report p.9) Small scale breeders need to advertise their individual puppies more than large scale breeders as large scale breeders advertise their businesses where it is known puppies are available or they sell in bulk to pet shops and dealers. Small scale breeders also need to advertise their puppies when they are born- weeks before home time to ensure they find homes for the pups.If we have to have a chip number to advertise this means we cant advertise until the puppies are older and have been chipped.It increases the risk that puppies will not be sold until much later than is ideal for them to be in their new homes. Larger scale commercial breeders are advantaged over small hobby breeders as they can more readily afford any licences and later or no advertising of individual puppies. Also there is no evidence that this system is working in Victoria or the Gold Coast where it has already been introduced. Breeders are still advertising with no numbers and no one is policing it - because its virtually impossible to police. Current laws say all puppies have to be chipped at point of sale.Police the laws we have. Recommendation 8: The Companion Animals Act should be amended to require cats and dogs to be registered on an annual basis. (CA Report p.16) The number of animals which are currently registered is due in part to breeders who follow the current laws and microchip their puppies and change them into the new owner's name.Council are then able to follow up to ensure they are registered at 6 months. Information on the data base which is out of date is largely due to people who move and don't update their details which they can do for free. If they don't change their details for free and without fear that they will have to pay a fee yearly they will be less likely to do so when changing their details means council knows where they are and they have to pay a yearly fee which they may avoid if they don't change them? I'm assuming that yearly registrations will be less than they are now and in line with other states which have a yearly fee.With extra administration costs,and more costs required to police them surely its a much more viable solution to simply put up the current fees a little,and police the laws and issue fines for the laws we already have. Yearly registrations have not proven in states where these exist to cut down on dangerous dogs or to give a greater compliance or impound numbers. Many people now have dogs which they made decisions on owning based on a once only registration fee if this becomes a yearly fee there is an increased probability that some of these dogs will be surrendered as the families may not be able to find the yearly fees.

No difference between a breeder who breeds one litter a year and one that breeds a 100. They want AWL and RSPCA to have full access to the registry details.They dont want any organisation's members to be given any exemptions They want all of the guidelines made laws - these are the really stupid things such as having to feed every pup out of its own bowl , not putting a litter tray in the same room as a water bowl etcThey want a licence for anyone who has a litter And they want everyone who wants to breed a dog to have a cert 11 in animal studies.So right now in NSW breeders can register their dogs once in their life time and they can breed a dog without a licence fee.they are out in the open because they do these things. Bring in yearly licence fees and all the rest of it and one of a couple of things will happen = small breeders will chuck it in because they cant afford it , breeders will breed more to get back their investment and again commercial breeders do it easier.Supply and demand hasnt been impacted so stop small breeders and more big breeders flourish. The rotten ones or the ones who decide to break the laws will dig in deep and be harder to spot.More dogs in big breeding establishment , more dogs in dodgy outback breeding sheds and no positive impact on dogs suffering or on impound numbers.

Our hobby in NSW has been classified as a business for as long as I can remember - in that regard there isnt anything new here. The current standards and guidelines are about everyone who ever has a litter of puppies and they are asking that the guidelines within that are made laws and not seen as optional. We have always been supposed to have a DA to breed puppies from our premises even if we only had one litter ,though most didnt and only found this out when council or RSPCA came calling. Many breeders and rescue in NSW have had to comply with building regulations and RSPCA policy for housing etc which is not easy to see in codes or in this task force document. It is within these regulations and laws which compel us to things which are difficult to ascertain because theoretically each is taken on a case by case basis and in the main you cant just go along to the council websites and see what is required, or ring and ask what is required. Most people who are small hobby breeders dont have a clue until they are given a list of things they need to do in a short time frame to comply .Im assuming what oakway has put up is not in the task force document but is covered in council DA requirements or RSPCA / AWL policy. if people have to have a licence and be inspected before they are able to get the nod to be able to breed puppies from their premises then in order to comply they will need to have these things in place which theoretically they already needed and dont think its only large commercial breeders because Ive witnessed this with a person who owned three beagles who had to build housing 15 metres from their dwelling etc. So having to do the things in Oakways post are already there its just that most dont do it and didnt know they had to do it - that bit isnt new. But the licencing of breeders before they can breed dogs which is including inspections means DAs are required and compliance is on the table for approval to breed. The fact that at the roundtable meeting the only breeder group which was in favour of breeder licences was the commercial breeders group is telling - because they already have their licences and DA's. The position the people who want this are coming from is that breeders dont comply with such things and they only know this after a complaint so they want all breeders passing these requirements before they issue licences. We assume when we read it that a complaint means they are filthy or overcrowded etc - if we are doing nothing wrong what do we have to hide - but most hobby breeders will not fit the requirements and they are fighting pretty hard against any exemptions for Dogs NSW members. In fact within that document it is expressly saying no exemptions.