Steve

A vet or anyone for that matter saying that all is well is more credible than animal rights. If nothing is done via the RSPCA or the council then nothing needs to be done.They are the authority charged with ensuring laws and welfare issues are being dealt with . People shouldn't just automatically loose their rights because animal rights want to be judge jury and executioner. If these conditions are that bad that they believe they need to expose them then they are going to be the same for those responsible for policing the laws to see in light of day by knocking on the front door as what they are by someone creeping around at night. Yeah Yeah I get it - expose them when you can and make a big deal of it so the public know whats going on,then they wont buy from pet shops but there is time to do that when ever if ever they go through court and they are actually found to be guilty of something. Edited to add the outcome for these dogs is that they are now removed without anyone in authority seeing them , or how they lived or being able to examine them or doing anything to help them if that was needed.

The woman who is the registered breeder says its not her that is breeding the ones out the back and the registered dogs which she admits to as a registered breeder are all on the couch and living a great life . Happy healthy and well socialised. No one other than the vet and criminals saw the pens and the vet says all is well and not an issue in regard to animal welfare yet its O.K. to publish names and make accusations? You wouldn't treat an accused pedophile like that. So why is it written as if the registered breeder is the bad guy anyway ? What is it exactly that a registered breeder is accused of doing? Im not interested in taking any notice of photos which come from people creeping around at night breaking the law there is no way Id believe anything that comes from anything they say or show. And No this isnt me defending a puppy farmer, or commercial breeder or anyone else in particular - its about defending the fact that dog breeders all dog breeders have rights. and its not O.K. for people who think they have some thing to show to trespass and publish private correspondence and break the law. If they really thought they were treating their dogs poorly or that they were living in sub standard conditions or had evidence obtained legally and they wanted to help the dogs why didn't they contact the RSPCA to investigate?

Then why show this breed? If a judge can't touch them, then how can they be judged? It's a hands on sport. How long should a Maremma be given in the ring to make up it's mind if it will allow another person to approach it? The Maremma wasn't the only dog to react in such a fashion, commentators also remarked on other dogs being overawed. Should this allowance be given to other breeds who also would prefer not to be examined by a stranger. Maybe Maremma's shouldn't be shown at all and should be left in the paddock to work? I didn't say don't show them - I simply pointed out the difference between attributes that assist the dog's function & attributes that are rewarded in the showring. Nor did I say they couldn't be touched - but that they would not welcome it. But if they are clearly unsuited to the current show format, and it seems they are, then why do people show them? Why do something that is against everything you say the dog (breed) stands for - so to speak? It would be so stressful for them. I guess people show them to be judged against their breed standard & to get points towards their CH title, maybe win a fringie - I dunno :) For mine, I no longer show much at all simply because, you're right, they don't like it - I judge my dogs purely on their willingness to work (work ethic if you like), ability to work (courage, judgement & independent decision making), their physical soundness, minimal coat care & their ease of getting along with me & mine. They are brilliant at what they are bred to do - I could care less about show results - but that's me Same for me but again its about what's normal for the dog and what it is accustomed to. Dogs which go into the ring are trained for that from baby puppy hood.Part of that should be being handled by a judge in my opinion. I don't show mine and I select for work - all but one of mine are working with poultry or sheep but I still want to know Im taking into account the standard so its good when someone takes one of mine and it ends up a champ. Id like to think that in this breed we could have the best of both worlds - that there isnt a distinction between a dog which is a conformation champ and one which is a fantastic worker so Id hope that breeders are still selecting for both - problem is some trends in the ring and some dogs which are awarded have the potential for the breed to go the way many breeds have with a vast difference between a show dog and a working dog . I agree in principal with what Tralee is saying because there is a real danger that as more people show them and breed them who dont work them the more risk there is that behaviours which are seen to be better for the ring and or companionship will be selected for and the intrinsic qualities of the breed temperament will be compromised. Sadly though its not just the temperament which is showing signs of changing for the ring and the fact that some of the examples shown are coming from Italy doesn't change that.

Yes I know we are talking about the show ring - my comments re working were in response to Espinay asking re behaviour when they are working etc I would expect if someone were showing a dog of any breed but especially this breed that it would be a definite full on effort to ensure they were accustomed to being treated that way and handled by strangers for exactly that purpose - so it can be judged. There is no denying that this is a challenge but many dogs Ive bred are able to be in situations which ordinarily a working Maremma wouldn't see.We even have one going into a nursing home twice a week where an old lady grabs it by the face and kisses its nose and scrunches her head into his neck to tell him she loves him. He makes no move to back off or try to avoid this contact - happy for her to do anything to him she wants. He happily allows all of them to hug him and pat him but take him back home and he is back to a working dog. This is because he sees both as normal - he has always done this since he was 8 weeks old. I have people and especially children coming and going all day and if I allow the stranger up onto my porch any dog on my property is happy to be touched and handled because they know this to be normal - yet the same dogs are completely different with anyone I dont invite onto the porch. So while I agree with you that the judge needs to lay hands on it and it needs to be open to being handled and judged by strangers and this dog clearly wasn't comfortable with what was happening - my point is that I saw the reaction as normal Maremma behaviour when they are out of their comfort zone,when confronted with something they are not used to though in order for it to do what is required of it the owner needs to work more at making the dog feel that what is happening is normal - rather than making too many excuses for it not to do as required because its a breed trait. Not sure I'm explaining it properly but Tralee is right its normal Maremma behaviour but I believe that if its going to attend shows and be expected to be handled then that's exactly what it should be used to and trained to do. I could add that in other words, some Maremma do present with a 'therapy dog' temperament but it in not the correct temperament. I have had an extremely gregarious dog who was unequalled in her dog friendliness and people friendliness. However, this meant she lacked other desirable traits. She would work with foul against foxes but not thieves. It really isn't rocket science. What we saw with Anna Albrigo's dog, and she has bred dozens of National BOB's and International BIS's, is the Judge attempting to examine any other dog but not a Maremma. This is extremely frustating and has caused myself and others great consternation, time, and money in defending our dogs that are reported for aggression, in and out of the ring, only to be ultimately found to be without fault. There are two possible outcomes. The first would be a tragedy. The Maremma is distorted into a dog with a therapy type temperament just to accomadate the show ring. Or, the Maremma is judged correctly as aloof and wary of strangers, alert but not aggressive. It really is simple, if the Maremma is to be judged fairly, then it must be allowed to remain unsubmissive, and to preserve its independent role as a guardian. I believe you can have a Maremma with a therapy type behaviour when its working in a therapy type situation and that it should revert back to keeping out thieves when it returns to its property and what ever species it is working with. That dog goes into that place every few days and has done since it was a baby but its a completely different dog when its at home working the goats where it is aloof and wary of strangers. That therapy type temperament is what they use when they are telling sheep or chooks or other dogs they live with they wont hurt them and allow them to snuggle up with them. Everything you do to take it into the show ring or even the vet is distorted - the way those dogs look is nowhere near like a working Maremma looks, they would much prefer never to leave their property at all let alone do everything from the minute they get in the car to get there until they get back home again. Aloof and wary of strangers doesnt mean that it should never know that when its in that situation how it is expected to behave or what is normal when it is in that situation in my opinion. If you have made the decision that your dog is going to go into this situation,that you will shampoo it and fluff it up and drag it around on a lead and have it examined by strangers in unknown environments with other dogs coming and going etc whilst its in that situation, It shouldn't be a too hard ask to have the dog used to being handled in that situation and revert to being aloof and ready to take on a thief when its off lead and on its own turf. Allowing a judge to handle it when its on a lead in that situation with its owner beside it is different to allowing the judge to come onto its property near its charges or try to handle it when its not on lead. One of the things I love most about the breed is its ability to determine very quickly what is normal and if that sort of life and experience is going to be normal then the dog needs to know that and act accordingly when its on lead and off its own property. However, the person judging should also know how to approach it and go about handling it because if is a well bred Maremma any behaviour it strikes which is out of the ordinary of what its been trained to accept as normal will throw in a wild card.

Me too.

Here in our town the mongrels come in and sit on the pub doorstep to sunbake. The only thing they are frightened of is Maremma. During lambing season for every lamb standing in the morning there is a dead one beside it on our neighbours properties - we have never lost a lamb since the day we bought the dogs in 20 years ago. The Maremma dont kill them they deter them.

Yes I know we are talking about the show ring - my comments re working were in response to Espinay asking re behaviour when they are working etc I would expect if someone were showing a dog of any breed but especially this breed that it would be a definite full on effort to ensure they were accustomed to being treated that way and handled by strangers for exactly that purpose - so it can be judged. There is no denying that this is a challenge but many dogs Ive bred are able to be in situations which ordinarily a working Maremma wouldn't see.We even have one going into a nursing home twice a week where an old lady grabs it by the face and kisses its nose and scrunches her head into his neck to tell him she loves him. He makes no move to back off or try to avoid this contact - happy for her to do anything to him she wants. He happily allows all of them to hug him and pat him but take him back home and he is back to a working dog. This is because he sees both as normal - he has always done this since he was 8 weeks old. I have people and especially children coming and going all day and if I allow the stranger up onto my porch any dog on my property is happy to be touched and handled because they know this to be normal - yet the same dogs are completely different with anyone I dont invite onto the porch. So while I agree with you that the judge needs to lay hands on it and it needs to be open to being handled and judged by strangers and this dog clearly wasn't comfortable with what was happening - my point is that I saw the reaction as normal Maremma behaviour when they are out of their comfort zone,when confronted with something they are not used to though in order for it to do what is required of it the owner needs to work more at making the dog feel that what is happening is normal - rather than making too many excuses for it not to do as required because its a breed trait. Not sure I'm explaining it properly but Tralee is right its normal Maremma behaviour but I believe that if its going to attend shows and be expected to be handled then that's exactly what it should be used to and trained to do.

Didnt look timid to me. Looked that he just didn't want a stranger putting his hands on him so he was trying to move out of the way - normal for a Maremma on a lead being approached by a stranger I would think. In a working situation I expect that my Maremma will not stay still to be handled by anyone except me - not timidly moving away but moving away to make a statement - please don't touch me, because I cant do my job and Im vulnerable when you do. They would stand 10 feet back and bark their heads of making you think they will kill you if you come into their paddock. Anything that is different is a potential threat and they dont go after and stand up to something thats a threat unless its the very last option open to them - they back up as far as they can go and only stand their ground when the warnings haven't been taken and the species they are guarding is under threat. Anyway I didn't think that dog was timid or afraid. Maremma as a companion is different but regardless each will react based on what it is used to and what is normal - Hard balancing act. I want to know a dog in the ring can also work well but getting them to accept what is normal in the ring and have strangers examining it in an environment it doesnt know where and what the risk factors are to its human and still go home and work takes a hell of a lot of training and exposure to get them to be happy to be handled by strangers in the ring but never in the paddock.

Yes a cavoodle.

I only made the phone call you were the one who provided the service and gained the respect of your puppy buyers so much so that they wanted to nominate you! I say thank you to you and all of the people who have been nominated for making i obvious that there is more good stuff going on than negative. Im running so very late this year and as a result winners wont be announced until end of April but win or not Im very proud to have been able to give you the news.

So - why were the dogs that were seized taken? If its so horrible for dogs to be living here why are they still able to operate at all? Is it only about numbers?

No - shooting a dog because the owner surrendered it . Surrendered dogs around those outback towns usually end that way and most times on the same day. The big deal here is the ranger talked the owner into it by lying but at the end of the day once ownership is no longer an issue its off you go.

Do we have any data on how the puppies were sold? Or any data, long-term, on what happened with puppies that had been sold? Behaviour is incremental... so problems emerging after being masked by puppy stage would probably not even be thought of as relating to shaky base. This kind of operation fails in the face of what research knowledge would suggest as optimal. Frankly, the sooner there's consumer law that reflects this, the better for both the dogs and potential owners. As part of that law... every puppy would carry an identifying number that listed their original breeder (using the microchip), to allow for life-long tracking. Ive been aware of them for a fair while and they often simply advertise via local papers - they may sell some via pet shops. The whole socialisation and impact of what happens before they leave the breeder is a minefield. In order to try to attempt to sort out whether any behaviours were associated with what occurred pre sale all of the other stuff about nature versus nurture and what happens after the pup goes home comes into play .Any laws pertaining to this would be impossible to monitor or police. Current laws do address the need for stimulation and socialisation and in several states including Victoria the pup is identified by a chip which can identify the breeder .They cant even advertise them without a chip - especially if they don't have the permits. Only those who have permits can advertise without fear of prosecution without chip numbers. And - there is no evidence here to prove that these dogs were being neglected or poorly cared for or that they did not have their social and welfare needs met.

It is normal procedure to have rangers shoot dogs that the owners have surrendered - shoot them stick a needle in them - same result . Unless there is a rescue group working from/with the pound most would see this end in pretty quick time in rural communities. Once they are surrendered there is no laws to make them wait to do the job. Surely no one really believes in these communities where there is little demand or care for dumped dogs being saved , where the closest town is hundreds of kilometres away that they would be accepted with open arms and that a ranger would drive them to another larger town where they probably wont find a home or hold them in case someone turns up who will take it home? If rangers are telling people lies to make them think that dumping them equals a better life for them they should be sued - but prove it.

I think the RSPCA gets the fines to cover their expenses not the government. What a miserable existence for those animals.

Well how do we know they didnt have people who worked there or who lived there and helped with this? The reports that were tended to the court said they were well cared for and this was accepted - no reports of sick dogs or poor temperaments etc either. No one complaining they got a pup from them and it was no good or under socilaised. So therefore what ever it was they were doing appears to have been caring well for them. I wonder if their definition of well cared for equals mine though.

Oh, for the love of Mary. The dogs were let out, a fact that a local Police Officer was willing to testify to. So, someone else commits a crime and its my fault! Nobody follows that kind of logic. If you have done all in your power to contain your dogs and something happens to undo what you have done and your dogs get out through no fault of your own I dont think that counts toward you not keeping your dogs securely in your yard. If a Semi crashed through your fence and as a result your dogs were no longer secure you would hardly expect that you would have to answer for them getting out. Cant see any difference between a semi and a crazy person making the fence something that no longer is as you left it. Surely in circumstances such as these the owner should be treated with respect and with sympathy and the dogs given a bit of consideration for their predicament.

Bit personal here isn't it? Not really playing the ball at all. There are many questions left unanswered in this case. They are found guilty of not having their animals registered and have to pay fines but they don't loose their animals. So what does this mean? The assumption has to be that they are either complying with the mandatory codes for breeding dogs or they have been ordered to do so - but there is no mention of an order or a time frame to comply, or of a restriction on them regarding whether they can breed their dogs. According to the law they could have lost all of their animals and all of their assets as they didn't have the domestic animal licences nor a development application approval for breeding dogs on their premises. Remember these laws dont care whether you are breeding for money or not ,nor how many you have,or even how they are cared for - if you are breeding you are breeding. The prevention of cruelty to animals laws cover such things as basic care and treatment etc which the RSPCA and police prosecute under. So is the fact that the dogs are well cared for a defense for any other breeder in Victoria who is pinged for not having their dogs or their premises registered? It would also appear there is something else going on in this shire and at least two others where the councils are holding hands with an other group over the usual RSPCA. Without knowing the finer details of the case its difficult to understand all of the variables but I have to ask if the outcome would have been the same if the council did hold hands with the RSPCA. Of course the biggest question is how does the outcome of this case impact on how councils and RSPCA will deal with those who are not complying - not much point in knocking yourself out to prosecute if the outcome is worse than not prosecuting. They could have simply fined them for having unregistered dogs and given them time to get permits etc. You beaut laws introduced on stopping puppy farming when all they do is give advantage to large scale commercial breeders and those not complying get the same outcome as they did before the laws anyway. Dog Owner advocacy,council procedures and protocols is another issue really and one which deserves its own energy though this particular incident and comments from council need to be looked at closely as it raises some red flags

Not sure if that means dogs were kept in 44 gallon drums on this property or what? If so I would not exactly call this "good care"... Out around these parts kennels /shelters are made out of drums both plastic and metal. In fact they provide the same comfort as any plastic, or wooden kennel. Im assuming the dog used it to shelter in not be locked up in.

The moral to the story is register your dogs, get your permits because even if you look after your dogs well it wont save you the prosecution. The numbers are not the issue these people would have had the same problems if they only had a handful of dogs. No removal of the dogs from what the magistrate said he was certain was a caring environment .

Really? This is wrong in so many ways I'm not sure where to start. Surely, the group to which she belongs does not sanction this kind of behaviour? If she's got extra time on her hands, don't go wasting other peoples, dedicate it towards something more positive.......or simply get a life. S fact is that in the dog world there are various motivators which turn people into crazies and there are also examples of where someone has let a stranger into their homes and the douch bags have returned to commit a crime.

I have kept a journal and mine is going to be good reading too.

They do it here too but its usually breeders or bigger rescue. Either way if its the nutter element it still wouldn't be the RSPCA .

Yeah Id agree with that . I doubt its the RSPCA they usually arrive unannounced but are up front about who they are and what they are looking at but could be someone who has some axe to grind. Some also have expectations of what you do and how you do it which are miles off the mark. I dont think people have any real idea of what it takes for someone to make themselves available and open their homes for inspection when it suits them.

Go for it - the more the better as far as Im concerned.