Alyosha

There is already breeder registration, with the ACTCA. Is there a need to create further legislation that responsible breeders have to pay to comply with? Because I'm pretty certain the irresponsible won't comply anyway. Seeing as there is lack of resources within the ACT to regulate the domestic animal legislation which already exists (including cruelty legislation), who will enforce a new Act? As far as I can tell, this won't even put a dent in the business of the large NSW puppy farmer that sells through the markets within the Territory boundary. So if it can't counteract one of the most obvious and embarrassing examples of blatant puppy farm trade in the ACT, how will it stop any other unethical "breeder" with half a brain?

Mmmmm. Right. I'm well out of this one Annie - can't argue with such conviction...

That is exactly what has been happening for many, many years. Some people are passionate REAL dog lovers and will risk trespass charges and criminal record to protect and bring awareness of puppy farms http://www.prisonersforprofit.org.au/?p=385 Stangely enough puppy farms are still about, possibly in greater numbers than ever. So effective behaviour? I think not. And you might need to consider that not a huge percentage of people engaged in criminal behaviour get locked up... Especially the clever ones.

So we should scrap it and try a different shape?

Annie, you need to realise that there is a reason that pet shops won't give out the names of breeders. They are well aware that ANKC breeders are not supposed to sell to them. They're not going to say anything. They are aware that some people don't like dog breeders, whether purebred or crossbred. And they protect their financial relationship with them. So for greedy unethical people, they can pay for as many memberships as they like, tell the right people all the stuff they want to hear, and still sell whatever pups they want to wherever they want. It makes not one spot of difference. Unless you're looking inside houses and in backyards and sheds there is no way to stop a member of any organisation doing exactly what they want. If people are able to cook up illegal drugs every day and make a profit at the expense of human safety and life and get away with it, you can be damn sure that puppy breeders can do it.

We really are labouring the point here seeing as PIAA has only 6 accredited pet shops Nation wide. 3 in NSW and 3 in QLD. Any set of rules, whether guideline, COE or regulations is only as good as it's enforcement. Relying on people to tell the truth etc is a lovely idea but really, what planet are we living on?

I think it's to do with how they move, the high speed changes of direction that involve those springy pasterns to lie down on the ground and then pivot. They're giving the dewclaws much more opportunity to come into contact with the ground. At speed it's often an injury waiting to happen. I think the Salukis will be lighter on their feet and not turning so hard and fast, turning on their toes more than their pasterns. If I bred Affies I would take them off as babies.

My old Afghan was always hurting his. Drove me nuts. I had a Belgian Shep foster who did his a couple of times in a few months as well. Not bad enough to warrant the trauma of adult removal, but a pain in the butt for sure. My current dogs have none, and pups I breed will have them removed.

No beating yourself up allowed ok Pugger?? He will be fine, you're doing the right thing for him and your family. And you know that Anne will make sure everything is perfect for him as well. He'll be fine, and you will be too.

Excuse my ignorance, and maybe Steve is about to give me an answer. But isn't membership to the MDBA just purchased? Can't I just go to the website and pay for it? I don't understand how they guarantee any more scrutiny of their members than the ANKC and State bodies? Don't want to completely derail the topic, if there's a simple explanation or a link somewhere that would be great.

I do like an informative website. Flashy is a bit of a subjective term, but I see why you used it. The waiting time thing is hugely individual. If it was an important show or breeding dog or bloodline you were wanting most people would wait as long as it took. I think one of the things that dog people might not always realise about pet puppy buyers is that they have a different approach. Puppy buyers normally start looking for their pup when their situation becomes right for it, or after the death of another pet. They don't necessarily spend a few years preparing for the death of their pet by planning or booking the next one, or if they are changing living conditions/moving house/waiting for kids to be old enough etc they don't plan years ahead for their dog. They wait until everything is right, then start looking for their pup. This isn't any more or less wrong than a breeder or showie booking a puppy years ahead, it is just how things are. So yes, they often do want a pup now, that's just how people often do it. It doesn't necessarily mean they're being impulsive either.

The whole process has to be simplfied, not complicated even more. Your average pet owner just wants to buy a new puppy, they don't want to be barraged with exessive and extraneous information, or berated, belittled and blamed for all that is wrong in the dog world, whether that be rescue or breeding. The old acronym? KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Buying a pet has inherent risks involved. Mostly because it involves people and money. Just like buying a car or a house or anything. You cannot remove all those risks. But you can arm consumers with simple facts and information that may help to minimise those risks. As far as I see it, there are already far too many registries, and greedy puppy farmer types keep inventing new ones to justify and polish their business. The purebred dog world shouldn't join in ths dangerous and complicated little game. They should be making the most of their long standing, government recognised registry (ANKC) and letting the wider community know about it and a few simple facts about how it works to help them.

You're right, I don't. I don't either. Honestly, making people keep up to date with and pay multiple registrations and memberships every year (ANKC, MDBA, Council, any others that get invented...) doesn't preclude them from doing the wrong thing. It just makes life difficult for people who make sure they always do the right thing. I don't know what the simple answer is, if there is one. But punishing the honest people through additional fees and paperwok isn't it.

A quick note to let everyone know that unfortunately, although advertised otherwise, Gunning Show on the 19th February won't have a conformation dog show this year. Some other dog sports may still go ahead, including the possibility of dancing with dogs. Gundagai show is on the same day and still has entries open, so we should all still get a showing fix for that weekend! Hopefully Gunning will get up and running again next year, last year was a great day.

I do remember it. Will see if I can find it.

Hanging is considered a rightful end for unwanted and especially not-performing-to-standard greyhound types involved in racing and hunting within some cultures. It is an all too common end for far too many hounds in some parts of the world. But not common in England. Terrible, cruel and completely unnecessary. Poor pups.

As far as I know funnel web venom is not lethal to any mammals except primates (including humans) and guinea pigs. Not lethal to dogs and cats. Redback venom I think does affect pets, I had a ferret die from a suspected redback bite once.

Beautiful babies folks!! Our young man had a couple of shows in 2010, winning Baby in Show at the NSW Borzoi specialty in October at just on 12 weeks old - yay!! He'll be out and about this year: Hope to see of your lovely babes out there!!

Yep Steve and Souff that is unlawful. That TV show is ridiculous. And I do agree that there is no ombudsman etc to oversee professional behaviour. They don't have more powers than police, but may lack the legal grounding or knowledge in some cases to utilise their powers lawfully and effectively. Anyone recall the koala fiasco? The problem is, it's up to the victim of such behaviour to kick up about it. If people don't complain about things like that, they will continue. The only recourse people have is lodging a criminal or civil complaint against the individual inspector. Civil action can be limited by financial constraints as well. There won't be any further scrutiny placed upong the laws that they operate under unless people publicly question them.

I think you missed right at the start: inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer. So RSPCA Inspectors share with police the early listed powers of entry without warrant in certain extingent circumstances. Then police, as defined authorised officers under LEPRA, have additional powers relating to warrants. So again you've alleged that Inspectors have more power than police under this Act, but reading the Act correctly clearly illustrates otherwise. You cannot bend legislation to fit what you want, but you do need to read it carefuly and not make presumtions about what it contains. And unless you're very conversant with LEPRA, I would contend that you have displayed a very limited knowledge of police powers of entry in various circumstances without warrant. And yes Steve you're right, police have no part in enforcing anyone's policies, they are not legislative instruments.

Me too JB - must be the season for it!! We might be all heading to an agree to disgree type situation anyway... ?

So Souff you have just shown that although RSPCA Inspectors in NSW have some powers under the POCTA, which police have as well. Police then have additional powers under the same Act, as defined by LEPRA. You have failed to note how you allege that this equates to RSPCA having more power than police. It's showing the opposite. And in addition, regarding the feed bills issue, from http://www.rspca-act.org.au/about-us/ We will prepare 300,000 meals for companion animals; 500,000 feeds for native birds and mammals. Geez. half a million meals huh? Sounds pretty cheap to me. Especially with highly specialised diets involved...

Like I said, I don't know each state. But they are all separate entities, as is RSPCA Australia. While it has an overseeing capacity ot really doesn't involve itself in the individual state org's matters. Tarring all with one brush is like saying all teh state's governments are the same, and if one is bad then of course they all must be. And trust me Rev Jo, RSPCA do not get more power than police.

So $8 million in cash. Do we know what their needs are over the next year? What was their expenditure last year? Has that cash been put aside, or is it the result of an allocation or income? Details make these facts fit into a picture, just one figure can be read a thousand different ways. I think people need to step back and realise that large organisations have large needs. A couple of million dollars is nothing for a big company. It disappears like water down a drain. If we step back and rationally compare budget, factoring in logistics, facilities, workloads, fleets, insurance, equipment etc with a comparable sized Government department would we see much difference? I'm honestly asking. Fo as I have been very close to RSPCA budgeting in the past, I haven't done such comparison figures. Anyone? I have seen the soggy ends though, when there is gaps between income, and it is damn hard sometimes for these groups to make sure their staff all get paid some weeks. The point I was trying to make Jaxx, without being inflammatory, and actually having a little background relevant knowledge, is that money only goes so far. And animal welfare, of the quality that our society rightly demands, does not come cheap at all.