iffykharma

An update on this with a longer article on the Courier Main website. Sensible comments from RSPCA, less than sensible comments from Desley Boyle MP, Local Government Minister (but I wouldn't have expected any better from a pollie). But scroll down to read the comments section. Lots of support for the responsibility being placed on the owners and an clear understanding from the people that any dog can bite etc.

About the sterilizing... have you approached your local DPI or perhaps put a call in to a University Science / Agriculture Department? or even a local Arborist? Might be worth a shot as even with fences or netting there will be some risk of nuts falling in reach and your dogs eating them. As hard as it is to do, personally I'd suggest having the tree removed and replaced with something more appropriate.

Unfortunately, Qld legislation does not address the age at which animals can be sold. The only reference to the age of animals sold in Pet Shops is in the Queensland Code of Practice for Pet Shops. This is a voluntary CoP and so cannot be enforced. My hope is that there will be a review after a few years, which will undoubtedly find that it hasn't worked (as voluntary codes generally don't - at least not to change the behaviour of the ones who weren't doing the right thing anyway) and the code will become Mandatory. The only legislative provisions likely to be able to be used in relation to pet shops are those dealing with Breach of Duty of Care under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. Here is a copy of the Qld Code of Practice for Pet Shops. In relation to the puppies at Chermside (and any others people get concerned about in pet shops), I would recommend you contact the Brisbane City Council first. Pet Shops must have a Council permit to operate and the permit has conditions attached. You may be able to get a local laws officer to go out and have a look. Keep in mind that, as far as I'm aware, the BCC doesn't have separate Animal Management Officers or Rangers as would be understood by people living in different local government areas. My understanding is they all enforce the broad range of local laws, but I'm happy to be corrected on this (in fact I'd love to be corrected on this as I think for a Council the size of Brisbane its crazy not to have separate animal management officers). Hope this helps. :D So, has anyone been able to go out and see these puppies - any news?

Where do the ANKC and state Canine Councils stand on all of this? I'm not a breeder or involved with any breed in particular, but it seems to me that they must take responsibility for these breeding and sale practices (and to some extent issues like bsl with indiscriminate breeding and the sale of pups to inappropriate owners leading to tragic newspaper headlines). I'm not underestimating the contribution that unregistered/backyard breeders make to the problem, or the need for local government to properly enforce animal management regulations, or the fact that once they get a dog, owners must raise them properly. From what I understand of the ANKC Code of Ethics, the breeding practices described here would not be consistent with the code. And from reading posts here on DOL, it seems Canine Councils do little to ensure registered breeders are in fact following the code, giving the average punter out there looking for a dog a bum steer and few places to go to get proper advice and a descent puppy. Is there any way that registered breeders, or anyone else for that matter, can take action to make the Canine Councils more proactive and responsive? Is this even something that you think would make a difference?

Thanks for posting that Steve. I'll have to do a proper seach on the issue - I'm just being lazy. Cheers

Sorry, this is a little off topic..... Blackdog, can you point me in the direction of any info you have the introduction of a Bill in Qld Parliament that would have legislated mandatory desexing in Qld. The only thing I'm aware of was the Managing Unwanted Cats and Dogs Discussion Paper, which from my perspective appeared to be a genuine Discussion Paper (and by that I mean where the Gov't hasn't already made up its mind) seeking community feedback on a whole range of proposals, one of which was mandatory desexing. In fact I'd have been suspicious if mandatory desexing hadn't been canvassed as an option. What came out of that process was mandatory microchipping (legislated) and a non-mandatory CoP for Pet Shops (not legislated). Thanks

I'd be very interested, thank you. And a minor correction, Biosecurity Queensland is just one arm of QPI&F, which still exists as part of the new Dept of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. They look after a variety of things including introduced pest and things like Equine Influenza and Hendra Virus. They've been around for a while. Can you cite particular examples? In the cases where breeding has occurred, has this been in foster care, in the shelter or both? Did the puppies just "disappear" or were you just not able to find out what happened to them? You're implying the dogs were bred on purpose. What evidence do you have that they weren't accidental matings? I understand this can happen to the most experienced and careful of breeders. With regard to point three in particular - can you point me to the "record". Is it newspaper reports, court decisions, hansard, or are we talking about the ramblings of people with too much time on their hands and access to web page creation software. Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky, but some of what passes for "record" is highly dubious. Do you have first hand knowledge of what happened in these cases and what the reason for euthanasia was? As for the last point, that's truely horrible and there's no excuse for it. It's hard to believe there isn't more to it though. My understanding is that the reason QPIF have jurisdiction in this case is the geographical location of the property - that's how they divvy up which group looks after what.

If Biosecurity is paying for the upkeep, why is the RSPCA soliciting donations for their upkeep? Why are they not informing the public that Biosecurity is paying for the upkeep. Why is the RSPCA asking for donatons of food and whelping boxes etc, when they intend fostering out as many dogs as possible? Why are they allowing pregnant bitches to whelp, and will probably sell yet more pups without health tests and dodgyy ancestryy? They can't home the dogs in the pound now, why produce more? And as ever, the "purebred" pups will sell before the pound dogs, so more pound dogs will be pts. Why are the bitches not being speyed now? Although that may affect the court case. Why are bitches being allowed to raise pups in a stressful and potentially hazardous to the pups' health environment. Kissindra, I know you are trying to do the right thing for these poor dogs, and that's wonderful. I know you don't know the answers. Maybe someone does. I don't know the answers to these questions either Jed, except that they don't own the dogs and if they can't desex the animals then they sure as hell can't abort litters - they are technically someone else's "property". It can take time to organise foster care, particularly for these numbers, and as another poster mentioned, bitches were dropping pups on arrival - where else are they supposed to keep these animals until alternative and appropriate care can be arranged? Maybe things are not as cut and dried as the newspaper reports? - or do we all believe that everything reported is accurate? Maybe because they've had the animals for all of 2 or 3 days they can't get the supplies any other way? Maybe Maybe Maybe. Maybe you could contact the RSPCA and ask these questions and let us know? And I know I harp on this constantly, but the Rozzie situation was caused by a different organisation, RSPCA NSW. If people have other examples of where RSPCA Qld has done a seizure of this kind and quietly euthanized the lot I'd would be very interested to know of it. I can only form a well-informed opinion if I'm well informed. PM is fine if its not appropriate to post on an open board.

Why would you assume that they would actively seek to euthanize these animals? I know there are issues within the organisation and plenty of people here have had poor experiences with their local rspca, but to suggest that they would actually prefer to PTS rather than adopt out adoptable dogs is ridiculous. The sad fact is that because of the conditions some of these dogs have been kept in, many may well not be adoptable. And I know exactly where to place the blame for that However, the RSPCA shelter at Fairfield have very committed foster and behaviour/training staff who will actually be trying to achieve the best for the animals. They will try and get as many of them as possible into foster care, the puppies in particular. The dogs that stay in the shelter will also get one-on-one attention from staff. If any of the dogs in foster care demonstrate behavioural issues then foster carers are able to get one-on-one assistance from one of the shelter's trainers. If they are not too ill and/or don't have serious behaviour issues, there isn't any reason many of them won't find homes. In response to some posts questioning the involvement of Biosecurity Queensland taking the lead on the raid, and in previous dealings with the dogs' owners, I understand it is because of where they are located geographically - it gives QPIF primary responsibility.