moosmum

It says they could apply for a temporary licence, possibly at a reduced price. I checked the current (2013) draft LEP for my council and there was absolutely no mention of requirements for boarding/training establishments except to mention restrictions in a special case where a boarding kennel had been proposed for a residential area. I sent an e-mail asking for more specific information. And how long would it take to come through,considering there are peeps out there who never realize their dogs in pup till it whelps. These types will dump 1st. Does any one know who can be emailed to say their "Official Response" page won't work and they should by rights now extend the time frame after its fixed?

The protective drive seems to be the most misunderstood today. I don't know of any research,but what I have seen strongly supports that.

To be effective and also flexible to future needs,any legislation needs to focus on what it says to influence the culture of opinion.These proposals for breeders or even any owner of an entire dog focus not on better decisions and understanding of companion animal issues,but on reducing breeders. All breeders to be licensed and monitored with inspections. While the public and authorities are focused on breeding practices and forcing uniform standards,You are widening the definition of backyard breeders yet again to include all smaller,hobby breeders. If there is to be a single registering body for all breeding dogs (out side of commercial/farmed) it MUST be an independent community owned and run body that can encourage the dialog thats missing and provide a voice for those who have no united representation.

tried to respond via the on line feed back form and it failed to register 2x. I plan to email a response anyway,but others will give up. There are problems too with not knowing if if we will be working under annual or life time rego. If some proposals pass,but not others it will affect over all out comes so that comments on individual points might prove irrelevent or false. I could find no mention of the microchip numbers to be listed on adds to make comment, The costs of applying for a breeder license could be extremely expensive between administration and inspection of premises.Would this be an annual inspection? I assume so,if not from the start,then eventualy. This alone is going to add greatly to costs of breeding if you consider pensioners,who may be well able to meet costs of raising a litter and any veterinary treatment resulting.Coming up with a large fee for inspection and licensing before they can even consider it might not be workable. The problem with no guide lines to separate a commercial from a hobby breeder,and existing quide lines being made law,is that small breeders will come under increasing pressure over time to comply to the same standards, as the public is encouraged to accept and report any less,and enquiring breeders are given the same information as a commercial breeder. How quickly can a "provisional" license be granted from application, for accidental or one off litters? And what will be the cost? I can can see this resulting in a lot more dogs and puppies dumped by people who haven't registered their entire dogs in the 1st place,especialy if the cost to even own an entire animal are designed to penalize,yearly. My main problems with this as a whole,is in the heavy regulation, administration,and associated costs for small breeders. It sets any future direction to more of the same in the long run and is likely to snow ball out of control.If more people simply chose to fly under the radar due to costs, the original problems may increase rather than decrease.

I know petitions don't get any where near the notice that individual submissions will,but if anyone is adept at creating an on-line petition it will still increase support. It could go a long way to supporting a hobby breeders stance. Many won't take the time or have confidence to make their own submission. A rough idea below if anyone is more capable of doing this. I've worded it to be understood and of interest to anyone who keeps a companion animal,so it could be posted on any forum for signatures.Still editing and refining but might lose my internet soon so apologies for the blunder. The recommendations in their present form leave much of the distinction between a hobby breeder or a commercial breeder to the interpretation of the local councils,planning and enforcement agencies. Compliance will increase among Commercial breeders,who will be stringently monitored.The costs and administration to comply, and of monitoring breeders will require an increasing commercial outlook - There is insufficient room for breeders with goals other than financial,unless cost is no object. That means that if a breeder doesn't have ready capital to support their "hobby" as an enthusiast, They will be squeezed out of the market. It will be much more profitable for those who approach breeding from a purely commercial perspective,so commercial breeders will increase to fill the gap. These recommendations do nothing to increase the understanding and sense of responsibility for purely pet owners. They reinforce the idea of pets as commodities,through increased administration,fees and licensing required to finance the clean up after their mistakes. I don't believe this is the outcome society wants from this initiative. The over whelming sentiment from the original submissions was that companion animal welfare should be a whole community effort. With that in mind,I believe that any compulsory breeder licensing system MUST be a community run/user owned system,able to give back to its members and promote the sense of community needed for open discussion and change into the future. With enforcement of current legislation, a long over due Animal Sciences curriculum in our schools,and an unaffiliated community forum that encourages ALL parties to discuss the issues of companion animals,I believe a more responsible change in community attitudes will evolve. The recommendations as they stand will instead fix future direction and encourage an increasingly superficial understanding of living with companion animals.The need for future legislation will increase. Financial penalties and increased burden for breeders who comply will reduce the number of breeders,but not the quantity of animals bred.They will not increase the expertise and experience of breeders. They will not ensure dogs are bred raised and proved in same situation they bred for. Loosing internet.

From my behavioural genetics textbook "Hybrid Vigour or Heterosis is the increase in viability and performance when different inbred strains are crossed." When was the book published, and how much credence does the author have? :) Cattle breeders use it to get up to 50 kg more weaned weight in the F1 calves, you have to use an entirely different breed againif you want to do a second outcross. But it isnt usually worth keeping the heifers from the second cross as the advandage is downhill from there. Most breeders who do this either keep seperate their purebred herd and buy in the outcross bull or have two pure herds and only cross a percentage to keep the rootstock for the future. Do you really want to do that with dogs? Best answer! Everything I learned in biology says hybrid vigor is real. But that doesn't make it something you want to do with dogs. Vigor doesn't necessarily translate to health, and sacrificing breed characteristics isn't something we want to do. Depends on reason. I think placing that restriction on pedigree breeders can be counter productive.Any restrictions in rules shapes attitudes and closes avenues of knowledge and growth. I grew up in a very different culture,where all dogs were expected to earn their keep,even if just keeping vermin away or as a companion to help gran and keep an eye on the kids.Otherwise it was a just a liability.A pedigree was prized as the specialist. There were times when an all rounder made more sense and the fixed traits of pedigrees were not above being utilised by their breeders.It was not seen as sacrificing anything. The pedigrees were appreciated most for their reliability in purpose and a second cross was rare.Every one learned from the results...what traits carried most reliably from both parents,planning for purpose,temperament etc....and a serious dog breeder would gravitate to his chosen pedigree with a good understanding of breeding for results through his experiences,knowing just what he wanted from his dogs through using them and living with them every day. I think it showed a wonderful balance in attitudes and learning was shared for every ones benefit,with the pedigrees showing off their skills every day,working with their neighbours dogs who sometimes filled the gaps.

Yep,Like Trixie :laugh: Trix! Trix!

.And we all know how successful legislating behaviour change is!!! (insert rolly eye here). So yes I certainly can see the value of it. IMO to be done properly it would need sponsorship and that in itself would need to be carefully managed - but it is possible (cf Petrescue - in fact a chat with Michelle Williamson wcould be valuable). I'm a techno clutz as well and don't have much interest from a technical level - but the business models around I do get. In fact off the top of my head (don't ban me Troy!!) - is this something that could start easily and sustainably as an offshoot of DOL, under the DOL banner or under a different banner? Start as a small online newspaper, using the multitude of talented people on DOL for initial content with a band of online editors? Then as it grows looking for outside sponsorship if required - similar to the way Petrescue, after some dicey early days, became sustainable? I suppose I'm wary that if you start too big and complicated it will be too difficult to get off the ground. Yet if you start simple and small but high quality using existing infrastructure then you have more hope of it being sustainable into the future. It could potentially benefit DOL as well I think through advertiser attraction and increased profile. Could cross benefit other allied online sites as well such as Petrescue (with their blessing of course!). Vets could also be interested as well as a centralised point of information and information dissemination at a non-professional/general public level (bad words but you know what I mean) - which I don't think they have at the moment. Anyway, just some thoughts off the top of my head. Thanks Westiemum :) Yes,my thoughts too. A draft experimental model and invite contributions to show fair and unbiased intent.Then I would hope the Govt. could be pressured to support a trial with a well written open letter "to the editor" If the goal were (reasonably priced) paid subscriptions with intelligently written articles why couldn't any eventual profits be used to finance their welfare measures and actively assist in their community education proposals. I'm sick of nanny legislation that wont change anything to avoid the next problems that crop up. I.M.H.O We need a wholistic approach now rather than later. Legislation stifles change and fluidity to adapt so its an endless cycle and no one actualy learns from it. Responsible people pay more to have their own decisions and judgements handicapped while the problems increase. We are choking on legislation to appease the fact that people are more concerned than ever before. It all looks bass akwords to me Outright Adverts could be restricted to a business directory to keep it clean and uncluttered. Oh I like to dream :laugh:

I'm a techno clutz...Wouldn't have the time or or expertise So not thinking of doing this myself,more looking at ways to get industry interests together and engaging the public. If there were over whelming support,a blue print could be worked out and taken to a sponsor with a sales pitch and possibly some Govt. support (it would certainly be in their interest,and they could maybe get free space) If it were THE go-to medium for those looking for a new dog,or behaviourist,supplier etc.I wouldn't see opposing views a huge problem if theres always room and incentive for discussion. The controversy alone could make for interesting reading.There are So many topics to be discussed.The main benefit I believe would be in getting people to think about the issues and better understand them from differing view points. I thought it could help to initiate the change in attitudes to pets that the Govt. is trying to achieve with legislation and encourage a more uniform and informed approach where it is needed. I'd find cats,budgies and gold fish Very boring too. Maybe stick with dog for this discussion :laugh: Can I change the title? How ? Techno. clutz.

Christina I see your point but how is this any different to existing websites/news outlets?? I see your point too,but at some stage,its up to pedigree breeders to stand up and refute or at least debate these issues in the public eye. You can focus on results as current legislation does and never change,or focus on change to get results. On line would be best,but I think a printed version would get more attention in the beginning.

I was judging interest by how many views had been recorded....if you've had over 100 views on DOL and only 1 taker? You can expect a lot less in general population. I think impartiality would be essential.

Agreed! I'm suprised there would be so few takers. I thought it would be a great way to possibly create a better sense of community in dog/cat lovers, to promote and educate social exceptance and common values.An advertising and promotional tool for responsible breeders,shelters,vets ,rescue etc. A place to show the average owner what resources they have and community expectations. Obviously not!

Reading the companion animal paper soon be be before parliament and it drives home how splintered various interest groups are. Some of the comments from contributers in the appendix drives home how ill informed many are about the subjects. While the goals are admirable,the solutions proposed are costly,unwieldy,and do nothing to ensure compliance.Rather,it seems to me,there will less compliance. Those who do the right things will be paying much more to clean up after a growing problem. Most agree that education is key to any improvement,but delivery a problem.The majority of those who just keep a pet or 2 have no way to keep informed of resources available or whats realy happening out side their sphere of interest. If there were an unaffiliated National,Bi- weekly news paper along the lines of the Telegraph,with news,entertainment,sports,classifieds,help pages (behaviour,training,medical,consumer) and articles,letters and room for debate from contributers,would you subscribe?

Oh yes, some good ideas....but the whole thing is far too unwieldy and I doubt there will be any left after administration. I can't imagine the LOT getting through..... It amounts to a nightmare for breeders that will ensure dog breeding becomes a profit based enterprise financing welfare to clean up a new black market pandemonium.Those who aren't responsible owners will do all they can to keep off any register and distance themselves from responsibility. At least,thats how I'm seeing it ATM. I hope I'll feel different after I've got over my indigestion from the initial read. A manual and one off owners license to keep companion animals is starting to look most attractive opposed to this.

I think lifetime regos currently in place will be allowed to run their course. Have read it once through,briefly. Most of these ideas ,on their own,will sound fair and reasonable to the average pet owner concerned with animal welfare (though most will likely remain blissfully unaware until its passed and the rest will of course ignore it.)So there is a good chance much of this will get through. Obviously,the govt. is going to figure increased fees will help police these measures. The panel has stated the over whelming sentiment was that Companion animal welfare is a whole community issue- but can't seem to get the idea that such stringent regulation will take it a huge leap away from community and further into corporate hands. As for exemptions - Even if you can get them this time around,Inevitably,there will be a community expectation of the same rules for all.Anyone hoping to stand alone would be heavily scrutinized and criticized. The K.Cs are just one of many much more vocal groups and I can't see any thing changing unless they can change that.

Bush remedy is charcoal,crushed up. Absorbs the gasses and toxins. Not suitable if theres constipation or if hes on oral meds.If hes the Pug in your avatar,a tiny bit should do the trick (think vitamin C tablet size for human adult,so maybe 1/8th that size?) No for long term use as it will absorb nutrients and good stuff too. Great hangover remedy :D

$40 for desexed animals or entire animals owned by a dogs NSW member $150 for an entire animal. I really cant see how yearly rego will change anything- the same people will register their dogs, the same people wont. For non members of Dogs N.S.W its $150. $350. for an Entire dog. Pensioners get registration reduced to $15. unless its an entire,in which case they pay the full $350. it used to vary from council to council,but sounds like thats no longer the case? It hasnt varied from council to council for years in NSW - its state wide law and costs are fixed. Nope here is the link- max you pay is $150 for an entire dog http://www.dlg.nsw.g...istermycatordog My grandfather as a pensioner paid 50c to register his dog/yr back in the early 1990's in Bankstown. Doubt yearly rego would be that cheap anymore even for pensioners if they brought it back in. Most recent registration was charged $350.! What shire? The fees are set at state level. Where were you charged $350? And for one dog? Legislation has them set as above, each council can't charge what they want. Yes, I was charged $350. for one dog. It was a few years ago. I was told it was to encourage desexing. the dog was speyed a couple years later. I should have asked for a refund :laugh: Not a price to encourage registration.I will be calling to find out more now.

Why would they do that? That would be sensible. A large part of the problem is the divisions in the "dog world". I can't see an end to this sort of mentality (increasing legislation for dog ownership and breeding)until all groups are united under one umbrella organisation who can promote common,community goals,educated decisions, responsibility and research. As long as people prefer to point the finger at others... The term pi****** into the wind comes to mind. No amount of legislation is going to teach communities how to adapt dogs into the modern world. Only a community effort can do that. As it is,there is no "community" of dog enthusiasts. Just judgement and agendas. Crap you have 2 charities which get our taxpayer dollars to push for laws and police us.To advertise employ people and answer to no one. There is no way any organisation can compete with their PR machine and their budgets. most of what people have swallowed hook line and sinker about what is a good breeder etc is based on what they have been feeding them not science, not what is best for the dogs or the breeders and we dont have the money, the resources or the courage to mount a counter attack . Whats more my only agenda is advocating what is best for the dogs . What is best for dogs isn't ensuring people can no longer afford to keep them or running small breeders out of town regardless of who they are judging or what their agenda is. I trust it is your only agenda,and I'm not contesting that.But pedigree breeders are not just up against the charities and their P.R. You are also up against the P.R from the commercial breeders,the D.D "Hybrid Vigour " spin,then theres working dog Vs show dog,Animal Rights,Farmers,racing greys,service dogs ....On and on. Your average dog owner is at the mercy of who ever gets their attention 1st. None are perfect.There will always be an attrocity to found,and the way things are divided,it will always be attributed to a particular group who will be the target of new legislation. Its not a healthy balance that gets attention. If the same efforts were expended promoting facts,general knowledge,what is good practice and why,as is being expended on public outrage? There might be a better outcome.

$40 for desexed animals or entire animals owned by a dogs NSW member $150 for an entire animal. I really cant see how yearly rego will change anything- the same people will register their dogs, the same people wont. For non members of Dogs N.S.W its $150. $350. for an Entire dog. Pensioners get registration reduced to $15. unless its an entire,in which case they pay the full $350. it used to vary from council to council,but sounds like thats no longer the case? It hasnt varied from council to council for years in NSW - its state wide law and costs are fixed. Nope here is the link- max you pay is $150 for an entire dog http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_InformationIndex.asp?mi=9&ml=1&areaindex=CA&index=302#howmuchwillitcosttoregistermycatordog My grandfather as a pensioner paid 50c to register his dog/yr back in the early 1990's in Bankstown. Doubt yearly rego would be that cheap anymore even for pensioners if they brought it back in. Most recent registration was charged $350.!

Why would they do that? That would be sensible. A large part of the problem is the divisions in the "dog world". I can't see an end to this sort of mentality (increasing legislation for dog ownership and breeding)until all groups are united under one umbrella organisation who can promote common,community goals,educated decisions, responsibility and research. As long as people prefer to point the finger at others... The term pi****** into the wind comes to mind. No amount of legislation is going to teach communities how to adapt dogs into the modern world. Only a community effort can do that. As it is,there is no "community" of dog enthusiasts. Just judgement and agendas.

$40 for desexed animals or entire animals owned by a dogs NSW member $150 for an entire animal. I really cant see how yearly rego will change anything- the same people will register their dogs, the same people wont. For non members of Dogs N.S.W its $150. $350. for an Entire dog. Pensioners get registration reduced to $15. unless its an entire,in which case they pay the full $350. it used to vary from council to council,but sounds like thats no longer the case?

I have heard of problems but can't be specific,sorry. Yogurt I think would be safer.

So where is the info. on where to make a submission to?

Maybe tomato sauce would work for both smell and algae then....but you would have a realy hard time if anyone saw her in the meantime Might go pink and small like tomato:laugh:

Thats tomato JUICE. Used to remove the smell. Unlikely to work on algae.