Linda K

OL may say that publicly, but they have no clear law they have in mind, just they want an "end to puppy farms" without any real definition of what exactly is a puppy farm, and seem to spend more time sensationalising things, such as this article shows. Tranter also doesn't mention that the dog she now exploits as her main publicity machine (Oscar, who gets dragged everywhere), was in fact stolen by her initially. What they really mean is that just like the laws being agitated for in the US< groups like her are not actually against puppy or kitten sales online or in pet shops, what they are in fact quite OK with is if these puppies or kittens are from "rescues", but no one else is allowed to sell through these resources. Just look at how they plug going to petrescue.com. an online site for rescue groups to advertise pets for sae, yet they are not OK with breeders using their own online sales as a means of selling? Clever marketing by OL to try to get even further into the pysche without ever actually defining what is their law

don;t be surprised at how rigorously they apply this either - they did a surprise raid on a cat show on Rhode Island where some exhibitors had come from Canada, and had security guards with tazers storming the centre and demanding all exhibitors produce all papers for their cats, including all vaccination certificates, to prove all cats had rabies vaccinations up to date. This show had been occuring at Rhode Island for many years, and never had anything like this n the past. So they have shown they are certainly not all about leaving the purebreed community alone, they are well and truly on the radar, and if they know where breeders are, surprise inspections when they know owners may well be at shows, and so minimal people at home may well become the norm. See a very big impact acoming.

wonder if that means if she gets shut down as Moorook, then they have another shelter ready to spring up. Daresay there is a certain wanna be pollie who has a lot more time on his hands since the people in his electorate aren't as dumb as his FB followers who would be ready to help out with that = anything to boost his profile before the next election

Oh straw would definitely make you an evil puppy farmer, irrespective how many dogs you have, according to the AR nuts, as it is obvious people only use straw to cut down on costs. Seriously, why do those morons think that straw is used in horse boxes - it is great insulation, and wonderfully warm. Guess they better not visit too many farms then and see all those farm dogs in the hay barns. They seriously are tools who do not have a clue at all about animal behaviour and husbandry, only their own fluffy ideas of how it should be. But since so many of them think they should be living in homes and treated like members f the family, and are making calls for annual licences Australia wide, independent inspections etc, wonder just how many of them would be happy for their own homes to have the same sort of thing for ALL members of their family - bet they would be up in arms if someone was to suggest that in order to have kids, you needed a licence and an inspection to make sure your home was clean, and you knew how to look after children

spinning and pacing are very easy to show on footage when you keep replaying the same thing over and over, and stress animals out in the first place by strangers moving them at night into pens to then film them being in those pens. Have actually seen footage of the dogs at Moorook being way more stressed than these ones supposedly were from the illegally obtained footage. But then again, obtaining footage by stealth and deception seems to be the AA way. Will be interesting to see how many of these "charges" are bookkeeping type items (such as perhaps lack of receipts) which certainly do not impact on the care of an animal in anyway, vs actual animal welfare /neglect charges (which certainly is the way that AA and others have been alleging).

Total agreement with some of the more farcical things in it that are just baffling from a point of view of anyone who has owned more than 1 animal and knows anything about multiple animal husbandry (which clearly the authors did not) and they would be just funny if it was not all so serious. Even funnier is the things that are in the pound and shelter code, and yet being here as well, the shelter groups are in total outcry about it - yet I do not see them spending anywhere near the energy contacting the minster insisting their own code be reworded - like for instance the fact that cats and dogs being fed once a day -(other than pregnant / lactating / youngsters) - that is in their code too. And actually reviewing their code, there is no requirement for actual time listed for pounds and shelters to exercise any animal (and hunting / foraging food is considered exercise), and human contact is listed there as being desirable but not necessary - WHAT? AN animal could be put in a no kill shelter and not ever get human contact and it is fine under the Vic code for pounds and shelters - sounds like Moorook should move themselves here, and then they would have no issues at all. I also love the irony of Pets Haven demanding that the ability to feed offal be removed and insistance that only quality food be fed to animals, as otherwise the "cheap" option will be taken to buy crap food to save money. This from the people that are constantly running out of food themselves and continually begging for food donations on their facebook page, and insisting that all they get as donations is cheap tinned or dry food, as they do not have time to cut up meat nor do they want quality food,even though nutritionally what they feed is rubbish. Yep that makes sense

so one thing to consider though is what about the option where say a fire has come through, or other emergency, and animals are hurt and suffering - are you really going to say it is better to wait for all these animals to be taken to a vet to receive a needle, or at least have this as a contingency that euthanasias can be carried out by other means, so long as they are humane? I totally agree though that exactly what is considered as "humane" needs to be defined. I would again though point out that the Pounds and Shelter code of practice, reviewed in 2011, has this as the section of the code that those groups (including the RSPCA) operate under for euthanasing animals " The preferred method of euthanasia is barbiturate overdose, which must be carried out by a veterinary practitioner. Any method of euthanasia must be carried out humanely" This is EXACTLY the same wording that is in the breeder code. For some reason though, it is deemed by all the rescue groups and the RSPCA that this is wording that is perfectly fine for their code as theya are all fine upstanding people that would never use anything but the green dream, (not looking at Mildura pound and the constant shooting of their animals, are we), but not for a breeder code. The continual double standards of these people is staggering. The RSPCA in their submission also suggests that AI for cats would be a far better option to keeping tom cats long term - from a welfare point of view, it is absolutely staggering that they could even suggest this as within cats, the process is incredibly invasive, cannot be done without the use of electrodes and general anasthetics for both male and females, which can be a significant health risk, particularly for certain breeds. Yet that is a "kinder" option?

and so you can see what Oscars Law had to say about it (and what you also need to fight against), here is their submission http://www.oscarslaw.org/images/uploaded/Submission%20Code%20Review%20Second%20Public%20Comment.pdf What they are wanting has no basis on husbandry experience with animals, and in many cases, is totally different to what they have as their own code (for instance their stance against the euthansias clause, when it is WORD FOR WORD what is in the pound and shelter code. Or the fact they want no unpaid volunteer staff to be working at a breeding establishment, or for those to be family members, they must all be paid employees. Am guessing many shelters would be cactus if they could not rely on a chain of unpaid volunteer helpers, foster careers etc - the regular cries from Pets Haven for food, litter, bedding, volunteer "staff" members etc tends to spring to mind here, also the comments from Pets Haven about the lack of exact wording about what constitutes good nutritional value food on their own FB page about this code - laughable when one considers their own arguments about why they feed cheap supermarket food at their own shelters, that being it is the most economical for them.

Sorry if this is a topic already covered elsewhere, but have not seen anything near the top of any of the subforums, so wanted to make sure the information was out there. In case anyone is unaware, the Vic gov is still reviewing the draft code of operation for breeding and rearing practices. Since the original draft in April, they had received numerous submissions from breeders of both cats and dogs, showing why some sections of what was being proposed was unworkable. After having meeting with both Dog and cat breeding representatives, things that were just ridiculous in the code were changed - on the cat front for instance, an original requirement was that all cats needed to be examined on a regular basis for signs of FIP, any cats with symptoms to be treated under vet care, and the disease investigated to determine the source. Sounds reasonable, given FIP is a big killer of cats, however at the moment there is no treatment other than supportive while the cat dies, as it has no cure, no vaccine, and diagnosis is only confirmed via postmortem, and once a cat has it, it is fatal. The virus causing it is actually a virus 90% of cats carry, just in some, when they undergo a stress event (which can be as simple as the owners moving), and are genetically predisposed, it can then mutate into FIP and kill the cat - and in others may just have the cat suffering flu like symptoms that it recovers from completely with no ill effects. Why the difference is not yet understood, and there is no way to predetermine which cats may be at risk and which aren't. So the original draft suggestion was ludicrous, as the only way to know if a cattery had FIP would be to kill all the cats and do post mortems. Amongst some of the other proposals in the draft was the need for the queen and kittens to be seen by a vet within a week from birth. This was quite reasonably changed on the grounds that week old kittens would be very susecptible to being transported off to the vets with mum, just for her to have a checkup when she is perfectly fine, just to have a piece of paper signed to say so, and this was exposing them to unnecessary risks which could be fatal, and was altered to having her examined by a vet at the same time as the kittens going for their first vaccination, since at that stage they are then being vaccinated so not at as much risk. I cannot speak on what the dog proposals are that were changed, however since the RSPCA rebuttal on just the dog section is 20 pages worth, I am guessing there is more than a few things they are now agitated about, so if you have not yet doneso, worth reading just to see what you are up against. . But now, the RSPCA (who obviously were unaware that a second round of talks had occured with the cat and dog groups), and are not happy about that, has actually been joined by groups such as Oscars Law, Pet's Haven, Pugs SOS to name but a few, and all are out there waging one of the fiercest and most intense social media campaigns I have seen, getting all their supporters to flood Minister Walsh's personal email box, as well as the DePI one (which is where submissions needed to be sent), in order to overturn every single change that the dog and cat groups argued for and won out on. If you want to have your voice heard out against what the AR agitators are calling for, NOW is the time to get off your backside - submissions must be in by 9am Wednesday 14 August. If nothing is said by breeders, and the only voices coming in are those from the nut jobs and the RSPCA, who want offal feeding banned again, maximum breeding ages reinstated etc then that will be what the minister may then choose to change things back to, just to give them peace and quiet. However the word from the Ministers office was that if the breeders have a show of support behind what the changes have been, even if the comment is only to endorse why a change that has been made is important, then that will be listened to, since we are the ones that the code affects. If you want to see in detail what the RSPCA are oppsoing with their submission, you can view it here - My link You need to go to the bottom of the page where they have the button to read their submission To send in your own submission to the DePI, the email is [email protected] All submissions must include name and address, and preference will be given to anything coming from Vic. Cutoff for submissions is 9am Wed morning Please, the breeders of pedigree cats and dogs need your voices - without them, the AR nutters who are flooding Peter Walsh's email with calls for breeding to be limited to 1 litter every 2 years, and no more than 5 animals at all to be owned by any breeder might just be the only ones heard, and it will be the end of breeding here.

that is why it is so ludicrous that the Vic DEPI rules have us having to have all manner of things signed off by a vet - I know more than my local vet about my bred of choice, yet under this plan, I have to do what he says, and he can have a say on whether or not my cats are worthy of being bred with? No, that is why I go 1 hour to a cat specialist that does know what he is on about. But even then, he does not know what my breeding goals are, no is he familiar with the breed standard, so how is he meant to know whether one cat is better for breeding than another re the standard?

what a great idea Maybe we can also have an stupid pollie buyback scheme while we are at it - shame we have to wait 3 years to get one

sorry, read the rest of the pages now, and see this has already been brought up. Good for the puppy that they did not go through with it, hopefully they can find a different way to help raise money for this cause.

When I was growing up and wanted a pony, I entered many competitions, both in newspapers and magazines, to win my own horse (and who is to say that the winner even knew how to look after one, let alone afford the costs associated with a horse). Is this any different?

don't think that is going to save anyone though - as far as they are concerned, if there is an entire animal registered at your address, then that potentially makes you a breeder - they made it clear they will be looking at council registrations to pick up those who have 3 or more females and aren't members of a group, irrespective whether those people may or may not ever breed with those. Such is the push that the AR zealots have now thrust upon us. Whether people choose to go for the ignore or the technicality that they do not actually define the word breeder would be an interesting legal challenge however think many individuals or rescue groups would not have the funds to back such a challenge. The fact though that rescue groups who have litters then will at some stage be offering such pups or kittens up for sale does mean they fall under a rearing establishment as well under the code, so certainly is something to be aware of - better to be covered in the first place than have to try and fight a technicality. Be thankful I suppose we do not have the SA committee in charge of this that says 1 entire animal makes you a breeder, and wants every person who has one to register for a breeding licence - good way to have all that info on a data base somewhere that other groups can hack for their own use, not to mention someone thinking, well I have a licence so why not thinking and even more litters. Also note that only the code has been updated for the 2nd consultation, the RIS is unchanged since it was first issued in April

DPI at a meeting in June (when I was at a meeting to go over the amendments to the code before the 2nd public consultation phase) define a breeder as anyone who has 3 or more entire females of more than 9 months of age. Whether they have actually bred from them or not is irrelevant, or whether they are actually pregnant. The only exception to this are members of exempt organisations (eg members of Dogs VIC), who are allowed 9 entire females. People rearing animals also fall under the code, according to them - they made this very clear at the meeting that the whole point of this was to pick up people who were selling pups or kittens and were not applicable organisations, and to ensure that the buyer is protected, which was what was being demanded by the AR lobby groups.

actually according to DPI when having conversations with them earlier this year, rescue groups who have in their care 3 or more entire female dogs (possible if they have been taken into care and are pregnant so would be entire and if they are left to whelp), would then come under the code for breeding establishments, and would need to follow those guidelines. But good on you for taking this initiative

you wouldn't get that at all from her virtuous "holier than thou" submission

hers, the ones from PeTA, Oscars Law, Death Row Pets, etc - all bear a definite resemblence to the finished document, funnily enough

so what exactly is he not wanting to occur again - for someone running a substandard rescue facility to have to be answerable to the health and welfare of those animals, to be allowed to warehouse animals forever and a day? Or does he think it entirely reasonable for such persons to demand to the committee looking into dog and cat legislation in SA to fund all the rates, power bills - this from Lolas submission Oh yes, can see exactly where she wants to go here. I also loved Lolas comments about to them about how breeders should keep dogs So that is all you need to do to keep dogs happy clearly - no mention of exercise, handling, no of people needed to look after the 80 digs she claimed on that submission she had (funny how her figures never match the "lower" no Mark kept claiming. Hmmmm Just feel for all those animals though, and hope they are truly getting cared for the way they now should be. Any irrespective how they are now beign cared for, the fact is, without that spotlight being shone on the shelter, nothing would have changed, and it remains to be seen how long things will stay like this

latest from Mark's page - and just love his spin on why he is no longer spokesman for Moorook - nothing like a bit of mistruth to get in the way of a good embellishment. Of course that was why he stepped down - nothing to do with lawyer advice or the fact he was a tool

yep, had a look at some interesting submissions last nght, mainly those from RSPCA, AWL, PeTA, Oscars Law, Deathrow pets (and on whose FB page the chairwoman of the panel is in fact not only member but contributor and sympathiser, and for those unfamiliar with the group, read their submission and you will see where they are coming from), Getting to Zero, and funnily enough Moorook (and had a laugh at the fact that Lola wants shelters to be exempt not only from any land taxes, rates etc but also have all utilities and other charges paid for by the tax payer too, and wants clean and suitable conditions for breeders to be housing animals in as well as adequate socialising, exercise etc - words fail me on that one) Having read those ones and then comparing those to their report, see they clearly went no further in looking at anything else at all, some of the committee report is almost plagiarism of those submissions. Not to mention all those figures being thrown around in those submissions, with no sources to back up the claims, and then they are used in the committee report. Would be almost funny if it was not so serious and scary for those in SA

I meant the interviews they did in March, shown in the list f documents from the committee, and listed in Hansard- there was not one other governing body other than Dogs SA, and when you read through that and see the direction of the questioning, very clear they were very happy to take the RSPCA recommendation that having 1 entire animal meant you could potentially be a breeder down the track, so that you would be required to obtain a breeder licence. What that may potentially do to people thinking "well they have a licence anyway, so why not" whereas before it may not have entered their heads. Also, was making the point that at least here in Vic, when our review was going through its stages, we had the draft review of the law occur, then public submissions- this is just the recommendations from the committee as to what they think should be done, and which of the various laws cover this should be looked at to be changed - surely that means that before these get passed as each of the laws in those items that each of those needs to undergo further public comment?

that sounds good then Kelpiecuddles - certainly sounds a lot better than the animals taken out on adoption day drive days at places that get handled by who knows how many people, and then taken back to the shelters and bringing who know what back with them.

so if the cats are leaving and then coming back again, do they go into quarantine first before all being mixed again - have just any many concerns with that sort of thing going on too, not really ideal

a lot of it is rubbish, and in looking at who it interviewed, very few actually breeders included in those, same as the first round table discussion here in Vic, mostly the welfare groups seemed to be the ones getting the hearing. Hopefully when the proposals come out for public comment, they have the same reaction from the SA dog & cat breeders that Vic had, which meant at least a lot of the stupid things were reconsidered. Otherwise I see a big breeder exodus