mita

Taking action by avoidance? This leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. " It's all going to be bad because the work of ethical registered breeders is not being taken into account by all these people. So we won't tell them about it. Then, when they don't take it into account, we'll be able to say "See? I told you so."'

"If the RSPCA are not out to get us...let them drop all charges against Judy Guard." Good call, Oakway! It was the Victorian law that was acted on. As I've posted, that law is a minefield and very different from any other state's 'take' on debarking. If this case occurred in Qld, it would not break any law. Here, debarking ops depend of the professional judgment of the treating vet. The Victorian law needs to be reformed. Especially on the point re debarking ops done in another state & in accord to its laws (as JG's were), being illegal in Victoria. Victorian law shouldn't dispute what is done in another state, legally according to that state's law. It's as silly as saying you shouldn't have your car fixed by a qualified mechanic in another state. And, if you do, you've just broken the law in your own state. Yes, and the RSPCA acted on that law. They surely knew that it was a minefield and has the potential to lead to a situation where a case could be thrown out by an intelligent judge, or don't they read about anything outside of Victoria? I think Oakway's suggestion is an excellent one and could go a long way to restoring confidence and mending fences. Souff Which is what that RSPCA then becomes required to do. Once something is written into the law....whether it's bad or good....it becomes what the law enforcement services have to implement. Once it's been acted on, cases then become a matter for the courts to decide. And courts don't 'write' the law. They assess the extent to which what someone did, was in accordance with the law as it is written. If a law is to be changed, it requires what got it passed in the first place. Parliamentary action. Which is why we have bodies like Law Reform Commissions, in each state. One of my suggestions when this case first came to light, was that reform be pursued. Also, a person's ignorance of all the twists & turns in that minefield law, doesn't count for innocence under the law. Best hope is that a good case is presented for JG's competence & care, generally. My other suggestion was that DOGS VIC take steps to educate breeders on the draconian & confusing nature of this law.

"If the RSPCA are not out to get us...let them drop all charges against Judy Guard." Good call, Oakway! It was the Victorian law that was acted on. As I've posted, that law is a minefield and very different from any other state's 'take' on debarking. If this case occurred in Qld, it would not break any law. Here, debarking ops depend of the professional judgment of the treating vet. The Victorian law needs to be reformed. Especially on the point re debarking ops done in another state & in accord to its laws (as JG's were), being illegal in Victoria. Victorian law shouldn't dispute what is done in another state, legally according to that state's law. It's as silly as saying you shouldn't have your car fixed by a qualified mechanic in another state. And, if you do, you've just broken the law in your own state.

Interesting you should post this, because I've noticed something that may be a bit of a pattern in some European countries. My particular breed has connections with especially northern Europe (one of my dogs was born there) So there's a bit of chat exchanged. I've noticed that it's not uncommon, in northern Europe, for a breeder to have dogs that essentially live like pets with other people. But are still shown and may also have planned (of course!) litters...with the breeder. I can't quote numbers on how widespread it is. But I've noticed it, in passing. Seems to come from fact that population is more dense in those European areas & that can work against keeping numbers of dogs on the one location. Also seems to relate to preference for dogs to get more individual attention in a pet-like life. So, why wait for the future? Would a variation of doing this, work here? No need for secret underground system needed. In fact, the man next door keeps a lovely greyhound girl as his favourite pet (she's a sister to a champion runner). But when she was ready to have a litter, she went to a property set up for that and owned by the syndicate that owns her.

It told a lot about the legislation as it is written in Victoria. I still find it hard to believe what that state's cruelty legislation says. That animals can be among the 'things' taken away as evidence. Must be the only place on earth that defines a living creature as a 'thing'. It also reaches its tentacles into other states. Even tho' the debarking, in that case, was carried out in accord with the law in the state where the lady's vet is....the Vic law covers that. Not allowed. And it doesn't stop there, breeders who show their 'debarked in another state' dogs then incur a further penalty because they've then shown their dogs in Victoria. If it'd been a mixed-breed dog, there's no additional penalty. Still doesn't stop there, the Vic law says that debarking is prohibited in their state. But wait, it really isn't. Because in the same law, it sets out how debarking can be carried out, but a certain procedure must be followed. Which means it's actually a restricted procedure in Victoria. Legislation written like this, is a mine-field for anyone to track thro' (took me ages to figure that its section on 'Things' included animals). The problem is that law....which says that it the responsibility of the relevant Minister to enforce. The law enforcement body that puts it into practice is RSPCA Victoria. If ever a law needed reform, that one does.

Which is why I was pleased to hear that you spoke at the rally, Cosmolo. Your work on dog behaviour slots right into the fact that early socialisation by those who breed & raise puppies, is critical to avoiding later problems. You are so right that it would be good to hear the voices from DOGS VIC. And there are voices of registered breeders who tell it brilliantly. Some time back, I heard the Rottie breeder who heads the DOGS VIC pet therapy team, being interviewed on the ABC radio. The interviewer expressed surprise that the Rottie would be taken to do pet therapy work in nursing homes. He obviously thought via a common stereotype that such a breed would eat the residents. That registered breeder then gave a brief, articulate & brilliant run-down about the best of pure-bred dog breeding. How decisions are made across generations, re which dogs to breed with (for health, temperament & conformation). Then she talked about the critical importance of socialisation with people, other creatures, and the sights and sounds of the real world. And gave examples of how she did that, with her puppies and dogs. I squirreled away that DOGS VIC breeder's name. She would make a brilliant spokesperson for what is entailed in high quality breeding practice. Cosmolo, you & she would make a perfect speaking team because what you both say, complements each other. By the way, her Rottie & the other dogs in the pet therapy team, are still showdogs. She said the residents in the nursing homes take a great interest in seeing what prizes 'their' dogs have won at a show the weekend before. I looked up that Pet Therapy team on DOGS VIC website, after I heard the radio program. http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/Content.asp?ID=180

Can you explain, then, why Danish research, which investigated mixed-breds & pure breds re longevity, found that a bunch of pure breeds came out ahead? That's not a notable exception, it represents a pattern across dogs in a particular country. If it's a general situation that all purebreds are vulnerable because of human intervention in their breeding from the very base....it would not be possible to have a pattern like this.

Yes, a breed label alone is not sufficient to reach overall conclusions in any investigations about genetic problems. The source needs to be factored in, too. One UK move I like is how their law re the breeding & sale of dogs, mandates that each puppy is assigned a number, allowing tracking & accountability, across their lives. I've often wondered why this couldn't be linked with info on microchip (which is increasingly becoming mandatory by law in each Australian state).

Thanks for posting this report! That's exactly what should've been mentioned, somewhere, at a rally against puppy-farming. Because sound registered breeders do the very opposite of puppy-farming. So any proposed remedies against puppy-farming shouldn't interfere with what these breeders already do well.

Can you explain what you're talking about? 'Government piece of paper?' And what it's got to do with reponses to that rally?

If it's rogue traders they want to target, then it means that they're after 'breeders' who don't do what's considered the right and ethical thing by their dogs and the puppies they breed. In other words, it's not those who have to subscribe to a code of ethical behaviour set out by a recognised body, like the Canine Associations. Where membership depends on compliance. And, certainly, research indicates that the registered breeders must be doing something right because they were found to be significantly less likely to raise puppies that will later be dumped and also far less likely to produce unwanted litters. So, for goodness sake, organisations and groups representing the sound registered breeders of purebreds....get out there, into the mainstream and public eye at all levels. And lobby for your sound work to be recognised and not hindered by any actions taken to hunt out the 'rogue traders' who are outside your world. In fact, if I'd have been an organiser at that rally, I would've hauled up on stage a few registered breeders of purebreds (they're modest!) who exemplify the codes of ethical behaviour in what they do. And said, 'Here's one major antidote to puppy-farming. Let them continue to do what they do. And let the public know!'

I looked up the background of John Yates & his organisation. He clearly describes himself as a hunter and the dogs he's interested in are associated with hunting. That wouldn't be against the law, but he places himself on the right of the dog breeding/culture wars in the USA. With PETA & even more extremes being on the left. http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/ If something is to be done to support purebred dog breeders, in Australia, it needs to connect with mainstream sources....like sound research, for starters (which exists) and accurate information being conveyed to the public. Rather than far right or far left paranoia, imported from the USA. There's already been enough trouble caused by UK purebred dog issues being imported, without too much questioning, onto the Australian scene. By the way, there's an Australian Federal Government policy statement re the welfare of animals, which states at the onset that extreme positions like those seen in the US culture wars, will not be taken on board here.

I can understand why. Even tho' the evidence is that the majority of registered purebred breeders do a damn good job. And the majority of pet owners who get puppies from those registered breeders would support that. That's what gets to me. This purebred always equals shonky stuff is not coming from the 'customers' in Australia. It's being pipelined across the distance from the UK, where there's different bloodlines and different breeding decisions made by different people. At the same time, there's a huge reaction building against puppy farming, in Australia. With all sorts of possible remedies thrown around. One of them, rarely mentioned, should be to highlight and support (not hinder) the work of the sound registered breeders. Everything they already do, cuts across what would constitute puppy farming.

Oh my god!! What is this little guy really??? Apart from super cute?? *cough* sable Pomeranian *cough* Dear Dodgy, you're at it again. Nicking 'teacup' material from backyards. Got to hand it to you, tho'...you're creative.

Couldn't agree more. The same 'thing' has been said so many times now, on TV programs that reach the Australian public, that it's turned into 'fact'... purebred dogs inevitably carry both health problems and uncomfortable muscular-skeletal forms. Each time, UK stats about one breed, in particular, Cavs, are repeated. Also the big heads of bulldogs are pointed to. And hip problems are pulled in, too, fingers pointing at the nearest breed, Labs or Cockers, will do. The same programs are never followed with in-depth information which questions this 'sound bite'. All purebred dogs are shonky because they are purebred. The underlying message being... Mixed-breed dogs are not shonky because they're not purebred. What really is shonky, is the logic. What should be said: Stats selected relate to breeds in another country...the UK. They are NOT Australian. And they're NOT northern European, either, where comparisons between purebreds & mixed breeds resulted in a bunch of pure breeds coming out on top re longevity. In the Martin Clunes program, it was said that poodles are one of the 'raddled' breeds in the UK, with high incidence of epilepsy. Funny that, because over the North Sea, in Scandanavia, poodles emerged as in the top sturdy group. Doesn't that say that bloodlines, plus decisions made by breeders, might be different there? So might this not be the same in Australia? What is bred, depends on the decisions made by those who breed. That means there won't be a common outcome for every single dog of a certain breed, in every country on god's earth. It also means that decisions made, on the whole, by Australian breeders, may be very different from those made by breeders in the UK. And this may especially apply to certain specific breeds. Surely if there were overwhelming presence of problems here, the 'customers' & treating vets would've revolted long ago. That, apparently, is what brought things to a head in the UK. Strangely, this matter when it comes up in Australia, keeps going round and round about UK issues as if we're part of the United Kingdom. And all that happens there. No one is arguing that breeds & specific bloodlines within breeds can need attention re genetic health & functioning issues. But purebred dog breeding is, in fact, the one area which lends itself to making corrections, because the registering of pedigrees allows both breadth & depth tracking of dogs with problems. That's also left out of the 'sound bite', all purebreds are shonky.

Blessing of the Pets Ceremony 03 Oct 10 12.00noon Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Cameron St Launceston Tasmania Cost No charge 03) 6331 7187 Website http://holytrinitylaunceston.org Owners are invited to bring their pets to a traditional Blessing of the Pets Ceremony on Sunday, October 3 in the grounds of Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Cameron Street, Launceston. (In case of rain, it will be held inside the church). Owners are asked to leash their pets or place them in an appropriate carrier. Pets unable to come may have their pictures blessed. Pets will receive a 'Blessing Certificate" and free food samples will be available. A free BBQ for owners will follow the ceremony.

Blessing of the Animals Service 3 Oct 10 St Clement's Anglican Church Cnr Main North Road & St Clement's Street, Blair Athol, SA, 5084 Contact: The Anglican Parish of Broadview and Enfield [email protected] 83445456 Bring along your pets for a special blessing at 10am. A short sung Eucharist will follow.

17th Annual Blessing of Animals St James the Great 435 Inkerman Street, East St Kilda (Melway Ref 58 G10) Sunday October 3, 2010 (2 pm, Church doors open at 1 45 pm) Special welcome to John-Michael Howson OAM Patron of this community festival Also featuring . Individual Blessing of Pets Presentation of St Francis medals and a treat bag .“Animals on the Move” mobile animal nursery . Refreshments, sausage sizzle etc. Come and enjoy a party afternoon with your pets! Free entry but donation appreciated Proceeds distributed to St James’ Community and animal welfare Enquiries: 9527 8083 / 9527 1017 www.stjamescommunity.org.au

St Thomas Acquinas, a Doctor of the Church (which means he was smart about Churchy things) said that animals (like dogs) have souls, because the soul is the 'animating principle' for them, too. I don't know what that means. But sounds good to me. So every good dog deserves a halo & angel wings.

This one I can do. Dear Dodgy Breeder, please place $10,000 in unmarked notes in my letter-box. Fail to do so & I will tell the whole world what you've been nicking out of the backyards of discerning dog owners. And then passing off to your ignorant & hapless clients as a Teacup Golden Retriever. Signed Eagle Eyes of Brisbane PS I have 2 Teacup Golden Retrievers (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that you might like to buy. Save you some sneaking around backyards. Add a further $20,000 in my mail-box. On receipt, I will forward the 2 TGRs to you, via snail-mail, in plain brown-paper wrapping. Add on $5,000 for postage.

Don't let the Dodgy Brothers Kennels get hold of one of these. Their beady little eyes will light up at the truly amazing & rare 'breeds' they could produce with a Schnoodelgroodlecockerroodle.. Only work would be... what other breed to mix it with, where to tack the other breed name on....& how big to make the price. This thread is so close to reality. I keep reading the posts & thinking....'Yes, that happens!'. Well obviously, the longer the name, the more justified you are to charge the higher price. how about crossing it with a spanalabradanepointador? think of what you chrage if you combined those two!!! They are also guaranteeed never to have any health problems are hyperallergnic Ye gods! I had enough trouble typing Schnoodelgroodlecockerroodle right. Now this! Schnoodelgroodlecockerroodlespanalabradanepointador. Enough to give me the health problem...brain damage. You're right about the price going up with the length of the name. The Dodgies could make enough to retire on this one!

Don't let the Dodgy Brothers Kennels get hold of one of these. Their beady little eyes will light up at the truly amazing & rare 'breeds' they could produce with a Schnoodelgroodlecockerroodle.. Only work would be... what other breed to mix it with, where to tack the other breed name on....& how big to make the price. This thread is so close to reality. I keep reading the posts & thinking....'Yes, that happens!'.

The luck's already in. No paranoia here...

What bill? The OP-quoted article refers to a petition.. A petition can set out what the petitioners would like a bill to say, but it's their creative writing. It'd become a proposed bill only if a draft is prepared under the direction of the relevant Minister. And Qld , in recent times, has set up a representative working party to do that. It's included Dogs Qld. Yep, just like the Clover bill. I believe Dogs NSW approved of the Clover bill at first too, only later reading the fine print. So this is part of what I have been told is going to be part of the QLD legislation (this has been in the works for at least 3 years, so the petition is likely just a publicity stunt to get the public primed to help pass the bill). This is Qld, not Clover 's NSW. There's clear evidence, and examples, of different attitudes by people in various organisations here. And there's scientific evidence that what the good registered Qld breeders already do, is fine in preventing dog dumping & in producing true companion pets. PETA, if you believe it's an influence, has NO scientific evidence to the contrary. We actually have an RSPCA which advises the public to go directly to the good breeders (as well as to the good rescues). They've got better things to do than raid good registered breeders. An infamous raid on one in a southern state, would never have happened here. Also RSPCA will be sharing a campus with the university of qld vet school & they'll be working in together. Where there'll be no room for ratbag extremism. Any proposed legislation would be drafted under the direction of the Minister, with no representative from any extreme group. And their drafting work would be done in a transparent, open way. As it's already been done, with the new laws about keeping domestic dogs. I don't mean to be rude to you, because I understand fully your concerns & your call for vigilance, but there are proactive moves in this state. There's already been a Pilot Project (funded by the Qld government) in the Gold Coast region, where all groups (including Dogs Qld) were represented & a licensing system established. The sky hasn't fallen in on top of registered breeders there, nor prevented them from doing their jobs. Since you are so sure this is the way to go for all breeders in QLD, than you must be a breeder and are now licensed and breeding under this new method in QLD? Can you tell us about the process, how much did it cost, what limits are on you, how often will you be inspected, can you show us the rules you have to work under, how much is the fine if you fail to meet these new laws, jail time mentioned, how many pups have bred so far, howe about non ANKC prefix holders, can they have a desexed dogs, can anyone keep an intact dog? Can you also tell me how the farmer with his working sheepdogs will be treated under this grand plan? His dogs will not be registered in the ANKC. What input did the farmers have in building this big legal system to breed dogs? Was the WKC involved? Was AWBCR invovled? Will ANKC be sharing this office with the RSPCA and the UNI in QLD, as there is already joint RSPCA Uni Vets, working together in Sydney and it is not there to help ANKC breeders, in fact the work is to show #s of inherited diseases in ANKC dogs I believe. So you are saying that QLD Uni system is directly opposed to the Sydney Uni system which is attacking purebred dog breeders? Can you show me any of their resaerch that defends ANKC breeders, anything that shows opposition to the Sydney research? Did they or the RSPCA actually say to buy ANKC dogs or just words like a reputable/good breeder (which could mean anything, like going to a pound Kollie crossed to a kelpie breeder or an oddle breeder). First, back up. You sound emotional & are running things together. What 'grand plan' are you talking about? There's been no bill drafted...only a petition, which is someone's creative writing, signed by a couple of thousand people & brought to the attention of Parliament (as is done with petitions, via a Member). There's no direct connection to any representative working party set by the Minister to draft any new legislation. IF this should be done, it would be worked on by representatives of various organisations, including Dogs Qld . Usually submissions from interested parties are also called for. You also say I'm 'so sure this is the way to go for all breeders'. What way are you talking about? I've simply pointed out that a petition is not a draft bill and that there are processes which go into the preparation of any bill. You're a literate adult, you can go find full answers to your own questions. Yes, there is U of Q research findings that support what registered breeders are doing re socialising puppies & keeping track of litters produced, in Qld. I've posted the reference to it on a number of occasions. Go look. The U of Q is independent of the U of Sydney. Has totally different research programs & interests. You project a great deal from NSW on to Q'ld. Why would the ANKC be sharing an 'office' with the RSPCA & U of Q? A section of UQ vet school is co-locating with the RSPCA on their Wacol campus. By the way, the Cattle Dog Club & Kelpie Club of Qld presented a UQ team with a plaque of appreciation for 'commitment, patience & dedication to their breeds'. The pilot project for licensing is on the Gold Coast (& is confined only to that council area). Go look for the details on the AWL Qld website. They chaired the working party. Phone them if you want any extra details. The RSPCA Qld has told people, if they want a pure-bred animal, to 'visit a Canine Control Council'-registered breeder only...) From their Imprint article 'How much is that dog in the window?' which I give to people to let them know what can lie behind shop windows.

What bill? The OP-quoted article refers to a petition.. A petition can set out what the petitioners would like a bill to say, but it's their creative writing. It'd become a proposed bill only if a draft is prepared under the direction of the relevant Minister. And Qld , in recent times, has set up a representative working party to do that. It's included Dogs Qld. Yep, just like the Clover bill. I believe Dogs NSW approved of the Clover bill at first too, only later reading the fine print. So this is part of what I have been told is going to be part of the QLD legislation (this has been in the works for at least 3 years, so the petition is likely just a publicity stunt to get the public primed to help pass the bill). This is Qld, not Clover 's NSW. There's clear evidence, and examples, of different attitudes by people in various organisations here. And there's scientific evidence that what the good registered Qld breeders already do, is fine in preventing dog dumping & in producing true companion pets. PETA, if you believe it's an influence, has NO scientific evidence to the contrary. We actually have an RSPCA which advises the public to go directly to the good breeders (as well as to the good rescues). They've got better things to do than raid good registered breeders. An infamous raid on one in a southern state, would never have happened here. Also RSPCA will be sharing a campus with the university of qld vet school & they'll be working in together. Where there'll be no room for ratbag extremism. Any proposed legislation would be drafted under the direction of the Minister, with no representative from any extreme group. And their drafting work would be done in a transparent, open way. As it's already been done, with the new laws about keeping domestic dogs. I don't mean to be rude to you, because I understand fully your concerns & your call for vigilance, but there are proactive moves in this state. There's already been a Pilot Project (funded by the Qld government) in the Gold Coast region, where all groups (including Dogs Qld) were represented & a licensing system established. The sky hasn't fallen in on top of registered breeders there, nor prevented them from doing their jobs.