inez

So? Are you comfortable with the RSPCA making sure as many animals as possible are destroyed rather than rehomed? Is that not the reason of this thread? The OP did not feel comfortable with this.

As for my second question, since you don't seem to understand it: were the horses reported to the RSPCA and for what reason? I read what I copied, the facts in that are A. The horses obviously were signed over to the RSPCA for whatever reason, is that reason, really important? B. Once they were, 4 days later they were present at a public auction. C. The person who wrote it personally witnessed and heard the RSPCA representative agreed to find good homes for the horses. D. The person who wrote it personally witnessed and heard the RSPCA representative direct who specifically among the large number of people who come to these auctions that only one class of bidders were allowed to bid. E. Mares and foals were mentioned so none of them would have been extremely old since old mares tend to become barren. Why should foals only go to a dogger? Surely they have the potential for a long life given half a chance? One this is safe to assume. If they were incapable of being floated they hopefully should have been put down where ever they previously were. If they were capable of being taken to the public auction they did not need immediate euthanesia. If they were suitable for sale at a public auction why was no one else allowed to bid? I have been to many many many public auctions. I have never seen an animal singled out, let alone ten mares and their foals as stated, to be sold only for slaughter, not even completly wild brumbies, which in one case were shipped all the way from Kosiosko National Park to Camden Sales last year. Some were deemed too injoured to be sold, yet they were not slaughtered, I know that because my vet bought them privately and took all 4 of them home and treated them. So? Sheridan Why your irrelevant questions about the owner?

I have no idea I copied the post since it seemed that what was said was in reply to "treacle". As for your second question, do you mean the horses needed to be punished, in this case die, for their owners misdeeds, whatever they may have been? If this is your meaning? If so, then there's little hope, for the Hollingsworth horses, so many people seem to hate her profoundly, there is a FB page devoted soley to it apparently. I had a try at finding the FB page referred to somewhere I was reading. discovered this one though referring to a hate campaign as well? " You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments! Join Animal Rights Zone Comment by Kerry Baker on July 27, 2012 at 7:59 When this issue first came up all of us, Tim, Carolyn, Roger, myself and other ARZ members encouraged that animal welfare and rescue organistions become involved. What we did not get involved with was the hate campaign against Kim Hollingsworth which is what this is despite many of you claiming it is not. What is painfully evident is that most of you who are posting insults and now transferring your hate campaign to ARZ are not really interested in animal welfare or rights at all. You care about horses, but you don't care what happens to an animal on the way to your plate, or wearing on your back or feet. And the posts coming from many of you indicate very low capacity to think. None of you have actually come up with a suggestion about what you think any of us have done wrong. Given that we shared your concern about the welfare of the horses, and encouraged you to get animal welfare organisations involved, I remain unclear about what you mean by claiming we (individuals) refused to get involved? What exactly did you want to achieve by posting these threads? And Elli, yes it has been a vendetta. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence would be able to see that. You who are posting these hate posts are angry, not because of our responses to the original problem, but because we did not join you in your hate campaign against an individual. A comment was made about not respecting others rights to their views. Not true. Your rights to your views have been demonstrated by allowing much of the garbage that has been posted here by the 'let's get Kim Hollingsworth' crowd to go up. If you come to a site like this which is primarily for vegans to share their views and start acting like trolls, expect to be challenged. Respect for your rights to your views is not the same as agreeing with them. I respect your rights to your views, I just happen to disagree with how you have gone about this. But I am getting tired of many of you stating you are not doing what is glaringly obvious you are. " and this one, my mistake, its a vegan site, so no wiser as to what the diet reference to Kim Hollingsworth was? "Comment by Kerry Baker on July 27, 2012 at 10:30 Jean. The behaviour of people on this site has been irrational and abusive. That includes comments made about me and others. And yes, it is completley hypocritical for people here ranting about Kim Hollingsworth and her treatment of horses when they are themselves contributing to animal suffering through the dietary and consumer choices they have knowingly made. There was initially no discrimination about vegan or non-vegan, until the debate became personal. This was done at the outset, the original discussion stating that ARZ members have egg on our faces. You still don't state what in your opinion anybody did was wrong, when originally we all encouraged that horse rescue and animal welfare groups be brought in. The issue here is that ARZ members did not wish to get involved in the hate campaign against Kim Hollongsworth because that is precisely what it was, and still is. I have been considering why the RSPCA took so long to get around to checking these horses if as was claimed complaints were put in months before the original discussion. I suspect the answer is that the same behaviour was demonstrated to the RSPCA who probably decided that this was not a geuine issue. I do not condemn you for your choice to consume animal products, but the fact is that animals are treated cruelly for the meat and clothing among others. So if you have chosen to contribute to suffering, along with many of these commenters, then you have to question what is the difference. There is no point in claiming the high moral ground Jean because you don't have it. It is perfectly legitimate for me as a vegan to question the intelligence of the vendetta against Kim Hollingsworth when you are part of the problem. It would be a bit like a paedophile speaking up against child slavery in 3rd world countries. Kind of loses the impact."

Come to think of it? WE know no puppy should be sold under 8 weeks old and No puppy should be sold without its vaccination or microchip card and paperwork. I cannont see anywhere on this site telling newbies if these three very important facts are not present in the pup they see, they should RUN, NOT WALK OFF THE PLACE IMMEDIATLY. Maybe put it somewhere very prominant? Would there be room on the Home page to fit it in the Looking for a Puppy section on the page? With a nice big red "WARNING READ THIS FIRST BEFORE GOING TO SEE ANY PUPPY This applies for ANY puppy xbred or purebred" With a click link listing what they need to ask to see before even looking at the pup and explaining why this is so important?

spotted on another forum discussing the Kim Hollingsworth case. Seems it is not just dogs that are disposed of after they have served their purpose. " Quote Originally Posted by treacle View Post most of the time they get it right and i bet kim doesn't know what it's like to go hungry (especially not with that high protein diet of hers)..." " yep, most of the time is good enough, although didnt they stop hanging because the last one turned out to be innocent? But hey people like that ruth deserved all she got, gee if she couldnt even find a decent solicitor she deserved to be sent destitute. perhaps thats where they got it wrong with capital punishment, they left in an avenue of appeal. otherwise would never have been able to come to light the idiot who obviously had ruths so probably deserved his fate anyway. Although I suppose as long as they get it right "most of the time" who cares about the collateral damage cases. well as long as its someone else and not you one day? But then as one who listened to Steve Coleman and his cohorts agree to my friend Marion if she signed her horses over to them "they would find good homes for them" then stand helpless as the same Steve Coleman walked into the ring at McGrath's Hill Saleyards and tell THE AUCTIONEER AND everyone present at the auction that day (four days after I witnessed Marion signing them over based on that assurance that day) He said loud enough for every one present to hear "NO ONE BUT THE DOGGERS ARE ALLOWED TO BID ON THESE HORSES" I am not a university graduate or a now CEO of those who "most of the time they get it right" so I fail to understand how making sure no other buyers were allowed to bid or the auctioneer told not to accept any bids from any but the doggers agents guaranteeing their only fate was to be shot constituted or constitutes as having made the effort to "find good home's for them". Or for that matter how "right" is an organisation whose motto is the care of "all creatures great and small" to plead they are "saving" Kims horses, I cant help but wonder if they too after they have served their purpose and after Kim is disposed of, will they too share the fate of Marion's beautiful mares and their foals? To the day I die I will have that awful day rerun in my nightmares. I suppose unlike you I see that 11 horses await their fate. I saw that day Marions ten much loved mares and foals knocked down one by heartbreaking one to the doggers. As I begged, sick to my stomach the nearest dogger to buy them for me, not his boss. Yet knowing if he did, I didnt have the money to buy them all anyway. I still see his red hair and cold blue eyes and the expresson on his face as he turned on his heel and sent the first mare in." There are also links to a site discussing legal matters. Including this gem of a quote "This case raises so many issues about what is wrong with the Australian legal system, and it’s going to take us several different articles just to go thought the details of each aspect. At first glance I need to question just who the legal representation for Ms Downey were. As they have certainly proved the cliché true, that it’s possible for anyone to go to jail, all they need to do is find the right lawyer." There were a number of links this seems to be the first of the series, certainly reads like fiction but unfortunately isnt, good warning about the danger of incompetent legals. All we seem to hear about are incompetant doctors. http://judicialwatch.org.au/article/the-ruth-downey,-mal-davies-and-rspca%28nsw%29-story

Excellent post and thanks Much better explaination and easier to understand than the one I read on the DOGS NSW site. eg Dear Member, every single one of you. “We are fighting for our very existence! You must join us in this fight!” The Companion Animal Taskforce Reports to the Ministers for Local Government and Primary Industries include a number of recommendations which are opposed by a large number of members of Dogs NSW, particularly those who are breeders. The implications are very significant and, even for those Members who are not breeders, it could severely restrict the availability of pure bred puppies, with which you can pursue your hobby activities as a show exhibitor or trialler, with your breed of choice. There is a very real potential that some breeds with relatively restricted gene pools could be totally wiped out. The opposition to certain recommendations in the reports was voiced loudly and clearly by many hundreds of Members at two Special Meetings held over the past week to assist members in understanding the possible consequences of a number of the recommendations being conveyed into binding legislation. In response to the overwhelming concerns expressed by Members leading up to and at those Meetings, the Board of Directors have appointed a Steering Committee to develop and implement the strategy for responding to the Reports. This Committee draws on the extensive knowledge and experience of a number of our Members and, as President, I sincerely thank each one of them for making their considerable time available to assist the company and its Members in this task. We have also necessarily engaged external expertise in areas where it is urgently required. The purpose of this particular article is to alert you to one of the important ways which are available for members to respond to the recommendations. It is the Feedback Form provided by the Division of Local Government on their website. The way it has been set up by the Division, it is expected that most respondees will in fact do so online. They cannot however reject submissions which are made by Members who do not have access to the Internet and that could still apply to several thousand of our Members given that we only hold email addresses for 7000+ of our 10,000+ Members.

It doesn't help either that entire litters are on limit register save the pup the breeder keeps for them self or a friend. No more do breeders encourage newbies or is there the welcome attitude that once was the norm 40 years ago. I know it only says I have been a registered breeder for 25 years + but it is quite amazing to remember how nice people were when I bought my first pup compared to the gauntlet of fire that awaits the one who dares to ask for a main register pup today. There is hardly a kennel that will sell anything other than a "pet only" limit register pup to be found. I recently checked up on the proud owner of one of my pups who was well on his way to his champion, to discover the marriage had broken up so had to rehome he and the bitch she had to found her kennel. To my great dismay both have been desexed and rehomed to pet home, her reason? Because after exposure to the 'show' world she "couldn't bear her babies might end up with someone to who the ribbons were more important than the dog." I have no idea what she saw and heard at the shows attended, but a very sad indictment of the behaviour being seen there of some exhibitors, surely?

Perhaps I need to type more slowly? Troy isn't the only one who has decided to cull perceived undesirables from the ranks, As Steve pointed out the busiest tend to be other breeders, So Troy's idea although appearing admirable can also be used as Steve pointed out to eliminate even more people not necessarily undesirable but certainly not liked by another breeder, perchance did you miss the reason for omitting the requirement all breeders must be members of their breed club? so my question is relevant I am asking what year you think we will see NO one with a purebred to advertise on Dogzonline.

Do not make the mistake of thinking it is only the "rare" breeds that will dissappear. You can see a maltese just about every day, where ever you go. Yet only 200 were registered in 2012. So what are the odds of even one of them being a limit or main registered "purebred"? There will be plenty of purebred puppies to be found. They just wont be bred by any members of a Canine Council.

Think of the bright side. If there is one in this, that is. Looking at the tumbling in member numbers of the purebred breeders and puppies bred, e.g. 60,000 for 2012 in a population of over 24 million Australians. I don't know what the rescue figures were for 2012 but wasn't the figure for 2010 170,000 dogs surrendered Australia wide? Is it that I have developed a somewhat? Warped sense of humour that if every purebred puppy of 2012 were surrendered to a pound there still 110,000 goodness knows whats, bred by goodness knows who, still being bred? Tom Waterhouse loves to take bets. Wonder what odds he would give on bets as to which year Dogzonline will no longer have any purebred owner members because they cant find a registered purebred puppy to replace their oldie? All you need to work it out is follow the timeline already available for the past 20 years of registrations. Although towards the end it will be a freefall so probably the real answer will be five years either side of my suspected year I would put my bet on. So when that happens, will the logo change from "Australia's pure breed dog community" to "looks like a purebred" or just quietly fade off the net? http://dogsnsw.org.au/members/noticeboard/517-attention-all-members-of-dogs-nsw-.html Before anyone starts comparing me to Henny Penny and the sky is falling down. How many have read this little missive from Dogs NSW? Dear Member, every single one of you. “We are fighting for our very existence! You must join us in this fight!” The Companion Animal Taskforce Reports to the Ministers for Local Government and Primary Industries include a number of recommendations which are opposed by a large number of members of Dogs NSW, particularly those who are breeders. The implications are very significant and, even for those Members who are not breeders, it could severely restrict the availability of pure bred puppies, with which you can pursue your hobby activities as a show exhibitor or trialler, with your breed of choice. There is a very real potential that some breeds with relatively restricted gene pools could be totally wiped out. The opposition to certain recommendations in the reports was voiced loudly and clearly by many hundreds of Members at two Special Meetings held over the past week to assist members in understanding the possible consequences of a number of the recommendations being conveyed into binding legislation. In response to the overwhelming concerns expressed by Members leading up to and at those Meetings, the Board of Directors have appointed a Steering Committee to develop and implement the strategy for responding to the Reports. This Committee draws on the extensive knowledge and experience of a number of our Members and, as President, I sincerely thank each one of them for making their considerable time available to assist the company and its Members in this task. We have also necessarily engaged external expertise in areas where it is urgently required. The purpose of this particular article is to alert you to one of the important ways which are available for members to respond to the recommendations. It is the Feedback Form provided by the Division of Local Government on their website. The way it has been set up by the Division, it is expected that most respondees will in fact do so online. They cannot however reject submissions which are made by Members who do not have access to the Internet and that could still apply to several thousand of our Members given that we only hold email addresses for 7000+ of our 10,000+ Members.

I forgot to add. Once these people already have their little bundle of love its already too late for education. You have a snowflakes chance of getting them to take it back once they have brought it home, it has their heart.

Exactly, exactly & exactly. There's evidence that dogs involved with serious bites/attacks tend to be unregistered. Also one study found that the owners tend to have higher than average traffic infringements. Connection is that owners who are impulsive & not given to compliance... will be the same with their dogs. Not that I'm advocating it, but I just heard on ABC Radio National, the Swiss 'animal attorney' who's visiting Australia presently. He said people in Switzerland are required to do a 4 hour course about dog ownership.... when they want to get a dog. Apart from that novelty, I wish our authorities would look at steps taken elsewhere & the long-term results. Calgary is a good example. ADDED: Just out of interest.... I'm not advocating it... here's the Swiss requirement: Geneva All dog owners in Geneva must complete a dog instructional program, designed to ensure that dog owners are aware of the unique needs and behavior of dogs, along with the legislation that they are subjected to. This training is made available by a certified instructor or Geneva veterinarian. Excellent points, although penalties against breeders especially registered breeders seems more on the agenda than education. If even the basics were taught, eg, Do not buy an unvaccinated unchipped puppy. would work a million times better than legislation it must be. None of the people who bring me these babies have a clue they should walk away if the pup isnt already chipped and vaccination done or under 8 weeks. If Joe public KNEW they should walk away from any sale of the ones who are not their sellers wouldnt have a sale. End of business for them. My pet hate is dogs not kept at home, allowed to run the streets. No dog should be let run in a public area off leash. PARTICULARY in country areas, the tragedy of the dogs shot could just as easily have been,distracted by other vehicle and ran out onto road and killed. As another said, feral dog attacks are so bad most farmers will shot on sight any loose dogs. Something the city people have no conception of, an education program would save many dogs, the vast majority being the ones run over for exactly the same reason as the shooting tragedy, loose and uncontrolled.

yes, what harm can it do if the rarer breeds die out in this country because people are peer-pressured into believing that buying a pure bred dog that suits you is an unethicial thing to do, we shouldn't care about that should we. Wasnt the figure for maltese puppies registered in 2012 some 200? In a breed that is one of the most popular breeds seen ? Does not sound like its just the rare breeds that are on the road to extinction here. Considering there are more than 24 million people in Australia of what a significant number have dogs as pets 200 purebred maltese wont go far. As pets or a viable future for the breed either

If I can stop laughing long enough. This is certainly realistic "We had thought of making memberships of breed clubs for certain breeds mandatory but that would not work and would be unfair. Due the politics in some clubs, many good breeders choose not to be involved with them." Not quite so realistic is the assumption if some one regularly shows they have better dogs than those who choose not to. If it were true the breeds would not have been morphing into areas that have given the makers of Pedigree dogs exposed such much material to pillary all when (I hope) only a few actuly are.

The letter posted (wherever it is in archives around here) the minister gave the reason the rspca saidwhy the dog was seized , the owner of the dog was adamant the rspca reason for seizing the dog was not known, by either the rspca person who took it, or whoever answered the phone when the dogs vet called and asked why was it seized? The owner queried how can the rspca act before an event occured? It was a long time ago I read this. 1. the reply from the Minister said the dog was seized because according to the RSPCA the dogs vet did not have any records saying the dog was healty or did not need treatment. 2. The vet did not ring the rspca until AFTER the dog was seized and admitted he did not know he needed to have such information on file. So the rspca gave the minister as the reason for seizure being information acquired AFTER the dog was seized as the reason for seizing it? Who wouldnt be confused? or forget that thread If a dog doesn't need to be taken to a vet because it doesn't need veterinary treatment and is titre tested, why would the vet have any records at all on the state of its health? About the time I saw that story, I spoke to a somewhat well known counciler who is also a vet. His reply was . He said that was not the first time he had heard that or the first time it has happened. The only vets he knew who do know you need to record in their records that a dog was healthy when seen and do not require treatment, are the ones who have had clients have this happen. It was many years ago but I am pretty sure he said he too had reason to learn this is necessary if your care and knowledge of the animal is challanged. IE, a verbal diagnosis is not valid. It must be in writing, in the surgery records.

I thought I had put this question earlir today. Decided I wanted to edit it, But cant find it. I realised in all the years I have been microchipping dogs for people I cannot recall being asked to microchip a xbred or a litter bred by a non member of an AKC? I have chipped heaps, nay hundreds of puppies bought by owners who have purchased them either by word of mouth or through the trading post, Gumtree or wherever and the majority of them were either 5 to 6 weeks old, unvaccinated, unchipped x breds and banned breeds which 'supposdely' anyway can only be kept if desexed. WHAT? if any effect is any of this legislation going to do to locate the breeders of these pups who would never get onto the Council Microchip radar, except because some of them end up with owners who do want their dog chipped and registered because they dont want to lose their now much loved puppy? I would have to say about 90 percent of them when I ask for the vaccination card to put one of the stickers on did not get a vaccination card with their puppy so their next trip is off to the nearest vet. Most of these people are not even aware that NO registered breeder would sell an unvaccinated, unchipped puppy, let alone let it go before it is 8 weeks old. Where on earth? Correction, HOW on earth, do we get this message across to the "NSW COMPANION ANIMAL TASKFORCE" Do they even realise how many thousands of people and their dogs are paperwise invisible to the present system? Need I add? I for one would be pretty sure not one of the breeders of these pups will be found on an ANKC data base, which I think is one of the things I have been told the RSCPA want the ANKC's to hand over.(Is this true? Or scare mongering?) If true, So much for the privacy information act.

The letter posted (wherever it is in archives around here) the minister gave the reason the rspca saidwhy the dog was seized , the owner of the dog was adamant the rspca reason for seizing the dog was not known, by either the rspca person who took it, or whoever answered the phone when the dogs vet called and asked why was it seized? The owner queried how can the rspca act before an event occured? It was a long time ago I read this. 1. the reply from the Minister said the dog was seized because according to the RSPCA the dogs vet did not have any records saying the dog was healty or did not need treatment. 2. The vet did not ring the rspca until AFTER the dog was seized and admitted he did not know he needed to have such information on file. So the rspca gave the minister as the reason for seizure being information acquired AFTER the dog was seized as the reason for seizing it? Who wouldnt be confused? or forget that thread

are you serius? nobody I know of with unregistered, purebred or otherwise, dogs cares a fig about DA's, vaccinating or microchipping before selling, or not handing over a puppy before its 8 weeks. I have had people phone me to get their new puppy chipped, purchased from some word of mouth or gumtree add, some as young as 5 and 6 weeks old when they picked it up so obviously not vaccinated yet. only last month I met a chap and his mate who had bought two 6 to 7 week old unvaccinated unmicrochipped pit bull pups. they chose their puppies from a litter of 10. since in this state you arent even supoosed to have an entire pit bull. What? pray tell laws that breeder was following

You have to apply to council just as you would if you were intending to use the land for any other purpose which requires council approval - via a planning approval application. I am guessing then that it would depend on your property zoning under the council LEP, which is what specifies what use requires approval and what is exempt. Reading my own council LEP and zoning requirements it doesnt make it clear at all, so I have written to council for clarification. there is no doubt that if they want to they can stop you from being able to breed a litter on your property if its not in the right zone but mostly its about applying to council and telling them about what you want to do and how you will do it and common sense mostly prevails. There are lots of people who are breeding dogs in residential zones with council approval usually with conditions. Of course the big issues are that you cant know whether you will get it before you apply because each is taken on a case by case basis - example a Maremma breeder would have more difficulty,restriction on numbers etc than a chi breeder . If you have a big block with neighbours who are a fair distance away its going to be different if you live in a town house with neighbours all over you. Most times though if you have more than 2 dogs used for breeding you have to house them at least 15 metres from a dwelling or a place used to prepare food but if you had 50 dogs you would expect different conditions. I have council approval to breed dogs on my property - 30 acres rural zoning - but I had to go through 8 months of crap to get it and part of it was they petitioned even the main street businesses which Im 6 kilometres away from to see if there were any objections. I can have cattle, sheep, chooks, horses and as many dogs as pets or working as I want etc without council approval but I still needed a planning approval to use the land to breed a litter of puppies and I can never allow anyone else's dogs to stay here. I wonder how long before they (as in whoever gets politicions to legislate this stuff)to decide the same will apply to any Cattle, sheep, chooks and horses? I know I have seen on some horse forums, people demanding rules be in place to restrict horse breeding to stop the knackers having any to kill. As well as the breeder of a foal must be responsible for it for life. Others who have bought one which turns out to be either unsound or have reached the point of being afraid of the horse get pilloried if they contemplate selling it, the message they get is you have made a life commitment when you bought it. There are quite a few with this view.

Trouble is I have put what i do know, I dont know anymore than repeated here. I did speak to her when she dropped some off for me to rehome when told half had to go.

Well hers havent, they are all safely rehomed, its just her that misses them. the council had approved the 20 and had been quite happy with that for the past 20 years.She had not done anything wrong or differntly. the ex stirred up trouble, there was a new ranger (with a nasty attitude) who came out instead of the one who has been the normal one to do the inspections was on holiday that week. The point IS. the law already in force is what the new ranger used as the power to change the already approved permission to keep the dogs she did have. So what greater ones will be available for those who decide they dont like someone? She said the ranger who usaully came out did try to get the new ranger to reconsider. The complaint lodged to the deptartment of housing is an interesting outcome which I doubt many dog owners are aware of. That they can increase the rental if you breed a litter and you must (apparently) advise them when you do. Considering the breed produces a 'litter' of one to three pups, thats a considerable difference to the 'litter' of most breeds of 4 to 10 or a friends golden retriver 16 in each of her three litters. A considerable difference in potential income from one 'litter'. I just remembered a conversation with our local ranger, told me that because of the conditions that have to be met now,and the much smaller blocks now compared to those in the old suburbs, that the majority of people in the surburban areas will not be granted a licence today. The lucky ones are those who had applied and been granted before the new rules came in. That conversation took place nearly 9 years ago, so probably be even more so now? Maybe the day is comming if you did want a litter the city is not the place to contemplate it?

Didnt someone in the past? Do just that and printed the full reply here somewhere on dogzonline? I think? the date on the reply showed it took 2 years to elicit a reply. Is that the standard time frame for government replies?

The lady I refered to strongly suspects all the problems stemmed from a recent marriage breakup, the complaints were lodged with both the Dept of housing and council at the same time. Who can she appeal to? Friends would be happy to let her have some of hers back so she could get back to breeding and showing if she were allowed to keep them.

There needs to be open discussion on calling registered breeders who rehome their adult dogs (of all ages) as pets.... puppy farmers. If they've bred, raised & socialisedl those dogs well, then they've already proven they're not puppy farmers. The bottom line is that puppy farming does not value individual dogs to include them with human lives & thus socialise them. So those good registered breeders are the opposite of puppy farmers. I've seen what wonderful adult dogs of all ages they offer to pet homes. When people praise our tibbies, I tell them the truth.... the dogs came like that! I'd love to be able to claim credit for their foundation. But can't. I've put numerous good pet owners onto that way of adopting a dog.... an adult dog of any age, from a good registered breeder. Result has been happy dogs, happy pet owners & breeders happy to know their dogs have a good forever home. As to older dogs.... we have an aging population in Australia. So there's a lot of people in the older brackets. Older dogs make great companions for them. As well as for younger people who want a laid-back, mellow dog with developed & known behaviours. The golden oldies are gems. Here's one I would've given my eye teeth for in recent times. Tragedy led to a breeder rehoming his beautifully raised, much loved dogs. 9, 10, 11 yrs? Can't remember & didn't care much. She got a great new home. The Lady Gizmo (click to enlarge): It's only a click away for pet owners to locate adult dogs from registered breeders: http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/dogs.asp Some people looking for a pet, really leave you scratching your head, had a phone call. nice pensioner, not much money due to as we know pension. hoping I might know someone wanting to place a puppy or older dog for free or nominal amount. rings round. found a lady with a lovely 7 year old fully trained would slip right in as if she were born with them. So what is his reply? Nooo, really I think I would rather one I could train myself my way. Think I would prefer a puppy after all. somehow I think he will be having a long wait I dont know anyone prepared to breed raise and accept less than it cost to raise a purebred pup.

I understand she has already rehomed the young dogs and kept the pensioners. She was not permitted sufficient time that would have been needed to wait for people who would consider an old dog.