asal

what makes me a puppy farmer? i do not show. it is even then the new unwritten law. you must show or you are a puppy farmer. why worry about adding anything else it aint necessary surely thats enough? phil burgess didnt show, she was a puppy farmer, yet decades later the very people who pillaried her were heard boasting they had found an elfreda to add to their kennel. odd it was a good dog when they owned it but not when its breeder did?

you dont get it do u? the knight in shining armour believes i am a puppy farmer. to be destroyed at all costs AND if as u say "it could still happen" why do u need more legislation then? its already useable, to search n seize ?

you dont get it do u? the knight in shining armour believes i am a puppy farmer. to be destroyed at all costs

ok? you are asking the government to enact more and more powers for WHO to close down puppy farms? the department of agriculture? the veterinary association of australia? the relevant canine councils? the police? somehow i suspct the answer to every single one of em is a no? soooo who is going to roll over the bad guys that u have in mind unless it is the rspca already rolling when they choose too?

the relavance is the fact a perfectly healthy dog was taken, no i repeat NO AVENUE OF APPEAL FOR HIS RETURN BEFORE BEING SACRIFICED to a conviction at any cost to the dog. that was 1999. NOTHING HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE SINCE yet you say the RSPCA do not have enough powers of seizure? in 1999 all an inspector has to do IS "FORM THE OPINION" THE DOG NEEDS URGENT VETERINARY CARE AND SIEZE IT. nothing has changed. if they could seize a perfectly healthy dog in 1999 and ignore a decades of experience vet. where is the powers they lack that need beefing up?? yet you and they are seeking MORE power in the name of "protecting" the dogs? there was no "protection" for my dog. what makes u think they need more power? they have it. they just dont use it, unless it suits them at the time. n when you say "hey this place is dreadful do something" get told they cant, they "dont have the power" well they sure did when it was a favor for a friend

What a surpise..NOT! i mean that is just stupidity, these people dont' know what they are talking about, the farm gets inspected by councillors they've all visited the premises and the dogs as far as everyone is concerned are being looked after, well cared for and they are following all legislation. so legislation and more of it will do nothing to help shut down these farms like the one i am talking about. they even invite school groups in there and the schools support them as a good puppy farm and the councillors see nothing wrong with them....there are many photos to prove this is not correct. meanwhile workers have said that all these bad things happens to the dogs behind closed doors. many have witnessed on the open day. so how is legislation going to help the poor little doggies on this farm being bred to buggery. :D n what do u think goes on behind the cosed doors of the RSPCA? no employee can say, they have to sign a non disclosure contract? why? how many of you remember seeing the headlines that live dogs were being thrown into the incinerators? only someone risking huge fines went to the press. its not only puppy farmers that need to be held accountable its the dogs of war too

a 1.2 kg blue fawn long coat chihuahua, who had the misfortune to belong to me. i was the target, the dog was the pawn. he failed his brief, he was supposed to have let them find something chargable wrong with him. because to again quote the letter. "Thank you for your letter of 30 April 2001 regarding the seizure of your dog 'stringy' by the RSPCA. this whole incident has clearly been distressing for you. However, it would seem that the appearance of you dog breeding establishment and several of you animals attracted the attention of at least one other breeder who was concerned about the reputation of the industry, the conduct of your business and the welfare of some of your dogs. the RSPCA is obliged to investigate genuine complaints regarding animal welfare and to pursue what they belive to be the most reasonable course of action given the circumstances" in other words a 'fellow breeder' wanted a conviction and automatic disqualification from the cc. the rspca did their best to comply. i had already been inspected by a committee member of the cc before the dogs of war were set loose and passed inspection. so when that didnt work the big guns were sent. that was 1999, the sender was heard only recently boasting they had not given up. the dogs of war have been set loose again. soo im waiting for em all over again. I had to write to the minister for agriculture for two years to get that reply. at NO TIME DID THE RSPCA ITSELF EVER DELCARE THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT that had them arrive at my door. soo you annoy the wrong person and u too will be on the hit list. how sure are u all u havnt offended someone with friends in VERY HIGH places as i ws advised by Alan Candlish when he tried to find out what the complaint had been two weeks before string was taken. I knew something serious was afoot when the inspector wouldnt even tell me what the complaint was.. u cant fix what u dont know is broke can u or are u confident your psychic?

Mal Davis believes it is this that started the machine rolling There are no words of faith that can be associated with this NSW-RSPCA inspectorate only despicable. From the President of the NSW RSPCA Andrew Wozniak’s control of that organisation, to his multi-million dollar legal feed from that organisation, by assignment of prosecution briefs (only his firms is on the preferred list) the coffers of his legal firm have swelled for over a decade, making “Smythe Wozniak Solicitors” an unaccountable money tree. A public funded organisation, this NSW-RSPCA is involved with legal hijacking of fees and expenses that include a flying Vet who charges for a private aircraft to and from court appearances. Not to mention the massive fees the legal eagles are charging. The “TRUTH RIDER” returns for the cattle Consideration must also be given to the NSW RSPCA footing the bill if, after they have bankrupted a farmer seeking legal costs is still below the memorandum of fees for Smythe Wozniak Solicitors. Without prejudice we considered a scenario based on facts. We discovered hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid from the NSW-RSPCA account in legal fees, nothing to do with the Smythe Wozniak Solicitors submitted court fees to a magistrate. Not wishing to depart from their out of pocket expenses, lavish costs, could we be seeing this original account passing to the NSW-RSPCA boardroom for payment, then the underpayment fall retrieved as original cost is taken by the NSW-RSPCA. Then “All The Presidents Men” get their money every time they strike. Maybe Mr Andrew Wozniak can backtrack 10 years of accounts paid documentation to disprove this theory. Why did the government, back in 2004, not look into the concerns of Green’s Senator Lee RHIANNON who brought to the attention of NSW state parliament, her concerns that were prevalent then as they are now, still with most of the same players? During the Downey court case there was a publication that shows court room juggling by the $4,000 a day (over 4 weeks) RSPCA Senior Council choosing to attack Ruth’s vet, suggesting she lacked experience and this was obtained in court from RSPCA Director and Vet Wright who claimed $4,500 fees and was never called.

footnote to the ruth downey case. last week both she and the writer of the Ruth Downey inquisition, were served with a defamation by the firm of solitors representing the rspca. what next? this is the document i think is what the defamation is about in naming the solicitor firm and questioning isnt there a conflict of interest? http://sosnews.org/pdf/The-Ruth-Downey-Inquisition.pdf

and the minister for agricultures response? "Stringy has now been returned and has now undergone a proper diagnostic work up, you have not been charged with any offences, and as a gesture of good will the RSPCA has removed kennel charges from your bill. I do not feel that the RSPCA has acted outside the law or unreasonably in this matter. If you conduct your business as outlined in the Cod of Practice for dog breeding establishments you will have nothing to fear from further visits from RSPCA inspectors. thank your for expressing your concerns." if seized for a normal appearance of blue gene alopecia, ignoring the dogs vet and not having even bent any of the said Code of Practice let alone broken any gets a perfectly healthy animal seized i for one will have every cause to "fear from further visits"

:D While ever people like yourself have this attitude the great divide between animal activists and good dog breeders will continue to widen. The dogs rights are paramount in the minds of good breeders. And good breeders also have rights and these rights need to be respected otherwise you will find yourself living in a world of crook breeders and the dogs will be worse off. The good breeders will be gone - in part because their rights were trashed by over enthusiastic people who have not looked at the bigger picture. A bit of balance and respect please. Souff so aussie3 where was stringy's rights?????? dissappeared a happy healthy little dog. reclaimed 13 days later stuck full of holes and two punched out n stitched back up?, torn trachea n pnemonia????? welllllll where were his rights? his vet said he was nothing wrong with him, return him......... why was a fully qualified vet ignored....why was him writing down his opinion before the dog was seized more important than his opinion the day he rang them? even more chilling, the vet was head of vic rscpa before hughly worthlesss.....so if he cant get a dog out of an rspca jail..... who can?

good grief...... a pure white cavalier???

Have you read it fully. Are we talking about the same document the 117 page document. ok shortstep. i'm officially confused. what is the 117 page document you're talking about? because a lot of what you think should be is actually included in the proposed oscar's law. we were asking for legislation to be drawn up, unless you are privvy to information that the rest of us don't know i think you may be confusing what we are proposing in victoria with what is in place in other states. seriously oakway. i'm happy to discuss these issues because they are important. but i can't do that unless i actually know what you're trying to say. and generally, yes. every time anything to do with legislation gets pulled into dol, we have the same argument. the RSPCA is evil, power hungry maniacs. i am getting a bit sick of it, but i will continue to say, i don't agree with the fact that they have a serious conflict of interest but someone needs to act, the state government has decided to give them that job, and they do it. are they perfect, no. do i believe they can fight dirty? yes if they think it is needed, as politicians can too. it is because they can be like a jrt after a rat that i think giving them the opportunity to go after puppy farmers is a good idea-they are waiting to be able to do it. (i'm not persoanlly 'up' on the debarking case you guys have mentioned, so there is no way i could ever make an educated comment on that) BUT if that conflict of interest is your main bugbear then why not prepare a nicely worded and well researched document stating why this is the case and send it to honchos in police, and members of the upper and lower houses, even the mayor's office. nothing gets changed if you don't try, but if you come angry and full of hatred you won't be listened to. we know it is easier to get things done rather than undone, especially in victoria-which is the state we are talking about here, not nsw, qld, tasmania. honestly, a lot of what you guys seem to be arguing about doesn't make sense when we are talking about the rally yesterday. no-one was trying to shut down breeding dogs, just trying to ensure that it occurs in an ethical way. nothing is set in stone and i'm sure that the organisers of the rally would have loved to have practical imput from registered ethical breeders to help define what constitutes unethical and how to shut it down. yes, there is the issue that all breeders may be targeted if the legislation is not drawn up carefully, a point i expressed to ted baillieu and he agreed. but the only way to ensure that the only 'breeders' we catch under the net of any new legislation is by talking and developing it so that it won't, that process should include registered breeders and their governing bodies, if they want to come to the party they are most welcome, even needed. seriously, i've never heard people bashing regsitered breeders. i've only ever heard the fear from registered breeders that this is the case. perhaps i move in very educated circles? though i admit, i am frustrated that some people on dol get so angry and irritated about people buying from oet shops and don't seem to want to change that, in education or in legislation. it baffles me... steve, i'm sorry, but if it takes your sense of justice to be offended to shut down these kinds of operations, then yes. i think a lot of people will have that be the cost. privacy is all very well but we can't fight secrecy and cruelty without dotting 'i's and crossing 't's. would you rather have your privacy and know that the ability to shut down those people in 'the back of boonies' are churning our poorly bred pups, with no thought for the bitch's and dog's welfare? i'm not sure, privacy is valued differently to everyone, but i reckon that having someone come and tick off your dogs conditions (which i don't doubt are fantastic, i'm not saying you don't care seriously for you animals and future homes) is a small price to ensure that sentient animals don't live in cages and unhealthy conditions (mental and physcial). though i'm sure we could have legislation that doesn't include someone ticking you off, as long as you abide by council and state laws, unless you are breeding more than a certain number of bitches/ or have a certain number of entire females-and in that case, a tick would be all that's needed...? phew! sorry it is an essay! I agree. I would be happy to be inspected if it meant places that weren't up to standard were being shut down. I know that breeders feel strongly about their rights, but this isn't about the breeders rights, it's about the dogs rights. are u really thinking this through? what was my dogs rights? to be punched full of holes, trachea torn and nearly die of pnemonia? because some little shit couldnt avail itself of the opportunity to actually dial or punch in the phone number of my vet to ascertain there was nothing wrong with him? let alone believe a fully qualified vet, not unless he had already written in writing first before the conversation finally did take place???????? and that do i have to constantly remind you took place after the dog was taken, despite what the minister for agriculture was told, after the fact. that dog had no rights, he came back such a mess my vet wanted me to sue them for aggravated cruelty.......... these special constables have one and one only qualification..... ex police with prosecution experience.. willing to undergo animal care course, which they dont even have to pass.. just attend no places for anyone with animal care experience willing to undergo prosecution course????? n once siezed the machine rolls on no avenue of appeal to save them from happened to mine. ruths dogs spent how many days in their infection ridden kennels? for what? they took the lot not just the debarked ones. do you really want to see the day when your into one of the cracks to discover i am telling the truth? its a awful place to be and they number hundreds, if only these peole would all turn up at a rally, the stories would curl your hair i didnt ask for the impossible, i asked then and now.. these special constables must have to have PASSED a recognised animal care course. there MUST be a place of appeal. along with oscars law. dont put the above two in and your one day going to risk being in a crack, n then its too late

So you believe that to stop breeders like this one above, the government and the RSPCA need to go after every ANKC breeders who have nothing to do with the above situation? You think that because ANKC breeders do not want to be treated like they are puppy mills that this means they want puppy mills to thrive? There is a town called Lost the Plot, where a person committed murder. The people of the town were shocked and said this was just awful. So the mayor Mr. Watermelon decided to stop murder from every happening again in Lost the Plot. He order the police to randomly enter every home and search for any evidence that might indicate a murder had or could occur. The people in the town began to complain, they said they did not want to be treated like potential murderers when there is no reason to believe they have or will commit a crime. Mr. Watermelon says "Anyone who does not want to be treated like a murder suspect is proving they are just fine with people committing murders!' He goes on to say, while pointing his finger at the complainers, "In Lost the Plot, all people are murder suspects and they shall remain murder suspect until it is proven they are murders"! think you need to rename australia, its already 'Lost the Plot"

my complaint is this thread is making the same mistakes of the past. pushing for more controls, before even considering what happens to the bycatch? surely both should be in place? n i certainly have been busy writing and phoning, done so for over 2 years. one voice is ignored as the ranting of the deluded. it needs all of you united, polies do listen, the greenies learned that, dog people just stand aside and think "titch, titch, where theres smoke thers fire you know" bit like the ones the lion brings down for dinner and the rest of the herd watch, relieved its not them when the whole herd could attack and drive the lion away, buffolo do when in the mood. what does it take to get the dog lobby to actually get in the "mood" and supply equal numbers. that rally was marvelous. but sadly no mention also asking for along with the new legislation for any right of appeal set in place?. dont kid yourself the rspca do any but "report" to the minister. he had absolutely no interest in anyone with a problem. learned that well. and dont think the report has to tell the truth either. I was fascinated to learn that the inspector "without proper records of your own or your eterinarian, showing that stringy was under veterinary care, the inspectors could only rely on their own judgement. In this case Inspector donnelly decided that stringy's best interests would be served by a proper veterinary examination and diagnostic work up at the rspca shelter" how sweet. that letter was dated 14 jun 2001. did write a reply pointing out the below, although no reply was ever received to that one, probably went into the tooo hard basket ? gave up aftr that, whats the use when no longer get any response. this is what the minister for agriculture was told... what he was not told was the so concerned inspector was given the dogs vets name, number and addres at the occasion of the first visit to assure himself by speaking personally to the dogs vet that he had blue gene alopecia. HE NEVER CONTACTED MY VET BEFOR SEIZING THE DOG 2 WEEKS LATER. he nver contacted my vet after seizing the dog either. so you tell how he could tell a senior government minister this was the reason he took the dog? the dogs vet did personally call and demand the return of the dog AFTER it was taken, (48 hours after to be precise, he couldnt believe he had not been returned as soon as the rspca vet laid eyes on him). Yes he did admit during that phone call, he never put into writing in the dogs chartes he had blue gene alopecia. he wont make the same mistake again now he knows you have to have that a dog is healthy on its chart now not just when it sick. if he had then he would have been returned (we hope anyway) then n there, instead he was kept for 13 days while they franticly cut and stabbed him repeatedly until the last test came back negative . my vet estimated by the bill and procedures 22 needle insertions into a 1.2 kg dog. in that period. n two skin plugs removed. ive rang many vets, non do this, save those who have had this happen to them.. but it still begs the question,..... the report given to the minister for agriculture for seizing this dog was false. in a court of law that is a chargable offence. i just love the bit from richard amery that long as you adher to the code of practice u have nothing to fear from the rspca. even kindly gave me a copy. not a thing in it mentioned even one of the tests done on my dog as needing urgent veterinary care, not as even needing a vet? sooooooo if your feeling warm and fuzzy that you have nothing they can seize over because theres nothing wrong, some of you will learn some day the truth. but then your friends will quietly wonder," where theres smoke theres fire"

heres 19 pages of puppy farms topic wheres the 19 pages demanding the governement that implimented the net judy is in, to give equal opportunity to judy to appeal too? instead of the present? now where except begging the mercy of a magistrate and facing tens maybe hundreds of thousands in legal fees? if you can apply to ombudsman if your unfairly treated in every dept and walk of life be it work related, purchase of shoddy goods related, discrimination related, but no where no way rspca related? this is descrimination of the worst kind surely

seems to me they did more than look in judys backyard, clean down their thoats wasnt it? you seem to forget the ops were done legally, the charges are for showing them, supposedly the legislation was to stop puppy farmers . is judy bycatch? "Bycatch From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Photo of dozens of dead shellfish lying atop mud. Shrimp bycatch The term bycatch is usually used for fish caught unintentionally in a fishery while intending to catch other fish. It may however also indicate untargeted catch in other forms of animal harvesting or collecting. Bycatch are either of a different species or juveniles of the target species. The OECD (1997) defines bycatch as "total fishing mortality excluding that accounted directly by the retained catch of target species". There are at least four different ways the word bycatch is used in fisheries:[1] * Catch which is retained and sold but which is not the target species for the fishery * Species/sizes/sexes of fish which fishermen discard[2] * Non-target fish whether retained and sold or discarded" so far, seeing she has been charged, doesnt seem this fish is being "discarded" dont see anyone regards this lady, well save for the rspca, a puppy farmer, but she sure is in the "net"

whats with this? 19 pages of mutual grooming over shutting down puppy farms? Judy Guard is facing what is it "an 82 year jail sentence for showing her dog! Because that's the crux of it really. People serve less time for rape and murder. The VCA couldn't give a rats arse so long as the RSPCA don't shut them down, the thing that they fail to see is that is exactly what is happening except that it is inch by inch instead of the one fell swoop that the VCA is scared off. I just find the whole thing completely disgusting and totally demoralising. I don't have much but I'd like to send some assistance her way do I do that through you guys Steve? " ok a cut a pasted quote from her thread. but someone here show me any puppy farm facing 82 years? get real, this is a registered breeder facing 82 years........ for showing a debarked dog.....how slow is everyone? this is where the priority lies there will only be puppy farms left. barring a miracle n that doesnt look like happening any time soon, only the soft targets like Judy seem to be on the horizon

many of these people that you are so happy to vilify as maniacs and power hungry beasts are just humans, who work everyday with animals because they love them and are just trying to do the right thing. they are often involved in the dog world just like you or me. It is true we have enough laws to deal with this but they are not enforced. Lots of wonderful, animal loving people do work & volunteer for the RSPCA but they have to do as they are told & sign a confidentially agreement, so some big shocks for many I guess when they are on the inside. It is the power hungry beasts in the organisation that are frightening & they do not seem to be answerable to anyone when they make huge mistakes & misjudgements in handling situations. Honestly don't know what the answer is to this problem but it does cause untold grief to many innocent people & still leaves many cases of cruelty & neglect to go on. Quite scary really & so wrong. there is an answer, the polies enact one more little piece of legislation, where the persecuted can appeal. its not a case of "they do not seem"...THERE ISNT ANY APPEAL AVENUE TO DATE WITH NOTHING IN THE PIPELINE EITHER A MURDERER as more rights

yes there are already laws to be complied with, except that it is up to the council to act on them, not anyone else. the council, who is taking the money of registering the property as a domestic animal business. the council, who has nothing to gain by stopping it. the council who probably want to encourage 'business' in their area-they have to pay rates etc. the council, who don't even have educated animal people to conduct searches and ensure that everything is up to scratch! and this change that is being advocated is actually asking to stop the sale of animals, specifically puppies here, in pet shops, but i personally don't think that is the most effective way-it just pushes them furthur underground. for goodness sakes, the rspca is not out to get you. they did not organise the rally but they attended. they did not tell their staff they must or must not attend either. i attended of my own free will and volition. i agree that as an organisation the rspca should be altered and looked at-prosecuting and investigating should never be done by the same organisation. however, even though i don't get along personally with everyone i work with, i do believe that they aren't 'after' registered breeders, believe it or not, but many of these people that you are so happy to vilify as maniacs and power hungry beasts are just humans, who work everyday with animals because they love them and are just trying to do the right thing. they are often involved in the dog world just like you or me. also do not forget that the rspca in the various states are run by different people and to a different agenda/cause or code in each state. i for one would rather try to stamp out unethical beeding of companion animals for profit. 'oscar's law' is just a means to asking for that. nothing has been decided and it will have to be discussed and examined before anything went ahead. why on earth people think that they'll be stopped ethically breeding because of the size of a whelping box is a bit beyond me. nothing has been said about that. it is more about psychological enrichment and development, ensuring an animal's optimum physical and mental wellbeing. also included in sue's (the greens MLA) speech was intensive farming of animals such as pigs and chickens-there is NO way any self-respecting animal person could be ok with that situation? to allow battery hens and pig to be locked in such small pens is simply unethical and cruel- pigs are believed to be as smart as a 5 year old, smarter than many dogs and we woudn't accept it for canines. it was also mentioned that the sale of UNREGISTERED puppies overseas-their export- will be monitored or examined. so to me, it sounds like even though the purebred organisations aren't speaking up they are being considered... the truth is that we haven't enough legsialtion or penalities for animal cruelty in victoria or australia. we have plenty of legislation saying you can or can't do this, or they can do whatever they want-such as the dangerous dog amendment, but actually protecting animals? nup. most of the US has tougher penalties, something they did because of the clear, researched link between aniaml cruelty and serious crime. did you know that victoria was the first australian colony to have an animal welfare act, the Protection of Animals Act 1881-only thrity or so years after the us and britain. historically we are slow to act. all we want now is to try and rectify that. anyhoo, i've had enough of the argument. i'm not happy having to stand side by side with ALV but if i can be the moderate voice among those calling for change that i agree with, then i will. it is true, i am not a breeder, nor do i ever want to be a breeder-but we don't want to cancel our all breeders alltogether. i'm sure elements we regard as ethical, such as health testing your stock, will be included in any legislation that, at this time, is still a fantasy anyway. hullo? theres a lady facing over 80 years jail time for showing a debarked dog (or dogs, forget which)? 42 charges for every show they attended, thats what the rspca is wasting its time on. it was not illegially debarked, it was done by the owners vet to the legislation in place where that vet is.

fun aint it they sooooo dont understand who hvnt been there How do you pronounce your name asal? Sometimes incorrect spelling can be a blessing Ive been saying it over in my tired head and I keep coming up with something inappropriate. Save me from my disturbed thoughts please az al sorry az......... as....... al...... pronounced the same as ....... as dont worry ive been accused of being an ass, n many other colourful terms anyway sooo whatever u like is probably appropriate anyway

remember when u were in school and everyone was mr this and mrs or miss that? start work n hey its all first names????? like what the??????? so spelling nazies,, relax schools out

fun aint it they sooooo dont understand who hvnt been there How do you pronounce your name asal? Sometimes incorrect spelling can be a blessing Ive been saying it over in my tired head and I keep coming up with something inappropriate. Save me from my disturbed thoughts please az al sorry az......... as....... al...... pronounced the same as ....... as dont worry ive been accused of being an ass, n many other colourful terms anyway

We will all go down the gurgler because of their stupidity. Many of us live in other states, and why would we attend something that we believe will harm us. We have complained about farms and complained bitterly. Their are other people also working on the puppy farm situation not only you. Don't any of you dare take a holier than thou attitude with those that work so hard to eradicate puppy farmers. Never have any registered breeders said they don't support you in your efforts over puppy farms. What we don't support is that we as breeders are being included in all and sundry. Some of you have only scratched the surface, but some of us have dug deeper. Some of us have been through things like this before and been caught and we don't intend to get caught again. We can appreciate your feelings over puppy farms and will stand firm with you as our feelings are the same. It is some of you that have no appreciation for the way registered breeders feel about us being included. And included we have been. Have a thought for us as we can end up losing out big time.... Our dogs. Most registered breeders are the least of your worries. If we go, where do you get healthy, home reared, health tested puppies from ?. I am so angry that a group of people could cause me to lose the thing that I love...breeding a better dog than the litter before. Just because you have no foresight in the matter, and can't see that this will turned around and come back to bite us all. aint going to work set out to destroy p f's and you ultimately destroy your self. how? you think your ethical, who says other registered breeders do? every witchhunt, every pogram ie spanish inquisition, saw thousands of innocents die. considering today we know witches dont exist any more than santa clause is still here and delivering presents. every witch that died did so because somone didnt like em how confident are any of you that everyone in this world likes u? find out soon enough when u discover yr tied at the stake this time instead of among the crowd watching the latest burn . remember every one of those "witches" was once living their life same as u, well until they were decided to be witches

ANKC breeders are dropping like flies already. There are 30,000 a year fewer ANKC pups born today than 30 years ago! Yet the number of dogs being born is escalating every year. Estimated at over 1 million dogs born a year, of which only 60,000 are ANKC dogs. ANKC breeders are already a tiny minority in the world of dog breeding. I think you are right, the only people who will breed dogs if things keep going the way they are now will be businesses. They will be highly regulated puppy mills that can afford to breed dogs under systems that make it difficult for those not cashed and lawyered up. If they would put up a bill that just banned pet shop sales (yes include internet and other forms of advertizing if that seem right) and do not add on anything else to the bill. It would pass. This would wipe out most puppy farms or at least take away much of their sales. At any rate, I remain optimistic. I am envisioning a future about 20 years from now. A secret underground network of (old fashion) dog breeders. They never sell their dogs. They breed very rarely, keeping the pup they want and place the others with trusted friends and other breed fanciers. Keeping a small gene pool going of selected lines of their breed going forward. When this happens, will you few remaining purebred dog owners let me know, I want in! LOL LOL all right, thats pretty much what it will be