asal

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive? The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure. So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown. Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it. Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears. The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome. Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard. And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either. They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs. Can you honestly say you were surprised by this? I don't want to see the breed disappear through the complete banning of racing but it seems like the arrogance of those involved is just.. incredible. As soon as they believed they had won, it was back to business as usual. Apparently they'd already reformed enough and everything is fine. A greyhound trainer in Sydney was charged with live baiting the day before the ban was lifted but that's okay because reform, reviews, some paid "research", a liberal application of smoke and mirrors and.. everything is fine. The public can stop looking now, back to business. The arrogance of some is incredible. the question is, do you destroy all? including the 80% the report said are the honest, the caring in the quest to destroy the arrogant? In war it is called "collateral damage" there are a few million survivors of that fleeing that horror and the loss of their homes and way of life, according to the news, many are drowning in the attempt. those to have tried it to get to australia are locked up for longer sentences than pedophiles, rapists and murderers. now add those who have pets for whatever purpose to eliminate the arrogant

camphor apparently smells horrible to cats, someone was asking on the radio this afternoon.

Catching up with this thread and noticed these views. Yes we are some disillusioned - feel like dropping the AFL interest I have had, and only following the new womens' AFL teams, see if they have a different ethic. And no, I didn't turn on the TV on Cup Day or watch the news on Tuesday night. And the nastiness in cricket - I just can't handle what used to be my favourite spectator sport - used to be so quietly theatrical and is now borderline unpleasant. All for the reasons you have mentioned. And if the new Victorian laws being pushed get through everyone with just one fertile female dog will be what? A registered "business" and we all know now that when animals become a "business" as said above ".... the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane." Which is exactly what AR want to happen. then everyone caught up will forfeit their right to freedom of choice even to keeping their retired oldies, and who is the most dispised? those puppyfarmers who get rid of their retired dogs, as well no longer entitled to be innocent until proven guilty. How many have forgotten already 80% of greyhound owners were not believed to be doing the wrong thing, yet to stop the 20% who where doing the wrong thing the other 80% were considered acceptable collateral damage. all with a fertile female will become disreputable and therefore the enemy to be eliminated, same game, same pack drill. neat re-branding isn't it? No wonder they have no respect for the dog owners, sheep would be harder to set up for the slaughter, at least they run when they sense danger, even as they are being torn to shreds as they run. Have to admire the slight of hand. shows who is the smart player in this game. Pet owners need to start getting a lot smarter a LOT FASTER to have any possible hope to get off the back foot before its too late, well if it isnt already too late, in this mind game

interesting, there are hundreds of fb groups that sell puppies i am told, I have certainly seen over a dozen selling various breeds myself if all the posts are indicative they sell like hot cakes. Not just dogs, fish, birds u name it as for horses, heaps are being bought and sold on facebook as well

Exactly, demanding the elimination of "puppy farmers" and too dumb to realise they will be caught up in the same net they backed being cast

copied from a facebook page. FEEL FREE TO SHARE - How do you feel about this part of the Bill??...Breeders who are DABs automatically fall under the mandatory Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses (2014) the last point of this code is: •Recommends that dogs which are no longer in breeding programs are either re-homed or, if not suitable for rehoming, euthanized. It sickens me to think that this is a recommendation I will be expected to follow - that one of my dogs- a dog I have shared my life with, a dog that I will hold until her final breath - I am expected to rehome or euthanise when I can no longer breed from her. - well Arya, how do I explain this to you when I retire you from my breeding program? - my final word to these fools- no one could ever love her like I do - a point you obviously fail to understand......animal welfare anyone #amendthebill D..... Breeders don't fall to the low depths of RSPCA and PETA, {that have obviously had a big hand in writing the stupid bill) and kill our animals that have been loyal to us after they have stopped breeding. A ... exactly and that along with the concrete yards and facilities they say we must have and must do constitute what? A PUPPY FARMER. when all this began to be pushed for in the 1990's I was inspected by a CC delegate on the grounds that as I did not show my dogs I must be a puppy farmer and membership cancelled. I remember the inspectors first words as he spotted my greybeards with the run of the place. "well, they wouldnt be here if you were a puppy farmer." then as he inspected my breeding dogs remarked, "why aren't you showing these? most of them are Champion quality". Even then I wasnt allowed to to do my own thing with my dogs, I was expected to follow the drum of the ribbon chasers or subject to suspicion. Now even the ribbon chasers if they have to follow these heartless rules will qualify as puppy farmers anyway. If you breed your dog's now, if this becomes law, you are not allowed to keep your retiree's..........disgusting think this below might be on the mark after all

TRAGIC. all the laws being formulated to control who breeds a dog and still people do not exercise control of the dog or dogs they have, its simply unbelieviable this could be not only allowed to happen but the owner does not stop them? leave it to stangers?

For those who like to think this sort of legislation is driven by A.R- Is this an A.R response? I don't think many here would claim it is. I think most here would agree its a response typicaly encouraged by the C.Cs in general, and its what is driving this sort of legislation. Well intentioned people who believe Pedigree Dogs are the responsible choice above all else, and are either uninformed or have limited experience in the diverse practices aimed at breeding and raising happy, healthy puppies to supply their pets. People who who want to be sure the dogs they buy are being bred responsibly, and are very well informed about failures attributed to certain environments, rather than the successes of individuals, and what makes them successful. So whats wrong with the arguments used here FOR the legislation? I am in no way defending Banksia Park here, because a) I don't know enough about them. and b) Any mass production of puppies could not supply the type of dog I am after unless its a pure accident. But thats me, my experience, and my choice as a person who IS familiar with some of the intricacies of breeding Dogs. More would likely find the same, If they were also more informed and familiar. So there would not BE the support of buyers who keep this commercial industry viable. On the other hand, If Banksia Park can meet all reasonable standards set for breeding dogs and meeting welfare and socialization needs, and have a customer support base thrilled with their dogs, on what grounds do we decide they are unacceptable? When breeders of pedigree dogs larger scale or smaller will still be failing on those same grounds? The other arguments, that they are producing "Designer Dogs, Mutts for 10X the price" . Should a persons choice of dog the be limited? If so, on what grounds? Pedigree? Health? Prey drive? profits? ( largely driven by demand, don't forget) And who gets to decide? Shouldn't we be encouraging people to be responsible for their own choices?! To understand how breeding choice, raising and training all affect the choices they make ? I Believe its been established there are NOT too many puppies being produced, just too many irresponsible owners making poor choices and not filling their own responsibilities, so too many failures and dogs ending up unclaimed or unwanted in the pound system. Pet shops should only sell rescue puppies and dogs. A good breeder wouldn't want to waste the 1st few essential weeks of socialization opportunities of their puppies in a shop window. But its O.K for rescue puppies? Or adults? Maybe because they are mostly 'Mutts' anyway? Don't ALL dogs deserves the same standards of care and welfare? Where in all of this is a promotion of the practices that DO contribute to better choices in dog ownership and breeding? I have been in a pet shop where the owner took puppies from registered and non registered breeders alike. By prior arrangement to ensure facilities would be available. They were penned in a 10 foot enclosure in the center of a large premises with enrichment toys and shelter from prying hands, food and water,clean fresh bedding. Brought in each morning by their breeders and returned home each after noon. Not some thing I would want for my own pups ( because I wouldn't be able to supervise interactions myself, and for hygene/quaranteen reasons) but it looked to me like a great socialization opportunity. Trips to and from in the car, lots of interaction with all sorts of people and visiting dogs from behind a screen. People either take responsibility to do some thing well, or they don't. Either buyers take responsibility for their own choices in buying and raising their dog, or they don't. How many do or don't as a community, will depend largely on the information available and promoted to assist in those choices, and a persons ability to recognize their own personal responsibilities to them. But it helps if the information is all around them, not preserved in a single standard for dog breeders and owners. Because there can never be a single standard that meets all needs. Only one that must keep defining what those must be, in attempting to meet all needs. Unless this realy IS about pedigrees, vs any thing 'Less'. because if it is, its only going to cause the elimination of dogs in our lives unless there is RECOGNITION by the K.Cs that 'Dogs' are a species, not just a standard. The dogs we can appreciate and value for their place in our lives will governed by our responsibility to the species, not responsibility to a standard. spot on. you raised so many valid points there. yes its a bit odd its bad to buy a breeders puppy from a pet shop but fine if its a rescue in the window? if its bad for one then its bad for both. but what is the truth? especially the pet shop scenario, the old pet shops like the one you described are wonderful socalising opportunities. 30 years ago there was a pet shop in kingswood near penrith like you describe, except the puppies were kept a pen seperate for each litter and that is exactly what was done, the breeder would bring them in the morning and take them home that aftrnoon, the staff would spoil them rotten and the puppies had a wonderful day interecting with new people every day. many of the people who brought their puppies in like that worked so could advertise them, and refer the caller to go see them at the shop. the shop took a percentage of the sale price . They did it for all breeds, pure and cross. again so right about the ankc's and their members, in the rush to eliminate anyone they do not see as being as themselves they will destroy themselves as well, but sadly so few can seem to grasp the fact, or that the ankc's came second to the people who created and maintained the breeds for hundreds of years and decades before the ankcs try to gather and claim themselves the sole representatives of good dogs. They are everywhere with or without a piece of paper to prove it. always have been, all we can pray for is this mess is resolved before all are destroyed by this shortsightedness. how many remember the fact the pedigree stumpy tailed cattledog was bred into a genetic dead end when only one registered breeder was left and made sure it stayed that way by refusing to sell any on main register? it was the massive gene pool of much loved and preserved families out there in backyard land that supplied the appendix register to include in the ankc seach for new blood. ANKC'S ARE NOT THE BE ALL for good dogs, surely that example alone should make them do a serious rethink?

"Realistically the only people that will adhere to these laws are good honest breeders. As if accidental litters and BYBs are going to get a DAB license. I've seen pups on gumtree who aren't even microchipped yet at 6mths! People like that aren't going to care. And not one seems to understand the ones referred to in the red are NOT puppy farmers and they will still EXIST and churning them out in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands but they are invisable and will always remain so. yet they are where the dogs and most of the breeds will survive after everyone else has been eliminated. But no one seems to get that yet. bleat about puppy farms until your lost your voice,,,,,,,,,, the great unknowns are the real source of the huge numbers except they are tens of thousands, nay hundreds of thousands of small and ultra small eg only have one female, producers and impossible to trace, they arent chipped, let alone vaccinated, that is only the ones whose owners care enough to take it to the vet when it becomes ill. many in that culture simply do nothing and get another replacement. It would be impossible to guesstamate how many die quiently in the yard and never taken to a vet, so no vet records will reveal they exist let alone who owns them. many only produce one or two litters and lose interest or the dog. but it is the sheer numbers of them that is a fact and that won't come to light until all the traceables have been eliminated. north east of me is what the vets here call the greatest concentration of unvaccinated, unregistered dogs in the sydney basin. when the wind blows from that quarter of this basin they begin to see the arrival of dozens of dogs and puppies, (that figure was daily for some vets) infected with parvo virtually none of them microchippped. Drive through the suburbs and there is just about a dog in every yard, multiple in many, go to the local supermarkets and there are cards printed A4 sheets with puppies for sale by the dozen in some weeks. These are the places the vast majority of pound inductees come from, even the figures show it, the majority of arrivals ARE NOT MICRO-CHIPPED...... puppy farms microchip, they have too, registered breeders, MICROCHIP, GUESS WHAT? They have to. but in the meantime oscars law and ar don't care about the unfindables, get rid of those whose noses are traceable first, then they will or wont try to do anything about the invisible's.

Westimum, you never want to learn first hand what I know. Most I know who learn that way are being treated for PTSD as a result. The reason so many are advocating for and calling for an ombudsman to be appointed for the only untouchable organisation in this country, the calls began in the 1990's as what you refer too began to morph but so far the govt is deaf as a doornail

This was forwarded to me by my son. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Robert Brown called on an inquiry into the RSPCA during an adjournment speech in the NSW Parliament on Tuesday evening. "This follows a litany of debacles where the organisation has over-reached in its role, and is in the precarious position as an unsupervised judge, jury and executioner for animal cruelty issues. These matters have been examined in Western Australia and Victoria, and should be examined by an inquiry in this jurisdiction." "[People would] be shocked to hear of a $100m industry that slaughtered 40,206 innocent animals in the period 2014 to 2015 - 30 per cent of animals under their care," he said. "The 40,000 animals slaughtered by the RSPCA last year surprises me, especially because a figure of a similar magnitude was cited as the rationale for banning greyhound racing. The cynic in me wonders why they have not released their latest year's statistics, given this debate. "Once a respected charity, it has now become over-zealous, drunk on power, and dominated by animal liberationists. Mr Brown cited the case of Pilliga grazier Ruth Downey whose breeding cattle were shot by the RSPCA following disputable claims they were emaciated. He highlighted quotes of an RSPCA inspector uncovered by his office showing that the organisation preferred to euthanise this woman's cattle rather than provide material support with feeding because the organisation was low on funds. "An organisation... cannot be summarily allowed to execute animals because it is in that organisation's financial interests, rather than providing the support the public demands and deserves. Nationally they reported a $9.34m loss in their latest financial statement. This is despite their charity status and the tax concessions that come with it." "[The RSPCA] can either be a policing body for animal welfare or a campaign-house: but it cannot be both," Mr Brown said. "Like Western Australia and Victoria, we urgently need an inquiry into the RSPCA in New South Wales." Mr Brown added that the issue of the RSPCA's role in animal welfare was of significance because of their role in deciding the future regulation of the greyhound racing industry after the ban was repealed. "The fact that [the RSPCA] is actively campaigning against the continuation of the greyhound racing industry, but is granted a seat at the table by Premier Mike Baird to examine it's future regulation is ludicrous and is fraught with danger. "Such an appointment surely raises community suspicions that the Baird Government's reversal of the greyhound racing ban may turn out to be a disingenuous exercise - killing the industry slowly by other means." Being the curious kind I found the Hansard copy, think it reads better than the press release actually. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-71409

I know a chap who once he decides on the price he wants for a horse he has decided to sell, if intending buyers try to haggle with him and he gets angry at the amount offered if they push him too far, will come out with the rifle and give them a decision to make. do they want it at the price he is asking or not? If they do not leave but continue to argue he has turned to the horse and shot it then and there. Far as I know he has only done it when the haggler is a man. but one day he had 7 that he decided to cull as it was a bad drought, trouble was he had them tied near the road where the school kids were waiting for the bus. so they saw him shoot all 7. one girl was hysterical and ran hom and her parents called the rspca to be told as long as he shot them on his property he is perfectly within his legal rights to do so. Yet look at the headlines of the dog breeders be it pet breeds or greyhounds, shock horror, bodies found shot in the head on breeders property. yet it was fine to shoot the horses? in the video I posted and the photos of Inspector Ashton "euthanising" cattle. they were shot as they were chased through gates, not done with a captive bolt, or a clean shot to the centre of the skull but shot as they ran past and its called "euthanasia"? No abbotior is allowed to slaughter stock that way. let alone call it euthanasia

We need more people like this brilliant letter https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5563c0f3e4b086159c461796/t/580e0125d2b857e4d23c350c/1477312811518/Letter+from+Gordon+Curtis+concerning+the+proposed+Vic+dog+laws..pdf It is a proven fact that people with pets, live longer healthier lives, mentally and psychically due to the interaction with their pets. For this reason Pets as therapy came into being, and Therapy dogs are now recognised. The animal rights movement is hell bent , along the those who have infiltrated u know who, that along with the other AR groups are formulating these appalling laws with no regard to the reality of what will happen as a result We need to formulate how important the companion animals are to the mental health of the people of australia. Pets are just as important to the health and well being of the population as working dogs are to the farms of australia my friends son has anglemans and with out the dog I bred and gave him he can become unmanagable, Lighting can calm him down in seconds. Without his dog his quality of life is severely comprimised. It is now being recognised how important such companionship is for people with a varity of problems, PTSD is another I know of, horses as well as dogs can be wonderful in helping these people, a friend whose husband suffers badly and who is not in a situation where they can keep a pet comes to my place and spends hours with my dogs and horses, he can be at peace for up to 3 days after. She is blown away by how fast they help him relax. he can arrive so stressed he cant even stand still. to almost asleep with his head on Tilly's neck.

I really don't know. I am keenly aware that the people that talk to me are the people that are genuinely interested in doing better by their dogs, and most of them were already working towards change, and I have had some good times with them and their dogs. Their passion for change is obvious. It's impossible to see beyond those positive experiences to parts of the industry that I don't see and people I don't talk to. I hope, for all the happy people and dogs I have met in the industry. It is a little bit complicated. Dogs that are not racing are supported at least in part by dogs that are racing. On the outset, it looks like, well, we know most of them don't live past 2 anyway, so if they die at 9 months old instead of 2, what's the difference? At least the cycle has come to an end. And in some cases, particularly large, professional enterprises, that is probably true. In other cases, maybe not. Hobbyists are more likely to be holding onto dogs that are not racing, and there are no figures for how many of them have non-racers still in their kennels, and if so, how many. It could include retired racers, injured dogs, young dogs, dogs on suspension, and failed racers, and it could be a temporary or indefinite arrangement. These dogs are pretty much invisible, so maybe there's just 4 in the entire state, or maybe there's 400. Maybe some of them would have been there all their lives, or may have been sold, or eventually adopted out, or euthanised... Whatever the case, if racing were suddenly ended, people may find that they can't support their non-racers anymore, and I expect some of them keep them because they sank a lot of time into them and grew attached and could afford to keep them. So, maybe it's not just the dogs that would have died anyway. It's dogs on top of that as well. I find myself at odds with a lot of colleagues I respect who are angry the ban has been repealed. I don't know if my concerns are coloured by my positive experiences in the industry, or biased by the types of people that like to talk to dog behaviour scientists, and if it matters. There were a lot of people in rescue delighted to see it coming to an end, while at the same time in denial about the sheer number of adoptable dogs that were probably not going to make it purely because there were going to be too many of them. I can't help feeling that everyone grabbed at the first deal offered and just talked themselves into it being the best for the dogs. There has to be better ways, though. I'm not sure if no ban, or a trial period is better in the long-term, but it is in the short-term IMO. I sincerely hope if they ever do decide to ban it after all, they will put a lot more thought into how they will do it. I see your point. Though while I'm happy to be corrected, you seem to be saying regardless of what happens dogs will die. So maybe the original ban with a lead in time was probably best for the industry dogs. Next time you can almost guarantee that the public outrage will be such that there will be a brutal fast shutdown - and while I hate to see dogs die, at least as you say the cycle stops - for good. And those so called 'good people' who turned a blind eye to such abject cruelty and misery will hopefully rehome their 'family' dogs - but somehow I doubt it. If they could turn a blind eye to such cruelty and misery then death of their dogs in response to a ban probably won't mean much either. And yes I hope I'm wrong. But years of watching and managing human behaviour suggests otherwise. I hear this argument ad finitum from the horse rescues who want knackeries closed down and breeders restricted so there is no more horses ending up as dog food. The nutters got their way and had them all shut down in America, thats an awful huge country with no meat disposal industry for the aged, injoured or unsound in limb or mind and theres an awful lot to deal with. So what became the solution? Road trains of double decker semi's snaking these excess horses thousands of Km to either Canada or Mexico. result, the occasional gory headlines when one overturns. what they cannot seem to get into their heads is that EVERY animal, human as well for that matter, IS GOING TO DIE. some sooner, some later, some MUCH later. when an animal as massive as a horse reaches its end of days, that is some 400 to 800 to in some cases 1,000 kg of carcase to be disposed of. many need to be put down due to injoury before old age catches up with them but even the likes of Black Caviar will some day will find her owners deciding, do they have the land to have her buried, or an incinerator they can have the body disposed of, or take it to a knackery and all that meat that would otherwise go to waste become dog food. I know the tree huggers would have it that no animal crosses the rainbow bridge let alone becomes a body for consumption. but dogs ARE carnivores, no dog will be as healthy or long lived kept solely on a no meat diet. so you see you need to also remember every dog too, will one day die despite your best efforts to maintain its life. The only way the cycle will stop is when the AR nutters get their way and there are not any left, be careful what you wish for?

probably off topic but spotted this video. amazing it wasn't cut, one employee quit rather than be involved in what happens next https://www.facebook.com/709019335881463/videos/965234160259978/

it will be interesting to see how long it takes the dog and cat owners to wake up to the elimination of their democratic rights to innocent until proven guilty before or after these laws are passed, won't it? this is a pretty good message although its on a different subject https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/11898581_985454184830311_5714031444219459086_n.jpg?oh=fbdcfb1a3c0afd58cb0a8beedbd49408&oe=589D6FB5

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized. They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs. They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized. If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results. If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement. You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders? Actually ALL dog owners need to stand and be counted, I had mine as pets all my life, My Dads dog Blue guarded my cot when I was born and I never went anywhere alone, he was always beside me, it was not until I was nearly 30 I actually bred a litter. All dog owners should have the right to decide if they only want to have theirs as a pet or if they may one day decide to keep their dogs line going. Our politicians want to take that right away. There is not a dog born today that is not the legacy of those who loved and bred its parents and ancestors before it. AR want to break that chain from the past to the future. Yup. Maybe we need a companion Animal enthusiasts Union. As an errosion of rights, at its most basic, we are being denied the right to choose our own companions and act in their best interests, as individuals in our own environments. We are forced to source from a 'standard' list of acceptable candidates and keep them in 'standard' conditions deemed acceptable, but not adaptable. So when either is no longer acceptable in a changing environment, they are gone. This is NOT responsibility. Its a denial of any ability to respond. Its the only reason A.R has any influence worth mention. This is what predictability as the only valid goal does. It removes the ability to respond any other way than the Standard. It comes from recognizing nothing out side of a standard. You lose responsibility. If you lose the ability to respond you lose the ability to adapt. The 'Standard' of available response can only shrink. Hey thats a neat idea. Anyone think of any more ideas to add? I am telling my friends what we have been talking about here and they are very interested, had never thought of it that way before. All you hear is the never ending, Help stamp out puppy farmers. not a whiff about, "Help keep our rights to have our dogs" AR must be beside themselves with glee at how blindly the Victoria Pollies are doing as they are told. the results will be a disaster not only for all dog and cat owners, but income lost to vets, the entire pet industry they haven't factored in at all, they think "rescues" will fill the void. the kill rates will ensure only a fraction they get will become "rescues".

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized. They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs. They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized. If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results. If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement. You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders? Actually ALL dog owners need to stand and be counted, I had mine as pets all my life, My Dads dog Blue guarded my cot when I was born and I never went anywhere alone, he was always beside me, it was not until I was nearly 30 I actually bred a litter. All dog owners should have the right to decide if they only want to have theirs as a pet or if they may one day decide to keep their dogs line going. Our politicians want to take that right away. There is not a dog born today that is not the legacy of those who loved and bred its parents and ancestors before it. AR want to break that chain from the past to the future.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. I dont know how it is to be done, but breeders and reproduction specalist vets really need to get together and brainstorm how to put together an effective package of information explaining the realities of breeding , genetics and optional breeding ages and management of the female canine. What the AR pushed for and the CC's agreed to was not best practice.

talking to a friend this afternoon, her opinion is nothing is going to happen until all rights are lost as happened to the greyhound owners and maybe then someone will take the state to the courts for restriction of trade n maybe then when its taken that far some thing might be achieved? mabye the members of the so far inert kcc's might need to start lobbying their esecutive ? I remember the massive money dogs nsw racked up some time ago to in a court case against a dust up with a elected member of the board access to the records on the excuse I heard anyway," she was wasting staff time"? think it was the board member who took it to court, but it does show the executive will take to the courts if pressed I believe dogs nsw does put the front that it now is representing all dog owners of the state as it accepts all dogs in some sections of its activities aside from the breed rings now

Those that are pushing this movement are not interested in the pedigree - they are only interested in dividing and conquering. What we should have spotted and what we all should be protesting about and sending out petitions for is for people who own an entire dog is to not have to surrender their base human rights. Hansard tells us that they have moved through and admitted what some of the rights are that they want to take off dog breeders. The right to privacy, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to free enjoyment of our property, the right to be able to purchase a product of our choice from an easily accessible source, the right to free trade, the right to not have our property taken from us without due process, etc. This isnt made up - its in hansard as part of the plan. THIS is the biggest issue that everyone who owns a dog that they want to breed, whether that be one or one hundred, whether they own a purebred or cross bred, registered or unregistered ,whether they want to source a puppy from a breeder or a pet shop are the real issues. They dont just want to limit numbers, take away exemptions make everyone have a licence They want to leave dog breeders with less rights than a pedophile. breeders should be able to have the same human rights as any other person who lives in this country because it is THIS they are trying to take way from them. Even if the number limitation does not fly and I don't believe it will, even if Vicdogs get their exemptions back and I dont believe they will, even if they change requirements for a DAB or change the codes it still leaves the fact that a person who is a dog breeder has their rights removed if these part of this bill are not removed. THIS is what the general pet owing public have no clue is happening. how on earth can we get it into the press and the TV screens of this nation? the AR nutters get free air time with their bodies smeared in fake blood and wrapped in plastic. we the pet owning MAJORITY have no public face or campaign going, never have

'Exemptions' are not not going to save anyone. They are temporary at best. Exemptions don't prevent people doing the wrong thing. If you promote a standardized environment as the only 'correct' method of breeding and raising dogs, any one taking advantage of exemption will not be doing the the right thing. Sooner or later it will be noticed. You have changed the expectation. Only being held to COMMON expectation reduces the incidence of failure. There is nothing common to our expectations ATM > Our expectation depend on what 'group' you are aligned with. Those aren't favorable to groups you aren't aligned with. So outsiders won't look for the benefits of a group that doesn't do anything for them personaly, they will hold that group responsible for its lowest common denominator. If you won't be part of what people share in common, you won't meet common expectations. The K.Cs are not aligned with 'dog breeders' and owners. They are aligned with Pedigrees. The Difference of K.Cs could be accepted as part of diversity in practice. But if they won't practice an acceptance of diversity themselves, they will be rejected or destroy their own purpose. This process gains momentum and theres not much time left. Expectations are almost destroyed. Police, Guide dogs for the visually disabled, Customs breeding centre? Meeting at Bulla tomorrow night will be interesting. If you legislate things be done a certain way to be correct, then yes. Its an environmental 'Standard'. If everyone must do things this way, then they will come to expect that is the only way they should be done. You have created a common expectation. EVERY ONE will be held to that expectation, eventualy. Its accepted as a condition of keeping dogs. what gets me is the assumption only the breeders of registered pedigree dogs should be allowed, there are still recognised breeds and I suspect some in progress of evolution whose owners should have the right to continue. the Jack Russel was not an ankc breed until relatively recently despite it being known for many many decades, as for the Coolie (around Tarana n Bathurst most are called German Coolies) they have been an aussie breed for beyond my lifetime just because they do not have a studbook or an ankc listing does not make them any less to their rights to exist and continue. People should still have the right to keep and breed whatever type of dog they wish, it has been so for thousands of years, why let the AR nutters and the new kid on the block, the ankc which only came into being how long ago? and still accepting "new" breeds that have been known for generations. The show scene didnt create any of the breeds, people around the world created them. like it or lump it the show scene has morphed many beyond recognition to those bred them as early as the 50's and 60's. Not just the dog breeds, my uncle had Persian Cats, there were cat shows in the 50's and hang on to your hat you who were not alive then. They had faces, they had a muzzle, their eyes were half the size of the gargoyles that grace a cat show today. They could actually breathe without drooling and snoring, their eyes didn't look like they might fall out of their face. they didnt have tear streaks running down their faces and they didn't have wrinkled folds for the tears to stagnate in and get sticky and yuky as we see too often now, the standard actually used the words "plesant expression" that was deleted in the 90's when the gargoyles make that obsolete, I know because my friend fought valiantly to prevent its removal but failed. Those like my friend who wish to still breed their pets with functional tear ducts, nostrils and muzzles long enough the owner can keep its tongue in its mouth should have the RIGHT to do so. who knows, some day the registered pedigree world might finally decide they need a gene pool to reintroduce the faces, eyes, tearducts and functions muzzles back onto the squished's. you never know? people should have the right to still keep and breed what they want, dogs and cats with faces if they want and not have to belong to a club or registry . not everyone wants a flat faced version of the show scene today. the livestock industry, (probably next on the elimination hit list) yes has stud books for a plethora of breeds, but livestock owners also like to create their own or cross with various breeds to suit their purpose and their properties. All dogs lovers need to start communicating, not just the PUREBREED REGISTERED people. ALL who have their dogs be it registered or unregistered should have their right to decide what they want to have. Although I just remembered this is a forum for pedigree breeders only isnt it. the Australian Stumpy Tailed cattledog, was in the end bred into a dead end in the ANKC because only one breeder was left. If it were not for the huge gene pool of unregistered but equally loved stumpy's out there, the drive to find and appendix register dogs from that gene pool the breed would have been lost to source unrelated genetics. the assumption that unregistered, un papered pedigreed (many breeders out west of the divide still have their records, I know the breeders of the Coolies ive seen can rattle off their ancestors names just as fast as any ankc registered dog ) automatically means mongrel needs to be amended before its too late. even the chap who created the first labradoodle believed in what he was doing at the time. time will tell if the incredible mix of oodles going into the recipe will one day discover an emerging type some day. all the talk of anti discrimination laws being applied to people really needs to be applied to dogs and their owners too or am I drawing too long a bow ?

spotted this as my hubby is a primary producer we have a $10 million liability policy, u never know when stock will get out onto public roads or someones child will play chicken with a harvester or chaff cutter, . they are not cheap " To give people an idea of what might be required to obtain a DAB Domestic Animal Business permit to breed just one litter; this is the link to the application for the City of Ballarat. It requires an insurance policy with a $10 million liability clause. http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/2316972/domestic_animal_business_application_form.pdf "

We are presenting our submission to all MPs but none of our members own more than 10 dogs, none of our members can or do sell puppies to pet shops, and every one of our Victorian Members is a Vicdogs member. Its Vicdogs who have the exemptions and stand to loose for their members. The MDBA doesnt have them and didnt want them because we could see the poo starting to hit the fan. In the main its not our fight. We are very concerned about the loss of a person's human rights across the board as described in Hansard and Im personally amazed that there isn't a bigger outcry over it. People have been trained animal rights precede human rights since the 70's. a murderer is innocent until proven guilty as is a pedophile , as is a domestic violence case and any other that does not involve an animal. admit you have been investigated by a complaint to council or an animal welfare officer and the landslide response "is where there is smoke there's fire." No one who does not wish to be guilty until proven innocent would dare speak up. That shows a very successful AR campaign surely? For example this press release "http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-15/rspca-calls-for-tasmanian-abattoir-to-close-over-cruelty-claims/7935546?WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic" yet its ok for a special constable to have cattle chased through a 12 to 14 foot wide gate and shoot at them as they run through, then chase down the ones, the first shot didn't kill, and call it Euthanasia? with no charges laid even though this man shot over 70 by this method? There are photos of this being done on a utube video so its in the public domain. I well remember when I first heard about the need to eliminate puppy farmers and backyarders in the 70's, when I asked how do you intend to define one, the reply was as airy fairy as todays ones. this writer sums up the problems pretty well too. http://leemakennels.com/blog/dogs-and-politics/why-i-dont-want-oscars-law/ I expect the legislators never get the chance to read either the above or the below articles. http://leemakennels.com/blog/dog-breeding/clean-and-kennelled-the-future-of-dog-breeding/ The days are not too far distance when those who own an animal of any kind may be finding themselves lobbying for anti-discrimination laws for animal owners, think I'm joking, think again.

I prefer to spend my money on genetic testing for genes like pra and such since there is no breed test for humans, we all come back homo sapiens,only locality parameters for populations, I really find it a stretch of the imagination there is a valid one for dog breeds http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/dna-fact-or-science-fiction