asal

Aren't we lucky, non volunteered, but drafted anyway, guinea pigs for the worlds first grand experiment. Yet she made no mention of it at the inquiry? WONDER WHY?

as long as you provide a dry shelter where they can sleep and rest, and where they are protected from strong winds you can leave them outside the whole year. Our guinea pigs (boy group and a girl group, each group in a separate compound) have been born outside and lived all their live outside (they are all over 6 years old now). had a friend who rabbit fenced his yard and his herd and I do mean herd, some 30 to 40 cavies/guinea pigs had the run of almost 1/4 acre, kept his lawns perfect. They had boxes under the house to sleep in but they were never locked up. The local hawks took the occasional unwary but they were hard to catch napping. He didn't lose many.

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine I hope that isn't the case but if it did as you said would be good for the Greys maybe they're not everyone's cup of tea. have you read the transcripts on the other thread? some realise people will not be able to source what they want in the near future, even the AVA letter stated that many people will chose to go without rather than accept a breed they do not want, ditto for those who do not want a rescue. Personally I like greys, ultimate lounge lizard and so regal to boot

wow, getting my head around the idea dogs can end up costing $5,000 $15,000 because there are too few to go around? at those prices anyone with a puppy for sale will be pillared for having bred it to make money, even more of a no win situation

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine

spotted on FB interesting "Regarding the current negotiations goingon in Victoria. and the attempt to rein in the effort to extend destructive 'government' controls over all animal owners, have you thought to consider WHO will be given the mandate to 'enforce' the new rules - however benignly they may be in the way they are written up. My suggestion - make sure. first, before you agree to ANYTHING, that the RSPCA will not be permitted to get their nose in the financial trough they are building. See the DEFRA report recommendations now going to the House of Commons in the UK regarding the RSPCA's role in 'enforcing' animal welfare provisions. (It might be helpful to to get OL totally out of the scene first also). In negotiating with these folk standing by, waiting to pounce on you, you are building your own end, no matter what terms are agreed upon. First things first!!! "

how cute is that, looks like a big bambi type chihuahua https://www.google.com.au/search?q=bambi+type+chihuahua&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVw62ZsKnQAhWBHZQKHRV-CTwQsAQIHg&biw=1920&bih=971#imgdii=TGudzSUQ4WgU3M%3A%3BTGudzSUQ4WgU3M%3A%3BbFATbYm9Blvx2M%3A&imgrc=TGudzSUQ4WgU3M%3A check out this link. my favorites are 1, 5, 14, 20 and 21, although 37 might be a ring in as a litter mate for yours. a few ring ins though 15 is too domey to classify as bambi type, as for 23 hilarous somehow I dont think a wolfhound look qualifies, 24 head too domed, 25 hilarious just to mention a few

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies? Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread? And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/ Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules. I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't. And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses. You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it. Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way. Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt. Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done. excellent reply Steve. as for that comment Maddy That is your opinion,(and that does not necessarily make you right, nice as it might be to think you and you alone can see the glorious truth of your version of the truth) but denigrating me to the degree nothing I say is valid, does not change the fact you want to blanket punish all for the sins of a few. As Steve said by what right were you given to judge them as complicit of crimes this majority were probably unaware of? Are you campaigning just as hard for the churches being disbanded because so many priests and ministers were complicit in the actions of the pedephiles in their ranks? Same scenario no matter how you want to paint it. But then children don't deserve you interest or protection, they might grow up to abuse animals? Yet research points that those who don't kill themselves (stats reveal 70% do not live to see 30) turn to their pets for comfort. They certainly dont get that from the church I increasingly get the impression the Animal Rights people for whatever reasons in their past hate their own species, so to destroy a majority to punish a minority where animals rights are concerned doesn't concern them at all because they have no sympathy or concern for the mental health of others of their species unless they are as like minded as yourself

finally a voice of sanity, BUT has it a snowballs chance in hell of making a difference is the question.

Do you mean easy/easier care? You appear to be arguing that some degree of neglect is OK in this breed. When I had a series of surgeries, my tibbies soon develop significant matted lumps in their leg area & under their ears. Other family members hadn't realised the need for regular coat care. My Swedish-born tibbie with a far denser coat is particularly vulnerable. But, on that occasion, even my less dense Australian-bred tibbie, had nasty, uncomfortable thick lumps... which were the devil to get off. And horrible for her. If someone owns tibetan spaniels, no matter who & how many, if they can't or won't do regular grooming, then they should either keep them entirely clipped... or not own the breed at all. Wtf no ! I don't like to see any level of 'neglect' of any dogs coat care. I guess I was coming at it from the angle of being a dog groomer for over 30 yrs and dealing with all sorts of breeds, coats, and levels of care and neglect of all manner of pets. I suppos I was saying that IF neglected, the coat of a Maltese or a poodle etc would become more matted, more unhygienic more quickly, and harder to fix than a Tibbie or that type of coat. I'm not defending neglect! Eta I can see how these bloody rspca cases get legs when I get bashed up for simply talking about a coat type and breed. ffs I'm not defending neglect. dont hurt yourself gruff please. what we need is new laws, anyone that finds their dog has matted for whatever reason needs to turn themselves in, and accept the full force of the law. if the law states the coat must be groomed no less and once a week, if they for any reason cannot groom it themselves they have 48 hours to book it into a groomer or turn themselves in. problem solved. I do mean that tongue in cheek but I suppose it will be taken seriously by AR though. I had the most wonderous poodle, only needed grooming once a month unless she got wet and rolled in the mud that is. glorious harsh coat. you dont see it that often do u gruff

Do you mean easy/easier care? You appear to be arguing that some degree of neglect is OK in this breed. When I had a series of surgeries, my tibbies soon develop significant matted lumps in their leg area & under their ears. Other family members hadn't realised the need for regular coat care. My Swedish-born tibbie with a far denser coat is particularly vulnerable. But, on that occasion, even my less dense Australian-bred tibbie, had nasty, uncomfortable thick lumps... which were the devil to get off. And horrible for her. If someone owns tibetan spaniels, no matter who & how many, if they can't or won't do regular grooming, then they should either keep them entirely clipped... or not own the breed at all. of if they are spotted before you do, and have time to remove them, they should be seized and you publicly shamed prior to the pending trial?????????? if significant lumps that cause discomfort, pain and/or affect movement are found....it would mean I hadn't spotted them because I was not doing the regular monitoring & coat care required. I'd then have no one else to blame if the RSPCA took them into care. The aim would be to immediately treat the dogs. Extent of culpability would depend on particular circumstances....like if an owner were lying ill in hospital. I repeat, I do not have access to photos & evidence that the RSPCA collected in the particular case. That is what counts when a court deliberates this case. You are hell bent on defending the owner at any cost which you're free to do. However, I can neither accuse nor defend her because I don't have access to the evidence (another broken record). Shall leave you to it. what i defend and dislike is anyone can be so shamed publicly if the rspca is involved, no no such thing happens if its a police matter. we do not know, how badly such stress will effect that person, I still remember the lady politician in SA who someone decided to say was gay, she was so distressed she killed herself. it later transpired the accuser had no idea whether the accusation was true or not, done under the argument of all's fair in an election

Do you mean easy/easier care? You appear to be arguing that some degree of neglect is OK in this breed. When I had a series of surgeries, my tibbies soon develop significant matted lumps in their leg area & under their ears. Other family members hadn't realised the need for regular coat care. My Swedish-born tibbie with a far denser coat is particularly vulnerable. But, on that occasion, even my less dense Australian-bred tibbie, had nasty, uncomfortable thick lumps... which were the devil to get off. And horrible for her. If someone owns tibetan spaniels, no matter who & how many, if they can't or won't do regular grooming, then they should either keep them entirely clipped... or not own the breed at all. of if they are spotted before you do, and have time to remove them, they should be seized and you publicly shamed prior to the pending trial?????????? What I intensely dislike is this assumption of guilty, public pillaring and shaming before even being charged. Tried sentenced and hung in the public domain first, As I recall someone recently elected to parliament was in the past, jailed for naming and shaming until the magic day he could do it under parliamentary privilege. But then as now Pedephiles are innocent UNTIL proven guilty and still have rights, mistreating a child is so much less serious than a dog, oddly its apparently 70% of the children that kill themselves? The remaining 30% write some heartbreaking impact statments, well, if they speak up that is. Perhaps I may feel better and justice being served if there were the same level of outrage and demands for law change, eg the likes of Cardinal Pell charged with perverting the course of justice. Im listening, cant hear a peep?

https://www.google.c...iw=1920&bih=971 so? Tibetan's don't have short hair on their ears like the breed photos? and that maltese looking thing is actually a Tibetan Spaniel is it? asal it appears that you have misunderstood. mita was not questioning your statement that the dog pictured was neither a Tibetan Spaniel or a Chihuahua. She was quite clearly pointing out that Tibbies could indeed become matted if not cared for, despite the quote about easy care coat that you posted. I think it is important that fallacies or misleading information about our favorite breeds is corrected, don't you? Edited to say I've stuffed up the quotes, sorry but I think most people will sort it out.... no saints forbid, we couldn't have fallacies or misleading information published about our favorite breeds without correction. as for the owner so pilloried? if your stupid enough to attract notice and become publicity fodder tough luck eh? guilty unless by some miracle can prove themselves innocent but no one will get to know that via the same landslide of press though. back pages if at all. Not even the 2 million judgement against them managed front page in the paper I spotted it in. Say's it all about the chances of dog owners ever coming together to defend themselves let alone each other, no one needs to divide them.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tibetan+spaniel+photos&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT6YTd96TQAhUCVbwKHRi6C5MQsAQIGw&biw=1920&bih=971 so? Tibetan's don't have short hair on their ears like the breed photos? and that maltese looking thing is actually a Tibetan Spaniel is it? You appear to be asking two things. I've already answered the first on behalf of tibbies... that they have hair of sufficient length and density that lack of monitoring and care of coat leads to matting.... & cited the thick lumps that can form under the ears. You provide a list of googled photos that do not show one tibbie ear lifted to reveal the hair at the base. I own tibbies & am part of the tibbie owning community. As to your second question referring to a particular dog as a 'thing. I wasn't speaking to that. Only to your googled quote that confused easy-care, with non-care. that dog in the photo does not have matts under the ears, all the ear is matted, the dog is either one of hers or it is not. it is used to illustrate the deplorable condition of the dogs. As Steve said, if you were arrested for murder, domestic violence, pedophilia or any other crime your name would not be allowed to be made public , that doesn't happen until it gets to court. When its the rspca its a kangaroo court nation wide from day one, if it doesn't go to court there is no press statement to that, just deafening silence. The publicity machine grinds to a sudden and total halt

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tibetan+spaniel+photos&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT6YTd96TQAhUCVbwKHRi6C5MQsAQIGw&biw=1920&bih=971 so? Tibetan's don't have short hair on their ears like the breed photos? and that maltese looking thing is actually a Tibetan Spaniel is it? I dont know the woman either, but over the years have learned to be a little skeptical of the press releases accuracy. The owners of the murry greys they shot were similarly pillioried and they have been awarded some 2 million in damages I think the last press release said. http://www.standard.net.au/story/2475869/rspca-faces-huge-bill-over-framlingham-cattle-cull/ who is going to forget the case of the seized Tibetan Spaniels for the crime of having been shown after being debarked in NSW instead of Victoria under a new law brought in saw their owner facing 80 charges and I think 80 years in jail if awarded the maximum sentence. As I recall the sorry take began when she rehomed one of her champions and its new owner decided get it vet checked, the vet not only called the rspca, but as the dog did not like her, convinced the new owners who had I understand no problems with its temperament to put it down. Yet the standard for the breed states "Characteristics:Gay and assertive, highly intelligent, aloof with strangers." which was exactly what the vet was, a stranger, to have become an Australian champion it had to have passed a temperament test every time it was examined or banned from the ring . despite huge public outrage the rspca wrung their hands and pleaded their hands were tied, she had broken the law. strangely the magistrate dismissed the case, unfortunately not before she had been named and shamed on every public newspaper and tv channel in the country. So, no, I don't assume all that they tell you is true anymore

as pointed out above that kennel bred Chihuahua's and Tibetan Spaniels, THAT is not either breed? so was a generic suitably horror photo used instead? neither chi's or Tibbie could manage a suitably matted coat as said in this link "Small but active and alert, the Tibetan Spaniel dog breed hails from mountainous Tibet, where he served as a companion and watchdog. He’s known for his intelligence, easy-care coat, and his desire to keep watch over his family from high perches in the house. Read more at http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/tibetan-spaniel#EXZ2FqVsK8VRWgAZ.99 " Bit of an oops there surely? Are the descriptions of the dogs as accurate as the photo? If that photo is all you have made your assumptions from

I have no idea if these petitions really have an impact but gee, look how many have signed. https://www.change.org/p/nsw-national-parks-wildlife-please-help-prevent-the-barbaric-slaughter-of-innocent-brumbies?recruiter=98890400&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-reason_msg I dont remember seeing any to save our dogs from being legislated out of existence by laws that take no notice they are being formulated as a social experiment with no basis in fact? think I posted it earlier but here it is again anyway. ""RSPCA Victoria CEO Dr Liz Walker today applauded the Victorian Government’s efforts to stamp out puppy and kitten factories, with the introduction of amendments to laws about the commercial breeding of dogs and cats. The amendments will impose a limit of ten female breeding dogs or cats in a Domestic Animal Business by 2020, and require pet stores to only sell registered pound and shelter dogs and cats. “It’s a bold initiative, and that’s what’s needed to bring about change in this industry,” said Dr Walker. “We have seen the squalid conditions in the mass production of dogs and cats time and again, and it has to stop. “This legislation provides the starting point for a great step forward in animal welfare. “By 2020, we hope that breeding facilities with hundreds of dogs and cats in putrid conditions will be a thing of the past. “These changes will also mean breeding dogs should be healthier and easier for breeders to rehome, because it’s easier to provide some basic socialisation and exposure to a normal life when smaller numbers of animals are involved,” she said. Dr Walker said RSPCA Victoria would welcome further investigation and research around the relationship between numbers of animals and welfare outcomes. “No jurisdiction in the world has had the courage to set a low limit on the number of animals kept by breeders, so research into the link between animal numbers and welfare outcomes is limited,” Dr Walker said. “Setting a limit will allow us to start benchmarking welfare outcomes in Victoria.” AND when it discovers its a fail will it be repealed? or stay as law just as I believe their equally stupid ban on showing a debarked dog, IF it was owned by a victorian and debarked in another state THAT IS. any other debarked dogs can be shown legally and their owner not prosecuted. if that is not insane what is?

as I recall, it was proven the greyhound breeder used as the example of drowning his puppies was in fact an american breeder, living in america and still in america and the footage was ten years old. yet included in the investigation of new south wales greyhound industry? Yet maddy is still quoting it but it made good press, certainly gave it the shock, disgust factor wanted and needed, which I think was the purpose and certainly accomplished

Didn't it cost the owners of the murry grey stud cattle shot, over half a million? They did win but I don't think the losers have coughed up the damages awarded yet

Finally, the figures of why puppy farms and breeders need to be stopped contributing to the influx of dogs into their kennels. 287 less dogs would have needed to be rehomed. "Last year, RSPCA Victoria rehomed 4200 dogs of all breeds, shapes and sizes from our 11 animal care centres across Victoria, and GRV needs to be realistic about the market for rehoming greyhounds in Victoria. Around 7.9% (287) of the dogs and cats surrendered last financial year came from breeders or those involved in the greyhound racing industry." Would it then stand to reason that 7.9% of the dogs euthanised would have also came from "breeders or those involved in the greyhound racing industry." Now I begin to understand why it is believed this 7.9% which can be eliminated or reduced as much as possible , since they are traceable needs to be done, don't you think? Quoted from link from this thread. http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/267866-rspca-victoria-seeking-information/ "RSPCA Victoria CEO Dr Liz Walker today applauded the Victorian Government’s efforts to stamp out puppy and kitten factories, with the introduction of amendments to laws about the commercial breeding of dogs and cats. The amendments will impose a limit of ten female breeding dogs or cats in a Domestic Animal Business by 2020, and require pet stores to only sell registered pound and shelter dogs and cats. “It’s a bold initiative, and that’s what’s needed to bring about change in this industry,” said Dr Walker. “We have seen the squalid conditions in the mass production of dogs and cats time and again, and it has to stop. “This legislation provides the starting point for a great step forward in animal welfare. “By 2020, we hope that breeding facilities with hundreds of dogs and cats in putrid conditions will be a thing of the past. “These changes will also mean breeding dogs should be healthier and easier for breeders to rehome, because it’s easier to provide some basic socialisation and exposure to a normal life when smaller numbers of animals are involved,” she said. Dr Walker said RSPCA Victoria would welcome further investigation and research around the relationship between numbers of animals and welfare outcomes. “No jurisdiction in the world has had the courage to set a low limit on the number of animals kept by breeders, so research into the link between animal numbers and welfare outcomes is limited,” Dr Walker said. “Setting a limit will allow us to start benchmarking welfare outcomes in Victoria.” RSPCA Victoria is keen to partner with Government and the companion animal industry – including breeders – to educate the community about how to find pets that have been bred in the best possible conditions. The Smart Puppy and Dog Buyers Guide provides useful information for people wanting to purchase a puppy. “Put simply, potential pet owners should visit the place where the puppy was born; meet the mother dog (and father too if he’s around) to make sure they’re happy and healthy; and check the breeder provides a high standard of care and living conditions for all of their dogs." What a nice happy feel good press release to be found below the first quote I copied if you get to it. What happened to breeders have to have been inspected and pass before they can breed? now every joe public can demand access? no mention of the dangers of letting anyone who could have been in contact with kennel cough, parvo or distemper having to be allowed to inspect your dogs and property to ascertain if they pass muster though. Even though the mother is vaccinated the puppies can still catch all or any prior to being old enough to vaccinate. A breeder should have the right to say no when puppies are very young, but hey how would anyone know that from reading the above?

the figures a pretty horrific arent they "In the past financial year, RSPCA Victoria investigated 1,345 reports of animal cruelty relating to beating, wounding and tormenting." We really need laws to ban anyone from owning a dog if they don't turn in these people immediately. They must know , to remain silent they too are complicent.

Try telling that to the fur people brigade, I still remember the woman who demanded of me, how can you do that to your fur child, would you sell your own daughters babies? This is the mentality of the AR trained.

Sorry I should have said I wasn't referring to the comments on social media, but to emails I have received regarding the strategies that were/had been used in the 'fight' to oppose the ban. Most of the time when I mentioned the changes in this thread regarding the 50%reduction of dogs being bred, the rules regarding the transparency regarding the fate of the dogs was being used as an example of the fact that the industry could change, but as WM says achieving this in only 12 mths is not fast enough for the general public. The reforms I mentioned that had been taken off the table were only proposed reforms not actual reforms, pity they weren't made to uphold them before Baird changed his mind. I do understand this and while I also have had similar experiences to those that you have mentioned I also have friends at this moment who have as many dogs in their kennels waiting to go into GAP as you mentioned that you have rescued in 10 yrs. Some of them have been there over 12 mths and the 4 they have kept pets, I have shared a couch with and they have done this for many years, it's these people who have a passion for their hobby but above all a love of dogs that I feel for and my friends aren't the only ones that I know of. The purebred breeders are feeling annoyed that the powers that be feel they need to pay for their hobby, this is how my friends feel plus the whole country believes just because they have a hobby that's been ruined, they are scumbags like the participants that everyone hears about and have judged them without knowing them. Ultimately, remaining silent is condoning the behaviour of those doing the wrong thing. If enough of the good trainers were willing to come forward, name names, be honest about what goes on, maybe the scum could be cleaned away and things could change. But they don't. In doing nothing, they've made a choice. Back when I was stuck running GAP down here (a short, horrible period that I'd rather forget), I was made to sign an agreement stating that I would never say anything to anyone that would bring the sport into disrepute. This included speaking to the media (besides statements approved by them), it also included not reporting things I'd seen to the RSPCA. A similar clause exists under GAR. A rule that basically prohibits anyone from speaking out if it might damage the image of the sport. A lot of the AR nuts like to grasp at some of the much less common issues while right there, in front of their noses, is the industry enforcing corruption and a culture of secrecy, in a way that can be proven without any effort at all. Go figure. But that assumes that the good trainers even know what they get up to and what they were doing and from what Im hearing thats just not true. Its hardly something that is advertised and chatted about to anyone who they dont trust. You place EVERYONE who wants to own and train greys in the same basket .They are either animal abusers or they are complicent in it without consideration for how many did really know enough to be able to report it. The second part of your post is about self management and self policing which is always open to corruption and bias and why Vicdogs would be better to advocate for reasonable conditions for everyone who wants to breed dogs rather than sit back and help stick it to everyone else and bathe in the glow that their exemptions won't be removed and they don't become just like the riff raff who choose not to be their members. It attracts dead beats who only join for the exemptions and sets them up for failure sooner rather than later and always makes them a shinier target and open to accusations of corruption,secrecy and bias for AR loonies. If you are going to expect enforcement you have to have a third party arms length party that can accept complaints and have nothing to gain by hushing things up and that includes the RSPCA. In my experience, many are like teenage girls in that they like to gossip. One person falls out with another, they have a good bitch to anyone who'll listen. There are cliques and certain people go in and out of fashion. In small states like Tasmania, everyone knows everyone elses' business. In places like NSW, I suppose it'd be more of a regional thing, not that it makes a great deal of difference. You're also assuming that those doing the wrong thing are actually going to some sort of effort to hide it and again, from my experience, that's not really true. I've had trainers admit to me that baiting happened on their property (not by them, of course, but a mysterious "someone"). I know of trainers who go through huge numbers of dogs and it's no secret. Then there are the things that happen that aren't against any rule but the public would likely not be comfortable with- dogs being destroyed at the track because of relatively minor injuries (in terms of their health) that are likely to mean they'll never race successfully again. People breeding several litters out of one bitch in the hopes of getting that elusive big winner, etc, etc. Maybe a few very sheltered trainers could claim ignorance of what goes on but they'd be a tiny minority. What remains and those who do the wrong thing and those who watch the wrong thing happen. This is not saying they are the same- but those who stand by and do nothing cannot complain when the sport does eventually get taken away from them. Regarding the second part of my post, you could not be more incorrect. In no way was I suggesting self management because that is what is already in place and already very obviously failing. What I was saying was that participants need to take some responsibility, instead of claiming that because it was not them, they shouldn't have to worry about it. This is like witnessing a murder and instead of calling the police, shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Well, I didn't murder anyone so it's not my business and not my problem." It seems obvious to me that if the industry is under threat because of a systemic issue, then all parties concerned should be looking at how to solve the problem. Instead, they're just trying to sweep it back under the rug. I knew you were not suggesting self management and I knew you were saying exactly the opposite and I was agreeing with you. I'm sorry but I refuse to accept that every person who was not doing the wrong thing is responsible for what was going on with others.I will not accept that everyone in a group should be judged by the actions of a few. If its more than a feww then where are they and why havent they been charged in huge numbers? I also refuse to accept that this new thing we seem to be calling the community and changing public opinion is about what the vast majority of people think and feel and not a noisy minority who have made it difficult for anyone who doesn't agree to say so in fear of not being politically correct and they will be beaten up and judged to be a bad person because they happen to have a different opinion. its like the emperors new clothes. admire them or be seen to be a fool. even though you know he is naked. or in the case of punish the innocent because they didnt dob in the guilty . who cares they didn't know who were guilty. same scene, just different angle

Sorry I should have said I wasn't referring to the comments on social media, but to emails I have received regarding the strategies that were/had been used in the 'fight' to oppose the ban. Most of the time when I mentioned the changes in this thread regarding the 50%reduction of dogs being bred, the rules regarding the transparency regarding the fate of the dogs was being used as an example of the fact that the industry could change, but as WM says achieving this in only 12 mths is not fast enough for the general public. The reforms I mentioned that had been taken off the table were only proposed reforms not actual reforms, pity they weren't made to uphold them before Baird changed his mind. I do understand this and while I also have had similar experiences to those that you have mentioned I also have friends at this moment who have as many dogs in their kennels waiting to go into GAP as you mentioned that you have rescued in 10 yrs. Some of them have been there over 12 mths and the 4 they have kept pets, I have shared a couch with and they have done this for many years, it's these people who have a passion for their hobby but above all a love of dogs that I feel for and my friends aren't the only ones that I know of. The purebred breeders are feeling annoyed that the powers that be feel they need to pay for their hobby, this is how my friends feel plus the whole country believes just because they have a hobby that's been ruined, they are scumbags like the participants that everyone hears about and have judged them without knowing them. Ultimately, remaining silent is condoning the behaviour of those doing the wrong thing. If enough of the good trainers were willing to come forward, name names, be honest about what goes on, maybe the scum could be cleaned away and things could change. But they don't. In doing nothing, they've made a choice. Back when I was stuck running GAP down here (a short, horrible period that I'd rather forget), I was made to sign an agreement stating that I would never say anything to anyone that would bring the sport into disrepute. This included speaking to the media (besides statements approved by them), it also included not reporting things I'd seen to the RSPCA. A similar clause exists under GAR. A rule that basically prohibits anyone from speaking out if it might damage the image of the sport. A lot of the AR nuts like to grasp at some of the much less common issues while right there, in front of their noses, is the industry enforcing corruption and a culture of secrecy, in a way that can be proven without any effort at all. Go figure. But that assumes that the good trainers even know what they get up to and what they were doing and from what Im hearing thats just not true. Its hardly something that is advertised and chatted about to anyone who they dont trust. You place EVERYONE who wants to own and train greys in the same basket .They are either animal abusers or they are complicent in it without consideration for how many did really know enough to be able to report it. The second part of your post is about self management and self policing which is always open to corruption and bias and why Vicdogs would be better to advocate for reasonable conditions for everyone who wants to breed dogs rather than sit back and help stick it to everyone else and bathe in the glow that their exemptions won't be removed and they don't become just like the riff raff who choose not to be their members. It attracts dead beats who only join for the exemptions and sets them up for failure sooner rather than later and always makes them a shinier target and open to accusations of corruption,secrecy and bias for AR loonies. If you are going to expect enforcement you have to have a third party arms length party that can accept complaints and have nothing to gain by hushing things up and that includes the RSPCA. Think that now if you are to be a "good" anyone you need to spy on all and report or you too will be tried and convicted, if you fail to find out first and report then the same penalty applies, no such thing as innocent of anything with this new age dawning. It does remind me of the stories of why my grandfathers ancestors who fled Spain during the inquisition, if you failed to report anyone and regularly, then you yourself risked arrest and torture because to have remained silent when the nation needed to be purged meant you were trying to hide you were a heretic. good old history, always seem to repeat itself although the guises seem different the workings seem to repeat for some weird reason? Heretic, puppy farmer, hasnt the same ring to it, at least they dont get the rack now just public humiliation and disgust, who cares if a percentage are innocent?

Sorry I should have said I wasn't referring to the comments on social media, but to emails I have received regarding the strategies that were/had been used in the 'fight' to oppose the ban. Most of the time when I mentioned the changes in this thread regarding the 50%reduction of dogs being bred, the rules regarding the transparency regarding the fate of the dogs was being used as an example of the fact that the industry could change, but as WM says achieving this in only 12 mths is not fast enough for the general public. The reforms I mentioned that had been taken off the table were only proposed reforms not actual reforms, pity they weren't made to uphold them before Baird changed his mind. I do understand this and while I also have had similar experiences to those that you have mentioned I also have friends at this moment who have as many dogs in their kennels waiting to go into GAP as you mentioned that you have rescued in 10 yrs. Some of them have been there over 12 mths and the 4 they have kept pets, I have shared a couch with and they have done this for many years, it's these people who have a passion for their hobby but above all a love of dogs that I feel for and my friends aren't the only ones that I know of. The purebred breeders are feeling annoyed that the powers that be feel they need to pay for their hobby, this is how my friends feel plus the whole country believes just because they have a hobby that's been ruined, they are scumbags like the participants that everyone hears about and have judged them without knowing them. Ultimately, remaining silent is condoning the behaviour of those doing the wrong thing. If enough of the good trainers were willing to come forward, name names, be honest about what goes on, maybe the scum could be cleaned away and things could change. But they don't. In doing nothing, they've made a choice. Back when I was stuck running GAP down here (a short, horrible period that I'd rather forget), I was made to sign an agreement stating that I would never say anything to anyone that would bring the sport into disrepute. This included speaking to the media (besides statements approved by them), it also included not reporting things I'd seen to the RSPCA. A similar clause exists under GAR. A rule that basically prohibits anyone from speaking out if it might damage the image of the sport. A lot of the AR nuts like to grasp at some of the much less common issues while right there, in front of their noses, is the industry enforcing corruption and a culture of secrecy, in a way that can be proven without any effort at all. Go figure. But that assumes that the good trainers even know what they get up to and what they were doing and from what Im hearing thats just not true. Its hardly something that is advertised and chatted about to anyone who they dont trust. You place EVERYONE who wants to own and train greys in the same basket .They are either animal abusers or they are complicent in it without consideration for how many did really know enough to be able to report it. The second part of your post is about self management and self policing which is always open to corruption and bias and why Vicdogs would be better to advocate for reasonable conditions for everyone who wants to breed dogs rather than sit back and help stick it to everyone else and bathe in the glow that their exemptions won't be removed and they don't become just like the riff raff who choose not to be their members. It attracts dead beats who only join for the exemptions and sets them up for failure sooner rather than later and always makes them a shinier target and open to accusations of corruption,secrecy and bias for AR loonies. If you are going to expect enforcement you have to have a third party arms length party that can accept complaints and have nothing to gain by hushing things up and that includes the RSPCA. In my experience, many are like teenage girls in that they like to gossip. One person falls out with another, they have a good bitch to anyone who'll listen. There are cliques and certain people go in and out of fashion. In small states like Tasmania, everyone knows everyone elses' business. In places like NSW, I suppose it'd be more of a regional thing, not that it makes a great deal of difference. You're also assuming that those doing the wrong thing are actually going to some sort of effort to hide it and again, from my experience, that's not really true. I've had trainers admit to me that baiting happened on their property (not by them, of course, but a mysterious "someone"). I know of trainers who go through huge numbers of dogs and it's no secret. Then there are the things that happen that aren't against any rule but the public would likely not be comfortable with- dogs being destroyed at the track because of relatively minor injuries (in terms of their health) that are likely to mean they'll never race successfully again. People breeding several litters out of one bitch in the hopes of getting that elusive big winner, etc, etc. Maybe a few very sheltered trainers could claim ignorance of what goes on but they'd be a tiny minority. What remains and those who do the wrong thing and those who watch the wrong thing happen. This is not saying they are the same- but those who stand by and do nothing cannot complain when the sport does eventually get taken away from them. Regarding the second part of my post, you could not be more incorrect. In no way was I suggesting self management because that is what is already in place and already very obviously failing. What I was saying was that participants need to take some responsibility, instead of claiming that because it was not them, they shouldn't have to worry about it. This is like witnessing a murder and instead of calling the police, shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Well, I didn't murder anyone so it's not my business and not my problem." It seems obvious to me that if the industry is under threat because of a systemic issue, then all parties concerned should be looking at how to solve the problem. Instead, they're just trying to sweep it back under the rug. Steve the "experience" of this person far exceeds anyone on this forum, think its a waste of time having someone like this focusing on just dog owners. This the the kind of lawmakers we need, then once all have been jailed and taken care of there will never be any more cases involving pedophiles, rapists, robbers, domestic violence or any other form of innocents abuse. everyone will be jailed because if you didn't stop it your just as guilty even if you didn't even know what was happening next door or out of your sight or hearing let alone what happened. This is the future