Search the Community

My link Proposals to limit the number of animals allowed to be kept by breeders. The Master Dog Breeders and Associates is very much against a proposal to limit the number of animals kept by breeders. Our main objections to this approach are: Health and Welfare considerations. 1. Limiting numbers will not stop some people who breed dogs treating them badly. The MDBA is appalled that there are some dog breeders who keep their dogs in substandard conditions but in all activities or industries there are some who break the rules and cause suffering. In dog breeding these are a vast minority. No amount of number restriction will prevent a person who is capable of such things from operating. A person is just as capable of mistreating 10 dogs as they are any number. Every dog should be treated well regardless of how many the breeder keeps. 2. Limiting numbers does not take into account the variables in breeder circumstances which affect the welfare of their dogs. There is considerable variance in a breeder’s capability to manage and own breeding dogs efficiently and effectively. The breeder who devotes their entire focus on their breeding dogs, who does not work in another occupation, who is fit and healthy, has family members who can help out or who employs kennel hands cannot be compared to someone who goes out to work in another employment field and who can only devote a short period each day to the care of their dogs, or someone who has no assistance, or someone who is not in good health. 3. Number limits do not take into account the vast differences in breed requirements and management issues. Some breeds require little or no grooming whilst others require much more time, care, energy and resources. Large dogs require much more resources and time to manage than small toy breeds especially in the areas of exercise and cleaning management. 4. Number limits do not take into account the benefits for the dogs, the breed and the community of having more, rather than less dogs, to choose from in a breeding program. Reputable breeders typically test their dogs in either all or some of the following: the show ring, obedience trials, agility, scenting, and breed appropriate tests and trials. They perform health tests and screens to ensure their bloodline and resultant puppies are healthy. This results in breeders often having intact males and females that are not being bred and may never be bred. Many fertile dogs they have in their care at any given time may be removed from the breeding program if they fail health or temperament criteria. Many diseases cannot be tested for until the animal is older, for example joint X rays and heart screening. Some recommendations in some breeds are that an animal not be bred until it is over 5 years of age to be able to eliminate the possibility of breeding a dog which will develop such diseases - for example Mitral Heart Disease. Limiting the numbers a breeder can keep effectively limits their choices for selecting only the healthiest and best dogs to include in their breeding programs and impacts on health and quality of puppies bred and negatively impact the gene pool of a breed. In order to breed for improvement, a breeder must have more than a couple females to breed and should be breeding with the intention of keeping pups for themselves, for their breeding program. As a result a breeder will have more females, in order to be breeding scientifically and or, towards goals. Some breeders are also working on different lines, for assistance dogs, police, armed forces, search and rescue, scenting etc. or colours that do not carry health issues. This means that some breeders need to own more dogs than someone working on just one line, a different goal or colour. Responsible breeders are breeding to better the breed and their lines, by keeping puppies out of their breeding to select the best they can to constantly improve on the next generation. 5. Limitations in numbers will not reduce the numbers of animals entering and dying in shelters. Proponents claim number restrictions are necessary to stem the tide of animals entering and dying in shelters. However, in our experience, puppies produced by responsible breeders rarely enter shelters and when they do, they are generally reclaimed by the owners or by the breeders themselves. We assert that there is not an oversupply of puppies. If the demand for puppies was not there then the sale price of puppies would drop, reputable breeders would not have waiting lists for puppy sales two years in advance and breeders who breed in volume solely for profit would stop breeding them. There’s no question that too many animals die in shelters and pounds each year. However, there is no connection between the breeding of a healthy litter of well temperamented, healthy puppies and the death of a stray dog in a shelter. Responsible dog breeders sell their puppies to new homes, take back puppies that buyers cannot keep, are available to answer questions and help new owners train their puppies, and protect the health and well-being of their breeds. They are part of the solution to community dog troubles and should not be treated as if they are the problem. If puppy buyers have fewer options for finding well-bred healthy puppies of a breed of their choice in NSW they will purchase puppies from: interstate; internationally; off the internet and from breeders who keep their animals in sub-standard conditions. Puppy buyers who purchase from less reputable sources will have less education and training from breeders and this will contribute to increasing the number of dogs in shelters when puppy buyers reach the limit of their experiences with dogs 6. Limiting numbers will increase the numbers of breeding dogs having to be removed from a person’s care. A limit law on breeders would penalize a responsible breeder with more than 10 dogs who is not a nuisance or threat to neighbours, who keeps their dogs in perfect health and conditions, who places puppies responsibly and is a support system for their puppy buyers, facing the loss of one or more of their companions. Most people who breed dogs see their animals as part of their family and the emotional cost to the breeder and the risk of homelessness for the dogs should not be underestimated. 7. Limiting numbers will not prevent animal hoarding Hoarding cases involve the psychological well-being of the animal owner as well as the animals themselves, but more and more they are being used as an excuse to impose a limit on the number of dogs a breeder can keep. Due the complexity of this problem we simply say that this should not be linked in an attempt to further regulate dog breeders. 8. Smaller scale breeding operations are no guarantee of improved welfare conditions In testimony to the Select Committee in SA the AWL stated that many of the animals that end up in their shelter come from unscrupulous breeders - people who “set up a couple of dogs or cats in their backyard and breed for money, without any proper consideration for animal welfare.” Across the board our rescue members agree with these comments. 9. Limiting the numbers a breeder can care for will not prevent breeders from keeping more than they are legally able to. A number limit is difficult, almost impossible to enforce without increased presence of animal control or policing agencies and will lead to a decrease in micro chipping and council registration, vetting etc. to prevent cross-referencing. Many breeders will keep and say some of the animals are ordinarily in guardian homes and bring the dog in to have her puppies, dogs are able to visit, be looked after for a friend for short periods, come and go for outings, exercise, stud services etc. At any given time numbers can fluctuate and enforcing over limit numbers is a very difficult task. Some dogs will be hidden; some litter sizes will magically increase as the breeder combines two litters to make it seem there is only one bitch etc. . Any dogs over the number which would now see a vet over the number allowed may not see a vet etc. for fear of being exposed to having over the maximum number. Breeders who have welcomed puppy buyers to their property will be more reluctant to do so if they fear being caught for more than the 10 dogs they are able to have. Commercial Considerations. 1. Inequitable production and trading circumstances. Commercially there is a major difference regarding potential profits between someone [for example] who owns 10 Great Danes and 10 Chihuahuas. The Great Dane Breeder can legally potentially produce up to 120 puppies per year, with current average price per puppy, this enables this breeder to legally turnover approx. $300,000 per year in puppy sales whilst the Chihuahua breeder can legally potentially produce 30 puppies per year, with current average price per puppy this breeder can only legally turn over approx. $40,000 per year. There are three serious problems with this • Limiting numbers will give a commercial advantage to some breeders based solely on breed type or litter sizes a breed can produce. • The toy breed breeder who can produce fewer puppies has less choice of puppies to include in their breeding program. Number limits do not take into account these types of breed specific variables. • Limiting numbers will see breeding decisions made on breeding dogs for litter sizes and market value rather than dogs most suited to families in order to be able make a viable profit on less breeding dogs. 2. A limit law would change current development application approvals with breeders entitled to seek compensation. Those breeders who have development application approvals to breed dogs [more than ten] on their property; who have increased the re-sale value of their property by making improvements to keep more than ten dogs in high welfare conditions; who legitimately earn a living from the sale of their puppies as a small business would be restricted and prevented from using their properties as they have done will be disadvantaged. This will cause a loss of earnings and the devaluation of the breeder’s property. There will be claims against the state for compensation for the breeders who have spent considerable sums of money on preparing their properties for a legal activity and who now are restricted in their ability to trade. It is worthwhile noting that these claims for compensation would include any potential decrease of property value due to having complying infrastructure that can no longer be used for the purpose it was built and, post number limits, is less valuable and for loss of future earnings from their business. 3. Limiting numbers will impact negatively on regional and state revenue. If breeders in Victoria are restricted in the number of dogs they can have this will reduce the supply and not the demand for puppies which will have negative consequences on the State. People will purchase puppies bred outside of Victoria decreasing the sales of Victorian bred puppies which will have consequences for the Victorian economy, for instance: a reduction in the sales of dog food for breeding dogs (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State); a reduction in the services required from veterinarians (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State); a reduction in the purchase of accessories, i.e. whelping supplies and puppy supplies (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State). This negative impact on the Victorian economy will especially hit rural areas. If this proposed Legislation is implemented by the Victorian Government they will effectively be giving breeders from other states and other countries an advantage over Victorian breeders’ trade. Federal Legislation Considerations 1. Number restrictions impinge on the rights of people to pursue their legal interests and to have free enjoyment of their property and this may breach Australian laws where people have a right to trade in lawful activities. 2. As Australian consumers under federal law consumers [puppy buyers] have a right to be able to have unrestricted access to the product of their choice and by limiting numbers Victorian breeders can keep, this increases the demand for puppies bred ,increasing prices without the buyer having the same options. 3. Leaving puppy buyers with fewer options for finding locally well-bred healthy pet puppies of their choice which have been bred in Victoria will see them purchase puppies from interstate, internationally, off the net and from those who keep their animals in sub-standard conditions Most who want a puppy of a particular age and breed or cross breed will not purchase rescue dogs regardless of how much easier or cheaper it is to access them. This gives massive advantage to Victorian breeder’s competitors and restrict the ability for to grow their businesses and have equal trade opportunities as breeders who live in other places. Enforcement of Laws 1. Difficulties of enforcement. A number limit will be difficult, almost impossible, to enforce without increasing presence of animal control or policing agencies to enforce those laws. It will encourage more people to break the law potentially by not micro chipping their dogs and not registering them with their local council. They may do this to prevent the cross-referencing of their dogs across agencies. At any given time the numbers of dogs on a breeding property can legitimately fluctuate for the following reasons: some breeders may have their dogs in guardian home off the property but will bring the dog onto the property to have her puppies so they can ensure the health of the puppies and their mother; dogs come to a breeding property with visitors; some breeders look after puppies they have sold when the puppy owners go on holidays; some look after their friends dogs when illness occurs; other dogs come and go for outings, exercise, stud services etc. which makes enforcing over limit numbers a very difficult task. Some dogs will be hidden; some litter sizes will magically increase as the breeder combines two litters to make it seem there is only one bitch. Any dogs over the number allowed may not see a vet etc. for fear of being exposed to having over the max number. We do not believe that simply limiting the numbers of breeding dogs will reach the stated goals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-16/dingoes-protected-wild-dog-control-ends-in-north-west-victoria/103591516 I have mixed feelings about this. I would hate it if dingoes became extinct but I remember how devastating it was when my sheep were mauled by wild dogs. I chose not to keep sheep any longer but that’s not an option for some farmers whose livelihood depends on their livestock. Here’s an industry article on the topic. https://www.sheepcentral.com/silence-on-research-and-advice-behind-victorian-dingo-decisions/

1-in-5 dogs have been attacked badly enough to need veterinary treatment. 53% of pets in the survey had been acquired in the last 3 years! ABC News

Hi All, New here but I have done significant research regarding the Big Desert dingo population and they are very close to being wiped out. As for the rest of Victoria, the most recent genetic research released last year in May by Dr Kylie Cairns suggests that close to 90% of "wild dogs" in Victoria are actually pure dingo and the remaining are more than 55% dingo (6.5% tested were 93% or over, 6.5% were between 55 and 93% dingo and 87% were pure) People need to remember these animals are a native species at federal level in every mainland state (regardless of whether or not they're a declared pest species). They are also culturally significant to many First Nations peoples. They play an important ecological role as the country's apex predator. This is the first time since colonisation that dingoes have been protected on private land!! Dingoes are responsible for less than 0.5% of livestock losses! With exposure being one if the biggest killers of livestock! While I understand that livestock producers individually can be affected significantly, their trauma is only in the form of losing money, not the actual damage done to their livestock - which is pretty clear to see from their comments in the newspapers. Also, please remember when Greg Mifsud says there's 3.1 million hectares where dingoes are protected in Victoria, majority of that land dingoes have already been locally extinct for decades! There are NO dingoes near Hamilton or Bendigo there are quite litterally the population in the high country/eastern Vic and the population in Big Desert/Wyperfeld National Park. Even Murray-Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne National Parks in North West Victoria have NO dingoes!

I had ANOTHER small white fluffy rush across the road and charge into Shyla today and I went APE at the woman!!!! She said "I know it's dangerous" but said she doesn't even have a leash!!! I put a post on Facebook about my anger and someone said dogs should be allowed offleash and rushing at an onleash party doesn't matter because it's how dogs interact and that his big maremmas used to rush at others in the park and they would get angry and he would wonder why. What the hell is the leash laws in VIC? Are dogs allowed offleash everywhere? In any "park"?

Hi breeders, Has anyone experienced a downturn in demand for purebred puppies? I have been a breeder for over 20 years and I find myself with a litter of pups that I haven't been able to sell. I normally have a waitlist, but moved from Victoria to Tasmania in 2021 and wasn't able to provide puppies to those on the waitlist and unfortunately they have gone elsewhere. I don't know if it's the move to Tassie, if it's an economic issue, or if there is no more demand for purebred puppies? Your experience and feedback is appreciated.

Maybe try calling Dogs Victoria and asking if they know of any. Or if you are on Facebook there is a group called Australian Dog Show Newbies which is good for such questions. I believe that Peter Frost used to run some at Bulla, and I think Ashley Reid used to give lessons somewhere not far from KCC Park. But I am not Victorian and haven’t shown for years, so am a bit out of touch.

Running out of time to have your say. These amendments intend to declare animals as SENTIENT beings. Don't be fooled, it's a token gesture, real agenda, PETA goal towards extinction of domestic animals. https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria

i was warning members of the ANKC as early as 1990 that ANKC need to get politicly active to counter the PETA threat. Even more so when an RSPCA member working for jacki Lambi mp. that she had received a letter asking her to get all family and friends to join and vote in coming AGM as the writer was aware the membership was being stacked by PETA members to ensure the next 2000 election would complete the election of sufficient PETA members to the board to complete the control of RSPCA board. It is pretty obvious this was achieved by the changes to becoming RSPCA inc , although the changes were already in progress as PETA members had began being elected at the previous agm's already. Last year was the first time the now DOGS NSW woke up and sent out how to vote info for a state election realising the proliferation of AJP and greens was going to end pet ownership the legislations they has been getting past was just about the point of no return. so much so PETA rep in Victoria had boasted on a radio program she anticipated "the extinction of domestic cats and dog's in this generation" did not elaborate if she meant the human or cat and dog generation? if the election being called before the second vote had not ceased the passage of the proposed legislation that females were allowed only two litters and all males could not be bred from after age 7, it would certainly been extinction within 15 to 20 years

I agree that our animal welfare legislation should be constantly reviewed and adjusted to meet better practices in animal welfare. The problem arises when politicians react/legislate in response to what they call "community expectations". Most of the pet owning public are completely unaware of the political processes that happen at regular intervals relating to animal related legislation. Consultation processes are not widely advertised generally, and it's usually only those who are politically active that take part in such consultations... and given that the AR (Animal Rights) movement are politically active in large numbers, their agendas are usually the loudest "voice" that is being heard. Statistics: NSW has a pet ownership rate of around 60%. We have a state population of around 8 million, so around 4.8 million of us have a pet. There are around 3 million households in NSW, so around 2 million households have a pet. Take the above statistics in relation to the last couple of NSW government inquiry consultations relating to pet related issues - the vet shortage inquiry, and the pound inquiry - the vet shortage inquiry got a total of 212 submissions, and the pound inquiry got 137 submissions and 379 responses to the online survey. The inquiry into aerial shooting of brumbies in Kosciuszko National Park got 165 full submissions, and around 400 "short" submissions (less than one page). Overall a pretty poor showing from our pet owning population, wouldn't you say? Most of the full submissions were done by organisations and groups with vested interests in the topics at hand - such as various councils reacting to the pound inquiry, and vets responding the the vet shortage inquiry. RSPCA always make submissions to any/all animal related inquiries, and are also included in committees tasked with developing any legislation relating to animal welfare. Each state is different in how they apply information supplied by submissions, inquiry findings, etc. Queensland seems to run the submission process as a "courtesy", then do whatever they wanted anyway. Victoria don't seem to have paid much attention to industry based detailed submissions, and are going with "community expectations" (read myriad cloned individual submissions from AR group callouts to their memberships to make said submissions). NSW seem to be a bit of a mix of Qld/Vic tactics as to how they apply responses from inquiries etc to legislation, and look to be following the Victorian models proposed to date. South Australia not that long ago enacted some animal welfare legislation with NO public consultation at all. When I went about talking to people, vets, etc about the NSW vet inquiry and the pound inquiry, asking them to make submissions... the overwhelming response was "I'm too busy". Well, I'm saying right now, that if you are "too busy" to sit down for a short amount of time to make a submission to a political process that may directly affect you adversely because those with a different agenda found that time to submit en masse, you can't really complain when it happens, can you? Never in our history have pet owners and carers been more directly affected by the political process with regard to animal welfare legislation. Our parliaments have been infiltrated by AR ideologies - not only AJP, but the Greens as well - and these people are looking to change animal ownership in ways that none of us want, so please, please get involved when the opportunity arises, OK? T.

i put my hand up to foster a Greyhound for Christmas from GAP Victoria. Picked her up last Saturday and paid for her on the Friday! Meet Rose, a lovely blue girl, 6 1/2. Magnificent ears and a roman nose to boot. She has slotted in seamlessly with Warrior (12 and 1/2 today!) and Phoebe. Jumps in the car, uses the dog door, loves squeaky toys, eats well, not scared of thunder, the list just keeps on going. I'm very happy.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-27/boxing-day-weather-victoria-woman-dog-rescue-werribee-river/103267206

Ummm... not really. For dogs that are microchipped, the data may be somewhere in the registry database, but there doesn't seem to be any function that allows for extraction of that data to track what has happened to any particular animal, not to mention that the various agencies that access that data aren't actually interested in tracking a complete journey for any particular animal, say from pound through rescue to rehoming. This means that for any microchip number, it's impossible to find out whether that number has been through the system more than once (ie. failed adoption resulting in animal surrendered to another pound or rescue). NSW are in the process of redesigning/rebuilding the microchip database, but it has been revealed that tracking what happens to any particular animal is not high on the list of priorities - unless that animal has come from a registered breeder, or is a racing greyhound (Victoria has recently introduced whole of life tracking specifically for racing greyhounds - but it remains to be seen how that is going to work in reality). There is also the issue of those unregistered backyard breeders who don't microchip their animals, and owners who get animals from that source don't always chip them either. The staggeringly high percentage of animals finding themselves in pounds with no microchip indicates this problem, but to date, no effective remedy for the problem has been forthcoming, just more legislation that affects registered breeders who DO do the right thing. Unfortunately, the only way for authorities to actually enforce the legislation regarding microchipping and registration of pets is to go door to door and demand to scan each dog/cat found on a property... something I don't think would be very popular with the general public, and would not be a vote winner for anyone who tried to legislate that sort of action to happen. I must say that there are reports of one Queensland council who were going to actually take that action, but no news yet on how that has been received by the residents in that LGA. Let's also note that as companion animal management is a State function, each state has it's own microchip database, and those databases do NOT "talk" to each other. There are also privately run chip registries as well... including at least one that is supposed to be national. The general public are generally unaware of the fact that they can enter their animal's details on the national register - but again, this register may not necessarily be "consulted" when any chipped animal is found and there are no up to date details on the state register. Say a dog was found wandering in a state border area, and the scan came up with a chip number, but no details were found on the register of the state it was found in - you'd think that it would be par for the course in border areas to check the register from the neighbouring state, yes? Nope! That animal could be listed as "no details on chip", and considered free to be processed as unowned. Just consider the man hours required to manually check a chip number on all of the possible registries in the country, and you'll understand why pounds with relatively high intake numbers can't or won't do it. T.

@Adrienne- it IS already law in WA... ALL non-breeding dogs MUST be desexed by 2 years of age... at least they've not mandated early age desexing like other states are proposing... *sigh* There is also very strict (and expensive) legislation (and currently proposed regulations) relating to those who wish to keep an entire dog - only restricted to licensed breeders (so attract a licensing fee), or to those with veterinary signed documents stating that desexing is not recommended for individual dogs. Link to the current WA legislation here... https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a147325.html Link to the recently closed consultation relating to the regulations that will accompany the above legislation... https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/local-government/community/cats-and-dogs/stop-puppy-farming Victoria is currently in the process of drafting their new "Animal Care and Protection" laws (note that "animal welfare" is not in the title of the proposed Act) - essentially redrafting virtually ALL animal welfare legislation from it's current state into one compendium Act. Some interesting reading here... https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria - have a read of the submissions, some are quite eye-opening, and a large number of them have been cut/pasted from an Animal Justice Party callout for followers to make submissions, complete with what to include in those submissions. This is "community expectations" at work in it's very worst form, and gives disproportionate credence to the vocal minority with regards to these matters. This whole redraft is contingent upon recognising animal sentience, but it does not specify what their interpretation of "sentience" is, as it does not define the term at all. The NSW Labor government is also looking to "reform" current animal welfare legislation into a similar compendium as Victoria, but may leave a couple of the current Acts in place (like research legislation and other single themed legislation) - and there WILL be a "stop puppy farming" element to their new legislation proposal when it finally gets released for consultation. SA has the following in it's legislation (Dog and Cat Management Regulations 2017)... ... and you can bet that other states/territories have or will propose similar desexing mandates in due course. Just a bit of light reading there... errr! T.

Very astute summation @Adrienne... so glad that you got exactly the same "vibe" from the hearing as I did. My involvement with a political lobby group (Animal Care Australia - ACA) that is trying to counter extremist animal rights groups having undue influence on animal welfare legislation sometimes has me seeing these things with a different eye to most of the general public. Be aware though that the next hearing, scheduled for December 15th, may well be stacked with witnesses sympathetic to Emma's (and Abigail's) causes. Under normal circumstances, my group would be invited to be witnesses in inquiries of this nature, but it is definitely looking very much like we won't be invited to give testimony in this particular inquiry... and if that transpires, then there is a very big question as to why that needs to be asked. ACA represents approximately 400,000 members from the whole spectrum of animal ownership - including breeders and pet owners. We were invited to participate in the vet shortage inquiry recently, and were subject to some rather nasty comment and questioning (by Abigail Boyd) relating to our submission with regards to our interactions with council pounds and their challenges with sourcing vets - all of the pounds we personally rang and asked questions of responded that most of the time they did NOT have issues sourcing vet services, with the exception of the most remote regions who don't have vet services available on a regular basis for even the general public. The fact that Abigail is now Deputy Chair of this pound inquiry which has so far seen fit to NOT invite ACA to testify is telling, wouldn't you think? Interesting to note that desexing of animals as mandatory is NOT legislated in the Companion Animals Act. The Act makes provision for reduced registration costs for desexed animals, but it is NOT mandatory. The Rehoming Amendment Bill passed last year has put an onus on desexing animals released from pounds, but it also doesn't go so far as to mandate that under law, so pounds in areas where it may be hard to source vet services have the option to rehome animals from their pounds undesexed, and generally this is actually the case for those pounds. Emma was most unimpressed with testimony from quite a few witnesses that the "over-supply problem" was NOT related to the activities of reputable registered breeders, but actually the largely unregulated and essentially underground activity of backyard breeders - considering that she has yet to put forward her new Puppy Farming Bill, this salient point would be a spanner in the works for any progress for that Bill. Of greater concern is that Labor have their own plans for rewriting the pertinent areas of animal welfare legislation in NSW - as Victoria is doing right now. The general concensus is that NSW may wait to put their legislation forward until AFTER the federal government has finalised their legislation regarding an Office of Animal Welfare and Live Exports (currently happening), so we aren't expecting anything forthcoming on that front until maybe later in 2024. This means that Labor may well thwart Emma's and Abigail's animal welfare related bills with the vision that they want their own bill(s) to be the one(s) enacted in the future. It may pay to watch the Victorian progress of their new "Animal Care and Protection" Act progress, as NSW seems to have a tendency to think that Victoria is a "leader" in this sphere of legislation... *sigh* Note the subtle change of terminology with regard to these new Acts... "Animal Welfare" has been replaced with "Animal Care and Protection"... which is telling as to the input from the animal rights movement, who have rebranded their policies as "Animal Protection" rather than "Animal Rights" (but the intent and policy stance is EXACTLY the same as it always was). T.

"A 2021 consultation put forward by the NSW Department of Primary Industry recommended the introduction of a private dog breeder licensing scheme. The following year, the Companion Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms) Bill was passed in parliament allowing pet shops to sell from approved breeders." Ummm... actually the Puppy Farms Bill did NOT get passed in 2022... it passed in the Legislative Council, but it missed the rise of parliament time cutoff before being debated and assented to by the Legislative Assembly, and is still on Emma Hurst's list of Bills to be presented in this current term of parliament. Funnily enough, she has been focusing on other Bills lower on her list so far and hasn't even tabled her latest run at the Puppy Farms Bill. The bill IS high on the list of Private Members Bills yet to be presented, but so far she's been avoiding tabling it... not sure why... One thing to note is that Labor have their own plans to completely overhaul all animal welfare legislation in NSW in a similar fashion to what is being proposed in Victoria - and reading the discussion paper of what is being proposed there raises some major concerns that will affect all animal owners. It looks like NSW are waiting to see what happens with the Victorian proposal before going ahead with their take on matters in this state. As for the over-representation of bull breeds and their crosses in pounds and shelters, and calls to ban breeding of any dogs (and or cats) until those animals are adopted is flawed. Most people do NOT want to take on an adolescent or adult larger breed powerfully built dog that has had little to no socialisation or basic training and is of an age where quite frankly, a lot of work needs to be done to make that dog a decent canine citizen. People want a puppy that is wired to learn what is expected of them easily, not a dog that has already formed habits that will be very hard to rehabilitate to a level that is fully acceptable to polite society. Then there are those who use "it's a rescue" as some sort of justification for not addressing certain behavioural issues in their dogs... and that needs to stop now IMHO. T.

This is advice to potential puppy buyers, after my 2 bad experiences, over 2 dogs, from same breeder. I would like to offer some advice based on what I have experienced, and what I would do next time if I had to choose another breeder, if at all. I am offering this in the hope that other potential puppy buyers avoid large financial costs re health problems. 1...Check out your potential breeder on Facebook. If they DO NOT have a FB page, ask yourself whyyyyyyy. Just do not go by their website or advertising on different sites like this one. Absolutely no disrepect meant to this site. There are some very honest, and ethical breeders to be found here I have found out since. Trust me, as good as the breeder looks, sounds on the phone or how good their dog's look, that can also hold dishonest information. Unfortunately there are breeders out there, that give the honest and ethical breeders a very bad name. Quite often breeders are not in your state and you cannot view litter. In my case, 1st litter in my state, not far from home, but still was not allowed to view. 2...Always ask for a contract or something in writing with signature, re refund of deposits should something go wrong at either end. EG If for some reason you cannot go through with your purchase due to a valid reason, Not simply because you changed your mind. EG At breeders end, a timeframe of supplying pup to you, whether that pup is what you originally asked for. Eg, you specified a Long Coat , you know exactly what typical balls of fluff look like in that breed, but what they are trying to sell you, does not fit that description. 3... If you have heard on the grapevine, bad reviews or reports about this breeder, LISTEN carefully and heed advice. The breeder I have dealt with has been very deceitful involving a number of buyers. There is actual evidence of that. You could even contact the State bodies in your state, eg Dogs Victoria and ask has there been any reports / breaches re your selected breeder. 4...If your pup is confirmed with a defect within the 1st year, any genuine ethical breeder, should provide a replacement pup. But the problem there is, most owners will be attached to their new family member, so the likes of the following, should state similar in writing. EG, Any inherited /Genetic defects, Hip Dysplasia, heart murmurs, jaw defects the breeder should be more than happy to cover the financial costs of treatment, should there be any. Especially if that breeder is known to breed a large number of litters regularly, and there is confirmation of a defect already at 14 wks. Yes pups can grow out of some defects, but unfortunately some get worse with time, and the quality of life of that pup is greatly affected as a few of us have experienced. 5...If your breeder becomes defensive Eg you are asking for a refund, you know that breeder has had problems before. In my case, as much we did not want to lose a $1000 of our hard earned money, we would have been $9000 better off. And that is to date only, and does not include purchase price. 6...If you request pedigree papers from parents, Hip and Elbow scores etc, pictures of parents or other progeny, they should be able provide that immediately, or at least within a week. Beware,..........if they are not, and continual excuses of delays. Yes I understand on the odd occasion, breeder may not be able to, but not on a regular basis. 7... A breeder should not ask for balance of payment 2 mths before puppy due to arrive in your family. I was told I would lose my place in a litter (already had placed a $1000 deposit 6 mths before), if I did not pay in full(another $3000, 2 mths prior. Both payments had to be paid within a 24 hr period. 8... Ask the time frame for receiving pedigree papers. With 1st dog took 15mths to transfer into my name and receive pedigree papers. 2nd pup is now 12 mths old and still no papers sighted. Conclusion, be very mindful of which breeder you choose, do your homework exceptionally well. Just because they sound honest, does not necessarily mean that they are. A breeder should always be very transparent in their bloodlines with lot's of pictures, information, reports etc and reply to calls, texts, emails in a timely manor also. Not in a few weeks time. CONCLUSION: dealing with this breeder has been an exceptionally bad experience, never before have I been through this with any other breeder in my time. It has been most stressful emotionally and financially, most challenging, and been a significant amount of intimidation by them, to add to the drama. This is not just a one person experience either. Several people have made a complaint re this breeder to the state body in our states, re the codes they breached. We are then having to take the matter further. Wishing you all the very best of luck with all your future puppy purchases and hope they are healthy and happy and able to live out their full lives. The vast majority will be healthy puppies, but there unfortunately is a minority that will not be, and breeders should be responsible financially for/or replace those. I cannot expose the name of breeder for obvious reasons.

And I thought that Victoria was backward when it came to it's dog laws

The classic answer of someone who actually has no clue about State regulations or liability . What you may think & what is legal requirements is a big difference . Maybe read this section which applies to Victoria for example & please tell us your view ??This is just a small part of varying state laws (govt) that breeders also have to understand & inform prior to sale based on DNA results . Being a breeder & selling pups is more than just a person saying shouldnt dictate . H Code of Practice for the Breeding of Animals with Heritable Defects that Cause Disease | Codes of Practice | Domestic Animals Act | Animal Welfare Victoria | Livestock and animals | Agriculture Victoria

Could you please remove my name as a contact person for the Agility Dog Club of Victoria due to an unresolved issue relating to bullying in this club? Thank you

I’ve heard that since there’s little air travel at the moment it’s not as straight forward to get a puppy flown down. Anyone have any details in this crazy Covid climate?

American Pit Bulls have been on the restricted list in Victoria since about 2005. It is illegal to buy or breed them. I suggest you read this - https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/livestock-and-animals/animal-welfare-victoria/dogs/restricted-breed-dogs/owning-a-restricted-breed-dog

I'm in Victoria and my vet used Global to microchip my last litter nearly 6 years ago. I hadn't heard of them either. Haven't lost any of my dogs so can't say how any registry reacts. You don't search each registry, the chip should take you right there. Except for NSW and, in Vic, all retired Greyhounds who now have their own registry. I believe they are not linked to any other, like NSW. Stupid idea in my opinion.

@jemappelle you're correct. Other states have absolutely zero access to the NSW Pet Registry and when travelling interstate, if you were to scan your pet's microchip, it would come up as "not found". I'm in a similar situation to yourself in that I'm often travelling interstate with my dogs so I personally added mine to Central Animal Records (CAR). They are also linked to Pet Address (http://www.petaddress.com.au/) a microchip database search site and have one of their own too. I've not heard of Global Micro and it seems a fairly new registry. There are some grammatical errors on their website that personally put me off (professional businesses that require their clients to pay for their services should be utilising editors etc. to ensure there are no spelling/grammatical errors) and I also preferred to go with a registry that had been around for longer than 10 years. Another thing to note with Global Micro is that they're located within NSW. What would be the odds the other states have heard of them and therefore think to run a search? CAR from my understanding is utilised by both Queensland and Victoria so for me it was a no brainer to choose them as I'm often frequenting these two states and one would assume people, vets etc. would be checking the CAR database as first port of call in the event they locate a wandering animal. Hope this helps

Hi- Does anyone know if Kevin Kelly(Canine chiropractor, formerly working from Devon Meadows Dog Pool)is going to be practising from another location? I have been taking my dogs to him for 20+ years and have a lab that I need looked at. Other suggestions for Canine Chiropractors/Physiotherapists would be appreciated, but my first choice would be Kevin, if anyone knows where he is now? Thanks!