Jump to content

Rspca Proposals For A Mandatory Code For Puppy Farmers.


minky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Street address will be a big scary thing for some breeders, and a not so scary thing for others.

I know breeders who advertise their street address and others who also have signs on the front of their property.

Security cameras are a wonderful thing and do not cost as much as you might think.

A sign saying that you "are under camera surveillance when on this property" or similar is a very powerful deterrent to would be dog-nappers.

As is a not-so-friendly large dog or 2 waiting to greet them :laugh:

If you have things up to scratch and not much to hide, then you dont have too much to fear from inspectors.

Some of them are OK, some might have an agenda and kick over the water bowl or something like that, but you wont be too worried about that if the security cameras are running. :) Gotcha!

Souff

fat lot of good security camera's will do if the theives are unknown or can't be recognised. Bye bye pups and maybe adult dogs as well, never to be seen again. Even if the theives are caught what are the chances of you getting your dogs back? And as for having a large, not friendly dog, you have to be kidding don't you, there's even more trouble waiting to bite some one on the arse, not to mention people are already restricted on how many dogs they can keep. One of my dogs saw the vet for the 1st time in 3 years recently, another hasn't seen a vet for at least 4. No need for them to. Can't believe this rubbish has come from you Souff.

Being a Security Officer/Special constable for the past 15 years for a NSW Public hospital ED and also some Static work for K9 Security I know for a fact that Security Equipment is expensive and not all the time are tapes clear to identify offenders and not all the time are they excepted in a Court of Law. Besides the Law is not tough enough on offenders, especially where animals are concerned. I had a dog taken once and rang police and because I knew who it was I was told it was a Civil matter. Oh I got my dog back my way and since then extra security measures have been taken but honestly if a good thief wants to get in to steal something, they will and won't worry who they hurt in the process. So why should we have to let people know where we live and what we have!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to say that if I'm being honest I'm a bit ticked off that an email I sent out to our members has been circulated to so many places without anyone asking me if that was O.K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely every responsible dog club and breeder in Australia should be making submisions and attending meetings, not just one club? From reading what is written here, many regulations will not find accord with registered breeders but will advantage "puppy farms". Some regulations seem satisfactory.

Any legislation should be framed by responisble breeders, not any separate factions. This impacts on all breeders, not members of a club

RSPCA needs help from breeders to frame the legislation, so we don't have another debacle such as the Clover Moore bill, so all breeders should have input.

Edited by Octavia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accompanying a pup overseas destined to be a show/breeding dog elsewhere will be a very big hassle.

I agree with pretty much everything else though.

yeah hon that's a hassle :laugh:

Perhaps you can get an exemption for that when you suck up for your license.

Edited by lilli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposals:

1. Regulation of breeders

• All breeders should be required to obtain a government licence to breed dogs - whether

they are breeding purebred, cross-bred or mixed-bred dogs, and whether they breed

commercially or as a hobby.

Breeders of what? Just dogs? What about cats, horses, guinea pigs, alpacas ...

A government license to breed horses is not required, because the RSCPA aren't getting calls about neglected starving horses???

The RSPCA dont want any dogs to be bred. Or they want to oversee what dogs are bred and when.

This is just the RSPCA wanting to stick their noses in and glean info about all the evil breedes out there.

• Licensing needs to be conditional on compliance with a Code of Practice outlining

enforceable minimum standards.

We already have minimum standards, why dont the RSPCA sign a compliance code enforcing that they will actually DO what they are supposed to do. Start with microchips and council registrations.

woops too hard, hey.

The RSPCA's anti pedigree campaign didn't work as well as they hoped, so they found a new ticket to bury dogs and dog breeders with -

puppy farms.

oh no, noone can protest against new Laws that will stop that!!!

• The licensing system could be similar to that used for car dealers, real estate agents and

tradesman. Having a license will allow governments and the RSPCA to monitor compliance

with regulations and will provide some assurance to consumers about legitimacy of the

breeder.

They wish.

RSPCA are like an ogre wanting more and more. They want to know everything about breeders

and where they are and what they own.

2. Regulation of sale

• A reputable website for sale of companion animals could be established. Criteria for

listing would include: providing the street address of kennels, compliance with the Code

of Practice, provision of a licence number, provision of information about membership of

any breed association and provision of an ABN or similar number.

I'll give my address as long as the RSCPA board put up theirs.

• State/Territory Legislation should incorporate mandatory minimum standards for pet

shops with specific requirements in relation to stopping puppy farming being:

o animals held for sale can only be obtained from government registered/licensed

breeders or suppliers

o full disclosure by the seller of the veterinary practitioner who assessed the animals

prior to purchase including a veterinary certificate recording all vaccinations and other

treatments

o full disclosure by the seller of the breeder’s name and contact details

o the sale of desexed dogs (and cats) only, unless selling to a licensed breeder

o the ability to return a puppy for whatever reason within 14 days. This must include

the provision of veterinary treatment or reimbursement of the cost of veterinary

treatment for pre-existing illness or congenital disorders.

• Consumer complaint procedures need to be in place and accessible so that buyers can

feel confident of recourse during the sale process if necessary.

What a wonderful set of requirements, would make you think that the equation of animal welfare is all to do with the breeder and naught to do with the owner.

Of course the lemmings will think this is a wonderful plan ..................

3. Tightening of export provisions for sale of puppies overseas

Puppy farmers can currently access lucrative overseas markets by selling unregistered

purebred (without pedigree) or crossbred dogs to puppy wholesalers overseas, often for

substantially more money than they would obtain in Australia.

• The minimum age for export of puppies for commercial purposes should be raised to 6

months.

• Exemptions should only be given on a case-by-case basis and only when the puppy is

travelling to accompany the existing owner overseas (ie for non-commercial purposes).

• Any breeder who exports dogs over 6 months of age must be licensed and comply with a

regulated Code of Practice (see 1 above) before being granted permission to export dogs

or puppies. This should include the dog being desexed unless it is destined to be a

breeding animal owned by a licensed breeder in the importing country.

RSPCA attempting to determine Federal AQIS protocol and what is required in other countries is just hilarious.

What I find alarming is that people actually think this reads like a good EFFECTIVE idea.

Honestly. :laugh:

4. Tightening compliance with taxation laws

• The Australian Taxation Office should target investigative efforts at illegal puppy farming

operations. The ATO should be required to inform the relevant government authority of

any positive identification of a puppy farm in order that the welfare of the animals can be

assessed.

gawd you'd think that puppies were bringing in as much black cash as the ATOs other favourite loots.

Oh well a vacuous celebrity thinks its a good idea

so it must have merit -

Lets vote it in!!!

5. Amendments to animal welfare legislation

State/Territory animal welfare legislation should be amended to incorporate provisions for:

• Prohibition Orders to be obtained preventing further ownership of animals prior to

conviction, to prevent puppy farmers from continuing their business while legal

proceedings are underway

Defendants to be required to pay court bonds prior to any litigation appeals or appeals in

relation to the forfeiture of animals. The bond amount should be based on the financial

cost of caring for the dogs on a daily basis, acknowledging that during this period such

this care is being provided by RSPCA or other rescue group and not by the defendant.

Where a court bond is not paid, the owner would be required to surrender the animals for

rehoming.

How despicable

that people read this and the light bulb lights up in their head and they think, yes this is a good idea.

6. Education

• Raise community awareness about the scale and problems created by puppy farming in

Australia.

• Ensure wide availability of consistent information for consumers giving tips on questions to

ask and responsible places to go when buying a puppy. The RSPCA has recently released

the RSPCA Smart Puppy Buyers Guide to help consumers in this way (download from

www.rspca.org.au).

• Provide information to vets and pet supply stores to help them identify possible puppy

farm operators. Indications of a puppy farm operator include consulting large numbers of

puppies but rarely, if ever, treating adult dogs, breeders reluctant to entertain home

visits by vets, the regular purchase of large volumes of food and/or other pet supplies.

BAHAHAHA

7. Reporting suspicious activities

Formalise a reporting process for vets, pet supply stores or members of the community to

notify the RSPCA or government authorities if they suspect one of their clients is running a

puppy farm operation.

oh yeah that will work.

Sounds like McCarthyism and every other crud dogma

that persecuted and squahsed the lives and rights of its citizens to me.

Here fill out this form.

Dob in your neighbours and your friend's friend.

Have you all running scared but filled with glee, 'cause you're a goodie not a badie ...

for now.

Edited by lilli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will have no impact on the BYBer, because they simply won't pay for one, nor will they be policed.

I disagree. If they advertise pups anywhere the thought police will be on to those ads. This happened to a retired couple in Queensland about 5 years ago - put an ad in the local paper to sell 3 small breed pups, two nice ladies arrived on the Saturday to "have a look" but didnt buy, and the council ranger was there on the Monday to harass the old people about how long they could keep pups on the premises - a normal suburban block.

Straightout harassment with no law to back it up then.

No doubt the two do-gooders and the ranger were proud of their Gestapo like tactics.

The old couple still have their two beautiful dogs but will never breed a litter again. Those old people committed no crime - and the dogs were not large breed and it was not a large litter. They just happened to live in one of the many anti-dog local government areas of Queensland.

Unlicensed BYBs will have to retail their dogs somewhere and if they are advertising, then you can bet your bottom dollar the "nice ladies" will be visiting to see the pups, followed by "the authorities" a day or so later. No risk about that at all.

Souff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who are shocked by my attitude, I am sorry but this writing has been on the wall for years and I think what you are now looking at is very similar to what happened when bans on tail docking were first announced - the bloody thing is a foregone conclusion and it is going to happen, whether we like it or not, whether we fight it or not.

The political deals will probably already have been done and the animal libbers have very heavy backing.

You all have a voice through your local member of parliament and you are well advised to use your individual voice now and write politely to that member, outlining your concerns and stating what you want if such a law is enacted.

I have a suspicion that if you rely on your kennel clubs and other organisations, that you may as well whistle in the wind.

REMEMBER THE TAIL DOCKING LEGISLATION? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT IS WAS NOT FOUGHT BY ALL BREEDERS?

I am sorry to say this but we did tell you then that more legislation like that would happen, that tail docking was just the point of the wedge.

The dog world chose to divide on that issue; many DID NOT BELIEVE and did not stand shoulder to shoulder. It was a case of "united we stand, divided we fall" and we fell ... and your enemy saw and heard the cracks in that wall.

The soft underbelly of Australian dog breeders was on show to the animal libbers.

In NZ it was a very different story and they now have a very different outcome.

If you dont want unaffordable licence fees and you dont want to have to post bail for your dogs if they are siezed, then my best suggestion is to get behind the MDBA and to make your own representations to your local member of State Parliament.

Souff is tired and wont be joining any team of campaigners this time.

Will my local MP be hearing from me? Bloody oath they will.

Souff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.

We're in an election period. Say the RSPCA gets agreement for its policy platform from its members. The next step would be to get their policies enshrined in law somehow? How would they do this? At the state or federal level?

in my opinion its miles off that yet but there is an extremely big push coming which has already started on several fronts. It seems they are really going to put everything they have into it.

As things stand now if it progresses to a law situation it would be with the states but there has been a strong push for animal welfare issues to be made federal.I know that Hugh Wirth was advising the PM - Rudd on such things.

At first look I think most of us would say its ridiculous.

Seriously how likely is it that breeders would be placed in a position where they had to

post their street address to be able to sell a puppy? It seems to be so incredulous that we would be the only group

that I can think of in this country which would be placed in a position where this is part of being able to have a leisure or even a commercial activity.

However, one quick look at the AAPDB website tells us that the puppy farmers who are registered members of that group agree to having their addresses published and that

their full details are disclosed on the website.Whats more at least one possibly 2 out of 6 members are CC registered breeders!

But you also have some of our own - registered breeders who are pushing for this to happen too.

What they dont seem to get is that its not just the dogs we are worried about.We breed dogs in our homes. talk of getting security cameras and locking the place up when we go out etc are crazy in my opinion- why would anyone want to live like that because they have a litter of puppies now and then they want to find homes for? But what about the other risks associated with anyone posting where they live on the net? What about the safety of my kids and myself and my possessions? What of our right to privacy? All well and good to tell me what to do to protect my dogs while a breeder is not at home but what of risks when they are? What of women who live in semi isolated areas alone and a bunch of other things which come to mind? All I know is that ever since I first turned on the internet everyone in my life has told me not to place my home address up there and yet now Im being pushed to place my address up there.

Bloody hell even pedophiles get to keep their street address private!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they dont seem to get is that its not just the dogs we are worried about.We breed dogs in our homes. talk of getting security cameras and locking the place up when we go out etc are crazy in my opinion- why would anyone want to live like that because they have a litter of puppies now and then they want to find homes for? But what about the other risks associated with anyone posting where they live on the net? What about the safety of my kids and myself and my possessions? What of our right to privacy? All well and good to tell me what to do to protect my dogs while a breeder is not at home but what of risks when they are? What of women who live in semi isolated areas alone and a bunch of other things which come to mind? All I know is that ever since I first turned on the internet everyone in my life has told me not to place my home address up there and yet now Im being pushed to place my address up there.

Bloody hell even pedophiles get to keep their street address private!

Thanks for the information Julie. I agree with your comments about street address to and I use a PO Box for all my mail. I'm happy to meet anyone anywhere else and talk dogs, but until I've "vetted" someone as being the real deal they don't get an invite to our home. A number of DOLers have been to my home tho', so they know it's not a puppy farm/squalid/whatever, ie, it's not a matter of having anything to hide, it's a matter of security.

I am sure breeders of breeds that are commonly BYB and breeders of dogs using for pigging and fighting mixes would have even greater concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very concerned that my home address details would be made public. I'm very careful when out walking not to disclose where I live to anyone that stops me to have a chat about the dogs. I provide them with my contact number if they'd like it and then make sure I walk home a different way so as not to be followed.

Like Steve I also have a child and would possessions that means a lot to me.

It's all well and good to suggest a security camera and locking the place up but that's not going to do me any good, if someone decides to jump a fence and help themselves to a litter or worse one of my dogs or bitches. Those that live out of town are more vulnerable, especially if they work or are away for longer periods during the day.

It's crazy, that our "hobby" would place our possessions, animals and even our children at risk.

Perhaps the RSPCA would like to list where their inspectors live, so I can go and knock on their door, take a peak at how their animals live or complain after hours when they've failed to show up to a cruelty case I've reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the RSPCA or whomever is administrating this proposed legislation can provide a very clear reason as to WHY licencee addresses would be made public, I think it would breach state privacy legislation.

I'd certainly be ramming that point home.. what public benefit stems from publishing names and addresses?? :laugh:

Edited by poodlefan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the RSPCA or whomever is administrating this proposed legislation can provide a very clear reason as to WHY licencee addresses would be made public, I think it would breach state privacy legislation.

I'd certainly be ramming that point home.. what public benefit stems from publishing names and addresses?? :laugh:

I would think the intent would be to stop byb puppy farmers hiding behind a web address or a phone number with no real way of determining where and in what conditions the puppies are actually being bred and breeding stock kept.

I have been told (have no direct proof or experience) that some operations have more than one supplying "breeder" who breeds relatively small numbers in rural fringe areas to funnel into a single supply chain. It would be very hard to monitor health and welfare of dogs in those type of situation. I belive there was a report in one of the Sydney papers along those lines too but I cannot remember which.

I am not saying I agree with the address issue but I believe this would be the intent. I agree with PF though that I think there are privacy issues here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the RSPCA or whomever is administrating this proposed legislation can provide a very clear reason as to WHY licencee addresses would be made public, I think it would breach state privacy legislation.

I'd certainly be ramming that point home.. what public benefit stems from publishing names and addresses?? :laugh:

I would think the intent would be to stop byb puppy farmers hiding behind a web address or a phone number with no real way of determining where and in what conditions the puppies are actually being bred and breeding stock kept.

I have been told (have no direct proof or experience) that some operations have more than one supplying "breeder" who breeds relatively small numbers in rural fringe areas to funnel into a single supply chain. It would be very hard to monitor health and welfare of dogs in those type of situation. I belive there was a report in one of the Sydney papers along those lines too but I cannot remember which.

I am not saying I agree with the address issue but I believe this would be the intent. I agree with PF though that I think there are privacy issues here.

I can understand why the regulators would need to have addresses. Why they need to be publicly available, making breeders sitting targets for theft of dogs and pups, beats the hell out of me. :dummy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this too with regards to addresses. I've emailed a few of my local members with regards to this already as I can see the RSPCA forcing this through. I can think of a few breeders just off the top of my head who are elderly and live alone or as Steve says are women with young children who live alone. It isn't just about privacy but peoples safety too. There are a lot of nutters out there who will bash someone for $20 never mind what they might get for a litter of pups. Commercial kennels are often set up in large out bulidings, hobbists don't tend to do things that way and demanding someones private address be on line for all to see just because they breed a litter every few years is unreasonable. And what of people who maintain a prefix but don't actively breed anymore? I can think of a few people like that too.

Desexing pups before sale bothers me too. Desexing giant breeds as tiny babies does not sit well and alot of dog sport people won't desex until 12 months either to give the dogs bodies the best chance they can to stand up to the strain that will be put on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the RSPCA or whomever is administrating this proposed legislation can provide a very clear reason as to WHY licencee addresses would be made public, I think it would breach state privacy legislation.

I'd certainly be ramming that point home.. what public benefit stems from publishing names and addresses?? :confused:

I would think the intent would be to stop byb puppy farmers hiding behind a web address or a phone number with no real way of determining where and in what conditions the puppies are actually being bred and breeding stock kept.

I have been told (have no direct proof or experience) that some operations have more than one supplying "breeder" who breeds relatively small numbers in rural fringe areas to funnel into a single supply chain. It would be very hard to monitor health and welfare of dogs in those type of situation. I belive there was a report in one of the Sydney papers along those lines too but I cannot remember which.

I am not saying I agree with the address issue but I believe this would be the intent. I agree with PF though that I think there are privacy issues here.

I can understand why the regulators would need to have addresses. Why they need to be publicly available, making breeders sitting targets for theft of dogs and pups, beats the hell out of me. :confused:

Yeah I agree, I think it should be more along the lines of a closed list. After if you want to check, for example, a solicitor is registered to practice, the Law Society doesn't hand out their home address they will simply say yes this person has registration number XXXX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

each state is going to be unrolling it's own campaign and at the moment the full details/website of every state campaign are not yet released.

Aparently RSPCA QLD will be doing so shortly.

"RSPCA Qld will be calling for Pet Shop Code of Practice to become mandatory rather than optional; and a Breeders Code of Practice. Along with calling for all levels of government to act on the issue. And educating and informing the public about the conditions in which the mother of their puppy may be living in."

"please feel free to contact the Campaigns team from RSPCA Qld for any inquiries, [email protected] "

I will note rather cynically that the website where you can pledge your support for their campaign is readily available and being promoted.....just not the freaking details of said campaign!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...