Jump to content

Urgent, Emails Needed Today!


Recommended Posts

ok emails needed today, the morrabool puppy farm application was REJECTED due to 1300 letters sent! :) It takes 2 minutes of your time, the template is here so come on, lets stop another!

John McCarrey has been operating his puppy factory for years, and was in business with Ron Wells. This was the property that Ron kept his larger breeds on. When it came time for the dogs to give birth, Ballarat puppy factory staff would meet John McCarrey on the side of the road and swap dogs, dogs due to whelp would be given to the Ballarat staff and dogs that have just weaned puppies were give back to John. John McCarrey would take the dogs to his property to be impregnated again. This trade in dogs occurred on the side of the highway between Ballarat and the NSW/Victorian border on a weekly basis.

Woodpark puppy factory is currently being investigated by the RSPCA. Business must be good though because now John’s daughter, Gemma McCarrey and her fiance Samuel Hartley, want to open their own puppy factory and have lodged an application with Mitchell Shire Council.

Please lodge an objection and stop this family business that relies on the cruel exploitation of our companion animals.

Please write your own objection or use ours as a template to copy into an email and send to

[email protected]


Mitchell Shire Council

Planning Department

Your Reference: P306133/10

Property No.: 118068

Dear Sir/Madam


I write in order to register my strong objection to the Application for Planning Permit No: P306133/10 (the Application) to use and develop land for the purposes of dog breeding.

I object to this proposal on several grounds, enumerated below with a list of reasons and impact statements.

1. Illegibility and inadequacy of Shed Floor Plans

· The plans are illegible and of extremely poor quality.

· They are not produced to scale with adequate measures and marked location of where they will be positioned.

· The plans do not adequately show proposed building materials, are not to scale and do not show the elevations of the building.

· Poorly constructed and the various stages of development are not produced as per the intention in the business plan to eventually expand.

· A decision cannot be made based on such poor quality representations.

2. Failure to address the minimum standards for Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing of Establishments pursuant to Section 60(1A)(j) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).

· The above section states that the Responsible Authority must consider any other relevant matter before deciding on an application. In this instance, the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing of Establishments (the Code) is considered relevant.

· The Code and its provisions are to be observed by owners and operators and by the people who work in kennels who are required to be registered as Domestic Animal Businesses under the Act.

· The Applicant has failed to adequately address the requirements of the Code and its attempt to address the issue in its submission “As pre code of ethics we will be following all guild lines with our dog breeding” is absolutely unacceptable.

· The Code is made under the provisions of Section 59 of Division 4 of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 and the purpose of the Code is to specify minimum standards of which the applicant has failed to satisfy.

· The Applicant as proprietor will be responsible for:

a. well being of the animals in the establishment;

b. ensuring each animal is able to be accurately identified;

c. supervision of staff;

d. the maintenance and collation of records and statistics;

e. supervision of daily feeding, watering and inspection of all animals;

f. the overall level of hygiene in the establishment, including disposal of waste materials; and

g. provision of prompt veterinary attention for animals when required.

· The Applicant fails to address any agreement with veterinarians to be on call for the treatment of animals. The location of the vet needs to be addressed as well, as many dogs on puppy farms are often left unassisted during the birthing process, when complications arise and the dog requires urgent veterinary care will a vet be on call 24/7 and how far does the vet have to travel?

· The Applicant fails to adequately address the necessary or minimum staffing levels required for a proposal of this scale and its long term goals. With 50 breeding dogs plus puppies on the property this would allow for over 100 animals on the property at any one time.

· The Applicant does not indicate provision of amenities for staff.

· The applicant does not mention what sort of environmental enrichment program will be provided for the dogs but does mention they will use anti bark collars to stop the dogs from barking. This is unacceptable, dogs bark for a variety of reasons, boredom, frustration, stress, fear. These issues need to be addressed by meeting the dog’s behavioural and social needs rather than mask the problem with an anti barking collar.

· The applicant makes no mention of the type of breed of dogs that they will be breeding, therefore the pen sizes stated in the application may not meet the requirements in the code.

· The applicant states that a responsible person will be on site 24 hours a day and that in the event the farm has to be left unattended “my father and friends are willing to help cover”. The applicant’s father lives on the Victorian/NSW border and currently operates a puppy factory with over 300 animals on site. Both applicants currently are working for this puppy factory by driving puppies to Tullamarine airport weekly and are meeting consumers in Bendigo to view the father’s puppies. Are the applicants “friends” trained in looking after over 100 dogs and puppies? Will consumers be now travelling to the applicants proposed puppy factory to view her dogs and her fathers dogs therefore increasing the traffic to and from the property?

3. Moral Grounds / Animal Cruelty / Veterinary Concerns

· Some problems associated with these facilities include but are not limited to:

a. Constant back to back breeding

b. inbreeding

c. minimal veterinary care

d. substandard housing conditions

e. high mortality rates for puppies or puppies produced with health and/or behavioural problems

· Animals are deprived of normal living conditions for a companion animal.

· The public is outspoken in its opposition to businesses that commercially produce puppies on a mass scale.

· No mention is made of temperature control devices in the puppy sheds (a requirement in the code) and without this there would be widespread loss of puppies due to the extremes of climate in the region.

· No cost estimates are provided in the business plan.

· The Applicant does not indicate a policy on rehousing unsold or retired breeding stock.

· The Applicant does not indicate a policy or willingness to adhere to a maximum number of litters per annum.

· Green shade cloth proposed use in order to eliminate visual stimuli from other dogs as well as fencing with galvanised mesh wiring is detrimental to the socialisation of the animals and can lead to various problems such as excessive barking, behavioural problems, etc.

· Puppy factories are unwanted in the Mitchell Shire Council and the wider community.

This proposal negatively impacts upon me as currently my tax dollars and those of all hard working Australians are currently footing the bill for Local Government to operate ineffective pounds that kill thousands of homeless but healthy dogs every year. It is wrong to grant permits to breed more dogs, this is unacceptable, irresponsible and not cost effective. Councils need to work on re-homing impounded dogs and lead by example with regard to responsible companion animal care.

I do not want my tax dollars used to prop up a system where I know thousands of healthy companion animals will be killed while Councils continue to issue permits for breeders to pump out more puppies.

Puppy farming is an intensive factory farming industry with dogs continually confined either pregnant, feeding puppies or ’servicing’ the females. The dogs supply the pet industry with their “stock” to sell to an unsuspecting public. Factory farming of dogs is cruel and the dogs that are used as breeders on these factories suffer extensive and life long psychological and physical damage.

4. Negative environmental disruption and waste pollution associated with the large scale intensive farming of companion animals

· The Applicant’s proposed waste management system is inadequate as the proposed absorption method by grassed areas, shrubs and trees of hosed water from kennels has negative implications on the flora, fauna and adjoining properties, including smells, pollution and abuse of scant water supplies and soil erosion.

· The Applicant fails to satisfactorily provide a waste management plan to dispose of other waste including animal carcasses.

· The Applicant’s intention to hose out the sheds onto surrounding grass is absolutely unacceptable and against the requirements listed in the Department of Primary Industries Code of Practice for the operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments, particularly Section 3.7 – Housing which states that “…floors must be sloped to enable wastes and water to run off. A collection drain must be provided to take away water after cleaning.”

· The Applicant has not proposed any such drain.

5. Noise

· The Environmental Protection Agencies Noise Control Guidelines Section 4 state;

“The problems caused by the perpetual barking of dogs have been known to exist at distances as far as 500 metres from the actual source.”

· The residents in the surrounding areas of this proposed puppy farm will be tormented by the continual barking of dogs day and night as the Application proposes the kennels be erected 500m from residential houses.

· The design of the kennels will limit the physical stimuli of the dogs and will result in the outbreak of noise from the kennels due to boredom, loneliness and anxiety. With consumers and delivery suppliers arriving on the property between the hours of 9am and 8pm 7 days a week, this will be a trigger for the dogs barking.

· The potential of 100 plus dogs and puppies and their noise levels will not be curbed by tree planting, concrete or masonry walls.

· The structure of the proposed pens may in practice amplify noise levels.

· The RSPCA does not recommend the use of anti-barking collars as a method of reduction of noise level as proposed by the Applicant.

· Puppy farms by their very nature do not meet the needs of dogs who are a companion animal and require socialisation, human contact and room to play and explore.

· Continual confinement and pregnancy cause severe psychological damage to these companion animals who often display repetitive behaviours and constant barking and howling through loneliness, boredom and lack of environmental stimulation.

6. Planning Scheme Provisions

· Clause 21.05 of the Municipal Strategic Statement states:

‘A range of zones and overlays have been applied to implement these strategies including:

- Farming Zone with a minimum lot size linked to the land capability of areas – generally 80ha minimum lot size in the former Seymour Shire area, 20 ha in the Davidson Street are of Broadford, and 40ha in all remaining areas.’

The current Application is in breach of this provision in its proposal to use the area as a dog breeding farm and “The rest of the land will be occupied for grazing cattle and sheep.”

The applicant has not provided a Land Capability Assessment.

· Clause 21.05 of the Municipal Strategic Statement further states the objective in relation to the Broadford area Industrial Development:

‘Support new industrial development where it can utilise space, infrastructure capacity and is compatible with the maintenance of residential amenity.’

It is submitted that the current Application is in conflict with this objective as puppy farms are incompatible with the maintenance of residential amenity for many reasons such as those discussed above.

· Clause 22.03-1 Effluent Disposal and Water Quality objective states:

‘To ensure that the use and development of land does not cause significant land disturbance.

To protect areas prone to soil erosion by minimising soil erosion and vegetation loss.’

It is submitted that the current Application is in conflict with the above provision in its failure to provide for a planned and clear collection drain for water run off from cleaning of dog pens. Furthermore, this is evident in the Applicant’s intention to hose out the sheds which will run into a grass area full of ‘extensive trees and scrubs’ with no evidence provided of their intention to take into account ‘slopes, dam locations and run off’ so as not to impact on these environmental areas. A high risk of impact on the environment and surrounding properties is a foreseeable one and a number of properties in the area are subject to an environmental significance overlay.

The neighboring properties are subject to a soil erosion overlay.

Soil erosion is one of the biggest problems on puppy factory farms. Continual confinement of dogs in runs results in soil erosion, dust and debris which are of a real concern and cause major problems in regard to animal welfare such as eye infections. Close confinement of dogs in large sheds and small runs also increases the burden of parasites and assists the transmission of contagious disease such as parvovirus which studies have shown remains in the soil for many years.

7. Municipal Vision Statement (21.04)

‘Our Vision is to continue to build a prosperous and progressive Shire which is widely known as the place to live, work, invest and visit, in a manner in which our residents enjoy ownership and participate in this vision.’

I believe that the Application is contradictory to the Municipal Vision Statement.

It is also important to note that Mitchell Shire Council Shire’s registered pet owners pay animal registration fees annually. This money is there to provide ratepayers with information and education on responsible pet ownership. There is nothing responsible about the factory farming of dogs. It would be hypocritical of Council to accept these registration fees while also granting a permit for another intensive cruel puppy factory industry to set up in Mitchell Shire Council. This would send the wrong message to the residents of Mitchell Shire Council and the wider community.

This planning application presents Mitchell Shire Council with a unique opportunity to show leadership by declaring Mitchell Shire to be a puppy farm free zone. A strong message could be sent to Councils all over Australia that factory farming of dogs will not be tolerated any longer.

I earnestly appeal to you not to grant this application.

Thank you very much for any consideration to this objection on behalf of these innocent animals and due to my very real concerns.

Sincerely Yours,


Edited by Nekhbet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you need to be in Vic to submit an objection?

I wouldn't have thought so. These puppy millers tend to move to other places when they are shut down, so if protest letters are being sent in great numbers to one council, other councils may just reject without going through the same processes.

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

  • Create New...