For Those Interested - Puppy Farm Code Meeting

[Steve]

Up until now we have been sworn to secrecy and havent been able to relay what went on at the meeting we attended in Canberra.

We have now been given approval to share this with you.

Puppy Farms

Problems, desired outcomes and ways forward

Background

RSPCA Australia considers puppy farming to be a significant national animal welfare issue. To address

puppy farming at a national level and to generate much needed discussion and debate regarding this

serious animal welfare issue, RSPCA Australia released the RSPCA Australia Puppy Farm Discussion Paper in

January 2010, available here:

http://www.rspca.org.au/assets/files/Campa...aperJan2010.pdf.

Back in January 2010, RSPCA Australia called for submissions on the Discussion Paper with the intention of

seeking comment and feedback from a broad audience. To achieve this, the paper was sent to key

stakeholders and was made publicly available on the RSPCA Australia website. We received over 100

responses to the Discussion Paper from individuals and various organisations. All of the responses were

carefully considered, summarised and used to help develop a draft consensus document, based on the

framework of ideas presented in the Discussion Paper.

In August, RSPCA Australia convened a meeting involving a number of key stakeholders, including

representatives from the AAWS Companion Animal Working Group, Australian Association of Pet Dog

Breeders, Australian National Kennel Council, Australian Veterinary Association, Animal Welfare League

Queensland, DeathrowPets, Dogs NSW, Master Dog Breeders and Associates, NSW Young Lawyers, Pet

Industry Association Australia, RSPCA NSW, RSPCA QLD, RSPCA Victoria and RSPCA Australia to work

through the consensus document and reach agreement on a final version. This document reflects the

outcome of that process: it presents a series of agreed problems, desired outcomes and ways forward

which, if implemented, would bring a complete end to puppy farming in Australia.

Problem 1: There is no agreed definition of puppy farming or clarity between what is

puppy farming what is animal hoarding.

Desired outcome: Define the problem of puppy farming.

Recommended way forward:

1.1 A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as an

intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that

fail to meet the dogs’ psychological, behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

Puppy farms are usually large-scale commercial operations, but inadequate

conditions may also exist in small volume breeding establishments which may or

may not be run for profit.

1.2 Animal hoarding is a separate problem that can involve keeping higher than usual

numbers of animals as pets without having the ability to properly house or care for

them, while at the same time denying this inability. Compulsive animal hoarding

can be characterised as a symptom of mental disorder rather than as deliberate

cruelty towards animals. Hoarders are deeply attached to their animals; find it

extremely difficult to relinquish them; and typically fail to recognise that they are

harming their animals by failing to provide them with proper care.

1.3 Activities designed to end puppy farming by setting and enforcing minimum

standards for dog breeding will also help to address animal hoarding.

2

Problem 2 Current voluntary registration or accreditation programs are not sufficient

to ensure the identification and traceability of breeders.

Desired outcome: All dogs are permanently traceable to the breeder and all subsequent

owners and sellers through a nationally coordinated system.

Recommended way forward:

2.1 A system is developed which ensures that all dogs are registered and traceable to

the person who bred the dog. This must include compulsory microchip

identification of puppies to the breeder prior to sale or transfer to be implemented

in all jurisdictions.

2.2 Mechanisms for tracking breeder information should be explored, including utilising

existing microchip registration systems to enable puppies to be traced to the

breeder.

2.3 The current Gold Coast breeder permit pilot project should be examined as a model

for a potential national system.

2.4 A national approach is required to ensure that puppies transferred across

jurisdictions remain traceable. Such a system could be administered at the state or

local government level.

Problem 3 There are insufficient standards nationwide to provide for the welfare and

health of breeding dogs and puppies and ensure that puppies are

appropriately reared to be suitable as companion animals.

Desired outcome: Enforceable animal welfare legislation, supported by compulsory

minimum standards for the breeding of dogs, is in place and is consistent across all

jurisdictions.

Recommended way forward:

3.1 Standards are developed which are sufficient to provide for the welfare and health

of breeding dogs and puppies and to ensure that puppies are appropriately reared

to be suitable as companion animals. They must adequately address the

psychological, behavioural, social and physiological needs of both breeding dogs

and puppies.

3.2 Standards must cover all aspects of dog breeding that have an impact on animal

welfare including: staff competencies and training, staff to dog ratios, record

keeping, dog care and management, breeding, rearing and socialisation, health and

veterinary care, transfer of ownership and transport.

3.3 Standards must be linked to existing animal welfare legislation.

3.4 Standards should take into consideration the national Standards and Guidelines for

Dogs currently in development through AAWS.

Problem 4 Current accreditation systems and self-regulation of the sale of dogs are

insufficient to prevent puppies from puppy farms being sold.

Desired outcome: Enforceable legislation, supported by compulsory minimum standards

for the sale of dogs, is in place in all jurisdictions.

Recommended way forward:

4.1 Advertising and sale conditions for puppies must allow individual animals to be

traced to their breeder. Potential mechanisms for this should be explored,

including the disclosure of a breeder number, ABN and/or microchip number

wherever animals are advertised and when they are sold or transferred.

4.2 Regulation of the sale of dogs must require that all puppies are microchipped and

vaccinated prior to supply. Potential mechanisms should be explored to ensure

compliance, including vendors being required to record the microchip numbers

and vaccination details of all puppies supplied.

4.3 Regulation of the sale of dogs must assist in protecting consumers and enable

action to be taken when problems occur after sale. This should include the

following minimum requirements:

a A guarantee which allows the return of animals for any reason within a

specified time period

b A mechanism for customers to make a complaint to the breeder and/or

appropriate authority when problems occur after sale. This mechanism must

be disclosed to the customer.

4.4 The issue of responsibility surrounding the rehoming of returned dogs should also

be explored.

4.4 In the interim, exploring the feasibility of establishing a website for dog breeders

that meet the above requirements to advertise puppies directly to the public

should be further examined.

4.5 Explore mechanisms regarding desexing of dogs at time of sale to non-breeders

Problem 5 Current requirements for the export of dogs and puppies are set by the

importing country. There is no mechanism in place to ensure that exported

puppies have been bred in facilities which meet minimum standards of

care.

Desired outcome: Export provisions for sale of puppies overseas are strengthened.

Recommended way forward:

5.1 Discussions are held with AQIS to develop minimum standards for the export of

puppies, similar to those currently in place for the export of livestock and native

wildlife.

5.2 The following requirements should be considered:

a All dogs to be microchipped prior to export; microchip details are recorded

and made available to authorised animal welfare inspectors

b A minimum age and weight for the export of puppies

c exploring strategies to prevent the export of puppies to puppy farms overseas.

5.3 In the absence of these export provisions, breeder associations are encouraged to

set minimum standards for export in line with these requirements.

Problem 6 Puppy farmers can access overseas markets without complying with

taxation laws.

Desired outcome: Raise awareness of puppy farming with Centrelink and the ATO and

increase compliance with taxation laws.

Recommended way forward:

6.1 Information should be collated to estimate the value of puppy farming and the

potential cost of non-tax-compliant operators.

6.2 Discussions should be held with the ATO to raise awareness of puppy farming,

identify how information on puppy farming operations can be shared between

relevant government authorities, and to encourage ATO investigation of puppy

farming operations. Problem 7 Current regulations relating to the breeding and sale of dogs are

insufficient or ineffectively enforced.

Desired outcome: Gaps in regulations for the welfare of dogs in the breeding and sale of

dogs are closed and regulations are effectively enforced.

Recommended way forward:

7.1 Action is taken to develop best practices for enforcement of current and future

regulations relating to the identification, registration, breeding and sale of dogs.

7.2 Where gaps in current legislation are identified, changes are required to ensure

that puppy farming activities can be identified and prosecuted. Changes to be

considered include:

a Prohibition Orders in specific circumstances to prevent further ownership of

animals where legal proceedings are not available, to prevent puppy farmers

from continuing their business

b Explore existing Australian legislation with a view to procedures that

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.

c Penalties increased to reflect the economic value of the trade.

d Explore potential amendments to the Animal Welfare Legislation to specifically

address puppy farming

7.3 As a general principle, State/Territory animal welfare legislation should include the

concept of a ‘duty of care’, similar to that reflected in the Queensland Animal Care

and Protection Act 2001, to assist in the prosecution of cases where enforceable

standards are lacking.

7.4 Governments ensure effective enforcement by allocating sufficient resources and

enabling government agencies to play a greater role.

6

Problem 8 Awareness of puppy farming and responsibilities of breeders, retailers

and buyers is low.

Desired outcome: A high level of public awareness of puppy farming and the

responsibilities of breeders, retailers and buyers.

Recommended way forward:

8.1 Registration/licensing or other relevant authorities should ensure that owners of

entire dogs and bitches are provided with information on their responsibilities as

breeders at the point of registration.

8.2 Stakeholders should undertake to raise awareness with their members and

customers of existing legislation, standards and guidelines and to encourage

members to support improvements in the regulation of the breeding and sale of

dogs.

8.3 Information should be developed and provided to vets, pet supply stores and

others to help them identify possible puppy farm operators.

8.4 Explore a process for vets, pet supply stores and members of the community to

notify relevant authorities if they suspect one of their clients is running a puppy

farm operation.

8.5 Explore training and education opportunities for people involved in the pet

industry and enforcement regarding puppy farms.

The way forward

Roundtable participants will form a coalition with the aims of:

a raising public awareness about puppy farms and how to identify responsible

dog breeders

b promoting an agreed position to governments

c disseminating and implementing the recommendations put forward in this

summary document.

d considering future meetings

[SeeGee]

thank you for sharing this Steve.

[WreckitWhippet]

It's a lot to read and digest.

[16Paws]

Sorry for the double post but lack of formatting made it difficult to read

Puppy Farms

Problems, desired outcomes and ways forward

Background

RSPCA Australia considers puppy farming to be a significant national animal welfare issue. To address

puppy farming at a national level and to generate much needed discussion and debate regarding this

serious animal welfare issue, RSPCA Australia released the RSPCA Australia Puppy Farm Discussion Paper in

January 2010, available here:

http://www.rspca.org.au/assets/files/Campa...aperJan2010.pdf.

Back in January 2010, RSPCA Australia called for submissions on the Discussion Paper with the intention of

seeking comment and feedback from a broad audience. To achieve this, the paper was sent to key

stakeholders and was made publicly available on the RSPCA Australia website. We received over 100

responses to the Discussion Paper from individuals and various organisations. All of the responses were

carefully considered, summarised and used to help develop a draft consensus document, based on the

framework of ideas presented in the Discussion Paper.

In August, RSPCA Australia convened a meeting involving a number of key stakeholders, including

representatives from the AAWS Companion Animal Working Group, Australian Association of Pet Dog

Breeders, Australian National Kennel Council, Australian Veterinary Association, Animal Welfare League

Queensland, DeathrowPets, Dogs NSW, Master Dog Breeders and Associates, NSW Young Lawyers, Pet

Industry Association Australia, RSPCA NSW, RSPCA QLD, RSPCA Victoria and RSPCA Australia to work

through the consensus document and reach agreement on a final version.

This document reflects the

outcome of that process: it presents a series of agreed problems, desired outcomes and ways forward

which, if implemented, would bring a complete end to puppy farming in Australia.

Problem 1: There is no agreed definition of puppy farming or clarity between what is

puppy farming what is animal hoarding.

Desired outcome: Define the problem of puppy farming.

Recommended way forward:

1.1 A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as an

intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that

fail to meet the dogs’ psychological, behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

Puppy farms are usually large-scale commercial operations, but inadequate

conditions may also exist in small volume breeding establishments which may or

may not be run for profit.

1.2 Animal hoarding is a separate problem that can involve keeping higher than usual

numbers of animals as pets without having the ability to properly house or care for

them, while at the same time denying this inability. Compulsive animal hoarding

can be characterised as a symptom of mental disorder rather than as deliberate

cruelty towards animals. Hoarders are deeply attached to their animals; find it

extremely difficult to relinquish them; and typically fail to recognise that they are

harming their animals by failing to provide them with proper care.

1.3 Activities designed to end puppy farming by setting and enforcing minimum

standards for dog breeding will also help to address animal hoarding.

Problem 2 Current voluntary registration or accreditation programs are not sufficient

to ensure the identification and traceability of breeders.

Desired outcome: All dogs are permanently traceable to the breeder and all subsequent

owners and sellers through a nationally coordinated system.

Recommended way forward:

2.1 A system is developed which ensures that all dogs are registered and traceable to

the person who bred the dog. This must include compulsory microchip

identification of puppies to the breeder prior to sale or transfer to be implemented

in all jurisdictions.

2.2 Mechanisms for tracking breeder information should be explored, including utilising

existing microchip registration systems to enable puppies to be traced to the

breeder.

2.3 The current Gold Coast breeder permit pilot project should be examined as a model

for a potential national system.

2.4 A national approach is required to ensure that puppies transferred across

jurisdictions remain traceable. Such a system could be administered at the state or

local government level.

Problem 3 There are insufficient standards nationwide to provide for the welfare and

health of breeding dogs and puppies and ensure that puppies are

appropriately reared to be suitable as companion animals.

Desired outcome: Enforceable animal welfare legislation, supported by compulsory

minimum standards for the breeding of dogs, is in place and is consistent across all

jurisdictions.

Recommended way forward:

3.1 Standards are developed which are sufficient to provide for the welfare and health

of breeding dogs and puppies and to ensure that puppies are appropriately reared

to be suitable as companion animals. They must adequately address the

psychological, behavioural, social and physiological needs of both breeding dogs

and puppies.

3.2 Standards must cover all aspects of dog breeding that have an impact on animal

welfare including: staff competencies and training, staff to dog ratios, record

keeping, dog care and management, breeding, rearing and socialisation, health and

veterinary care, transfer of ownership and transport.

3.3 Standards must be linked to existing animal welfare legislation.

3.4 Standards should take into consideration the national Standards and Guidelines for

Dogs currently in development through AAWS.

Problem 4 Current accreditation systems and self-regulation of the sale of dogs are

insufficient to prevent puppies from puppy farms being sold.

Desired outcome: Enforceable legislation, supported by compulsory minimum standards

for the sale of dogs, is in place in all jurisdictions.

Recommended way forward:

4.1 Advertising and sale conditions for puppies must allow individual animals to be

traced to their breeder. Potential mechanisms for this should be explored,

including the disclosure of a breeder number, ABN and/or microchip number

wherever animals are advertised and when they are sold or transferred.

4.2 Regulation of the sale of dogs must require that all puppies are microchipped and

vaccinated prior to supply. Potential mechanisms should be explored to ensure

compliance, including vendors being required to record the microchip numbers

and vaccination details of all puppies supplied.

4.3 Regulation of the sale of dogs must assist in protecting consumers and enable

action to be taken when problems occur after sale. This should include the

following minimum requirements:

a A guarantee which allows the return of animals for any reason within a

specified time period

b A mechanism for customers to make a complaint to the breeder and/or

appropriate authority when problems occur after sale. This mechanism must

be disclosed to the customer.

4.4 The issue of responsibility surrounding the rehoming of returned dogs should also

be explored.

4.4 In the interim, exploring the feasibility of establishing a website for dog breeders

that meet the above requirements to advertise puppies directly to the public

should be further examined.

4.5 Explore mechanisms regarding desexing of dogs at time of sale to non-breeders

Problem 5 Current requirements for the export of dogs and puppies are set by the

importing country. There is no mechanism in place to ensure that exported

puppies have been bred in facilities which meet minimum standards of care.

Desired outcome: Export provisions for sale of puppies overseas are strengthened.

Recommended way forward:

5.1 Discussions are held with AQIS to develop minimum standards for the export of

puppies, similar to those currently in place for the export of livestock and native wildlife.

5.2 The following requirements should be considered:

a All dogs to be microchipped prior to export; microchip details are recorded

and made available to authorised animal welfare inspectors

b A minimum age and weight for the export of puppies

c exploring strategies to prevent the export of puppies to puppy farms overseas.

5.3 In the absence of these export provisions, breeder associations are encouraged to

set minimum standards for export in line with these requirements.

Problem 6 Puppy farmers can access overseas markets without complying with

taxation laws.

Desired outcome: Raise awareness of puppy farming with Centrelink and the ATO and

increase compliance with taxation laws.

Recommended way forward:

6.1 Information should be collated to estimate the value of puppy farming and the

potential cost of non-tax-compliant operators.

6.2 Discussions should be held with the ATO to raise awareness of puppy farming,

identify how information on puppy farming operations can be shared between

relevant government authorities, and to encourage ATO investigation of puppy

farming operations.

Problem 7 Current regulations relating to the breeding and sale of dogs are

insufficient or ineffectively enforced.

Desired outcome: Gaps in regulations for the welfare of dogs in the breeding and sale of

dogs are closed and regulations are effectively enforced.

Recommended way forward:

7.1 Action is taken to develop best practices for enforcement of current and future

regulations relating to the identification, registration, breeding and sale of dogs.

7.2 Where gaps in current legislation are identified, changes are required to ensure

that puppy farming activities can be identified and prosecuted. Changes to be

considered include:

a Prohibition Orders in specific circumstances to prevent further ownership of

animals where legal proceedings are not available, to prevent puppy farmers

from continuing their business

b Explore existing Australian legislation with a view to procedures that

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.

c Penalties increased to reflect the economic value of the trade.

d Explore potential amendments to the Animal Welfare Legislation to specifically

address puppy farming

7.3 As a general principle, State/Territory animal welfare legislation should include the

concept of a ‘duty of care’, similar to that reflected in the Queensland Animal Care

and Protection Act 2001, to assist in the prosecution of cases where enforceable standards are lacking.

7.4 Governments ensure effective enforcement by allocating sufficient resources and

enabling government agencies to play a greater role.

Problem 8 Awareness of puppy farming and responsibilities of breeders, retailers and buyers is low.

Desired outcome: A high level of public awareness of puppy farming and the

responsibilities of breeders, retailers and buyers.

Recommended way forward:

8.1 Registration/licensing or other relevant authorities should ensure that owners of

entire dogs and bitches are provided with information on their responsibilities as

breeders at the point of registration.

8.2 Stakeholders should undertake to raise awareness with their members and

customers of existing legislation, standards and guidelines and to encourage

members to support improvements in the regulation of the breeding and sale of dogs.

8.3 Information should be developed and provided to vets, pet supply stores and

others to help them identify possible puppy farm operators.

8.4 Explore a process for vets, pet supply stores and members of the community to

notify relevant authorities if they suspect one of their clients is running a puppy farm operation.

8.5 Explore training and education opportunities for people involved in the pet industry and enforcement regarding puppy farms.

The way forward

Roundtable participants will form a coalition with the aims of:

a raising public awareness about puppy farms and how to identify responsible

dog breeders

b promoting an agreed position to governments

c disseminating and implementing the recommendations put forward in this

summary document.

d considering future meetings

[Steve]

Much better - thank you

[Roseclipt]

Certainly sounds reasonable so far.

One query in relation to minimum standards- my apologies for sounding egocentric, here - but I think we all relate to the issues that have personal concern.

I have had up to 18 of a giant breed at times. They were (except for our oldies) kenneled at night, but had free run of the house and well fenced paddocks during the day, and I was always home to control any "temper tantrums". Bitches in season were also obviously separated. We also then had a dedicated whelping room in the house, with separate temperature control, etc. The bitches were always desexed after their usually one litter, and then remained here with us - I adore my old guys and gals.

As we aged, we realised that we would get too old to control a largish pack, so have let our lines die out through old age (ours and theirs). We still have the last of our big guys here, and they are full time house dogs, along with 4 of a small breed, 2 of whom are desexed, the other 2 are exhibited.

We have bred one litter of the small breed with some success, and will probably do so again, but I have no interest in kenelling them. As with our giants, they are whelped in the house, they are raised in the house, they live in the house uncrated and they have free access to the paddocks. OK - so I do a lot of housework - but how will minimum conditions affect us?

I have no problems with paying an extra registration fee, but also have no intentions of having kennels, as such.

[Adza]

Thank you for the info, appreciate it.

They need a lot of public awareness

[Steve]

Certainly sounds reasonable so far.

One query in relation to minimum standards- my apologies for sounding egocentric, here - but I think we all relate to the issues that have personal concern.

I have had up to 18 of a giant breed at times. They were (except for our oldies) kenneled at night, but had free run of the house and well fenced paddocks during the day, and I was always home to control any "temper tantrums". Bitches in season were also obviously separated. We also then had a dedicated whelping room in the house, with separate temperature control, etc. The bitches were always desexed after their usually one litter, and then remained here with us - I adore my old guys and gals.

As we aged, we realised that we would get too old to control a largish pack, so have let our lines die out through old age (ours and theirs). We still have the last of our big guys here, and they are full time house dogs, along with 4 of a small breed, 2 of whom are desexed, the other 2 are exhibited.

We have bred one litter of the small breed with some success, and will probably do so again, but I have no interest in kenelling them. As with our giants, they are whelped in the house, they are raised in the house, they live in the house uncrated and they have free access to the paddocks. OK - so I do a lot of housework - but how will minimum conditions affect us?

I have no problems with paying an extra registration fee, but also have no intentions of having kennels, as such.

The minimum requirements wont affect you any more than they do now.Because you live in NSW you already come under the code for breeding dogs - much of which is mandatory and you may be breaching this already. Part of the discussion was to consider using NSW current requirements as the norm Australia wide.

This mandatory code for breeders is here

Go though it and take note of what is standard - [or compulsory] and what is a guideline.The guidelines cut in if there is a complaint against you and can be used in court to show you are in breach of best standards.

[~Shepherd~]

Certainly sounds reasonable so far.

One query in relation to minimum standards- my apologies for sounding egocentric, here - but I think we all relate to the issues that have personal concern.

I have had up to 18 of a giant breed at times. They were (except for our oldies) kenneled at night, but had free run of the house and well fenced paddocks during the day, and I was always home to control any "temper tantrums". Bitches in season were also obviously separated. We also then had a dedicated whelping room in the house, with separate temperature control, etc. The bitches were always desexed after their usually one litter, and then remained here with us - I adore my old guys and gals.

As we aged, we realised that we would get too old to control a largish pack, so have let our lines die out through old age (ours and theirs). We still have the last of our big guys here, and they are full time house dogs, along with 4 of a small breed, 2 of whom are desexed, the other 2 are exhibited.

We have bred one litter of the small breed with some success, and will probably do so again, but I have no interest in kenelling them. As with our giants, they are whelped in the house, they are raised in the house, they live in the house uncrated and they have free access to the paddocks. OK - so I do a lot of housework - but how will minimum conditions affect us?

I have no problems with paying an extra registration fee, but also have no intentions of having kennels, as such.

The minimum requirements wont affect you any more than they do now.Because you live in NSW you already come under the code for breeding dogs - much of which is mandatory and you may be breaching this already. Part of the discussion was to consider using NSW current requirements as the norm Australia wide.

This mandatory code for breeders is here

Go though it and take note of what is standard - [or compulsory] and what is a guideline.The guidelines cut in if there is a complaint against you and can be used in court to show you are in breach of best standards.

never mind

Edited August 26, 2010 by Chewbacca

[shortstep]

Steve am trying to wrap my head around a few things.

About section 1.1

So a puppy farm is a breeder that breeds any number of pups from many to a few, that does not supply adequate psychological, behavioural, social and/or physiological needs?

So any breeder can be considered a possible puppy farm? So what we think of as puppy farms might be included or not included under this definintion?

Or if an ANKC breeder, who has bred 2 litters in 5 years gets raided by the RSPCA, and they find they have not followed any of the laws for supplying adequate psychological, behavioural, social and/or physiological needs, then they would be prosocuted as a puppy farm?

Edited August 26, 2010 by shortstep

[asal]

i know i should be walking away from even thinking about this

but this bit

"b Explore existing Australian legislation with a view to procedures that

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."

so makes me remember marion alcorn, they took her horses, had her sign them over in exchange for not being made to pay the $70 per week per horse for ten weeks, ten horses . $7,000.

then "rehomed" them to the doggers

so pardon me for not feeling any warm n fuzzies.

now they can slam anyone else in future for the 7,000 upfront or take em eh?

am i missing something or is there still ABSOLUTELY nothing going to be implemented where an appeal can be lodged , i see plenty of give us more power.

i see nothing of inspectors/special constables, like every other member of the police force or anyother will be accountable?????????

or constables being actually expected to have any more animal care knowledge than the present state of"ex police with prosecution experience willing to undergo an animal care course" n as i already know they dont even have to listen or pass, just turn up at class...............................

yes i have a fixation, surely there is something so so wrong when rspca constables, let alone the entire organisation are exempt from the same checks and balances as the police force that previously they were before their new totally protected status when they change profession?

you cannot become a scout leader or work with the organisation before exhausive checks and balances to protect the children from possible pedefiles yet there is nothing to protect jo or jean public from any psyco from leaving the police where it could have been a case of jump before your pushed and why wouldnt the rscpa be the perfect snuggly haven for the maggots to congregate?

theres no disinfectant gets into there does it?

no ombudsman no where to lodge an appeal......NOTHING!

Edited August 26, 2010 by asal

[Roseclipt]

" .... much of which is mandatory and you may be breaching this already"

Can't see how - have plenty of floorspace Seriously though, all conditions CAN be complied with - I had actually read these before. And have 35 years of records.

Interesting from a legal perspective, also, how one part states "business of breeding dogs" and another states "activity of breeding dogs".

Environmental enrichment is interesting - having spent 13 years on animal ethics committees and ensuring this was done - I have seldom seen any "kennel" that provides this - which is why we would not sell to breeders who kennelled their dogs .....

[asal]

" .... much of which is mandatory and you may be breaching this already"

Can't see how - have plenty of floorspace Seriously though, all conditions CAN be complied with - I had actually read these before. And have 35 years of records.

Interesting from a legal perspective, also, how one part states "business of breeding dogs" and another states "activity of breeding dogs".

Environmental enrichment is interesting - having spent 13 years on animal ethics committees and ensuring this was done - I have seldom seen any "kennel" that provides this - which is why we would not sell to breeders who kennelled their dogs .....

YOU dont realise, your not safe.

i remember stringy, i remember there was no breach, yet richard amery had the hide to write and tell me i had nothing to fear from the rspca as long as i adhered to the code of ethic, even kindly included a copy for me. thoughful man.

except there was not one single test they did on my dog listed in the code of ethics, there was NOT ONE.

he was taken though, i was billed for every procedure they did on him. to get him back after they had run out of idea's and tests, i was allowed to come and collect what was left of him, yes alive, foaming at the mouth, terrified from all the pain inflicted, but his troubles didnt end there. they got the costs of their fruitless tests back, gee they werent even going to let me see him, it was pay up n then we will let you see him.

when i stupidly asked whats wrong with him im offered the opportunity to let mark lowrey to do more tests??????????? betty stepkovitch and i got out of there fast as we could.

so aside from the roughly 500 dollars to get him back it took another 600 at his own vets to get him over the pnemonia from , suprise a trachel tear my vet said he expects was caused by insertion of too big a trachael tube.

nice one. soo dont tell me adhering to the code of practice would have protected string. it didnt, amery didnt, my vet phoned every day asking to see their vet, the inspectors refused to let him speak to him.

n who is one of those inspectors hes now, the ceo these days.

who walked into the centre of mcgraths hill saleyard and told all present "no one but the doggers are allowed to bid on these horses" an inspecter then, ceo now! wonder how safe the cute n cuddly he had cradled in his arms published in DOGS NSW news might feel if it knew the fate the man holding him sent marions horses too?

I know three people who had phoned every day asking to buy them but were turned away.

sending 10 young horses to their deaths doesnt come under any heading of "caring" for any creature great or small to me? let alone a recommendation for advancement ?

Edited August 26, 2010 by asal

[Souff]

Thanks Steve.

[Steve]

" .... much of which is mandatory and you may be breaching this already"

Can't see how - have plenty of floorspace Seriously though, all conditions CAN be complied with - I had actually read these before. And have 35 years of records.

Interesting from a legal perspective, also, how one part states "business of breeding dogs" and another states "activity of breeding dogs".

Environmental enrichment is interesting - having spent 13 years on animal ethics committees and ensuring this was done - I have seldom seen any "kennel" that provides this - which is why we would not sell to breeders who kennelled their dogs .....

In NSW if you have any more than 2 dogs they have to be housed at least 15 metres from a dwelling or an area used to prepare food. If you whelp your puppies in a room in your home that is a breach of the law.

Go back and read the standards again. Do you vaccinate yearly and if not do you have written excuses from your vet?

[Katdogs]

In NSW if you have any more than 2 dogs they have to be housed at least 15 metres from a dwelling or an area used to prepare food.

?

There are more people breaking the law than following it, if that were the case. Many people don't have 15 metres length of dwelling space in Sydney? I'm confused. I have two of my own dogs and sometimes two fosters - should they not be allowed to sleep in the house?

[Steve]

In NSW if you have any more than 2 dogs they have to be housed at least 15 metres from a dwelling or an area used to prepare food.

?

There are more people breaking the law than following it, if that were the case. Many people don't have 15 metres length of dwelling space in Sydney? I'm confused. I have two of my own dogs and sometimes two fosters - should they not be allowed to sleep in the house?

In NSW the laws says - no.

Any more than 2 have to be housed at least 15 metres from a dwelling or a place used to prepare food.

The Gold coast are running a pilot program where every one who wants to keep an entire dog have to have a licence and be inspected before they can do that - they are assumed to be breeders. That is being watched as a potential model for the rest of Australia to follow. If that happens it means your homes will be inspected to see if they comply with the mandatory codes before you are able to breed and you will be inspected periodically to ensure you are following the laws.

[Quickasyoucan]

In NSW if you have any more than 2 dogs they have to be housed at least 15 metres from a dwelling or an area used to prepare food.

?

There are more people breaking the law than following it, if that were the case. Many people don't have 15 metres length of dwelling space in Sydney? I'm confused. I have two of my own dogs and sometimes two fosters - should they not be allowed to sleep in the house?

This just seems bizarre, as we all know, there are enough threads on here stating that dogs at minimum should be kept as inside/outside dogs, because it is considered better from a pysychological point of view, especially with some breeds who would not do well outside at all.

What if you have 3 pugs (or any brachy breed for that matter) and live in Northern NSW? They could potentially die from being kept 15 metres from a dwelling if the heat got too much

And as someone else noted, inner city people often dont' have 15 metres of garden. I don't (though I only have one dog).

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Thanks for posting Steve.

I have to admit, this is the first I've heard of the outside kenneling requirement. Does that mean we should avoid putting photos up on the internet that show 3 dogs lying in front of a living room fire?

Edited to say - from a welfare perspective, today in Southern NSW my light framed desert dogs are better off inside.

Edited August 26, 2010 by SkySoaringMagpie

[stormie]

I don't see how annual vaccination can be enforced when a) the AVA has published documents stating that annual vaccine is no longer necessary and b) there are vaccines registered for 3 yearly use???