Puppy Farm Legislation Victoria

[Steve]

This one is about one of the lawsuits

http://www.naturalnews.com/030108_microchips_animals.html

(NaturalNews) Many veterinarians recommend them, and most animal shelters require them. Identification microchips injected into the necks of cats and dogs are touted as useful in recovering lost pets because the devices store owner and medical information. But are they safe? A new lawsuit against Merck & Co., Inc., maker of the HomeAgain pet microchip, says they are not, noting that they can cause cancer to develop in pets.

Featured at www.ChipMeNot.org, a website launched to raise awareness about the harm caused to animals by microchips, the lawsuit alleges that Merck's HomeAgain pet microchip induces cancerous tumors in pets. According to the suit, the defendant's cat developed cancer after getting a chip implant, and according to reports, other animals have gotten cancer after getting chipped as well.

"Based on the alarming number of microchip-induced cancers we're discovering, I predict this lawsuit will be just the tip of the iceberg," said Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a consumer advocate and expert on side effects associated with implantable microchips. "Merck and organizations that advocate pet chipping should take this lawsuit seriously and start warning pet owners of the risk of microchip-induced cancer."

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, potential health risks associated with implantable microchips include "adverse tissue reaction". Based on data from the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, this can include "swelling", "infection", "abscesses", and "tumors".

Albrecht presented a paper on the subject called "Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006" (http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/P074.pdf) at the June conference of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers that documents the increasing number of animals being harmed by microchips. Currently, there is no repository of data on adverse events associated with microchips in the U.S., but Albrecht organization, CASPIAN, is filling that void by compiling such information and making it available to the public.

To learn more about the dangers of animal microchips, visit: www.ChipMeNot.org

[sandgrubber]

Interesting links (that Steve posted on microchips).

I'm surprised this stuff hasn't come up earlier and more often.

Although the text Steve clipped is more dramatic than the scientific studies . . . the scientific studies are worrisome. I think this deserves a new thread.

Below is the conclusions, for pet owners, in the summary of scientific studies

There have been no large-scale, statistically valid, clinically controlled, experimental studies involving microchip implants in dogs and cats, so we know very little about their long-term safety. However, the fact that we have not seen an epidemic of cancers in pets would suggest that only a small number will be impacted. As the chip-removal procedure may be both costly and invasive, pet owners may wish to leave the implanted microchips intact within their animals unless a problem surfaces.

Owners of pets that have been implanted should regularly check the area around the chip for any abnormal lumps or swelling. If something unusual is found, it should be immediately reported to a veterinarian, and tests should be done to rule out cancer. The pet owner may be the key to detecting a problem in the early stages and saving the life of a pet. In the two cases where dogs developed tumors around and attached to implants, it was the owners' astute eye and probing fingers that found the cancers, not the veterinarian. The only indication that there was a problem was the lump; all other laboratory tests came back within normal ranges.

If a pet is not currently microchipped, it may be best to keep it that way. It is the opinion of this researcher that all further implantation of pets should be halted until the existing population of chipped dogs is carefully assessed for adverse reactions, including cancer. There are other ways to ensure a pet is returned to its owner in the event it goes missing. A well-made collar and a clear, legible tag with the owner's contact information are effective tools that have worked for generations of pet owners.

[Tapua]

"Interesting links (that Steve posted on microchips).

I'm surprised this stuff hasn't come up earlier and more often.

Although the text Steve clipped is more dramatic than the scientific studies . . . the scientific studies are worrisome. "

Remarkable articles - but I think I would drive my self bonkers if I accepted these results and stopped microchipping. In 13 years of microchipping I have never experienced or heard of anyones dog developing CA from a microchip. Has anyone?

It concerns me more that the changes in microchipping and the changes to the number of breeding dogs in Victoria is how are they going to police this - and will they bother to police these changes. I find it amazingly contradictory if Dogs Vic is telling their members they dont have to microchip. I think that the whole legislation will be a paper tiger. Regardless of the best of intentions.

[Steve]

"Interesting links (that Steve posted on microchips).

I'm surprised this stuff hasn't come up earlier and more often.

Although the text Steve clipped is more dramatic than the scientific studies . . . the scientific studies are worrisome. "

Remarkable articles - but I think I would drive my self bonkers if I accepted these results and stopped microchipping. In 13 years of microchipping I have never experienced or heard of anyones dog developing CA from a microchip. Has anyone?

It concerns me more that the changes in microchipping and the changes to the number of breeding dogs in Victoria is how are they going to police this - and will they bother to police these changes. I find it amazingly contradictory if Dogs Vic is telling their members they dont have to microchip. I think that the whole legislation will be a paper tiger. Regardless of the best of intentions.

I have heard of some and Ive also experienced a problem when I was breeding and chipping Ragdoll cats. About 1 in 5 that I chipped would come up in a huge boil type thing and expel the chip .Even after one was chucked out we chipped again and the second one went the same way.

I know they were talking about chipping dementia patients some time ago and it was stopped due to possible side effects and I sort of reckon if they are saying there is enough risk to not chip people then there may be enough reason to not to HAVE to chip pets .

However, like you Im not prepared to break the law and stop chipping either.

Im curious to know how they seriously think they CAN police this.

[shel]

Peter Walsh was on the ABC spruiking this legislation this morning. Apparently it is about "responsible pet ownership"... holy hell.

[Steve]

Peter Walsh was on the ABC spruiking this legislation this morning. Apparently it is about "responsible pet ownership"... holy hell.

Yes I saw him on the ABC this morning but couldnt really understand what he was saying,.

He said the problem withthe legislation before was that the councils had to prove a breeder was making a profit. Thats not how I saw it and the DPI website still has the old stuff on it which specifically says you dont need to make a profit but he's the boss.

Anyway he said the new definition of a puppy farm was any place that ever bred a puppy and sold it .

he also said that the numbers of fertile dogs came down to 3 rather than 10. That worried me because as far as I know in the legislation before the only ones who ever had a 10 fertile dogs thingy were Vic dogs registered breeders.

So perhaps this is what they meant when they said there was currently about 50 registered puppy farms but they were expecting the numbers to jump to about 9000 when every one who now needs a permit gets one.

I think someone should really look this legislation up and work out how its going to impact on registered breeders in that state and be sure about what they need to do to be legal.

[sandgrubber]

It may be worth calling for 'best practice' legislation and getting the polis to look how things are done elsewhere.

Many locations here (in California) have a three tier system for kennels/breeders. Pets, 'hobby breeders', aka 'dog fanciers' and registered kennels. The 'hobby' breeders require a license, and may be restricted to properties of a certain size, in a certain zone (eg, 1 acre or more, zoned rural or agricultural) and are usually limited to 8 to 12 dogs, depending on where you are. The full commercial kennels generally get regular inspections and have to deal with quite a bit of red tape.

Australia seems to be going to a two tier system, with nothing between pets and commercial establishments. That's awful for the pedigree dog community.

[Steve]

You know what the joke of it is - you can have as many as you want - like hundreds and thousands as long as you dont breed them.

[toy*dog]

Anyway he said the new definition of a puppy farm was any place that ever bred a puppy and sold it .

just goes to show that these people making all the laws have no idea. i thought so. what about hobby breeders from ANKC. hello? how ridiculous, its like the hobby breeder doesn't exist in their eyes or his eyes because they obviously know nothing about the dog world. we are all out to make a buck and thats it, is that how it goes. grrrrrrr that gets my dander up i can tell you.

[Steve]

Anyway he said the new definition of a puppy farm was any place that ever bred a puppy and sold it .

just goes to show that these people making all the laws have no idea. i thought so. what about hobby breeders from ANKC. hello? how ridiculous, its like the hobby breeder doesn't exist in their eyes or his eyes because they obviously know nothing about the dog world. we are all out to make a buck and thats it, is that how it goes. grrrrrrr that gets my dander up i can tell you.

You know what toydog Ive been in here for months telling everyone it has nothing to do with money or profit or hobbies or businesses. It has nothing to do with how many or what type.

Its difficult for me to understand why hobby breeders didnt hear that they would be treated no differently to what they thought a puppy farmer was.

[dog_fan]

If the new definition of a puppy farmer is one of "any premise/person who has ever sold a puppy" then that means all Dogs Vic registered breeders are now puppy farmers? Gosh who would have seen that coming.

I wonder how the registered breeders who supported Oscars Law or who support animal rights now feel? I wonder if they will still be allowed to participate given they are now the evil puppy farmers.

This will do nothing to stop dogs being treated badly nor will it stem the tide of unwanted or abandoned dogs nor will it reduce dog bites.

I now wonder what this law is really supposed to do?

[BJean]

Peter Walsh was on the ABC spruiking this legislation this morning. Apparently it is about "responsible pet ownership"... holy hell.

Yes I saw him on the ABC this morning but couldnt really understand what he was saying,.

He said the problem withthe legislation before was that the councils had to prove a breeder was making a profit. Thats not how I saw it and the DPI website still has the old stuff on it which specifically says you dont need to make a profit but he's the boss.

Anyway he said the new definition of a puppy farm was any place that ever bred a puppy and sold it .

he also said that the numbers of fertile dogs came down to 3 rather than 10. That worried me because as far as I know in the legislation before the only ones who ever had a 10 fertile dogs thingy were Vic dogs registered breeders.

So perhaps this is what they meant when they said there was currently about 50 registered puppy farms but they were expecting the numbers to jump to about 9000 when every one who now needs a permit gets one.

I think someone should really look this legislation up and work out how its going to impact on registered breeders in that state and be sure about what they need to do to be legal.

So who'd be a Dogs Vic. registered breeder?

When the only registration that matters is council registration.

Remember when there'd be giggles and scorn at the BYB breeder who proudly advertised themself as a Registered Breeder with Council.

Haha I guess the times change.

And I imagine, so will a lot of residences.

Bye Bye Dogs Vic.

Edited October 27, 2011 by lilli

[Tapua]

Peter Walsh was on the ABC spruiking this legislation this morning. Apparently it is about "responsible pet ownership"... holy hell.

Yes I saw him on the ABC this morning but couldnt really understand what he was saying,.

He said the problem withthe legislation before was that the councils had to prove a breeder was making a profit. Thats not how I saw it and the DPI website still has the old stuff on it which specifically says you dont need to make a profit but he's the boss.

Anyway he said the new definition of a puppy farm was any place that ever bred a puppy and sold it .

he also said that the numbers of fertile dogs came down to 3 rather than 10. That worried me because as far as I know in the legislation before the only ones who ever had a 10 fertile dogs thingy were Vic dogs registered breeders.

So perhaps this is what they meant when they said there was currently about 50 registered puppy farms but they were expecting the numbers to jump to about 9000 when every one who now needs a permit gets one.

I think someone should really look this legislation up and work out how its going to impact on registered breeders in that state and be sure about what they need to do to be legal.

So who'd be a Dogs Vic. registered breeder?

When the only registration that matters is council registration.

Remember when there'd be giggles and scorn at the BYB breeder who proudly advertised themself as a Registered Breeder with Council.

Haha I guess the times change.

And I imagine, so will a lot of residences.

Bye Bye Dogs Vic.

yep I think you have a point there!

[Erny]

If the new definition of a puppy farmer is one of "any premise/person who has ever sold a puppy" then that means all Dogs Vic registered breeders are now puppy farmers? Gosh who would have seen that coming.

Steve (Julie : MDBA) did. She raised the issue of two different definitions on many occasion.

[toy*dog]

more like bye bye pedigree dog - hello designer mutt.

oh lordy what is this world coming to, a few patrons of the dog world that have long since departed this world, i can think of many would be turning over in their graves right about now. who knew in the 21st century this crap would be going on. when you look at it, its like these days, people challenge tradition and i think thats really whats happening here when you really look at it. pedigrees are no longer in vogue. who knows how long thats going to take to come back around again. if ever.

we usually say "only in America" but now we need to change it to "only in Australia" where ignorance is bliss.

now do many more understand the implications of such legislation? steve has been trying to tell people for many months and i thought the same as most first off then steve got me to really think about it all, at first i didn't understand her angle but now i know that steve is wise in her words.

[mortonplace]

All the above is why ive started a facebook page called''Purebred Dogbreeders'

So together we can have a voice.its pointless one person telling dogvic of our concerns,

But they might listen to a group of members.After all the new law hasn't passed yet.

We still have time to write and tell Ted our concern about micro chipping

includeing our privacy will be invaded via requred microchip num displayed with our adds.

Also the idea hasn't done anything ot stop reg puppyfarms.

All Ted had to say was petshop pups maybe dearer??

thought the push was to BAN the sales of petshop pups?

Yet im abit

All l can see it will push ileagal puppyfarms underground and us reg breeders [VICDOG MEMBERS] are paying the price

Edited October 27, 2011 by mortonplace

[Steve]

All the above is why ive started a facebook page called''Purebred Dogbreeders'

So together we can have a voice.its pointless one person telling dogvic of our concerns,

But they might listen to a group of members.After all the new law hasn't passed yet.

We still have time to write and tell Ted our concern about micro chipping

includeing our privacy will be invaded via requred microchip num displayed with our adds.

Also the idea hasn't done anything ot stop reg puppyfarms.

All Ted had to say was petshop pups maybe dearer??

thought the push was to BAN the sales of petshop pups?

Yet im abit

All l can see it will push ileagal puppyfarms underground and us reg breeders [VICDOG MEMBERS] are paying the price

Im all for a facbook page for purebred dog breeders but dont fall into the same traps.Dont assume that anyone else other than us think purebred dogs are better or that Vicdogs registered breeders are not capable of mucking it up.

Anything you want has to be also given to DD breeders and breeders who breed for money unless its expemptions for an applicable org.

Firstly you need to ask Vic dogs and the government to clarify whether or not this will affect your current exemptions for needing a domestic animal business licence if you have less than 10 fertile breeding animals.

Then if you are going to fight mandatory chip numbers in ads you need to make realistic viable objections and explain why you believe what you do.Remember that it is mandatory to chip any way - so stick to the subject - how putting numbers in ads will affect you and why you feel it will be un policeable - how it will affect your ability to compete and trade freely with other states and what the loop holes are which will mean those they are trying to get will be the ones who dont.

Forget any idea of arguing that it hasnt done anything to stop reg puppy farms. They dont want to stop reg puppy farms they want all puppy farms to be registered.

The push by Animal rights was to stop sales of puppies in pet shops and to stop people breeding commercially but that was never on the table because the definitions they were using was different to those being used by animal rights.

The goal is for everyone who breeds dogs to be out in the open so they can be watched and picked up if they do the wrong thing by the dogs - which is why they want chip numbers in ads.

Thats probably better than what the RSPCA is asking for which is for addresses to be made public.

We wanted them to feel safe to apply for their DA's but thats not going to happen now - anyone that doesnt already have one is terrified of applying in case they have a bunch of nuts camping on their footpath.

Im saying this again - if you breed dogs in the state of Victoria whether you have Vicdogs exemptions or not - you probably need a DA and if you dont have one you are illegal. Thats not something new since these laws came in - its always been the case - its just most didnt know it.

What has changed is that now more than just the council will police it and if someone doesnt like you and reports you there is much more to loose if you dont have the necessary permits and you are illegal. No one cares if its a hobby or if you breed for money or not.

Go after the mandatory code for breeding dogs and ensure you are covering it all.

[toy*dog]

Steve said:

how it will affect your ability to compete and trade freely with other states and what the loop holes are which will mean those they are trying to get will be the ones who dont.

ah yep, i got told by DPI when i rang them for information, that puppy farmers from large properties in the area are entitled to make a living anyway they see fit, its called "free trade" as we are a free country last time i checked.

as i have said numerous times its really up to the public and what they do and how well they are able to make informed choices. If everyone did stop buying petshop puppies there would end up being none in the shops at high prices but thats the trouble many are STILL unaware of where the puppies in shops actually come from.

talking about microchips, i have a couple of breeder friends who have had troubles with microchips with their tiny toy dogs once before, one dog started walking wonky and then ended up not being able to walk at all and it was because the microchip affected the dogs spine from memory.

Edited October 27, 2011 by toy*dog

[Steve]

It is up to the public but the reality is the majority of people who buy puppies from pet shops think that is preferrable to buying them from a breeder because the animal rights campaign has concentrated on breeding. In a pet shop they can at least see them and decide whether they want to beleive their eyes , buy them if they want to without someone interogating them or having to go to extremes to see the parents etc and do what they are told they need to do to find a good breeder. The vast majority of people either dont believe the beat up on where do puppies come from or they simply dont care - they just want a puppy. They can be just as well educated into believing that their pet shop doesnt buy from puppy farmers and that they are not buying a pup which came from one of these places as they are in the beleif that some pet shops do.

Our whole strategy is led by radicals who have a narrow view and think they know all of the reasons and answers without looking further at all that is in the mix and its time we came back to earth and saw what the big picture is. While ever the push to stop puppies being sold in pet shops is about where they come from its doomed to either failure or years before we see much progress.

The more we state that puppies in pet shops come from people who keep their dogs in substandard conditions the more they can show they dont.

Animal rights are saying this is a win but its legitimised commercial breeders more than ever , allows those who buy from pet shops to feel safer about the pet shop buying from legal breeders, it makes more people want to spend the money and breed more numbers and that was what their definition of a puppy farmer was!

Its put greater penalties on illegal operations but pet shops have been telling us they havent been buying from illegal operations anyway.

Legal puppy farms are seen as a good place to buy a puppy - they dont need a pet shop anyway - where did Julie Gillards dog come from?

Edited October 27, 2011 by Steve

[toy*dog]

yes i totally agree with you there steve. there are several reasons why people choose to either go to a petshop or go online to get their pet. forgot about online as well as they can then by pass shops.

there was information either from state or federal on where to go to buy a puppy and i read that it is best to go to a registered domestic business as they are government approved so right there and then i wrote to them telling them that they are encouraging people to go to farms. i was so angry now it looks like they have taken it down. others must of complained as well.

with peter walsh if some of us perhaps wrote to him and explained the life of a hobby breeder maybe these sorts of people would begin to understand. I have done that over the years with many and the way i word my letters - politely and with a lot of info about our life with our dogs, they appreciate it and thank me for my input.

so maybe someone needs to explain to these polies from our angle. i have the letter written in my head. explaining to him why it is wrong to assume that anyone that breeds a litter of pups and sells some pups off taht don't perhaps make the cut or the breeding program is a farmer.

The more we state that puppies in pet shops come from people who keep their dogs in substandard conditions the more they can show they dont.

i don't agree with this angle at all, as we've said numerous times on here, farms are not always keeping their dogs in substandard conditions - some keep them quite well and can argue that quite successfully against the animal rights people but its more with the animal rights people sucking in as many of the public as they can and using something that will appeal to the public which is cruelty it gets attention and it seems to be working well.

i take exception to the way they are bred as you already know what i take exception to, i think thats a much better angle to take but it requires knowledge of breeding, we all know animal rights people are like the pet owning public don't really know the ins and outs of breeding and also veterinary care - often they were challenging me and my knowledge of 26 years and then they obviously felt threatened afterall i was a mere dog breeder that had all the right labels to be a dog farmer , it can't come from the pet owning public it has to come from organisations such as yourselves, ANKC, or state controlling bodies to explain the ins and outs of breeding for quality rather than breeding for quantity and poor quality pets.

Edited October 28, 2011 by toy*dog