BlackJaq Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Goodness knows what stupid recommendations may come out of it all at the end of the day. This is my concern also, as well as random people creeping all over your property in the middle of the night! Factory farming dogs is bad, but some things are worse, especially when the dogs are basically well cared for. Loosing all rights in regard to your privacy and property as soon as you have a bitch whelping on your property is much, much worse, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redangel Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Personally I acknowledge that trespass is wrong but you know what, sometimes evidence has to be gathered before other process is started or investigations commence. If someone does this they should expect to be prosecuted nonetheless. Of this story I see two things...some people who are more concerned about how the evidence is collected rather what it shows. That it is possible for situation where a registered breeder who have registered dogs might well be able to conduct "pet cross breeds"breeding on a scale without breaching any rules re breeder status..as long as the dogs they have registered are not used for the breedings. Would this be correct? "defending the fact that dog breeders all dog breeders have rights." Yes all people have rights- but I think its well time for puppy farmers and registered dog breeders to be seperately defined. By putting them both under the same gives /takes credentials from one or the other that I dont think should be afforded..this surely would be better, less we have a registered breeder in defending their rights be by their actions securing the practice of puppy farming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 I think the fact that other breeders are concerned enough to take action says a lot. Not every breeder who dobs in another registered breeder is just jealous of their show wins. Some puppy farmers do get prefixes so they can hide behind it, other breeders usually know it's happening and they should be supported. The laws are already there, the authorities need to pressured into using them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Goodness knows what stupid recommendations may come out of it all at the end of the day. Loosing all rights in regard to your privacy and property as soon as you have a bitch whelping on your property is much, much worse, in my opinion. I know I have said it before but we have enough laws in place for action to be taken in cases of puppy farming & cruelty & neglect. A warrant can be obtained to enter such premises as these & there are means for prosecution under current laws. What use is it restricting & licensing people who only have a few dogs & making ridiculous conditions that don't help the dogs that need help ? Registered with canine associations, registered with council or byb some people will never take good care of their dogs & others will regardless of anything. Have to add that I have looked at some photos now & can see the cause for concern. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Lets assume for a minute that the accusation is right and that people should have to loose their rights when they own breeding dogs and that these dogs were being poorly treated. How has anyone helped the dogs? How has this type of action prevented those dogs from being poorly treated. They have been moved off the property and maybe living in worse conditions than those being discussed here. Please don't tell me to take any notice of photos taken illegally and splashed around the net because I know that photos have been presented in the past which were not as they were reported to be and when photos are taken when evidence is being collected there is a protocol for good reason. I know that the type of people who are prepared to conduct illegal activity are capable of telling lies, distorting the facts and tagging their victim with anything they can imagine to create something that doesn't exist. As far as assuming that because "fellow breeders were concerned enough to take action" is concerned if we were going to use that as criteria for believing there was a problem that will take us no where and more to the point if fellow breeders were concerned why didnt they speak to her , offer her help, call the RSPCA ? If fellow breeders are responsible for getting this mob involved to stitch someone up before going to the RSPCA then sorry Im not giving any pats on the back for that. If they cared about the best outcome for the dogs and not just stitching someone up etc then they should stick to the rules and call those who are charged with policing them. Whats more it appears to me that the "registered breeder" has been in the main vindicated anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inez Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) Personally I acknowledge that trespass is wrong but you know what, sometimes evidence has to be gathered before other process is started or investigations commence. If someone does this they should expect to be prosecuted nonetheless. Of this story I see two things...some people who are more concerned about how the evidence is collected rather what it shows. That it is possible for situation where a registered breeder who have registered dogs might well be able to conduct "pet cross breeds"breeding on a scale without breaching any rules re breeder status..as long as the dogs they have registered are not used for the breedings. Would this be correct? "defending the fact that dog breeders all dog breeders have rights." Yes all people have rights- but I think its well time for puppy farmers and registered dog breeders to be seperately defined. By putting them both under the same gives /takes credentials from one or the other that I dont think should be afforded..this surely would be better, less we have a registered breeder in defending their rights be by their actions securing the practice of puppy farming As some one said earlier, weird that a pedafhile has far greater rights, than anyone suspected to have a bitch in pup? Especially since the main target is registered breeders? "According to the PIAA, 450,000 dogs are sold nationally each year. Of these, only 15 per cent - or 67,500 - are bought in pet shops." Yet a quick google of the ANKC National records reveal GRAND TOTAL; of puppies registered, Australia wide per year 1986 95,792...Austranian Population 1986 15,788,000 to within one thousand. 1987 97,917.........................1987 16,018,000 1988 92,089........................1988 16,263,000 1989 86,586..........................1989 16,532,000 1990 87,768..........................1990 16,814,000 1991 82,062..........................1991 17,065,000 1992 80,693..........................1992 17,284,000 1993 80,071..........................1993 17,494,000 1994 85,415..........................1994 17,667,000 1995 81,389..........................1995 17,854,000 1996 84,718..........................1996 18,071,000 1997 68,637..........................1997 18,310,000 1998 89,922..........................1998 18,517,000 1999 73,061..........................1999 18,711,000 2000 77,559..........................2000 18,925,000 2001 69,946..........................2001 19,153,000 2002 69,419..........................2002 19,413,000 2003 66,710..........................2003 19,651,000 2004 64,189..........................2004 19,895,000 2005 62,340..........................2005 20,127,000 2006 61,524..........................2006 20,394,000 2007 64,074..........................2007 20,697,000 2008 63,387..........................2008 21,015,000 2009 66,588..........................2009 21,262,000 2010 66,040..........................2009 21,262,000 2011 63,465..........................2011 22,485,000 2012 64,224 Australian population is estimated to be 22,933,392 as of 15 March 2013. What does this tell us? 385,776 dogs PER YEAR, DID NOT come from registered breeders. In any language thats an awfully lot of dogs. So WHERE ARE THEY COMMING FROM? Although the population has grown by 6,697,000 (six million +) there are 31,568 less registered puppies bred for them to choose from than in 1986 Edited March 15, 2013 by inez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Personally I acknowledge that trespass is wrong but you know what, sometimes evidence has to be gathered before other process is started or investigations commence. If someone does this they should expect to be prosecuted nonetheless. Of this story I see two things...some people who are more concerned about how the evidence is collected rather what it shows. That it is possible for situation where a registered breeder who have registered dogs might well be able to conduct "pet cross breeds"breeding on a scale without breaching any rules re breeder status..as long as the dogs they have registered are not used for the breedings. Would this be correct? "defending the fact that dog breeders all dog breeders have rights." Yes all people have rights- but I think its well time for puppy farmers and registered dog breeders to be seperately defined. By putting them both under the same gives /takes credentials from one or the other that I dont think should be afforded..this surely would be better, less we have a registered breeder in defending their rights be by their actions securing the practice of puppy farming The RSPCA are charged with investigating complaints so are councils and the police and if evidence is to be gathered then they have ample powers to legitimately enter and record and determine the facts. And yes 100% Im more concerned with how the "evidence" is collected rather than what is presented as evidence APPEARS to show. Like it or not breeding dogs is not an illegal activity in this country ,breeding cross bred dogs is not illegal and being a registered breeder and breeding cross bred dogs as long as they are not your registered dogs is within the law and the governing bodies regs. Just because some people think this shouldn't be done doesn't make it O.K. to hunt and intimidate and break laws to punished them without natural justice. How can they make a distinction between one breeder and another based on whether they happen to be members of one group? In Victoria for example there are many many registered breeders who dont own a registered dog who breed cross bred dogs, who breed purebred dogs which are never registered etc because if you happen to be a registered breeder in Victoria you get to have the same exemptions as purebred registered breeders so they join up and have equal status. Why is it that because any person believes its better to breed purebred registered dogs that this automatically makes it a punishable crime if they breed cross breeds or they breed more than someone else? Why dont we just say that anyone who owns a dog is a potential animal abuser and give them a tick to prowl around anyone who owns a dog's back yard in the night to try and catch them out on not letting the dog sleep in the house because some people think all dogs should sleep inside on satin pillows? If they catch one out now and then who is keeping their dogs in rotten conditions is it O.K. to leave all dog owners with no rights or maybe we should just cjheck up on thise who own cross bred dogs and cheer about another one being exposed as a rotten pet owner. If a neighbour goes to animal rights before they go to the RSPCA and the accused neighbour has night time visitors and has their name all over the world as an animal abuser before it is looked at is that O.K.? Dont tell me its O.K. if people creep around your property in the night and take photos of you ,where your dog sleeps, where it poops, taking photos of you throwing it a bone keeping tabs to see if you take it for a walk or how often or how long you walk with it to use against you and go after your personal private papers and publish them etc because you have nothing to hide - try living with it. Try living with your dogs knowing that because you happen to be a dog owner you have no rights and that people who are breaking the law and have a record of dishonesty are given credibility and you cant even defend yourself because you have been named and accused as an animal abusing dog owner. I dont want to have to defend anything relating to people who are breeding dogs I don't know are doing the right thing but if we give a tick to the ones we dont agree with being treated this way then we have no case to complain about if someone else or the same people tomorrow don't agree with the type of dogs we breed or that we happen to breed at all. Yes it is about how the "evidence is collected" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inez Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) A friend is a wreak these days, a pedafile was disturbed in the process of breaking into her granddaughters bedroom, to gain access he had broken a locked gate, let their dog out onto the street where it could have been run over, frightented the daylights out of the granddaughter whose screams brought her single parent mother running to confront the man trying to get through the broken window. Where are her rights? The monster apparently lives nearby, was until now unkown to them. Very well known to the police. The best she is allowed by law is a restraining order from entering her premisis or comming within a set distance of her and her child. As many know such pieces of paper are often still in the grasp of the victum when found. yet the perpertrator is still "innocent until proven guilty". She cannot go search his home for evidence? he never managed to get through the window before running off, so the police are "powerless" to charge him with anything. where and when does she gain the right to hound this terror from their neighbourhood? If he owned an undesexed dog, she most certaintly could, thanks to the reasoning of so many here. Edited March 16, 2013 by inez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yes it is about how the "evidence is collected" I agree. How do those AR loonies continue to get away with B&E and Trespass? It's a criminal offence for anyone else! There is no place in our society for vigilantism and taking the law into their own hands but they blatantly show they continue to do it. Disgusting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) I think it is pretty scary how many people are cool with b&e and trespassing on someone's private property as well, for any reason. Maybe things would be different if it was their own property being breached, rather than a suspected puppy miller's. And to be honest, I have seen backyards where pet dogs are kept with the same or worse conditions as have been shown in the photos, nobody seems to be concerned about those animals. Edited March 16, 2013 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I think it is pretty scary how many people are cool with b&e and trespassing on someone's private property as well, for any reason. Yeah seems like the kangaroo court mentality is alive and well in Australia. Break into someone's property, take carefully orchestrated photos then convict them online without judicial process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) Breeders arent just concerned that their property rights and privacy rights are disregarded they also have to be concerned about their dogs in these type of night time raids. There have been several instances where dogs were moved from one pen to another so it looked like more than 2 dogs were in each pen. Where dogs have been stolen - perfect example of that is Oscar himself who was stolen and desexed and had to be returned to its owner and a long list of other accusations which occur as part of their raids. There are numerous examples of where lies are told and false and misleading crap that literally ruin people's lives. Where breeders are up all night watching for spot lights - too frightened to leave to go to the doctor in case it leaves their dogs vulnerable Believe it or not dog breeders - most of us actually love our dogs and want to protect them from nutters who want to take the law in their own hands.Many of us a parents who dont want their kids frightened of strangers prowling around in the night breaking the law to suit their own purposes. Many of us are single alone vulnerable. Many of these people are un hinged , illogical and talk them selves and each other into believing anything that supports what ever idea they have ,if they dont have enough real things to sting someone with they make it up. Straight up straight out lies not mistakes or misunderstandings - full on straight out lies. They are comprised of ratbags, fanatics and loonies why would anyone want them creeping around their homes? Why on earth would you expect that we should as a society condone them doing that in order to gather their evidence. Edited March 16, 2013 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't break the law to "prove" that someone else is doing so... We have specific groups (RSPCA and AWL) who have all of the correct powers to enter a property and inspect the premises... and they need to be the ones doing it - not crazy zealots with an axe to grind. T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redangel Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) IMO I believe there are breeders....and puppy farmers. I believe they are distinct by practices. Well socialised temperament tested, health tested animals are bred to produce quality animals, with adequate resources for post sale responsibilty or care... Thats a breeders role. Churning out masses of fancy pups from animals that are not adequately socialized, have had little testing health/temperament and parents which on the whole will never be seen by the public (in some cases over a hundred dogs)well that is a puppy farm. Whether there is poop on the ground, knots in the fur is simply cosmetic concerns..there is more to a satisfactory bred puppy than that! Places that churn out pups for sale from large numbers of dogs.. like cakes at a baker sale for profit in front of quality should all be reexamined. ..if you trust the rspca to govern that so be it i guess. (edit add after I saw replies)I agree that the rules of trespass should apply T. I have not read one account of trespass on a breeders property on this forum (maybe I missed it)nor have I read where a prosecution has taken place of someone doing so... there are alot of breeders on this forum. Is this fear as real for the general breeder of register dogs? Does a person with a few breeding dogs really fear that someone will do as described above? Maybe Im wrong in my definition of puppy farm vs breeder but it is my opinion. Yes there are always going to be oops litters, byb etc.. but I think where possible more controls should be there for better quality practices. As for the OT I have not heard of this place where the incident is said to have occurred before now. About or whoever is in the wrong or been wronged will be heard...I believe courts serve justice according to the law, not public opinion. Edited March 16, 2013 by redangel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojopoodle Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 IMO I believe there are breeders....and puppy farmers. I believe they are distinct by practices. Well socialised temperament tested, health tested animals are bred to produce quality animals, with adequate resources for post sale responsibilty or care... Thats a breeders role. Churning out masses of fancy pups from animals that are not adequately socialized, have had little testing health/temperament and parents which on the whole will never be seen by the public (in some cases over a hundred dogs)well that is a puppy farm. Whether there is poop on the ground, knots in the fur is simply cosmetic concerns..there is more to a satisfactory bred puppy than that! Places that churn out pups for sale from large numbers of dogs.. like cakes at a baker sale for profit in front of quality should all be reexamined. ..if you trust the rspca to govern that so be it i guess. (edit add after I saw replies)I agree that the rules of trespass should apply T. I have not read one account of trespass on a breeders property on this forum (maybe I missed it)nor have I read where a prosecution has taken place of someone doing so... there are alot of breeders on this forum. Is this fear as real for the general breeder of register dogs? Does a person with a few breeding dogs really fear that someone will do as described above? Maybe Im wrong in my definition of puppy farm vs breeder but it is my opinion. Yes there are always going to be oops litters, byb etc.. but I think where possible more controls should be there for better quality practices. As for the OT I have not heard of this place where the incident is said to have occurred before now. About or whoever is in the wrong or been wronged will be heard...I believe courts serve justice according to the law, not public opinion. Well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) There was a registered breeder of collies not long a ago who had people sneak into her property and take deceiving pictures that only showed part of her premises to make thing look worse. She did get council attention eventually and had to make changes but that does not change the fact that her rights of property and privacy were violated. An endless loop of a dog walking one circle was also played to make it appear the dog was walking in circles over and over. Did you miss that story? I'm sure there were more Are you saying that you are only entitled to privacy if somebody trespassing does not find ANYTHING wrong with your property? Edited March 17, 2013 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now