Filthy, Hungry And Cramped: Alleged Puppy Factory Raided Read More: H

[Steve]

Disciplinary action sounds like a slap on the wrist.

It can include deregistraton. For a body that has no legal powers, that's as bad as they can make it.

I know that but the wording sounds pretty weak. Also the public don't know that either. Maybe leading with the promise of deregistration and full cooperation with the aim of legal prosecution might have been stronger.

Judging by the comments I've been reading, the public's understanding of how the pedigree dog world operates and its lack of enforcement powers is low.

Agreed but in Victoria the state government may as well have been standing on a street corner drumming up business for Vicdogs and part of the deal for their members to get such outrageous exemptions over and above people who are not members is that they will police their own members.

You and I both know the worst they can do is throw them out - that removes their eligibility for the exemptions and they cant any longer register their puppies and provide registered pedigrees but that doesnt have any impact on someone like this who already has more than 10 dogs and doesnt have the exemption anyway. The limit to their ability to police them is no more membership but thats not how its all promoted .Vicdogs members are more accountable blah blah blah - fact is Vicdogs members with less than 10 dogs are LESS accountable and those with more than 10 dogs are equally as accountable as anyone who is not a member. Vicdogs may be held responsible for some of this but someone who has that many dogs should be being policed by then AND council and the RSPCA its why the exemption is only for the first 10 so we can hardly blame the public when the government pushes it and so does the organisation.

If part of the deal with the state government is that there are exemptions for their members because they expect them to police them then its about time they policed them and passed on pertinent information to the RSPCA and councils so something real can be done.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Steve

[Rebanne]

well they did forget to mention that the breeder who has been raided is the puppy enquiries officer and still an official at the club

The page is no longer showing up. The club is not at all happy.

It might also pay for everyone to remember Ms Healey is not the only person involved. 2 properties were raided, at least 2 women involved.

[asal]

Is it right to expect higher standards of a breeder who is secretary of her club and who has successfully shown? I think it is because she has probably been using that status to sell her pups. Of course it will be up to the courts to determine what is and isn't true but there are certainly some concerning factors. Even having dead dogs on your property concerns me. Most normal people would dispose of them appropriately (even burying so they can't be dug up by predators) and immediately simply for hygiene and emotional reasons.

Steve can I ask a legitimate question please and your personal opinion based on your experiences. It is an offshoot from this particular issue. Having spent some time with a couple of award winning breeders and having one who has been a good friend for quite some time (all different medium and large breeds) I can see the work that goes into creating a quality litter. All these breeders have other jobs and two have partners to share the work load with. They focus on only one breed. The maximum number of litters they might whelp in a year might be 6. The number of breeding aged dogs they keep might vary each year depending on their breeding goals. Lets say they might have no more than 10 adult dogs at any one time. Based on this, any time I see someone with more than say 30 adult dogs plus puppies I get suspicious about why they need that many and how they adequately house and care for them. When they are breeding and selling over 100 puppies a year I am suspicious how they have the capacity to do it well. And if I hear they breed several types of dogs at the same time that makes me even more suspicious it is just about making money rather than bettering the breed. It starts smelling puppy farm to me regardless of who they are registered with as I just don't think the majority of good breeders can achieve all of this. They'd need to be employing a crew of people to do everything necessary and any corners they cut will not be in favour of the dogs.

Based on your knowledge and experiences though is my thinking wrong? It is possible to be breeding quality pure bred dogs in bulk? Are my thoughts about numbers too low?

Good question but its going to take an essay to address all of the issues and variables

I've got a meeting tonight but will come back.

short answer is any breeder with 10 to 16 a litter breeds can achieve 100 easily. with a nice representative group to select from for the next generation

if its a toy breed many so called litters contain 1 to 2 pups

thats a pretty sparse number of pups to select from

as any genetic tome will tell you to get a mininum chance of genetic variation to select from one set of parents you need a MINIMUM of 16 offspring

but hey who wants to learn about genetics

dogs these days are fur children so be happy with the child you get even it its a down syndrome affected puppy, (http://dogsaholic.com/care/dog-with-down-syndrome.html) well if you bred it, if you buy it it has to be perfect with a lifetime guarantee or the breeder isn't 'ethical'

I have bad news for the all things bright and beautiful brigade, genes, dna and reproduction glitces aren't ethical, they don't even care about the breeders reputation or the affected youngster either

so many such problems are no fault of the breeder or even the parents, but hey who wants to know the truth

Although one truth the ANKC is responsible for. as the article states "Geneticists, scientists who study genes, do know what causes nondisjunction; however, they have found a common link between the age of the mother and the frequency of cases. Basically, the older a mother is, the more likely she is to give birth to a child with Down."

The actions of the ANKC's to pandering to the Peta and animal rights brigade along with the fur kid brigade brought in the one litter per year rule to "stop puppy farming" by registered breeders. ask any vet who has been in practice over 30 years (not the PETA brainwashed coming out of the vet schools since) dogs (women included too) gynecologists too will tell you (there's reams of research available out there) are least likely to have reproduction problems or genetic abnormalities in their offspring as young mums . Aging genes means increased pregnancy and genetic problems. before litters were bred before the mum turned 4 or 5 ad pensioned off as a young dog.

Edited June 11, 2016 by asal

[asal]

well they did forget to mention that the breeder who has been raided is the puppy enquiries officer and still an official at the club

The page is no longer showing up. The club is not at all happy.

It might also pay for everyone to remember Ms Healey is not the only person involved. 2 properties were raided, at least 2 women involved.

I think it sounds better for the press release to have a nice BIG round figure, if the truth isnt even in that what else is distorted? the video I saw was chi's on paper with some 3 or 4 pieces of dog do which could have been done just before the video was filmed? not a sign of the heaps of feces reported and the matted dogs belonged to the other breeder who is not named and shamed?

CORRECTION, I rewatched the video and what I did see was black dots on the base of a food bowl not a dog too in sight in every shot? every dog in screen was in excellent condition. shocking as the in little pens looks, many breeders have these pens in the home and they spend the night in them and let out to play in the yard.

we really dont know the truth of the matter from whats on those links

Edited June 12, 2016 by asal

[asal]

Wow.

She didnt know there were 4 dead dogs on her property - Id love to know what reason she comes up with to get out of that one.

I saw an interview with the unnamed unidentified neighbour and if I heard correctly the dead ones were there not the chi breeder and one of the dead was not known to the property owner , had no idea where it came from and not of the breeds either had? stray?

too little information and much what we have been told is distorted, dangerous trying to make assumptions with so much shaky info to go on

Edited June 11, 2016 by asal

[Little Gifts]

Thank you to Steve and other DOLers who commented on my post. I appreciate being able to expand my thinking on that issue as it is outside my range of personal experiences.

[mita]

...[for Vicdogs and part of the deal for their members to get such outrageous exemptions over and above people who are not members is that they will police their own members.

Thanks for mentioning 'exemptions' in the Victorian context.

I'd not heard of these being granted in Victoria... & only yesterday, in my ignorance', I replied to someone who mentioned that Dogs Vic had some responsibility because they .were supposed to do the 'policing'. I said that can't be right, police investigatory powers re the law (& as for RSPCA), can't be handed over to non-police.

Looks like I was wrong in Victoria's case, as a deal HAD been made. Shall have to go back & apologize.

Goodness, Dogs Vic would've been taking on enormous responsibilities in doing the 'policing'. Just the sheer logistics in man(woman!)power to do it, alone. And the consequences that'd follow any problems.

[JRG]

I think it means "policing" in general terms not "Policing" as in the Police force.

I read the documents at the time and do not recall the term being used, just generalisations about codes of practice etc.

[mita]

I think it means "policing" in general terms not "Policing" as in the Police force.

I read the documents at the time and do not recall the term being used, just generalisations about codes of practice etc.

Do you know where I can find the documents that describe what the deal was that got Dogs Vic 'exemption' from what, by doing what?

The people I was discussing it with yesterday were Victorians & they appeared to be saying that Dogs Vic had been given some power? responsibility? to check that their members were doing the right thing in relation to welfare of their dogs. Now animal welfare matters are covered in the law. That takes real policing powers (like RSCPA & Police & Primary Industry Officers have) to do all the things required to investigate...& resources. Which obviously Dogs Vic don't have. So what actual responsibilities are they supposed to be meeting... given that, at best, they can only ask nicely. That's why I said I thought that can't be right....given I didn't know then about the 'exemption' (whatever that entails). I'm speculating, but it sounds like big expectations set up, that would be hard for Dogs Vic to meet.

[JRG]

Sorry I don't, it was quite while ago, and I have destroyed those documents.

Other groups got the same eg the greyhound people, and I seem to recall that it included the right to inspect property -- but I could be wrong.

[mita]

Sorry I don't, it was quite while ago, and I have destroyed those documents.

Other groups got the same eg the greyhound people, and I seem to recall that it included the right to inspect property -- but I could be wrong.

Thanks Makes sense that similar might've been applied to the greyhound authority. That might make it easier for me to find the original deal online.

It still seems like a poisoned chalice to me ... even those invested with 'policing/investigative' powers (RSPCA, Police etc) within the law, don't have open slather & have to be cautious in exercise of that power. With all their resources, too.

As I said before, there'd be high expectation of Dogs Vic along with fierce condemnation when there's some dissatisfaction. Hard to win!

[Steve]

I think it means "policing" in general terms not "Policing" as in the Police force.

I read the documents at the time and do not recall the term being used, just generalisations about codes of practice etc.

Do you know where I can find the documents that describe what the deal was that got Dogs Vic 'exemption' from what, by doing what?

The people I was discussing it with yesterday were Victorians & they appeared to be saying that Dogs Vic had been given some power? responsibility? to check that their members were doing the right thing in relation to welfare of their dogs. Now animal welfare matters are covered in the law. That takes real policing powers (like RSCPA & Police & Primary Industry Officers have) to do all the things required to investigate...& resources. Which obviously Dogs Vic don't have. So what actual responsibilities are they supposed to be meeting... given that, at best, they can only ask nicely. That's why I said I thought that can't be right....given I didn't know then about the 'exemption' (whatever that entails). I'm speculating, but it sounds like big expectations set up, that would be hard for Dogs Vic to meet.

No there are no real policing powers as in state granted police powers. There is only the ability to "police or check ' their own rules and regs and codes are complied with. If one of their members is found to be breaching them the ONLY POWER they have is to fine or remove someone from their membership.

So the state government has allowed Vic Dog members to have exemptions if they own under 10 dogs which exclude them from having to comply with state code of practice for breeding dogs.

In other words while ever you are Vicdogs member with less than 10 fertile dogs the expectation is that you comply with their rules regs and codes and Vicdogs is responsible for ensuring you do - so you dont have to comply with various things as anyone other than a Vicdogs member does if they are breeding dogs and own more than 2 dogs. The Breeding licence that everyone else is supposed to have to breed dogs allows council and the RSPCA to know who you are and where you are,check you are code and law compliant etc,seize your dogs and charge you with breaches of codes but Vicdogs members can and do fly under the radar.

For example If you are not a Vicdogs member and want to breed a dog you must have a domestic animal licence, you must do all types of crazy things with your dogs such as increased vet checks for breeding dogs, over vaccination, even to retiring a male dog at age 6.

So if you take a good look at what is needed for a licence and what they have to comply with if they are not Vicdogs and compare that to what they have to follow in Vicdogs code of ethics you can see why if you are a Vicodgs member and say you have under 10 dogs you are able to make many types of decisions with what you do with your dogs, how often you take them to a vet etc. In other words its self regulation.

Having said all of that these breeders being discussed now should not have had any of these exemptions because they had more than 10 dogs but there is an expectation from other members and the public, animal rights and animal welfare etc that even though they dont get such exemptions because of the numbers they own that because they are still Vicdogs members that Vicdogs will ensure they are complying with their codes. The waters get muddied as to whether or not Vicdogs should be held accountable for breaches of laws and domestic animal licences rather than breaches of their code of ethics - how they can spot someone doing the wrong thing etc.

Couple that with the usual sensationalism, propoganda and out and out lies told in order to grab a headline etc and you see this kind of stuff.

The biggest issue is that it really is a disaster waiting to happen and right now with a decision coming up re breeding establishment numbers etc via state government and the desire to have such exemptions removed from VICDOGS by the activists I would expect to see more action against Vicdogs members for them to shine a light on issues of self regulation. I dont think fair for stacks of reasons but thats how it is politically for dog breeders in Victoria.

These two women have been named and shamed and false information has been given out via the press. reports have deliberately confused where dead dogs were located , information has been given out which should not have been made public regarding dogs surrendered , compliance notices etc and At this point it doesn't really matter whether they really are guilty of animal cruelty etc for the purposes of beating the drum by Animal lib and the like they got the press they wanted.

[*kirty*]

To me, this is just like what happened with the Greyhound racing industry. They knew shit was going on but they ignored it. Mentality was to protect their members at all costs. And now the shit has hit the fan.

DogsVic can no longer sit back and collect fees and do nothing to ensure their breeders are half decent. The public are now more confused than ever. And rightly so! If a rego fee is all that separates registered breeders from BYB, how can anyone know where to find a reputable breeder?

[mita]

but there is an expectation from other members and the public, animal rights and animal welfare etc that even though they dont get such exemptions because of the numbers they own that because they are still Vicdogs members that Vicdogs will ensure they are complying with their codes. The waters get muddied as to whether or not Vicdogs should be held accountable for breaches of laws and domestic animal licences rather than breaches of their code of ethics - how they can spot someone doing the wrong thing etc.

You are right.... those are the expectations I heard yesterday. And those were people, not breeders, not animal rights folk, but ordinary dog owners with a care for animal welfare. It's been interpreted by the public that Dogs Vic has been given the responsibility of monitoring members re animal welfare law. Which didn't seem right to me.

Self-regulation of ethical codes of conduct presents enough internal difficulties.... much less trying to monitor for breaches of laws of the land without any authority to do so.

Muddied waters is a good analogy!

[Steve]

To me, this is just like what happened with the Greyhound racing industry. They knew shit was going on but they ignored it. Mentality was to protect their members at all costs. And now the shit has hit the fan.

DogsVic can no longer sit back and collect fees and do nothing to ensure their breeders are half decent. The public are now more confused than ever. And rightly so! If a rego fee is all that separates registered breeders from BYB, how can anyone know where to find a reputable breeder?

Except I dont think what goes on here is to protect their members at all costs in fact it would be better for them to sacrifice the occasional bad ones in order to protect their PR.

First we dont know yet if its as bad as its been reported, we dont know if they have really breached their code of ethics - its possible to fit with the code of ethics but still not comply with the state codes. So far we know there have been some get your act together and comply with the codes but no charges as far as we know and chaining dogs, or having dead dogs on your property isnt an offence or breach of either the code of ethics or code of practice. I saw a dog being examined with what seemed like a sore ear and it needed to be groomed but we dont know which breeder owned the dog etc. I dont expect them to chuck people out without a fair hearing and Ive no doubt that some of what we are seeing at the very least is beaten up but they need to get better at how to respond.

The simple fact is that based on the crap fed out by the state canine orgs and everyone else who has made statements about what registered breeders do and what they produce no one ever knew where to find a good breeder anyway. Reputable doesn't equal integrity .

The only thing you can be confident of by purchasing a pup from a registered breeder is that it is a purebred. the marketing of registered breeders implies a warranty that doesn't exist.

They [Vicdogs] have financially benefited due to these government exemptions. There are high numbers of people who would prefer not to be members who are there for no other reason than the exemptions - this increases the risk that these people will not respect the code of ethics and do things they think others wont see. They know nothing about who they are letting in, dont do any checks on them,have an inadequate systems for checks and balances and rely on complaints - which people have to pay to lodge. Its a high risk situation for them and leaves them open to being battered as the greyhound industry has been. It makes their members more of a juicy headline target. Im not saying that's fair but its how it is.

[*kirty*]

To me, this is just like what happened with the Greyhound racing industry. They knew shit was going on but they ignored it. Mentality was to protect their members at all costs. And now the shit has hit the fan.

DogsVic can no longer sit back and collect fees and do nothing to ensure their breeders are half decent. The public are now more confused than ever. And rightly so! If a rego fee is all that separates registered breeders from BYB, how can anyone know where to find a reputable breeder?

Except I dont think what goes on here is to protect their members at all costs in fact it would be better for them to sacrifice the occasional bad ones in order to protect their PR.

First we dont know yet if its as bad as its been reported, we dont know if they have really breached their code of ethics - its possible to fit with the code of ethics but still not comply with the state codes.

There are lots of breeders like this that are registered with DogsVic. A huge puppy farmer in Gippsland once bragged to me about how she was also a registered breeder with DogsVic. Another Collie breeder has recently been raided by the RRPCA and she has been pumping out hundreds of puppies every year for god knows how long. Her dogs are kept in disgusting conditions. But she is still registered with DogsVic.

[Steve]

To me, this is just like what happened with the Greyhound racing industry. They knew shit was going on but they ignored it. Mentality was to protect their members at all costs. And now the shit has hit the fan.

DogsVic can no longer sit back and collect fees and do nothing to ensure their breeders are half decent. The public are now more confused than ever. And rightly so! If a rego fee is all that separates registered breeders from BYB, how can anyone know where to find a reputable breeder?

Except I dont think what goes on here is to protect their members at all costs in fact it would be better for them to sacrifice the occasional bad ones in order to protect their PR.

First we dont know yet if its as bad as its been reported, we dont know if they have really breached their code of ethics - its possible to fit with the code of ethics but still not comply with the state codes.

There are lots of breeders like this that are registered with DogsVic. A huge puppy farmer in Gippsland once bragged to me about how she was also a registered breeder with DogsVic. Another Collie breeder has recently been raided by the RRPCA and she has been pumping out hundreds of puppies every year for god knows how long. Her dogs are kept in disgusting conditions. But she is still registered with DogsVic.

Yep.

[Kirislin]

and to put in a complaint about a breeder with dogsvic I think you first have to pay a very large fee before they'll even look at it. $250 I believe

[Christina]

Sickening, cruel & disgusting as this is, it is no suprise.

There are some registered, show breeders,judges & people with status that have done similar things. Like any section of humanity there are always some rotten eggs & apart from the appalling suffering, hypocrisy & knowing better it reflects badly on everyone.

No idea why this kind of thing takes so long to act upon but lets face it despite all the rules & regulations we cannot even protect children from abuse let alone animals. Look at Families SA in the spotlight at present & its all nothing new & a pile of excuses.

All this goes to show that more rules & regulations are not going to make things any better. Victoria is regulated to the hilt. It will just be more revenue raising & stress for those doing the right thing.

The bulk breeders, council registered puppy farms whether pedigree registered breeders or not will thrive & all be approved.

Its all so sad & cruel & totally inefficient.

[mita]

Haas the case gone before a magistrate yet? Though I understand it takes time to put together an appropriate case. I'd guess the future for the seized little dogs would rest on the court's decision.