Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bluedeer

Victorian Gov To Introduce New Breeding Laws

258 posts in this topic

tdierikx   
Mr ONDARCHIE — We have listened to other people — that is the point.

... but we don't have to take any of it into consideration because the animal welfare activists will be off our backs, and they are louder and nastier than those who just want to get on with doing the right thing...

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RuralPug   

From pedigree Dogs breeding point of view, the "recreational breeder" backpedal isn't a backpedal at all, just lip service:

I quote, from Steve's link above, Minister Pulford:

"Recreational breeders will not be called a domesticanimal business but will have to comply with the same legal requirements as a domestic animal business — thatis, they will need to, firstly, register with the local council and, secondly, comply with the mandatory Code ofPractice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014 by 10 April 2018."

Talk about lip service!

.And all that crap about this government meets its election commitments (only when they want to, obviously, and to hell with consequences that ruin the intent of the commitment.).

Always fun to watch politicians in-fight, especially when the outcome affects us in our homes. Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

Yeah well that's done it for me. If any of my family vote labor I'm not feeding them. What a bloody disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
Mr ONDARCHIE — We have listened to other people — that is the point.

... but we don't have to take any of it into consideration because the animal welfare activists will be off our backs, and they are louder and nastier than those who just want to get on with doing the right thing...

T.

EXACTLY

BIG lesson still not learned by " those who just want to get on with doing the right thing... "

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

just had an idea.

why dont those who are going to be affected AND EVEN THOSE who might be affected get their collective butts together and launch a class action RE Restriction of Trade, same as the Greyhound people did? With a little luck every pet shop in the land will be onboaard along with the rest of us lowlifes as the Hon Ms PULFORD views them.

Get enough together and its not the mega thousands apiece if its just a lone or a few and dont tell me these pollies dont run petrified at spending mega bulk in court costs.

Remember the Greys won the judgement, even before Baird did his about spin.

I have a friend is one of those in the class action against be chucked off the pending Badgerys Creek airport. they know the drill for what needs to be done to get one up and running, maybe a crowdfunding appeal ???? Incidently the cheeky buggers are still living there.

I sure know I would be donating

This is morphing into a war of them or us. make no mistake. no matter how they like to sugar coat its only going to affect :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: puppy farmers, oops now hasnt there been a word exchange? puppy factories? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: now imagine matted doggy photo to jerk out all those tears. (anyone spot the matted doggie that was cleaned up by a groomer recently, one dog househould?)

but surely NOOOOOOOOOOO! only puppy farmer/factories have matted doggies, get rid of them and the world is the long coat doggies oyster, no matts heaven.

WHAT? No reality checks permitted?

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lhok   
Mr ONDARCHIE — We have listened to other people — that is the point.

... but we don't have to take any of it into consideration because the animal welfare activists will be off our backs, and they are louder and nastier than those who just want to get on with doing the right thing...

T.

I read that a bit differently as in they have listened to other people (that contradict what Ms Pulford and co are saying) as that was the whole point of the inquiry. Which is why Ms Pulford was getting snarky about it because she might not get her absolute approval with the committee.

--Lhok

Edited by Lhok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it that way too, Lhok! If it weren't so serious and troubling I'd find it funny. I read all the 'thanks for your time' comments as dripping in sarcasm too.

Edited by Papillon Kisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is how it was. If you click on the link I posted on the last page, you can see all the groups they met with, and all of their transcripts are posted there also. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

I read a number of the transcripts, and have come to the concluson that the committee isn't in the slightest bit interested in changing the bill as proposed. They were downright sarcastic and rude in many instances as well, which did not come across as very professional IMHO.

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

I read a number of the transcripts, and have come to the concluson that the committee isn't in the slightest bit interested in changing the bill as proposed. They were downright sarcastic and rude in many instances as well, which did not come across as very professional IMHO.

T.

sadly they don't need to be, as that add used to sing. "Ive got the power"

Like Baird she intends to use it, unless we who know the disaster that is going to unfold, wake up like the greyhound people and actually DO SOMETHING to make her realise WE HAVE THE POWER, to chuck her whole sanctimonious lot out of power.

But if the past is anything to go by, nothing is going to happen until after the axe falls, even the greys didnt before they were actually put in the killing pen did they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

The transcript of the Pets Australia submission is interesting... the committee keep referring to "scum" (certain breeders)... WTF??

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lhok   

I read a number of the transcripts, and have come to the concluson that the committee isn't in the slightest bit interested in changing the bill as proposed. They were downright sarcastic and rude in many instances as well, which did not come across as very professional IMHO.

T.

That's interesting, there were numerous comments about how the legislation as proposed is a nightmare to deal with and that they mentioned they want to avoid another dangerous dogs legislation which proved to be unworkable and costly. From where I was reading it seems to me that the chair and one other person seem to be asking the right questions in terms of how it will be funded, how many people will be needed to enforce, why can't isn't the current legislation working and how will this new one be any different seeing how the current one isn't good enough.

Even the bit I quoted where they were talking to the minister seemed to be pointing to the fact that they don't like the legislation as it stands.

Am I missing something here?

--Lhok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

They still don't understand that effective policing of current legislation would probably have the desired effect -rather than just adding another layer of legislation that won't be policed effectively to catch out those actually doing the wrong thing... *sigh*

Effective policing of legislation would require an investment... and no government wants to be spending anywhere near enough on that... grrr!

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

I read a number of the transcripts, and have come to the concluson that the committee isn't in the slightest bit interested in changing the bill as proposed. They were downright sarcastic and rude in many instances as well, which did not come across as very professional IMHO.

T.

That's interesting, there were numerous comments about how the legislation as proposed is a nightmare to deal with and that they mentioned they want to avoid another dangerous dogs legislation which proved to be unworkable and costly. From where I was reading it seems to me that the chair and one other person seem to be asking the right questions in terms of how it will be funded, how many people will be needed to enforce, why can't isn't the current legislation working and how will this new one be any different seeing how the current one isn't good enough.

Even the bit I quoted where they were talking to the minister seemed to be pointing to the fact that they don't like the legislation as it stands.

Am I missing something here?

--Lhok

That's how I saw it as well. Base common sense for the committee surely should say there is overwhelming opposition and very limited support. In fact the only real support is from Oscars Law and Animals Australia. RSPCA have admitted that welfare does not equal numbers. I have to say Im disappointed that part of the Vicdogs presentation wasnt some kind of statement regarding how welfare isn't associated with numbers in the fear that they would be seen to be supporting puppy farms.

I think its really bad that in both the NSW enquiry and the Victorian one that breeders who have not been found guilty but who were given bad media have been used to demonstrate bad breeders. The one used in NSW is back in operation with their council's blessing and no charges laid and the Heather Healy case shouldn't have been used to try to take a stab at Vicdogs either at this stage of the game where there are no charges laid as yet.

Id also like to know how many complaints they get ,who is lodging the complaints , how many have anything to answer for when they look at them and who these 80% of Vicdogs members are when Vicdogs members only breed such a small percentage of the dogs bred.

It is either a beat up or the lesson is once again keep your campfires low and stay off the track. Their stats are so deceptive as they lump mice and rats in with dogs and cats re complaints so trying to understand how many complaints they get about dog breeders, how many are actually guilty etc is impossible and should not be considered to be bona fide without some kind of explanation

When they asked the minister would she mind having a chat with Banksia Park it was like they may have been carrying the plague!

.

Edited by Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were lots of dogs and their owners outside parliament earlier today! Was that in relation to this? I only saw one sign but couldn't read it between the people. I think maybe it was being set up or packed up though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there was a photo shoot with working dogs and service dogs at parliament today in regards to the bill. It is being shown on all news channels tonight and appearing in various newspapers and news sites. thumbsup1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there was a photo shoot with working dogs and service dogs at parliament today in regards to the bill. It is being shown on all news channels tonight and appearing in various newspapers and news sites. thumbsup1.gif

Neat! I'll look out for it. Were there detector dogs involved? I collect articles on them ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there were therapy dogs, search and rescue dogs, conservation/pest detection dogs and livestock/sheepdogs plus breeders and handlers.

Plenty of media - print and press - plus reps from Dogs Vic and Independent MPs who came out to hear our concerns.

The power of Dogs Vic members with the support of Dogs Vic MC - writing to MPs, media and sharing on social media - has resulted in the government holding off on introducing it to the Lower House until next year. It was supposed to go through today. Not bad I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheridan   

just had an idea.

why dont those who are going to be affected AND EVEN THOSE who might be affected get their collective butts together and launch a class action RE Restriction of Trade, same as the Greyhound people did? With a little luck every pet shop in the land will be onboaard along with the rest of us lowlifes as the Hon Ms PULFORD views them.

Get enough together and its not the mega thousands apiece if its just a lone or a few and dont tell me these pollies dont run petrified at spending mega bulk in court costs.

Remember the Greys won the judgement, even before Baird did his about spin.

I have a friend is one of those in the class action against be chucked off the pending Badgerys Creek airport. they know the drill for what needs to be done to get one up and running, maybe a crowdfunding appeal ???? Incidently the cheeky buggers are still living there.

I sure know I would be donating

This is morphing into a war of them or us. make no mistake. no matter how they like to sugar coat its only going to affect :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: puppy farmers, oops now hasnt there been a word exchange? puppy factories? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: now imagine matted doggy photo to jerk out all those tears. (anyone spot the matted doggie that was cleaned up by a groomer recently, one dog househould?)

but surely NOOOOOOOOOOO! only puppy farmer/factories have matted doggies, get rid of them and the world is the long coat doggies oyster, no matts heaven.

WHAT? No reality checks permitted?

Registered breeders cannot argue restriction of trade in one breath and argue they should not be treated like a commercial enterprise in the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there were therapy dogs, search and rescue dogs, conservation/pest detection dogs and livestock/sheepdogs plus breeders and handlers.

Plenty of media - print and press - plus reps from Dogs Vic and Independent MPs who came out to hear our concerns.

The power of Dogs Vic members with the support of Dogs Vic MC - writing to MPs, media and sharing on social media - has resulted in the government holding off on introducing it to the Lower House until next year. It was supposed to go through today. Not bad I think.

I really must have only been at the start, only 10 or so dogs I saw! What a shame, I'd have liked to watch in person but at work so can't hang around :/ It's not often i see such a variety of types of dogs in one spot!

That sounds good, more time for them to refine and amend and consult all the above parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×