New Amendments to the Puppy farm and Petshop Bill Victoria

[bluedeer]

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/getting-it-done-stamping-out-puppy-farms/

 

The Andrews Labor Government has taken a major step towards ending cruel and barbaric puppy farms with the introduction of amendments to the Domestic Animals (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016.

With $5 million from the Labor Government, RSPCA Victoria’s Special Investigations Unit has conducted 75 investigations, assessed more than 1,600 animals and referred 53 establishments to councils for further investigation.

There have been 10 matters before the courts and the number of Domestic Animal Businesses has been dropping steadily.

The amended Bill caps the number of fertile female dogs a breeder can own and register with their council at 10. Only those breeders meeting strict, additional requirements will be able to keep more than 10 fertile female dogs.

Commercial dog breeders will be limited to an absolute maximum of 50 fertile female dogs, and will be required to apply for a special exemption. They will be subject to an audit by Victoria’s Chief Veterinary Officer and additional requirements including staff training and socialisation plans.

Members of dog or cat applicable organisations, such as Dogs Victoria, will come under the new definition of a ‘recreational breeder’ and will no longer be required to register with their council, unless they have more than 10 fertile female cats or dogs.

Victorians with 3-10 fertile female cats or dogs that are not members of an applicable organisation will continue to register with their local council as a Domestic Animal Business and comply with the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2015 as they do now.

Pet owners that breed from two or less fertile female cats or dogs are defined as ‘microbreeders’ and will not have to register as a breeder with council.

The amendments also clarify the definition of farm working dogs, and simplify the new animal sale permit system.

The dedication and hard work of our individual foster carers is also recognised through a new voluntary scheme to reduce animal registration costs and increase adoption rates.

Traceability of cats and dogs will be improved significantly through the establishment of the Pet Exchange Register. Breeders, foster carers and members of the public advertising a cat or dog will enrol on the Register.

New rules for advertising a cat or dog (for sale or give away) will require both a microchip number and a unique source number from the Pet Exchange Register, which will enable Victorians to verify pet advertisers for the first time.

Quotes attributable to Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford

“We’re getting it done and ending cruel and barbaric puppy farming.”

“We’re finishing what we started – delivering on our election commitment to end puppy farming, ban the sale of breeders’ puppies and kittens in pet shops, and better regulate the online sale of dogs and cats.”

 

 

The Victorian Labor Government has released the amendments to the Puppy farm and pet shop bill that is to go through to the upper house for debate and possibly pass  see link below

 

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/6A5D081FA18FD208CA2580490078C5FD/$FILE/Allan.pdf

 

While Dogs Victoria management are trying to tell us that this is a win for us members there are a few things that the have either missed or are failing to point out to us in this animal rights written bill:

 

-We will only be exempt from having to become domestic animal businesses so long as the government renews Dogs Victoria'a applicable organisation (AO) status which it can revoke at any time

-Our code of ethics must be as strong or stronger than the code of practice including the monitoring of our members, breeding limits and frequency etc

-Any BYB with 1-2 fertile female dogs is NOT subject to ANY inspections

-Dogs Victoria are the only credible dog interest group giving their blessing to this legislation

 

In my opinion this is not a win for Dogs Victoria members because we will be forever held to ransom by any future government or minister that can use the threat of revoking our applicable organisation status to get us to comply with whatever they deem better practice (concrete kennels separate to your house, etc). This current Labor Government is already developing thier animal and agriculture policies to appease animal rights loonies, so its not a far stretch to consider the idea that they would throw us under the bus "to make things fair for all victorian breeders" and remove our applicable organisation status if that gets them preferences from the greens or animal justice party. They have already directed $500,000 to the wishes of the Animal Justice Party to secure a few preference votes in the Northcote by-election so inventing a reason to remove our AO status would be pretty easy if they wanted to.

 

Requiring our code to be "as good or better" than the code of practice means that the gov or just the minister can determine what better is and chip away at our code bit by bit until it is a carbon copy of the gov code of practice until we have to breed dogs under the same rules and conditions of the puppy farmers and backyard breeders.

 

Both the RSPCA and the AVA have not come up with any scientific reasoning to support this legislation in the form that it is written and have predicted worse animal welfare outcomes from this bill as it stands. The Minister is continually using Dog Victoria as a crutch to say that we are all happy with it in a bid to sell it to the public. 12 months ago DV breeders were part of the "problem" that needed to be "fixed". My wife and I sat there at the big meeting we had in Bulla with hundreds of other members while the Ministers lackeys tried to convince us that the previous bill (that has now been amended with 30 pages of changes!) was great for us and we should keep quiet about it. We did not and by making a bit fuss about it we were taken seriously.

 

WE ARE BEING USED BY THE MINISTER TO GET THIS LEGISLATION THROUGH THAT WILL BE TURNED AGAINST US WHENEVER THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS VOTES FROM THE ANIMAL RIGHTS PARTIES.

 

We all need to write to all the members of the upper house to let them know that we want to see the problem of puppy farms and backyard breeders fixed with the right legislation that does not and will not affect registered ethical breeders. This bill needs to be scrapped and rewritten with proper consultation

 

 

 

 

 

[Pjrt]

The thing that jumps off the page at me is that in a push to end “cruel & barbaric” puppy farms, it fully allows transparent commercial breeders to flourish in broad daylight.....ie; big shiny puppy farms. It further normalises the large scale wholesale breeding facility as the way forward in dog breeding. And that is a very sad thing imo. Once dog breeding is allowed to be an industry, we’re on a very slippery slope. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by mingaling

[karen15]

But bluedeer, just because people are registered with eg Dogs Victoria, it does not make them ethical or any less of a puppy farmer. I think it's been said numerous times on DOL that the state bodies have little in the way of consequences when breeders are beyond dodgy. They stay registered and are allowed to continue as they are. One post recently said one state body was requiring drivers licences to stop false registrations. So the state bodies aren't enforcing good codes of practise or basic administration.

 

Whilst I don't agree with the very subjective "at least as good as or better" or ability to change an organisations exempt status, it might force the state bodies to be more serious when poor practises are reported.

 

I also noted the microbreeder term with 1-2 dogs not subject to the rules. I'll have to read the legislation to see if that is per address or per person. Isn't it common now for puppy farmers to register dogs in others names so they can get around the rules? This is a very easy way to do that and it sounds like there'll be no regulation on litters, breeding age, minimum standards of care for these poor animals. 

[karen15]

Ok, this is clause item 21 of the amendment

 

(b) must include the organisation's code of ethics and details of 
how the code is enforced; and

(c) must include the outcome of any disciplinary action taken by 
the organisation for breaches of the code of ethics during the 
preceding year; and

 

which goes to my first points above about consequences for reported poor breeding practises.

 

It appears that, like in qld, anyone who sells a dog or cat, that includes giving away, has to have a source number. In 68M a register is to be maintained that will link microbreeders and source numbers. Now, I think this is of concern:

 

68P (2) A microbreeder who is applying for a source number under Division 
3 must give the information set out in section 68Q(1)(a), (c), (e), (h), 
(i) and (j), relating to the microbreeder, to the Secretary with the 
application for the source number.

 

68Q (c) the following details about the relevant person or body—

(i) the address; 
(ii) the telephone number; 
(iii) the email address;
However they don't have to include information in 68Q(d) which is the address of the premises at which a relevant person or body—
(i) who carries out breeding of dogs or cats, carries out that breeding; or
(ii) who is a registered foster carer, keeps the animals;

 

Whilst microbreeders needs to give out their personal address, they don't have to give the address of the premises where the dogs are kept. That will enable registration of dogs under others names and keep puppy farming alive and well.

 

To me the source register seems to be working on the honour system and we all know that just doesn't work. I haven't seen any provisions that verify identities, especially for microbreeders. So in that respect, the state body asking for licence number verification is at least in front of what is required.

 

There is a requirement on the source register to record number of litters by dog. How hard is it to just register false microchip numbers? Particularly as dogs need to be microchipped before sale, what's to stop people keeping a list of those numbers and having Ghost breeding bitches? Provided people fill in the unverifiable forms, as far as the register is concerned all is well. So easy to keep microchip details of a dog sold in Vic to someone in Qld and report that dog as the bitch of the litter. Are they planning to cross check every litter to the various microchip registries? 

[bluedeer]

You are right Karen15, the register is destined to fail because the vast majority of dogs that are bred in the state of Victoria at the moment (estimated to be between 70 - 80%) are bred by backyard breeders/illegal operators already, so keeping them from being inspected is keeping them hidden. Volunteer registers only work to police the breeders who WANT to comply.

2 hours ago, karen15 said:

But bluedeer, just because people are registered with eg Dogs Victoria, it does not make them ethical or any less of a puppy farmer. I think it's been said numerous times on DOL that the state bodies have little in the way of consequences when breeders are beyond dodgy. They stay registered and are allowed to continue as they are. One post recently said one state body was requiring drivers licences to stop false registrations. So the state bodies aren't enforcing good codes of practise or basic administration.

 

 Again you are right in that there are still many dodgy breeders hiding as Dogs Victoria breeders while the rest of us trying to do the right thing and these ones will be used to highlight the "need" to make all breeders follow the same code of practice later on when this Government gets this dangerous Bill through the upper house. This is what they already tried to do last year and now they are using Dogs Victoria as the only body to give this legislation that will lump us in with puppy farmers credibility to get though parliament. Once they don't need us and want preference votes from Animal Rights political parties, they will remove applicable organisation status and we are in the same group as puppy farmers and BYBs. They don't need to go through the senate like they are doing now because the Bill has left them a loophole to let them do it. That's why the Bill needs to be thrown out and rewritten

[Tempus Fugit]

Apparently the Bill has been passed.

[moosmum]

In the end, Commercial, BYBer or pedigree are all Dogs.  If you  want to push for conditions and limitations on breeders as the means of ensuring better welfare out comes,  all will be held to the same standard.   

Because its those  standards the community are taught as correct and 'ethical'.

 

The values you are promoting are limitations and conditions. That its  the environment that has value,  its got nothing to do with what people do or do not do, nothing to do with what response is brought to over come conditions and limitations. So failures should be attributed to the environment and its condition, not to the the values individuals  bring to it. There is no personal responsibility. That can't help but backfire on the ANKC environment.

If you are going to legislate whats 'required  Practices'  for the breeding of Dogs  there will be a public expectation  that it is best practice. Why would anyone be excused from following it?

If they are considered 'needed conditions' for the purpose?

 

Open your eyes people. You are forcing these conditions on your selves to get rid of BYBers.  They are the foundation you stand on......Dogs raised in the home, exposed and tested in a family environment,  with plenty of  time spent on socialization.

 

If thats not being done responsibly, thats a breeders fault for not supporting the practices and values that make a breeders environment a healthy  and appreciated one.

Not taking responsibility for your environment, but limiting  it instead.

Never mind. Too late, and too blind.

 

Its not a Pedigree or Standard that makes all the difference between a responsible breeder and an irresponsible one. Its the values brought to that environment. And if you can't support those values for breeders outside  a Pedigree system they won't be there... to support a Pedigree system.

 

Its not up to ANKC to do that, its up to the members. Who represent Breeders.  Even more so if you are Pedigree breeders.

How else do you demonstrate the superior benefits of being one?  You won't do it by de-valuing practices on the basis of where  they occur, or weather the results carry a pedigree or not. Because there will always be examples in your own ranks of failure to uphold community values

 

But it is up to ANKC to give recognition to that environment,  since it was actively   withheld from its membership.

 

You can't attack and discredit the practices of breeders based on the environment they  work in, without also discrediting any practices you share.

You share the breeding of dogs. The only practice that  stands between you is the keeping and verification of  Pedigree standards.

 

Every thing else is the value brought to that purpose by the individual. The environment he works in doesn't hold any value in itself. Its simply a condition.

A breeder is  responsible for promoting the values that bring best results in the conditions he has. By attacking conditions, you lose them.

Promoting values instead demonstrates how to bring value to those conditions, and how to respond to them.....what delivers greatest value will be fostered, what doesn't bring value will decline because the values are understood and promoted.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by moosmum

[persephone]

nothing to see here ...

Edited December 16, 2017 by persephone

[RuralPug]

3 hours ago, persephone said:

nothing to see here ...

Yes! I sometimes feed the trolls and then think better of it, I rather like that expression. I must remember to use it when i change my mind and wish to delete a post!

[asal]

wasting your time moosesmum

 

destroy backyard breeders the world will be a better place

 

but they are too blind to see they are advocating the destruction of themselves, if you have a backyard you can be labled too.

 

lots died in the salem witch hunts as did in the spanish inquision,  good way to get rid of anyone you dont like, same scene here

 

[moosmum]

Yes. It is a waste of time. At least I can say I tried and I believe it was the right thing to do. For Pedigree Dogs. And all  Dog owners .

 

Ignorance won't be an acceptable excuse for the future. Arrogance?

 

Thanks Troy. And Asal, Mingaling  and others . This account can be closed.

[moosmum]

"Dog breeding" Is a space in the environment where its conditions are supported by the values brought to that purpose.

Its a space. As such, Its defined by its own definition. It can't be measured by any measure other than the confines of its own space.

 

The K.Cs are defining that space based on its condition. 

 

The measure of a condition is reduced by definition.

Its conditional. It  depends on  supporting conditions to manifest.

 

The measures used to support the K.Cs are opposing , Both its space and its support, due a statement that  a)  Removes definition of that space, (It does the opposite)

And  b) to removes support for conditions because they are not  recognised  in that space.

 

Opposing measures are being used to support the K.Cs and the space given  dog breeding in the environment .

 

Its physics. 

 

If the K.Cs realy want to ignore that, its on them.

 And  on the future of dog breeding.

Because The K.Cs have included  all dog breeders space  in their own definition.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by moosmum

[asal]

was only thinking about this yesterday Moosesmum.

 

The KC's are actually contributing to their own demise.

they have not recognised the AR agenda is their elimination. They have wasted decades trying to appease the unspprsdable.

 

they have outlawed normal practice that any interview with preproduction specalists would have told them not to agree too.

 

they have wasted hundreds of thousands in legal fees when they  decided to refuse the committee member Mrs Furbar's requests to view KC files which she was perfectly legally entitled to view. on the gounds I was told, that she was wasting staff time. So I think the sum being asked for to pay for the legal battle that ensued was some 800,000? As the lady in question had legal aid on her side she not only went to court but won.

 

Yet when facing their elimination by the inroads of the AR lobby they roll over and hope the savages will go away.

better to have spent the money doing the same advertising of purebred dogs and their breeders to educate the public instead of leaving the field to only one version being fed to the public and media.

 

The other they have failed to do is stop the belief among the membership that only those who show are good people. the persecution of the members who love their dogs but not the show scene has been a disgrace for decades left unaddressed.  

more calls to the rspca about members come from fellow members than the general public by a landslide.  The KC's are yet to address this problem their own members are more a danger to the continuation of the KC's than the AR mob.

It is not a sign of virtue to never sell a puppy on main register save what you keep for yourself, if those before had the same opinion you wouldnt have your dogs remember.

there are not two classes of dogs and puppies there are three, Pet quality, breeding quality and show quality.

 

how many today are even aware of this anymore?

precious few from what I hear today.

 

from experience I know 99.9% who want a puppy want a pet.  that teeny .1% is the one who is so thrilled with their puppy they become interested in continuing their dogs genes and want to breed it, they becomes a KC MEMBER and continues the legacy of the past. The KC's did a survey decades ago and discovered few remain members past 5 years, of the few that become long term members and the backbone of the membership are pensioners, and pensioners have long relied on the puppies they bred to contribute to their meagre pension. to deamionise anyone who breeds for the pet market is to destroy your potential membership base.

 

this has proven beyond doubt over the past 20 years now hasnt it. just read the figures. of a nation growing by the millions per year in population the membership and the number of purebred puppies bred had been in steady decline and will continue to do so if no one wakes up before its too late.

 

When that tiny .1% cannot access a main register puppy unless they jump over all the hurdles now in place to eliminate all possible unethicals that is in place now the majority don't bother. 

who is the loser?

the genetic base of the breed for starters

 

it is illegal to discriminate a person on the basis of race or creed, but the dog world has made discrimination into almost an art form

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by asal

[moosmum]

Yes.

 

The K.C documents purpose was to define the K.C identity. The space it would occupy in the dog breeder environment.

The conditions members of that space sign up to support.

 

In defining that space by what it is not, Its been included by definition.

Their conditions tied together in opposition and reduction.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by moosmum