Dpi Victoria New Codes

[Shazzapug]

Could be worse...if we lived in NSW

[Diva]

Using your example...there would be nothing stopping a registered breeder with less than 10 fertile bitches from using a dog 10 yearsof age for the reasons you Diva have outlined....but a Commercial breeder registered as a Breeding and Rearing Establishment in Vic would not be able to breed a dog past 7 yrs of age. Question...how many registered breeders in Victoria are registered as Breeding and Rearing Establishments?

I think you missed my first point, exemptions are precarious, and when there is no sound reason why, for example, an 8 year old dog can be considered legally too old for breeding if owned by one person and not legally too old for breeding when owned by another, well it doesn't make sense. If you think Dogs Vic is politically influential enough for a nonsensical difference like that to hold for the long term in the face of lobbyists with a different agenda, well I just hope you are right. Personally, I think getting a meaningful and defensible rule from the start is a better and more durable public policy position. Jmho

[Shazzapug]

Well thats all we got...exemptions, which depending on which shire you live in depends on how the DPI guidlines are interpreted....it all gets very emotional once they start threatening to take your dogs away, because of these stupid rules that only apply to Breeding and Rearing Establishments.

[Mathilda's Mum]

These changes are for A BREEDING AND REARING ESTABLISHMENT so unless you are a Commercial breeding business then these do NOT apply. As Puglvr has pointed out...if you are a registered breeder with Dogs Vic then you are not considered a BREEDING AND REARING ESTABLISHMENT unless you have more than 10 fertile bitches...this unfortunately includes any female dog over 16 weeks old.

Hhhmmm.... I'm just wondering then how willing the DPI will be to permit members of the 'Applicable Organisation' to keep & breed dogs contrary to the codes mandatory for a 'Breeding & Rearing Establishment'. For example if 'Commercial Breeders' are no longer permitted to breed a Giant Breed bitch after the age of 5 years how will the DPI be able to ignore a Dogs Vic member with less than 10 fertile bitches breeding a Giant Breed bitch at say 8 or older ??? (Not that I personally condone that BTW).

Or will Dogs Vic have to amend their code of practice to comply with the DPI requirements ???? or face losing 'Applicable Organisation' status ???

In all honesty - I'm worried.

[Diva]

Well thats all we got...exemptions, which depending on which shire you live in depends on how the DPI guidlines are interpreted....it all gets very emotional once they start threatening to take your dogs away, because of these stupid rules that only apply to Breeding and Rearing Establishments.

Yes, I understand that. I guess I feel like we need to be fighting on all grounds, keep the exemptions, but also get the rules for the bigger establishments as well targeted and sensible as possible. Some of this lot reads like a uni grad AR activist wrote it on a weekend. Feeling disheartened it isn't better.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Diva

[Shazzapug]

How will the DPI know that a Commercial breeder has bred the Giant breed over the age of 5

[Are You Serious Jo]

Commercial breeders will just say they are following the breeding rules and no one will know any better unless they DNA test the parents. Again it will be the people with pedigrees getting caught out. I think the vet approved diet is a real problem because I don't know any vets who support raw.

[Sheridan]

Commercial breeders will just say they are following the breeding rules and no one will know any better unless they DNA test the parents. Again it will be the people with pedigrees getting caught out. I think the vet approved diet is a real problem because I don't know any vets who support raw.

And really, what the hell business is it of a government department what breeders feed their dogs?

[Are You Serious Jo]

It's pretty ridiculous isn't it when you consider we don't even go this far with children. If the building regulations don't get enough people then the rest will be cleaned up because they will walk away rather than be forced to feed their dogs vet prescribed dry food.

[Linda K]

yes it is just as bad for the cats, and I certainly am not about to disinfect dishes they are then going to eat out of, that is ridiculous. They also have a bit in the cats about them being checked by a vet annually to see if they have FIP, a disease confirmable only by post mortem exam, and also a disease that can have similar symptoms to others. But doing all of it is OK< as since according to t, we sell kittens and puppies for $800 and $1000 respectively, but also MAKE $800 and $1000 on those same sales per animal, we can afford it. I'm sorry, what part of vet costs, feeding costs, health tests costs etc needing to be paid for do they not understand - any money made from the sale of a litter is no way in hell pure profit - it is lucky if any is profit once the actual costs of producing the litter are accounted for (and heaven forbid a c section was needed!!!)

But ITA that this is purely designed to wipe out the problem of the hobby breeder, leaving just the large scale mills. predictably, sites like OL & PH are ranting that this is not enough, there is no changes and mills are scum and need to be wiped off the earth, equally predictably though, if you look closely enough, you can see the paw prints of the AR agenda all through this document, including the case story of Oscar being made a big part of it (strnagely they only refer to him as having been removed from the farm, not stolen)

[Are You Serious Jo]

The only way to stop puppy farmers is to the stop dog breeding entirely. If the existing laws were policed they could have cleaned up the farms. Once the registered breeders are gone they'll go after the puppy farmers. What are the Oscar's law people going to do when they see the puppy farmers thriving under the new legally approved conditions. Why is it that only we can put two and two together and realise it is actually benefiting? How can they be so stupid, and I'm talking about the non PETA people pushing for this. I guess they are just so focused on the one aspect that they just don't care if registered breeders go under because they don't like them either. But it's very obvious that this helps PFs immensely.

[Linda K]

I think the non AR people being sucked in truly believe that they are only stopping the places that they show in pictures - ie the tiny metal crates stacked one on top of each other, horribly matted dogs, etc etc -- and believe the OL line that they are not against responsible breeding. the fact that they say this because they do not believe there is any such animal as a responsible breeder is neither here nor there. I know quite a few breeders who are also OL supporters, as they wrongly believe that by aligning themselves with them, they can show they are different and will not be a target - what they fail to realise is that OL have an agenda, "one by one until there are none", and they apply that to everything - closing down Pets Paradise shops, getting rid of puppy farms, and getting rid of all breeders in general. Whilst the gov though benefits by as much as they do from the large scale farms, who pay massive permit and licence fees, and also GST on animal sales, no gov is about to stop that occuring, and will merely window dress to make it look like they have done something (something the Lb gov seems very good at), whilst removing the problem of breeders they can't benefit from. And ITA about the comment about how not to take comfort in the exemption status - whilst at the public hearing, it was made clear by the DPI that those figures could not change (as there was requests from the AR mob there that 10 was too high, it should be 4), they were told "that was a seperate piece of legislation, you want that changed, you need to lobby the minister for that piece to be altered" So don;t think for a minute they won;t try that, and all it takes is either reducing the figure or removing the exemption altogether, and we are all stuck with this nonsensical code that makes no sense at all. The craziness here too is that a rescue group or foster carer looking after a pregnant mum or hand rearing individuals does not have to do any of the stuff here being forced on the breeders, yet they too are ultimately supplying such pups or kittens to the pet market, and so have health and welfare issues.

[Sheridan]

I certainly wouldn't want a puppy who has eaten from a chemically disinfected bowl. Who knows what sort of health issues that dog is going to have down the track.

[Are You Serious Jo]

It will soon be easier to be a gun dealer in Australia than a registered breeder.

[Shazzapug]

So if the codes are supposed to be directed at puppy farms....who tells the Shires/Councils that they have Puppy farms in their areas and who informs the Shires/Councils of the new codes so they can then inforce/make pfs comply?

Why make more rules when the first set of rules are not being implemented down at the root of it all/first port of call, at the Shires/Councils level?

I thought the first aim when finding a Puppy farm was to shut it down....why would you want them to become legit and comply and apply for a permit to become a Breeding and Rearing Establishment.

[Steve]

Can just see a government telling Black Caviar's owner which horse they can mate her to and how old she can be, how many foals she is allowed and what they have to do with her when she is older.

[alpha bet]

My understanding is that the legislation in Victoria is open now for imput.... shouldnt all us breeders and fanciers bombard the DPI with all these concerns...... as well as giving Dogs Vic a hard time for their apparent backbone to stand up to this legislation.

[dragonwoman]

My understanding is that the legislation in Victoria is open now for imput.... shouldnt all us breeders and fanciers bombard the DPI with all these concerns...... as well as giving Dogs Vic a hard time for their apparent backbone to stand up to this legislation.

DV is working on it, rest assured. It is not legislation, it is a draft up for sensible comment. A calm rational approach is required

[Sheridan]

It may not be legislation but to the person who has to comply with the code it will make little difference.

[Christina]

It will soon be easier to be a gun dealer in Australia than a registered breeder.

It does seem ironic that according to todays news on TV America has voted No to tightened & reformed gun laws while here we won't even be able to breed pedigree dogs without risking criminal prosecution if we are not careful.

Yes it will be easier to be a gun dealer soon.

Its also ironic that Victoria has the most large scale puppy farms, one of the most notorious owned by the vet Ron Wells, who is still in business as far as I know, & they are making it legitimate for these farms to thrive.

For some reason I am smelling self interested rats in all this because its not making sense & shows no knowledge of any hands on reality & psychology of dog & cat breeding & rearing.

It seems based on revenue raising, university or office theory, the animal extremists & RSPCA etc plus public opinion from a public who create most of the problems by wanting instant gratification by buying a pet & a disposal available to cope with their mistakes.

Am I seeing this in a cynical way ?