BJean

Yes. Do you believe that there is an overpopulation of pets? If so, why? Do you think people dump their cats/dogs because there are so many of them, that they know they can easily get another? Or the numbers of cats/dogs then pts at pounds - are they pts becasue there are no homes for them or they are not rehomeable? If there are no homes for them is that oversupply? oversupply of pets or over supply of owners no longer wanting or careing for their pets? The streams of animals into the pound - excluding ferals (which are a significant proportion of cats) - why are these not reclaimed? Where are their onwers? Why are these pups/dogs/cats not wanted? that is the issue, not overpopulation. You may find the report on MDL in the ACT and how/why it did NOT work interesting reading. ;)

No Lilli, just fine with me. Veterinary practitioners do not support what is going on in Frankston; far from it. The AVA does not listen to them. Hmm that's interesting. There is a seminar on Feb 11th, headed by Dr Mcgreevy on all dogs paritcularly their breeding - I think 'responsible' dog ownership will be part if it ie what determines a responsible dog owner and what is a 'responsible' dog to own. Are you aware of McGreevy or the seminar being held on Feb 11 at Monash?

Not only that SP Frankston Council advises owners to get their puppy/dog desexed "at the time that they get it" - "If you do not intend to breed from a pet, it should be desexed at the time you get it" Why? Because according to Frankston Council: Tens of thousands of healthy dogs and cats are euthanased each year in Victoria. This is because there is not enough homes that can be found for them. We have an 'over supply' of pets.

Well woops someone forgot to tell Frankston that. Overpopulation propaganda plays a big part in their community pacifier for MDL So no good saying 'oh well we dont mean that now' because they very well did use the emotive persuasion and scare mongering of overpopulation to act on dog owner's guilt.

Well for the greater good you are just going to have to get your dogs vaccinated each year despite your own volition and veterinary health care advice, notions of your dogs health because this is how we get all the naughty dog owners to do the right thing. But dont fret! just think how good it will feel to know that you are doing your part to stop the overpopulation and suffering of pets.

Hi Harry (couldn't find a non-xmas wave ;)) Great that you could redress the bias, and have your say - I hope the link I posted of you was not of detriment, I thought it necessary so readers could see there was veterinary opposition to MDL - Frankston Council is presenting MDL and early desexing as endorsed by the AVA. L:)

"bound to" is good enough for you? Apologies I'm narky, but I'm surprisesd with the aplomb people throw away their need to see cause and effect. But dont let that hold you back: Here's a report from the AVA and guess what? mandatory desexing doesn't work and there is no pet overpopulation. http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Mandatory_Des...he_ACT_Cats.pdf MDL resulted in spectacular failure in the ACT and did not impact the number of cats euthanised one iota. So lets bring in for MDL dogs and cats because obviously we've delved into the recesses of the community think tanks and this marevellous idea is the best we can come up with. You know why? Because if I keep telling you there's a pet overpopulation and the poor puppies and the kittens they're all dying, and non desexed dogs are more aggressive, and the bybs are going to buy out the tradingpost, and if you cared you would desex your pet and if you wanted to make a difference you would desex your pet. You will believe me. ??????????????????????????????????????

No, I think you are missing a few key points If you would like to register your dog, the council will not register it unless the dog is desexed. That is mandatory desexing. Yes ALL dogs are supposed to be registered so it puts new dog owners of Frankston in a pickle doesn't it? Because unless they join Dogs Vic, then they will not be able to either keep their dog entire or exercise their right to desex their puppy/dog at a healthy age. Puts a mockery on responsible dog ownership and putting dogs' health first, doesn't it? Not only that, there will be some Dogs Vic breeders who wil not sell a puppy to those living in Frankston and Kinston councils, because they will not risk the health and longterm welfare of their puppies by subjecting them to early desexing. Why would they no longer sell to them? Wouldnt they register all puppies from the litter be it either main or limited? Even if they go to a pet home they will still have pedigree papers won't they? Thats all they need to provide to stop the animal from being desexed. I apologise if I'm wrong but I thought registered breeders registered all the pups in the litter? NO pedigree papers are not sufficient - more is required by Council - that they join and maintain a membership to the VCA. Most family pet homes do not want the additional expense of having to join the VCA just to own a dog. They outlay enough with puppy purchase price, vaccinations, training classes etc They might say they will join the VCA (or have the best intentions of doing so), but I bet when the Council zealots answert their enquiry they will tell them, oh no your pouppy will be fine to desex as a baby puppy blah blah So well done Council, you've made dog ownership more difficult again, congrats on achieveing your objective.

And the owner needs to be an ONGOING member of Dogs Vic. $107.70 initial joining fee (so the cost of your pet pedigree pup just got more expensive) $76.50 singles $114.30 couples each year.

How many litters per year do you recommend for large/giant breeeds? and why is there a difference?

Yes my council is same ;) I have no problem with registering dogs only if they have a microchip that is a good way to try to ensure all dogs are identified and can be traced back to their owners

No, I think you are missing a few key points ;) If you would like to register your dog, the council will not register it unless the dog is desexed. That is mandatory desexing. Yes ALL dogs are supposed to be registered so it puts new dog owners of Frankston in a pickle doesn't it? Because unless they join Dogs Vic, then they will not be able to either keep their dog entire or exercise their right to desex their puppy/dog at a healthy age. Puts a mockery on responsible dog ownership and putting dogs' health first, doesn't it? Not only that, there will be some Dogs Vic breeders who wil not sell a puppy to those living in Frankston and Kinston councils, because they will not risk the health and longterm welfare of their puppies by subjecting them to early desexing.

Puppy farms will never be abolished they are actually being promoted - Legistlation is moving towards large scale production line for puppy sourincg - frankly I dont see byb as a big evil I see puppy farms/mills but ironically the attack on byb results in better circumstaces for puppy mills. Puppy mills will always be around? why - because dog owners inadvertently support legistlation that removes the right for individuals to make decisions about their dogs and what they can and cannot do with them.

I dont even understand the point of this topic ;) Why is everyone obsessed with what dogs other people own or want to own - I wouldn't care if I was the last pedigree dog owner in the country what I do care about is having the right to own those dogs. I dont think cross breeds DDs threaten pure bred dogs I see zealotry and animals rightism threatening all dogs and the worse thing is that most dog owners will welcome further erosion of their rights as if owning a dog was a guilty indulgence. Instead of actually thinking, okay where is the cause and effect evidence for this?

If nothing else, dog owners can stop their pet being desexed too young, and get a letter to waive the desexing requirement until the dog matures and/or another suitable age. Lol wouldn't it be funny if there was a council rule that said no dog will be registered or released unless it has its tail docked - oops how cruel of me!!! As far as I know desexing a dog too young won't kill it. And if it is under 12 weeks old it would be released unregistered anyway. Most shelters do inmature desexing so the council wouldn't accept a letter from a vet stating that the dog needs to mature first. There has to be a life threatening reason. Please do not disseminate false information. Shelter vets are not the yardstick for best veterinary practise. Furthermore Council will not overule a professional veterinary diagnosis and assement on an animals health and welfare. nb: tell a poster in the health forum that their stump pyometra from a desexing procedure is not a "life threatening reason".

um maybe dude, im not 100% its just what i herd and what i read doing a bit of research but im sure theres probebly more than one 'traditional' reason, but what you said would make sence. Only because tradionally dogs left out to fight on their own where appearance isnt much of a consideration have their entire outer ear cropped off.

There is already a move to have the Pet Breeders Association (or similar) officially recognised so mandatory desexing wil not impact the breeding of cross breds. The Pet Breeders Association will and should get recognition - the former because cross breeds/non-closed-pedigree dogs are regarded by the rspca as being better for animal wefare, and the later because if people wish to breed a cross breds, they should have the right to do so.

Apologies Cosmolo I was referring to the generic of 'all supporters' with 'you all' and it was not intended as a direct reference to yourself

I dont know enough about the nuances of cats or cat ownership to assert what other people should be doing with them. who defines 'appropriate'? see Steve's post re other registering bodies unfortunately it also removes basic rights of EVERY dog owner. Making all residents of Frankston desex their dogs was the best solution that the conference brains trust came up with? golly gosh. Do they realise that dogs can be sourced outside of Frankston??? Seems to me if they wanted to impact byb in frankston, they would make it a legal requirement that you be a registered breeder with a recognised association, just as it is a legal requirement that the dogs be registered. Frankston council doesnt want members of their public to own entire dogs, and it seems most respondants agree. Just remember that when you are happy with infrastructure in place that determines what type of dog you can own, and how you shall keep that dog to the point of surgical alteration, it does not give you much room to move when they then tell you nope only DAMs can own entire dogs. Im surprised with not only the ease with which mandatory legistlation was passed, but the passive compliance and supine endorsement from supporters - particularly when such impacting legistlation is not specifically directed at its supposed byb target. Notwithstanding that most supportors cite strays and unwanted pets as the reason why they support mandatory desexing, when mandatory desexing wont prevent cats/dogs from being unwanted So why support mandatory desexing? . You all like to be forced to desex you dogs and all revel at the opporutnity to force other owners to desex their dogs, yet there is no rational, strategic reason why. stupendous oh well! have a great Friday and weekend!

I think you first have to establish what you envision mandatory desexing will achieve. ie: If it is to counteract the number of dogs in pounds ie to stop people 'not wanting' their dogs (not that I see many puppies in pounds, most are adult dogs. You think if there are no BYB adverts in the papers that DAM (more) will not spring up to produce these puppies?) It still hasn't been proven to me that dogs in pounds are an 'overpopulation' problem and NOT an 'unwanted' ie community attitude problem. It also occurs to me that while we continue to make the little person count even less, and engineer our society into being mere parts of corporate machines, that it is highly likely we wil get people to value their pets more, while we are increasingly required to value humanity of the individual less. For the most part people are what the community creates of them, and if the community throws away their pets, its probably because members of the community have been thrown away when they lost their job, or were no longer efficient, or were to old, or to difficult etc. Mandatory desexing seems to rely on three fallacies: the first, being that if pet owners are forced to desex their dog it will make them value their dog more, treat it better so it will not end up in the pound. second, if the average 'back yard' litter becomes less probable because most backyard dogs are desexed, then people will stop wanting dogs. apparently people are dumping their dogs because there is an 'overpopulation'. Third (despite a legislative move to production line puppy breeding), in response to the removal of 'backyard bred' dogs, and in response to shifts in source supply, we will not see more Domestic Animal Businesses producing more puppies, be they cross bred, pure bred. But will this stop dogs/cats being 'owned' and then 'unowned'? Unless of course they implement some licensing scheme to own a pet, possibly akin to the demerit point system, whereby you can't accrue more than 12 'points'or '12 pets' over a given period but if you live in a bogan area, like Frankston then not you're allowed to accrue more than '5 pets'. Perhaps we could display B plates in front of rogue bogans who live outside of their designated council zones; this will help to better identify them, and to make the community and the pounds safer.

If nothing else, dog owners can stop their pet being desexed too young, and get a letter to waive the desexing requirement until the dog matures and/or another suitable age. Lol wouldn't it be funny if there was a council rule that said no dog will be registered or released unless it has its tail docked - oops how cruel of me!!!

..

Agree!! I think it's a good idea mostly, and I worked in frankston for 3yrs, not exactly a responsible and bright cluster of people on the whole, most of the people I saw with dogs were scummy and I doubt their dogs were desexed and I bet they were going to breed it just to 'get puppies' and cos 'its cool' So a law that involves desexing like that, well it can only do more good than bad i think. ... nah cant be bothered ...

I'm not quoting him I'm suggesting to dog owners living with mandatory desexing, that Dr Corbett could be sympathetic and therefore well inclined to write a letter to procure exemption. NB: How do you know that he is "totally uneducated about animal welfare and simply likes to throw his opinion around"??? NOTE: Council wil NOT accept new registrations unless the dog is desexed. So if Council wont let you register your dog, then the dog will remain unregistered, and if the dog gets out and Council subsequently get their hands on it, then they will force you to desex the dog.