Steve

one at dawn at one at dusk.

You cant go wrong with these guys http://www.nirenokennels.com/

Council cant insist on anything that is not state legislation and I've never heard of a single person anywhere in Australia that has actually been fined for not desexing their dog. They may have to pay a higher fee but forcing people to desex their dogs, their property - nup.

At least once a week I have to go after someone who is advertising as an MDBA member who is not and that's not just on gumtree - it can be anywhere and nothing anyone can do to stop it except what we are doing and belt them when we catch them and answer questions about whether someone really is a member when we are asked. So as with everything else someone can buy from anywhere - its buyer beware and good ethical breeders shouldn't have to be over regulated and treated as potential criminals because others are doing the wrong thing. No matter what the laws say or requirements to advertise are on any site if the buyer is going to buy without doing some basic checks at the end of the day nothing will stop it. If anyone really thinks that being registered with a state CC is some kind of tick that they wont be stung or that the pup will come from a good home should take a good look at this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4454400/RSPCA-rescue-31-dogs-puppy-farm-New-South-Wales.html

I just advertised my new Maremma babies on Gumtree. I was asked if I was a breeder and if I was registered.Clicked yes to both. Ticking anything else such as vaccinated etc was optional .I was never asked for my member number, or chip number of puppies etc and the fact that I put my Dogs NSW member number in the ad was by choice because of DogsNSW rules not because I was compelled to do so to place the ad via gumtree.

To the OP there could be any number of explanations - go back and ask the breeder before you worry about it being shonky. If you aren't satisfied you could then ask for help in what you could do.

Well done!

Ive never had to do any of that stuff to advertise on Gumtree.They ask if you are a registered breeder and you tick yes - certainly nothing specific about ANKC Sorry just because you think ANKC is the only way a breeder can be registered that doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. Anyone can advertise on Gum tree thankfully without any requirement for numbers or evidence they are registered with one group or another. People I speak to don't expect ANKC registered and all that and so far only one state makes you ad a microchip which you can ring in or a license number. Dogs NSW require a member number but half their time would be taken up with trying to stop people using them when they are not members. In the last week the MDBA has had to report two who have advertise they are our members and even added a fake member number.

Try this one - Beautiful dogs and really great breeders nireno

In NSW [which is Where Deniliquin is] WORKING dogs have to be registered but its free - ordinary farm dogs still need to be chipped and registered.

This has never made any sense to any breeder who knew the science of breeding dogs and who knows that the canine reproductive system is unique .It is detrimental to our female dogs to wait too long to breed them and to breed them with gaps rather than back to back. This is a prime example of when it should have been that our CCs were saying "bugger off and don't tell us how to suck eggs because we are the experts at it " But this is how it goes - the do gooders push for anything they can think of to lower the numbers bred then the government call together a panel of "experts" .That turns out to be welfare, animal rights, vets and one representative of a state CC and that is usually someone who knows jack shit about actually breeding dogs and the science for the species. So they sit us down as a sheep with a pack of wolves at the dinner table to vote on what is for dinner and before we know it everyone is being educated on how to breed dogs and what is best for them by animal rights.The code of practice comes in and then the state CCs have to tell their members they have to stay within the rules .At no point does anyone ask what is actually best for the dogs - and you have to be brave to say what is best for the dogs out loud because then you get flogged including flogged by breeders who at some point should be told the truth about the science.

This is the year 2017 and this colour issue is easily tested for and eliminated. I promise you some colours are kept out for no other reason except that the founders dont /didnt like the look of it and these days its about politics where those who are running the breed clubs play power games. Colour dilution alopecia does not occur in all dogs with blue or fawn coats, and the frequency varies within affected breeds. It is the result of a faulty version of the d allele, known as dl. Not all breeds carry this faulty allele, and the majority of blues are completely healthy. There are various different D alleles, and only one of these causes CDA. Technically this makes CDA a recessive allele, as it is recessive to D (non-dilute, non-CDA) however dl is dominant over the standard d allele. What this all means is that CDA can be bred out of most lines by careful breeding and genetic testing to eliminate the dl allele in favour of the healthy d allele.

Breeding more litters does mean you place more pet puppies but it also means you have more choices in which ones you keep and breed on with. These days if a breeder is breeding to work toward betterment of the breed by upping the numbers they are spoken of as pond scum because they are only in it for the money - puppy farmers. But a breeder who breeds more has a greater chance of making a difference to their lines and the breed in general. How can what is happening be good for the breeds? but you cant have it both ways - if we breed less others will breed more - grown up people who want Frenchies wont change their mind because registered breeders want to limit the supply especially when in the wings they are being told the show breeders are the cause not the solution of their dogs having a chance at being healthier. Wake up Australia.

the fact is a breeder cannot contribute to the breed if they are only breeding a litter or two per year. This clearly is where the CCs want us to go as they fall in line with animal rights but any breeder that wants to make a difference to the breed where it really matters needs to breed MORE litters and MORE puppies.Or we need thousands of small breeders breeding a few litters each per year actively working together for the common goal of improving the health or whatever of the breed. This is the only way you can select for the all of the things that go into the betterment of the breed - you simply cant do it if you have limited choices and shrinking gene pool with less diversity. Genetics experts reckon you need about 20 irls and 5 boys to be able to select the healthiest and best to breed on with.Its not the non registered breeders who are doing harm to the breed its the CCs and the show breeders who think that breeding less makes them more of an expert and breeding less is better. Its not - its straight out propaganda that most of us have swallowed and perpetuated.

But the problem is that puppies from healthy parents that have been tested for everything imaginable still get sick and if its due to a conformation issue such as Brachy head health testing isnt going to help. Breeders have to select for dogs that are less extreme to lower the incidence of health problems. Hip scoring has been the biggest rip off of the century and any dog can still get it including those that have parents that have been scored or tested with perfect hips.Insurance companies would still be paying the same whether breeders test or not.

I think that there are some huge chunks of reality that seem to be a bit missing in this equation 1. Firstly there is a campaign being run by the RSPCA and the AVA that puts the health issues of the breed firmly on the show ring and registered breeders - if you go to the bottom of the page after you watch the movie to "yes I want to help" it takes you to a petition directed squarely at the ANKC. Registered breeders who show can state that they are breeding the healthiest dogs but not everyone agrees. There is much evidence to show this isn't necessarily the case http://loveisblind.org.au/ 2. There is no mandatory health testing for a registered breeder to register their puppies and hell of a lot of them don't test where a hell of a lot of those who are not members and who are breeding and selling them do test. Some of them [MDBA breeders] are also doing fitness tests on adult breeding dogs as far as I know NO ANKC registered breeders are doing these tests which are about how the dog can function rather than only testing them in the ring for how they look. MDBA puppy buyers are also sharing with us details of any health problems that show up as the dog proceeds through life so we can see how responsible our breeders actually are. 3. Some ANKC Registered breeders are registering dogs with a different colour so they can breed the blues etc so some of the pedigrees are false and if the colours do truly relate to health problems there is no way of knowing via profiling a pedigree. 4. If there is a such a high demand for the breed if those who are getting it right don't breed more then people will buy a dog that is available and fits what they want. Rather than registered breeders who believe they are doing it right slowing what they breed down it makes more sense for them to breed more not less. If ANKC breeders only want to breed show dogs and not also pet dogs then they can hardly moan about someone else filling the gap. You can breed pet puppies and still consider the welfare of the dogs and the best for the breed. 5. Now and if things go on as they are no one can prove who is most responsible because there is no way of tracking which dogs bred by which breeders actually do have to have operations and vets want to do operations just in case. When the finger is pointed there is no defence as the data hasn't been collected.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms. Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs.. I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs. Well the relevant code of practice in Victoria lets Vicdogs members off the hook and they are regulated no differently than any dog owner if they have less than ten dogs so being regulated by that is a far cry from being regulated as other breeders are. What part of more than one code of practice did you not get? I got it Sheridan but having to abide by that code of practice as a breeder is not having to be regulated by anything pertaining to breeding dogs. Therefore stating that registered breeders in Victoria who own less than 10 dogs are regulated by a code is smoke and mirrors because those who are not Vicdogs and breed dogs have more regulation on them and the code for the private keeping of dogs can hardly be counted as regulated in the sense it was being discussed in this thread.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms. Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs.. I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs. Well the relevant code of practice in Victoria lets Vicdogs members off the hook and they are regulated no differently than any dog owner if they have less than ten dogs so being regulated by that is a far cry from being regulated as other breeders are.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms. Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

I agree. However the number of these dogs who are dumped because they do not live up to the claims of their breeder ('non-shedding' or size being the biggies - ie false marketing) would suggest that there are many people making uneducated cross-breed choices on the basis of false information. And thats the major point of my post: false cross-breed marketing. FB and the newbie threads here show time and time again that the general public do not make the distinction between responsible cross-breeders and puppy farmers/irresponsible ones - in time they may, but not now. These cross-breeders simply come up with a marketing terms and false information to sell their puppies. Why do these cross-breeders come up with these cutesy marketing terms in the first place instead of describing them by their cross? The answer is to claim their dogs are something they are not and to mislead and falsely market them using false information (non-shedding, hypo-allergenic, kid friendly, 'family dogs' etc etc). What defines a 'family dog'? What type of 'family'? Its nothing but a marketing term. If this was any other industry or 'product', the ACCC would be very interested in their claims. The fact that many cross-breed puppies are still sold through petshops and online as impulse buys and end up in pounds, compared with the numbers of purebreeds in pounds proves the point. At least most (not all) registered pure breeders and hopefully now most Cobberdog cross breeders will try and ensure their puppies go to thoughtful homes with truthful information. You're right - some purebreeders are horrible and are a big part of the problem. On that we absolutely agree. There are a couple of registered purebreeders I know of who I steer well clear of and never recommend. They are truly nasty, take gate-keeping to a ridiculous degree and do everyone a grave disservice. But there are some fantastic ones as well - and thats where I send people who ask me. Horrible breeders are not restricted to purebreeders. The mass cross-breed puppy farmers I have dealt with have been cruel patronising money hungry lying b*st*rds, And most backyard cross-breeders are not much better. So IMO this is not about 'horrible breeders' who sadly exist everywhere. Its about a group of cross-breeders who falsely represent and market what they are selling to the general public. Of course not - rescue is not infallible either - but the fostering system increases the chances of a good match as opposed to an uninformed response to false cross-breed marketing on looks or characteristics which the false marketing of these crossbreeds encourages. The best protection the puppy buying public has is to buy from someone who loves the breed, knows the breed, breeds for betterment of the breed and socialises their puppies well - and that ain't a cross-breed puppy farmer. Yet as I keep saying the general public do not make that distinction between responsible or irresponsible cross-breeders or do their homework. If they did, most would not buy online or from petshops (and they would go out of business). How many DOLers have said 'I bought my cross-breed from a petshop/mass-breeder when I didn't know any better'? I have no affiliation with the ANKC and would welcome proper registration under another affiliated body - not a problem - as long as there is some control somewhere. Steve I know you have worked really hard on breed development and you are probably one of the biggest advocates of the cobberdog in Australia. And with guarding against unintended consequences such as false cross-marketing, this cross-breed probably has a bright future, eventually as a registered breed. And that's genuinely a good thing. But IMO Cobberdog cross-breeds or registration as a purebreed are not a panacea to the problem of rampant cross-breeding and false cross-breed marketing to the general public. Not everyone who wants a cross breed will consider a cobberdog, wants a cobberdog or even know they exist - so they'll likely respond to false marketing of other crossbreeds and around the cycle will go again. O.K. Firstly I see more staffy type and working dog type dogs in rescue that never get out the other side and into a new home than I see other cross breeds that have been purposely bred. I also see pure breed rescue is flourishing. In my two breeds Beagle and Maremma there is a never ending supply of dogs for Beagle and Maremma rescue and there are hundreds of specific breed rescue groups all over the country. Plus many purebreds are marketed as non shedding, less prone to causing allergies and child friendly. Cross bred breeders don't have a monopoly on that either. There are good and bad breeders in any group and it is just as difficult to find a registered purebred breeder who is doing it all right as it is to find a cross bred breeder who has it all covered. The marketing for purebred dogs tells us that they all health tested - well guess what ? Most registered breeders dont and whats more the anti marketing of purebred dogs tells us that many of them are actually selected for characteristics that cause their quality of life to be low quality and for them to suffer because of it. These days the breeders don't have to do much work on telling the general public the benefits of cross breds because the RSPCA and the AVA and the state universities are right out there about it. Hit google and ask for non shedding dogs and its purebreds that come up - so is it possible to have a non shedding purebred but not a non shedding cross bred? What Im trying to say is that grown up people make their decisions on purchasing anything based on their own variables and suggesting that every one should only want registered purebreds is equivalent to telling me that everyone should only want a rescue dog. So when we see cross bred dogs advertised and people buying them they have as much right to determine that suits them better than what you would choose. The fact that there are choices is a good thing and people who won dogs which are not purebred or not registered with a kennel club as purebreds can still be fantastic owners and the dogs make great pets.Cross bred breeders don't have a monopoly on puppy farming and if there weren't so many people telling the world how great their cross bred puppies were people would stop buying them. Both sides are capable of spreading crap about what they see as the best and real world but people buy dogs of any type because they are able to make their own choices - some will like purebreds others wont care if they are purebred or not. There is just as much argument - if not more that the marketing of purebreds and the pressure on breeders to only breed a litter or two a year and God forbid for the pet market has helped puppy farmers of both registered purebred breeders and cross bred breeders. Its supply and demand.

The Cobberdog breeders don't have huge prices on their pet puppies and cross bred puppies such as labradoodles are selling for much more than theirs are even in pet shops and its a bit rich to be talking about expensive cross breeds when you have some pure breeds from registered breeders selling at 7 thousand dollars plus each on limited register. Every Cobberdog bred here and in any other country is subject to registration and there has never been a pet Cobberdog puppy sold except in Norway where desexing is illegal that has gone out entire and only MDBA members can buy a breeding dog - so no one other than MDBA members can breed them. If we are going to discuss what may push people toward puppy farmers and pet shops etc then its difficult to go past the fact that it's virtually impossible to buy a registered purebred puppy of some breeds due to lack of supply but also because some of the breeders are horrible to deal with. Some grown ups want to make their own choices and simply want to buy a dog without having to go through screening and questioning and having someone else decide whether they will make suitable owners. Just because a minority of people think purebreds are preferable it doesn't mean those who don't automatically become idiots and incapable of making an educated choice that they feel suits their family and lifestyle. Its O.K. to take dogs into your home that come through a rescue that are unpredictable but not to bring a puppy in that you like the look of? Considering this is almost the year 2017 and the ANKC isn't the only Canine registry that has world wide affiliations maybe into the future some breeds who will become recognised will prefer NOT to be under the ANKC umbrella.

Yes, and Vicdogs members need to be very aware that OL ,AA and AL all very active and very well resourced in Victoria use some filthy tricks to make a point and the big point they are focused on making between now and when this is all sorted is that Vicdogs members are pondscum , keep their dogs in rotten conditions to make a better case to ensure no exemptions will be given and that there should be no self management. Keep your campfires low, stay off the track and be protective of your privacy and your dogs.

We need to look closely at what OL and Animals Australia had to say in their submission. This to me clearly demonstrates their ignorance on what people who breed dogs actually do and how they really do raise their puppies. They have some crazy ideas that if a breeder has 6 dogs regardless of the dog's sizes, regardless of the size of the home, regardless of the breeders resources, regardless of whether the breeder has the ability to be with the dogs all day every day etc regardless of how many litters they may have to whelp at the same time etc etc that all breeders will simply have all of their dogs in their home, living within the family home as if they were children. They constantly describe the terrible sin of allowing dogs to sleep in tin sheds even though some of those tin sheds which we used to call kennels are equipped better and are more comfortable than many people in live in. They seem to either live in fantasy land or they have only been talking to people who breed dogs under a narrow set of variables. Again I say there is a vast difference between 6 toy breed dogs and 6 giant breed dogs. Can you imagine ducking in for a cuppa with a breeder who has two or three litters in their home which are a breed that has a dozen in a litter and are a few weeks old if they really do have them all running all over their family homes? During the whelping of a large breed it can look like a murder scene, and puppies being weaned and on the move turn into little poo factories. They have worms and other bugs that are not real posh in carpets and family living areas too. There isn't much point in having a bunch of puppies locked in side a house for hours every day whilst the breeder goes to work and only being let out of the crates long enough to clean up either even if the breeder only owns two dogs. In many shires you cant keep more than 2 dogs within 15 metres of a dwelling to stop people having a bunch of puppies under foot in family homes. 60 giant breed puppies and 6 adult giant breed in a family home and none sleeping outside "in tin sheds" ?????? You cant expect them to get the limitations on a breeding gene pools, selecting for traits, health and temperament and how a breeder is much more tempted to use a dog which they would have preferred not to use if they had a greater choice or that some people prefer a purebred puppy over a rescue dog but what their submission told me was they are basing much of what they think happens in every breeders home who owns 6 dogs or less on a very small sample and they are living in la la land as far as reality is concerned. You cant base this on numbers because there are so many variables in the ability for a breeder to get it right. Two parliamentary enquiries now in two states have found that there is no correlation to welfare and numbers and reality is dogs all over Australia live as outside dogs and sleep under the house, or anywhere in the yard they can find shelter, riddled with fleas and fed poor diets with no vet treatments and poo never picked up,water bowls never cleaned and just as all owners are not equal, all families are not equal and all breeders are not equal. There are some families I met along the way where I reckon if how they treat their children counted I certainly wouldn't want to see a dog living as part of the family in the family home let alone raise a litter of puppies as part of their family.

Committee recommends withdrawal of Domestic Animals Bill The Victorian Parliament’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee has recommended the withdrawal of proposed legislation to further regulate the breeding and sale of dogs and cats in Victoria. To take its place, the Committee has recommended that the Victorian Government immediately establish a stakeholder group of industry, municipal and community representatives to consult on the drafting of a new Bill. The Committee’s report tabled in Parliament today makes 18 recommendations on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016. The Committee found that consultation with relevant stakeholders was inadequate and the Bill reflects this. “While there was agreement amongst all stakeholders that unethical breeders should be shut down, the significant lack of consultation undermined the development of the Bill,” Committee Chair Joshua Morris said. “If implemented, the Bill will lead to a reduction in the supply of pet dogs in Victoria, particularly popular cross-breed dogs,” Mr Morris said. “It may also lead to a significant reduction in the supply of livestock working dogs, with consequences for farmers and the agriculture industry.” Another key recommendation is that the government establish a more robust standards based approach to the health and welfare of dogs in commercial breeding establishments. The Committee’s report follows a series of public hearings with key stakeholders. “The message is clear that a new Bill is needed and that it must address the inadequacies of the existing Bill,” Mr Morris said. “There are significant concerns that provisions in the existing Bill will lead to the decline of the industry in Victoria and will have unintended consequences that will be detrimental to animal welfare. “A proper consultation process for a new Bill can help to address the concerns that were raised with the Committee during its inquiry.” The report is available from the Committee’s website. Media queries For media queries: Committee Secretary, Lilian Topic, on 0417322053 Issued: 6 December 2016

I only noticed the November 17th and thought it was recent. Sorry old news.