Steve

Im not sure why its been labelled separation anxiety especially when you say she is quite happy to go into her crate. Seems to me that the dog is simply treating the house as if its her kennel so she can go where she wants , mark her turf, do what she wants while you're not there just as she probably did in her kennel at the breeders place. This is akin to leaving a 3 year old toddler at home alone and expecting to come back and all is well. She is throwing herself at the fence because that's probably learned behaviour from being in a pack in a kennel setting. Ive got some pretty well behaved dogs who I never have to correct while they are in my home but I wouldn't leave any of them locked in my home with free run of the place for 8 hours at a time To me this is more of a management issue than a fancy name that makes excuses for what is happening.

Except I dont think what goes on here is to protect their members at all costs in fact it would be better for them to sacrifice the occasional bad ones in order to protect their PR. First we dont know yet if its as bad as its been reported, we dont know if they have really breached their code of ethics - its possible to fit with the code of ethics but still not comply with the state codes. There are lots of breeders like this that are registered with DogsVic. A huge puppy farmer in Gippsland once bragged to me about how she was also a registered breeder with DogsVic. Another Collie breeder has recently been raided by the RRPCA and she has been pumping out hundreds of puppies every year for god knows how long. Her dogs are kept in disgusting conditions. But she is still registered with DogsVic. Yep.

Except I dont think what goes on here is to protect their members at all costs in fact it would be better for them to sacrifice the occasional bad ones in order to protect their PR. First we dont know yet if its as bad as its been reported, we dont know if they have really breached their code of ethics - its possible to fit with the code of ethics but still not comply with the state codes. So far we know there have been some get your act together and comply with the codes but no charges as far as we know and chaining dogs, or having dead dogs on your property isnt an offence or breach of either the code of ethics or code of practice. I saw a dog being examined with what seemed like a sore ear and it needed to be groomed but we dont know which breeder owned the dog etc. I dont expect them to chuck people out without a fair hearing and Ive no doubt that some of what we are seeing at the very least is beaten up but they need to get better at how to respond. The simple fact is that based on the crap fed out by the state canine orgs and everyone else who has made statements about what registered breeders do and what they produce no one ever knew where to find a good breeder anyway. Reputable doesn't equal integrity . The only thing you can be confident of by purchasing a pup from a registered breeder is that it is a purebred. the marketing of registered breeders implies a warranty that doesn't exist. They [Vicdogs] have financially benefited due to these government exemptions. There are high numbers of people who would prefer not to be members who are there for no other reason than the exemptions - this increases the risk that these people will not respect the code of ethics and do things they think others wont see. They know nothing about who they are letting in, dont do any checks on them,have an inadequate systems for checks and balances and rely on complaints - which people have to pay to lodge. Its a high risk situation for them and leaves them open to being battered as the greyhound industry has been. It makes their members more of a juicy headline target. Im not saying that's fair but its how it is.

Do you know where I can find the documents that describe what the deal was that got Dogs Vic 'exemption' from what, by doing what? The people I was discussing it with yesterday were Victorians & they appeared to be saying that Dogs Vic had been given some power? responsibility? to check that their members were doing the right thing in relation to welfare of their dogs. Now animal welfare matters are covered in the law. That takes real policing powers (like RSCPA & Police & Primary Industry Officers have) to do all the things required to investigate...& resources. Which obviously Dogs Vic don't have. So what actual responsibilities are they supposed to be meeting... given that, at best, they can only ask nicely. That's why I said I thought that can't be right....given I didn't know then about the 'exemption' (whatever that entails). I'm speculating, but it sounds like big expectations set up, that would be hard for Dogs Vic to meet. No there are no real policing powers as in state granted police powers. There is only the ability to "police or check ' their own rules and regs and codes are complied with. If one of their members is found to be breaching them the ONLY POWER they have is to fine or remove someone from their membership. So the state government has allowed Vic Dog members to have exemptions if they own under 10 dogs which exclude them from having to comply with state code of practice for breeding dogs. In other words while ever you are Vicdogs member with less than 10 fertile dogs the expectation is that you comply with their rules regs and codes and Vicdogs is responsible for ensuring you do - so you dont have to comply with various things as anyone other than a Vicdogs member does if they are breeding dogs and own more than 2 dogs. The Breeding licence that everyone else is supposed to have to breed dogs allows council and the RSPCA to know who you are and where you are,check you are code and law compliant etc,seize your dogs and charge you with breaches of codes but Vicdogs members can and do fly under the radar. For example If you are not a Vicdogs member and want to breed a dog you must have a domestic animal licence, you must do all types of crazy things with your dogs such as increased vet checks for breeding dogs, over vaccination, even to retiring a male dog at age 6. So if you take a good look at what is needed for a licence and what they have to comply with if they are not Vicdogs and compare that to what they have to follow in Vicdogs code of ethics you can see why if you are a Vicodgs member and say you have under 10 dogs you are able to make many types of decisions with what you do with your dogs, how often you take them to a vet etc. In other words its self regulation. Having said all of that these breeders being discussed now should not have had any of these exemptions because they had more than 10 dogs but there is an expectation from other members and the public, animal rights and animal welfare etc that even though they dont get such exemptions because of the numbers they own that because they are still Vicdogs members that Vicdogs will ensure they are complying with their codes. The waters get muddied as to whether or not Vicdogs should be held accountable for breaches of laws and domestic animal licences rather than breaches of their code of ethics - how they can spot someone doing the wrong thing etc. Couple that with the usual sensationalism, propoganda and out and out lies told in order to grab a headline etc and you see this kind of stuff. The biggest issue is that it really is a disaster waiting to happen and right now with a decision coming up re breeding establishment numbers etc via state government and the desire to have such exemptions removed from VICDOGS by the activists I would expect to see more action against Vicdogs members for them to shine a light on issues of self regulation. I dont think fair for stacks of reasons but thats how it is politically for dog breeders in Victoria. These two women have been named and shamed and false information has been given out via the press. reports have deliberately confused where dead dogs were located , information has been given out which should not have been made public regarding dogs surrendered , compliance notices etc and At this point it doesn't really matter whether they really are guilty of animal cruelty etc for the purposes of beating the drum by Animal lib and the like they got the press they wanted.

At a guess the dog hasn't been inside all the time - it would be a rare breeder who allowed dogs free reign of the house when they were not there- and then all of a sudden she is an inside dog and expected to know the rules. Training is great except that you have to be there to catch the bad behaviour to make it work . It doesn't sound like separation issues to me just doing what ever she wants to do when alone. Personally I'd buy a pen - not a crate so she has room to move and be contained but able to move away from where she sleeps to go to the toilet if she needs to when you are out similar to this one - My link and only allow her inside when you are there to train her.

It can include deregistraton. For a body that has no legal powers, that's as bad as they can make it. I know that but the wording sounds pretty weak. Also the public don't know that either. Maybe leading with the promise of deregistration and full cooperation with the aim of legal prosecution might have been stronger. Judging by the comments I've been reading, the public's understanding of how the pedigree dog world operates and its lack of enforcement powers is low. Agreed but in Victoria the state government may as well have been standing on a street corner drumming up business for Vicdogs and part of the deal for their members to get such outrageous exemptions over and above people who are not members is that they will police their own members. You and I both know the worst they can do is throw them out - that removes their eligibility for the exemptions and they cant any longer register their puppies and provide registered pedigrees but that doesnt have any impact on someone like this who already has more than 10 dogs and doesnt have the exemption anyway. The limit to their ability to police them is no more membership but thats not how its all promoted .Vicdogs members are more accountable blah blah blah - fact is Vicdogs members with less than 10 dogs are LESS accountable and those with more than 10 dogs are equally as accountable as anyone who is not a member. Vicdogs may be held responsible for some of this but someone who has that many dogs should be being policed by then AND council and the RSPCA its why the exemption is only for the first 10 so we can hardly blame the public when the government pushes it and so does the organisation. If part of the deal with the state government is that there are exemptions for their members because they expect them to police them then its about time they policed them and passed on pertinent information to the RSPCA and councils so something real can be done.

She didnt know there were 4 dead dogs on her property - Id love to know what reason she comes up with to get out of that one.

There is some of that but its also a bit about catch up. Go back 30 years and no one would have ever considered breeding dogs for money the way they do now. Especially not cross bred dogs. But there are many things that have contributed to the evolution of dog breeders including purebred dog breeders. We could say that there was a massive promotion of cross bred dogs with cute names which instigated some of the change - true to a degree but people would not have been able to do that if there was not the demand for that. When the demand for cross bred dogs which people were eager to pay relatively huge prices for increased the demand for purebred dogs did not decrease nor did the prices people were prepared to pay for them. Take a good look at the figures for purebred dog breeders in this country and even though the demand for puppies has increased to keep up with increase in population. In 2014 only 6400 people bred a purebred litter of puppies Australia wide. Only 79 of those 6400 breeders Australia wide had more than 10 litters. My link So a quick look at the breed that is involved in this thread- Chi's and we see that in 1986, 4037 Chi's were registered with the ANKC australia wide [ remember there would have been many more because back then you didn't need to register all puppies bred in most states. But when we get to 2015 where ALL puppies born to a registered breeder must be registered there were only 1334 registered Australia wide. Only around 10% of them would go back into the gene pool with most going out with a limited register.The membership of the ANKC has dropped by 20 thousand since 1995 and there are a lot more people now who are members who are there for the activities other than breeding. So if a Chi breeder decided in 2016 that they wanted to make money out of breeding chi's they can be pretty sure that there is a high demand for their puppies and even higher demand if part of how they promote themselves is by being successful in the conformation show ring and being involved in the breed. After all that's part of the marketing - take a good look here and see how people who want to buy a puppy are directed to those who show and those who are involved in their breed's related activities. People who are shopping for a Chi might prefer to purchase one from such a breeder but even if the breeder has 120 litters a year its no where near enough to fill the orders so people who don't want the overheads and the papers also have a huge market. When you do everything you can to keep out small registered purebred breeders via rules and regs, protecting bloodlines, limited register, council restrictions etc and couple that with changing lifestyles where less people are able to have a litter or two a year and marketing which even the participants and beneficiaries of that marketing start to believe their own bullshit and you get high volume breeders - some of whom put other things over and above the welfare of their dogs. And thats just one piece of the puzzle.

1. No I definitely don’t think it is right to expect a higher standard of such a breeder. I expect high standards from everyone who owns dogs and who breed them. 2. There are many variables in this one. You can’t compare a couple who both work to one that does not work. You can’t compare a fit healthy breeder with one that has mobility or health issues. You can’t compare someone who owns 20 Great Danes to one who owns 20 Chi’s. You can’t compare one that has virtually no resources or adequate infra structure to someone who has state of the art whelping boxes and heated / air-conditioned whelping rooms, good fencing, large play areas etc. You can’t compare a breeder who is well informed, well educated in canine husbandry and someone who doesn’t have a clue. I have seen breeders who own less than 5 dogs who treat them appallingly neglecting diet and vetting and rarely handling them while I’ve seen some who have up to 100 and cover it all well, ensuring the dogs get the best of everything and they are well socialised. 3. If I’m being honest I have to say if you tell me you had 30 breeding dogs I would be curious to know more info about you and what you do and how you do it. So I suppose with that number I’m not judging you [yet] but like you I’m a bit suspicious. 4. Part of the problem is that the term bettering the breed means different things to different people. I can’t for the life of me see how bettering the breed equals seeing dogs which can’t breathe, can’t walk cant reproduce etc being produced generation after generation. Yet there is a higher regard placed on breeders whose main goal is to breed a champion over those who strive to eliminate health problems. I don’t understand why we don’t /can’t implement breeding programs to eliminate problems or why there seems to be a lack of sensitivity to what is best for the welfare of the dogs we own. So to me bettering the breed is about producing dogs which contribute more to the health and longevity and temperament of the breed and ensuring the dogs I own have a high quality of life even when I think no one is watching others will see the need to breed dogs which are winning in the show ring. 5. Yes it’s possible to breed quality healthy happy purebred dogs in bulk but it takes using a system of set up and operation, setting goals, identifying risks to the dogs and the breed by how you proceed and manage them and it takes people with a base philosophy that no matter what even if it means bankruptcy that the welfare of the dogs and what is best for the dogs they own and breed from a welfare perspective is placed over what is best for the profit margin, the ribbons, the acclaim or any other goal. The politics and the crap that goes on in the dog world where a good breeder is judged by their involvement in showing dogs to “better the breed” does not nurture that base philosophy. 6. Believe it or not there are lots of people involved in activities with dogs that don’t seem to like them very much and who don’t view them with a level of concern for their welfare .You see this in all areas not just breeding. They use them to get to what they want but never seem to bond with them or see them as “family” As you know I’ve got 8 kids and over the years I’ve been their Mum there have been days when I felt like crap but no matter what, no matter how sick I was or how rotten the weather was or how poor I was, how much I didn’t want to do what they needed me to do. I did everything to ensure that they were fed and supervised and looked after. If I needed to, as much as I hated it, I asked for help because their welfare always took priority. Because I had more than most I had to manage them differently, follow routines and be a bit regimented but their welfare was never compromised. For me breeders should be people who feel that way about their dogs. When you get that in a person everything else follows because they will put the needs for the welfare of the dogs above everything else. They won’t have more numbers than they can manage without compromising. It’s actually got little to do with what criteria has been used traditionally to select breeder material. 7. So MDBA focus in our breeder and rescue member selection is looking for those base philosophies over anything else - you dont get in without us having a good feel for who you are and how you feel about your dogs and your breed. Our courses and our support are about teaching them and helping them identify what is needed to get it right, the importance of integrity, doing what is best and right even when no one is watching and building in precautions and solutions and understanding the potential positive and negative consequences of the decisions they make for the welfare of their dogs and their breeds.

Good question but its going to take an essay to address all of the issues and variables I've got a meeting tonight but will come back.

When I was googling yesterday, the chi club page I landed on (it was a contacts list?) did say Heather was the Secretary (and I remember feeling angry that her name was still on it/I couldn't see anything addressing the issue). Could be when people googled the name they also found that (presumably old/not updated then) page? When did Heather stop being the Secretary? Was it when the 2010 information came out? If Chi club enlightens that they did boot her out because of that, it would be awesome. If she had stepped down or switched out for another reason... I'm not sure how breed clubs breeders work, is Heather still a member? Are they (the club) only responding because the media has exploded? If they were proactive and she's not actually a member that's awesome, but if they're just being reactive and only dealing with it because the media is horrified...:/ Well. When the puppy farm is a registered breeder/shower etc. and of this scale, unfortunately those she works with and share the community are going to be tarred with the same brush. I reckon the best thing the real responsible breeders can do right now (from my upset POV, so what would make me feel better personally about breeders involved) is a) condemn the actions of Heather, b) acknowledge that somewhere something went wrong to let this go on so long in their own registrees/councils/clubs/whatever else Heather is a member of c) let people know how they can spot bad breeders who tick the "responsible" boxes and report bad ones*. Certainly not anything that smacks the side of blame shifting/distancing/it's a conspiracy against breeders (hyperbole example) Hoping my meaning makes sense. *in an ideal world this would work, but considering the amount of complaints about Heather I can see why people went to the liberation front to get something done. she was the secretary back when the first complaint was made in 2010 and she is still listed there as a puppy enquiry officer Im all for registered breeders and everyone condemning those who do what she is accused of but best to wait until more reliable info is made available in my opinion.

Of course not and its not some sort of defence its caution and a desire to look at the facts not the assumptions or the bits that get included in such cases that are beaten up. I cant just hear this much and make final judgement .Ive enough experience with media and AR propaganda to hold my judgement until its all out and Im trying to sort out what is fact and assumption. if you want to know what I really think it's unlikely that you will get that on this forum. The Victorian State government have been shouting the praises of Vicdogs members and actively recruit memberships for them. There are MANY people who are members for no other reason but for the exemptions and aura of respectability it affords them and this was a disaster waiting to happen. The culture that automatically accepts someone is doing the right thing because they show their dogs and turns a blind eye to innumerable acts of cruelty etc needs a kick in the pants but there are some great breeders who will get bad vibes not just because of a couple of raids but because Vicdogs has no bloody idea of how to handle the bad PR or what should be done when this sort of thing happens. This is about a much bigger problem than a couple of registered breeders being put under the spotlight. The focus on bad registered breeders will escalate over the next couple of months because of what is going on behind the scenes. Ill still wait until we see the real facts and hear the true story.

well they did forget to mention that the breeder who has been raided is the puppy enquiries officer and still an official at the club

I have also been involved in a case with a doler and dead dogs but in that situation the dogs had been locked in a bedroom and left to die and the bodies never removed to a point where the body juices had dripped through the floor BUT Having dead dogs on a property doesn't automatically mean that there is something terrible happening. Depends on how they died ,their age and what is normally done with animals that have died.

They are only toy breeds so not so difficult if its a full time job. Many Chi breeders have high numbers. Yuck. Sorry. Makes it sound like they don't deserve full and happy lives simply because they're small dogs. yes. Im truly lost for words. Chihuahuas are my heart breed. I've owned 3 little darlings and they, like all dogs, deserve full and happy lives. I get that larger more active breeds may need more space and stimulation, but seriously, 120 of any breed need more than 1 full time person caring for them to get even close to it. I have worked at a couple of kennels, one an exclusive private show/breeding kennel of about 20 to 30 dogs owned by a well know person, now deceased, whose name is all over the dog world in SA. Another top shelf private breeder/exhibitor with 50ish large and giant dogs as well as boarding for 50+ pets. Well run well staffed facilities but still I am torn about the quality of life even these quite indulged animals received. And I myself have owned/managed up to 30 dogs on my own property. I know how bloody hard it is. People who visited my place, some who are members here, will attest to the facilities and standards and efforts to enrich the dogs. several were my own dogs, and up to 20 rescue dogs rotating through. One of the biggest drivers of my choice to get out of the rescue was the realisation that i thought even the rescue dogs deserved better, and believe me, they were some pretty fortunate dogs to have ended up with me. I know only too well what goes into keeping large numbers of dogs and puppies and doing it well. Do we know there was only one person caring for them? Unlikely.

I hope this person gets all of the bolded. She deserves to be fined and doesn't deserve any future animals Waiting for the full extent of this animal cruelty and irresponsibility to come out, but it will just make me more mad. If that latest article is true and 33 dogs were surrendered in 2011 and laws have been in place since only 12 months after that etc that raises a whole heap of other questions Perhaps the dogs were surrendered back then due to the breeder having more than she had a permit for Its also questionable as to how ethical it is for the RSPCA to give out this kind of information and make statements of this kind when its a case in progress.

They are only toy breeds so not so difficult if its a full time job. Many Chi breeders have high numbers. Yuck. Sorry. Makes it sound like they don't deserve full and happy lives simply because they're small dogs. I dont really need to say that I didnt mean it that way do I . Management of Toy dogs is simply not as difficult as larger more energetic dogs etc .

Yes of course they need socialisation etc but a dozen chi's running around a lounge room is a lot easier than a dozen larger breeds in a back yard

They are only toy breeds so not so difficult if its a full time job. Many Chi breeders have high numbers.

I agree with this and Im not interested in considering what was published in 2010 because of where it came from and the fact that the RSPCA didnt do anything. There were also some stupid laws in Victoria in 2010 about where they had to be housed over night etc . the original reports stinks of a AL. However, the RSPCA have removed some of the dogs this time so its now more serious. Best to wait and see what if any thing the are charged with but also remember the breeder gets no right to an independent second vet opinion once they are removed.

The buyers wouldn't have a clue - they would be proud that they were able to obtain a puppy from such a well known show breeder and office bearer of the club and there is definitely no need what ever for her to sell to pet shops. I highly doubt that she goes anywhere near pet shops. For a registered breeder to be able to find homes for around 250 Chi puppies a year is easily achieved without ever having anyone visit their property. The complaint is about how she treats and keeps her dogs not the health and suitability of her puppies to be suitable pets when they get to where they are going.

My link My link

My link They were found filthy, hungry and cramped together in small cages. Some of them were seriously sick. Almost 120 small dogs and puppies owned by a show dog breeder were taken from an alleged puppy farm in Longwood in northern Victoria on Tuesday. Four dead dogs were also removed. The breeder Heather Healey, an active show dog enthusiast with prize-winning dogs who runs the Euroa Kennel Club, is secretary of the Chihu club of Victoria The team of 21 RSPCA staff was investigating suspicions of large-scale animal cruelty at the properties. Six cats were also taken into care, with one seized and five surrendered to RSPCA Inspectors. "All of the animals were taken into care because of immediate and serious concerns for their welfare," a spokesperson said. "They were allegedly found to be living in small cages and squalid conditions, both inside and outside the residences. Veterinarians attending the premises also identified a number of health and husbandry concerns." Ms Healey was caught in a hidden camera sting by Animal Liberation Victoria back in 2010 after complaints to Strathbogie Council went unheeded. Footage from the sting showed groups of excited dogs kept together in small wire pens and baby cots. A woman involved in the 2010 sting, Stephanie Rodda, said she broke down crying upon seeing how the dogs were kept. She said they jumped up and down desperate to be let out or held, while others shivered in a corner in fear of people. "When I entered the house the first thing I noticed was the constant barking of many dogs and mess everywhere... I felt dizzy from the odour," Ms Rogga said. "They do not get let out of these pens for the duration of their whole life. Another woman who went to buy a dog from the breeder, Kate Hallam, a 39-year-old veterinary nurse, described seeing small cots holding up to eight dogs. She said the smell was "disgusting". "The conditions that we witnessed were truly horrendous," she said. "The dogs were forced to sit, sleep and live in their own faeces and urine. Only one cage actually had a bowl with water in it. I was horrified by what I was seeing." She said there was no bedding for most of the dogs, and the runs were filthy, as were the animals. "The lack of space, water, exercise, veterinary attention, environmental stimulation, hygiene and most of all care, that I saw was in every way, wrong." Animal Liberation Victoria purchased three dogs in the worst health at the time in order to save them and took them for treatment at the Melbourne University Vet Clinic. Founder Patty Mark said it was unacceptable that the RSPCA and council took six years to act. "It's a very frustrating situation," Ms Mark said. "There is a lot of heat on the RSPCA because they failed to act over and over again." Ms Healy declined to comment on the raids but a woman who answered Ms Healey's phone and identified herself as a friend said she was "most definitely" a proud breeder who had done a lot in the show dog community. "She is beside herself at the moment," the friend said. Dogs Victoria, the peak body for purebred owners and breeders, confirmed that Ms Healey was a member with registered dogs, but there had been no complaints against her. "I just can't begin to tell you how appalled we are as an association that this is going on," CEO Lyndall Black said. "The vast majority of our judges and members care very much for their dogs." She said Dogs Victoria was helping the RSPCA with the case. "We rely really heavily on concerned people letting us know of these situations." All of the seized and surrendered animals were taken to an RSPCA facility and were receiving veterinary care. They will be available for adoption in the future. Some dogs, cats and birds remain at the properties but notices have been issued to improve the animal's health hygiene, husbandry and food/water provisions.

No I wasn't meaning you in particular but accusations of false advertising and taking donations by deception do have the agencies that deal with these things. ASIC and the ACCC would be a good start. Anyway - not my business and this sort of thing usually works for the business rather than against them. They will probably gain more supporters due to this than they will loose.

Gumtree, really? is it not for profit, and just like Petrescue, you can breakdown to a specific area on their website that you want to look at. You failed to mention a significant point on this, and find your own post misleading, if you click on the link, the first thing that pops up is saying if you donate, you can save 'all the adorable things'' and by the amount you donate, increases the lives saved. No one is looking on the lower right hand side down the page while they click on donate with the list of things you say is so clear. Even you seem to have missed how 'You can save all the adorable things" by donating to Petrescue!!!! So Petrescue does seem to save lives, not rescues, unless you read the obtuse ways your support (AKA donation) does. 1) funding life saving projects ???? 2) free petrescue listings (refer back to Shel's whilst she represented Petrescue comment that 'rescues are lucky they aren't made to pay for listings' 3) The safe and sound program, is that the one they got $60 000 of donations and increased pound listings by 6 (that is over $8000 for each of the pounds that joined up) 4) Finding foster carers - umm really? So social media outlets rescues use have no impact that, or the rescues own website asking for carers. Petrescue does all that, gotcha ;) I said when you proceed through the process of donation before you actually donate after clicking the donate button to me it is very clear about what they do and what I'm donating to. I said I cannot see that they are taking money under false pretences. And Shel was right people who use other businesses' resources do usually have to pay for using their services and their website alone has provided a good platform to promote rescue groups and their animals. What Petrescue has done by providing that resource and gathering corporate sponsorship has been more instrumental in promoting and helping lift the profiles of private rescue participants of their services and the availability of rescue dogs than most other things over the past decade. I dont see anyone saying that other things such as social media rescues use and other resources dont have an impact as well and of course Petrescue don't do it all on their own. I have no association with them and I have no desire to defend them or continue with this my point was that I can see why Shel received the letter.