Steve

Far as I know under Vic law prevention of cruelty to animals allows dogs to be chained . So they look like they breached the code of practice and had too many dogs and un chipped unregistered dogs there .They get time to fix it and at most will get a fine unless there is a cruelty case. Food water and shelter appears to be provided. Like many "rescuers" who dont get it they probably thought they were doing the right thing by saving them. Its certainly not the first time a person who thinks they are helping dogs get it wrong. How could anyone know if they are stolen and even if they were - stolen by whom ? The people who were looking after them? Even when I see one dog chained even for short periods each day I think its cruelty but not according to Cruelty laws. As with anything put out by OL expect that at least some of it is sensationalised. They could have simply followed the law themselves and reported it to council and RSPCA who would have seen what the photos showed without the need for OL to break the law and trespass and be judge a jury. Ill wait and see what the council and RSPCA determine is the real situation.

So how do you increase the numbers of registered breeders?

This is a good question. In 40 years I've never bred a dog with a shonky jaw. If it happened I would be upset and I would never consider using that dog for breeding or selling it for breeding BUT in some breeds its quite common and the breeders have a bit of a complacency about it One of my sons purchased a pup from SA as a breeding dog and when it arrived the vet papers said it had an undershot jaw and it was obvious .There was no way the breeder could have thought the jaw was O.K. and she knew he wanted it to breed with. But she didn't consider it something out of the ordinary for the breed so she couldn't see she should have disclosed this to my son. I have had lots of conversations with other breeders who just don't see it as an issue. In some breeds jaws like this are quite common and some breeders don't think its a deal at all let alone a big deal or something that they need to disclose to the buyer ,or something that would count it not suitable for breeding. To them its a normal part of breeding their breed and it doesn't discount the dog from breeding - so to at least to a degree some breeders would issue a dog with an incorrect bite with main register papers. In the big scheme of things it should be easy to breed away from and mostly does not impact on quality of life etc. So some breeders would say - whats the problem you can still breed with it. Bit silly isn't it that they ban some colours from being on main register but ANYTHING else is up to the breeder. Justifiable to some because of size of gene pools, other potential issues in the bred etc but in my opinion even if a breeder thinks its still O.K. to breed with they HAVE to inform the buyer of the fault.

Sorry disagree you with you. Do not tar us all with the one brush. The majority of us are ethical registered breeders and would not do a thing like this. But as to purchasing sight unseen, so many of us do send quality pups to purchasers without the slightest hitch. As to seeing both parents sometimes that is an impossibility when we use interstate sires or frozen semen from overseas. :) Agree there is no risk involved in purchasing one of my puppies sight unseen. Ive been doing this for fourty years without a single hitch. If a breeder sells a dog with a fault without notifying the potential new owner its against the law and against the codes they operate under.

If what you say is the real story the breeder has breached her code of ethics and consumer law. You need to put what you have to say and include vet reports to the breeder giving her 14 days to respond .If you get no joy then lodge an official report with the state Canine association and consumer affairs. The product had a fault which the breeder was aware of at time of sale and she didnt inform you and as a result it isnt fit for the purpose it was sold - breeding

How clever. But really, I'm tired of this same agenda being dragged into irrevelevant posts where people are trying to learn or ask questions. We get it, you guys have an agenda and are on the same side. Go team, but can we all be spared in threads that bear no relevance to said agenda? I have no interest in getting further into it and driving things more off topic but a little consideration would be really nice. What is it exactly that you are complaining about ? Surely it cant be that some posts on dogz are irrelevent to you? What is it you want Willem and myself to do to be sure we are being considerate to you? What agenda do you think we have and why do you think we are on some kind of team? How do we know what we can do or say so we dont upset you to a point where you feel you need to be so rude. Its pretty hard to claim you are the victim of some terrible torture when you are punching into someone publicly without apparent concern for how you are making them feel. I dont enjoy watching people being censored or bullied - you may not have meant it that way but that's how it felt and last time I looked people got to say and talk about what they think here as long as they don't break the rules. Right now you are playing the man and not the ball [personal attacks breach forum rules ] and you are not the forum police nor do you have permission to tell anyone that they should not participate. You have choices if you dont want to read someone's posts perhaps you should use them.

Time will tell but Ill be surprised if it makes any dog suffer less and none of it in my opinion will impact on numbers in pounds.

...that makes also an interesting comment for the 'unethical desexing' thread... Can you keep your ranting to one thread? There's a reason its an echo chamber in there.

AS for the oft repeated to be ethical you shouldn't breed and price to make a profit? how many of the people who want a puppy will work for nothing? Where are they going to get the money to buy a puppy if they too work for free or at a loss? let alone pay for its food and vet bill. as well as food for themselves? Many years ago the ANKC did a survey and discovered the majority of new members remained members 5 years or less.the majority of members were pensioners, they cant afford to breed if they cant make enough to buy feed for themselves and their dogs, pensions don't stretch very far. The dairy farmers would have to be the most ethical in australia at the moment. they are not only working for nothing, they lose money for every litre they milk because they are getting less thanit costs to produce it. 6,000 cattle went to the sales last week 77% of them dairy cows their owners cant afford to feed. That is where ethical gets anyone if profit is unethical your only allowed one litter per year, two in a row but cant breed another for minimum 12 months or is it longer now? either way that means a chi that has 1 pup per "litter' can only produce about 5 to six pups in her breeding life. Lucky for me I managed a 7th before she was too old and finally had the long awaited bitch pup. so 7 litters for a great dane and 70 odd pups to choose from. no wonder the toy breeds numbers bred are falling though the floor in the bad old days a bitch had her 4 or five litters to select from before she was 4 or 5. many had their replacement daughter and were pet homed by 3 1/2 to 4 and there was great demand for then as they still had a long life as a pet ahead of them. now if you had bad luck until the 7th try, (pretty sure now you cant have a 7th try anymore)they are too old to rehome but keep too many to live out their lives with you is going to get you branded as a "collector/hoarder" last I heard they are pushing for legislation to have the threshold changed from 10 to 5 and any over that can be seized so not too many oldies will shove u over the limit fast. lets not forget now a newbie even if they find a main register pup or even worse a main register adult cannot apply for a prefix until they have been a member for 18 months. How many are going to wait 18 months without throwing in the towel and become a backyard breeder instead. Whatever happened to welcoming, educating and mentoring newbies instead of setting up an obstacle course to weed out the impatient? I know how many once I explain the waiting time chuck it in to the too hard basket. one has three outstanding dogs and to my knowledge became a member 2 years ago so happily went in to apply for a prefix, except turns out when applied for membership was told if your only showing you only need to be an associate member. guess what, 2 years as an associate member doesn't count, have to be a full member for 18 months. and yes has given up. so 3 lovely dogs lost to be breed and one once enthusiastic potential addition to the rapidly thinning ranks In NSW first and foremost breeders have to comply with the law which does restrict how often you have a litter but there is a loop hole -the vet. Bitches must not have more than two litters in anytwo year period, unless with the written approval of aveterinary practitioner. But then of course you also have to comply with Dogsnsw codes too. There is no restriction in NSW on the numbers of dogs you can keep and this has been ruled out by state government , you can also breed as many litters as you want but it seems DogsNSW have determined that if you are one of their members you can only do that if you get inspected.

Im all for not breeding primarily for profit because I believe that the health and welfare of the dogs MUST come first but whats wrong with profit if primarily its about what is best for the dogs and the breeds Would appear that there is also a policy now via dogsnsw of more than 10 litters gets an inspection. So its saying O.K. for a Great Dane breeder to have 10 litters per year = approx 100 puppies per year but a chi breeder can only have around 30 puppies per year before they are branded as potential animal abusers and inspected.

It ticks me off no end that according to the law you can make choices about how you manage your dogs and what meds to give them etc but because someone has a litter now and then its mandated differently Not so long ago the wording said vaccinated yearly so some breeders purchased the Parvac and threw it away - signed off that it was done each year. Some breeders also used references that other vets had written for vet advice. But since then these loop holes have been closed and are specific about what has to be included according to manufacturers recommendations unless you get a written note from a vet. Your vet who profits from not giving you the note. These days some breeders buy the heart worm meds and no one can prove whether the dog gets it or not.

wrt the negative side effects of annual heartworm injections here an older thread: http://www.dolforums...erse-reactions/ It is a mystery why annual shots are still available and allowed in areas where heartworm infections are seasonal!!!!!! ...and for areas where it would be really required all year around monthly administrations would keep the toxic levels at least on a much lower threshold. There is much which is mysterious. I live in an area where there are no mozzies - never. My property is miles from any other with dogs, and yet the vets still insist I need heartworm meds .In NSW you have to give heartworm meds unless the vet advises against it - same if it is a breeding dog. Vaccination every year unless the vet advises against it - no such thing as a vet that advises against it around here. So you can let your pet dog go without heartworm meds and yearly vaccinations without breaking the law but if its a breeding dog - who cares? Follow the money. I've never ever heard that I have to give heartworm meds? I've been a dog owner my whole life and work in the animal industry, and this is the first I have ever heard of it? You are an owner not a breeder. These laws only apply to breeding dogs My link 8.2.1.6 Dogs must be vaccinated against distemper,hepatitis, parvovirus and canine cough in accordance with the manufacturer’srecommendations, unless with the written approval of a veterinary practitioner. 8.2.1.10 A program for heartworm prevention for dogs must bein place and in accordance with veterinary advice.

I microchip every puppy that I have bred since the laws became mandatory and every dog I own is chipped. No other reason than it is the law. I would not chip them if I had a choice. I have had more chip failures - 7 that I know of than Ive had lost pets - none. My link

Crows are a real problem around here .They take the tongues and the eyes out of the ewes as they are lambing and they are ruthless with the lambs.The Maremma take them out and these days no crows fly over the paddocks the dogs are in. The Maremma share their food with magpies and supervise the native parrots and rosellas etc as they drink from puddles but one sign of a crow its game on. When old Rufus was about 8 months old One of the kids came in and told us we had better come look as there were a heap of dead crows in the paddock with the sheep and Rufus. Pretty hard to kill a crow. We watched a while and the dog was moving out just a bit and you wouldn't have been able to pick the difference between the dog and the sheep - he had his head down as if he were eating grass. As the crows came close he quickly took care of them. He killed 8 before they got the message. We have watched as the dogs have plucked them out of the sky like an AFL player. These days the only time we even know they are around is when the ewes are lambing, you hear them in the distance so know to go out as new lambs are here but they never come close as long as there is a Maremma around. About 15 years ago the family was sitting on the front porch watching a litter of Maremma puppies play - they were about 6 weeks old. Next thing an eagle swooped down and plucked up one of the pups .Kids screaming running mad trying to follow where the eagle was going. It got pretty high up dropped the pup and broke its back. We also had a snowy owl that was intent on seeing the puppies as dinner and ripped the bitches face to pieces and wouldn't give up - we had to kill it to save the puppies. If a pup is small enough Ive no doubt a crow would have a go at taking it off and would certainly see its eyes and tongue as a delicacy.

Yes especially when what things are determined to make up what responsibility MUST be is based on biased, and false information and assumption. With people who have come to their conclusions of what the problem is, who causes it and how to fix it are too afraid to challenge what they think and actively prevent a potential differing view to be discussed and alternatives tested. The question of what is best for dogs is relegated secondary to the various other primary agendas and these days few other than vets benefit .Take yearly vaccinations and desexing out of a vet's budget and couple that with all the testing that has been pushed for 20 plus years with NO improvement for the dogs,[who else other than dog breeders would stick with a scoring system that doesn't work,makes vets and data keeping services rich, rather than testing possible alternatives and management solutions] and that won't be good for business.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place. For example, terms such as 'reasonable actions', 'reasonable access' and 'appropriate feed and water' are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed. We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can't just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this. What we are seeing now is • Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits. • Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance. • High rates of impounding and euthanasia. • And more and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility. As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation. There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance: • All dog breeders to be licensed • Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information • Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act Everyone in NSW who breeds a dog and has it microchipped post 1st July 2016 will have a breeder number .They are not calling it a licence but a registration number and it is part of the microchipping information Licences have been ruled out in NSW and so has any suggestion that vets will be expected to report.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place. For example, terms such as 'reasonable actions', 'reasonable access' and 'appropriate feed and water' are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed. Not true - terms such as reasonable actions, reasonable access and appropriate feed and water are not pertinent to legislation surrounding registration and identification. To suggest that in NSW the current legislation for for identification and registration of cats and dogs is lacking in detail or not there in the first place is rubbish. Looks to me that it shows that legislation and threats of punishment alone don't work for a very large number in our community

I think the associated risks are too high - if the pup starts to become an annoying barker, how does the OP want to correct this? ...what about the 'destruction phase' when they start investigating everything?...o.k. a safe kennel in the garden might be option here, but would require further investments. Well I reckon Ive placed hundreds of dogs with people who work or go to school and its all manageable and works out just fine though I wouldn't recommend it or allow it for a Maremma.

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong. Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped .

vets dont do any policing - theory is you cant ask em to do this or people will avoid visits to the vets. Only council can fine for not chipping and unless a buyer dobs em in its pretty hard to spot them its why I think an incentive for buyers to purchase dogs already chipped would help however, I cant see that its going to be possible for any real data collection due to the loop holes and until then none of us can factually say where dogs in pounds originate from.

In my opinion you are better with a puppy - don't take time off start it as you intend to continue. I often see people who get a puppy at the start of school holidays, everybody is home with it and the dog gets used to the constant company - problems happen when its time to change the routine and leave the dog alone.

Dogdragon - Yes there are penalties if an OWNER doesn't get their dog microchipped but it is not illegal for a person to purchase a dog which is not chipped. Its not smart and yes they should make sure they do but if the dog isnt chipped its not their illegal act or penalty Think it through how could it be especially when you can buy a puppy out of state ? If I buy a young pup in NSW not chipped the seller breaks the law - not me as long as I have it chipped before its 12 weeks old . If I buy an older dog thats not chipped as long as I take it and have it chipped I havent committed an offence. The act sets the seller as responsible for the animal to be chipped at time of sale not the buyer. Edited to ad there is a difference in between saying if you buy a pup thats not chipped you should report it and if you dont report it then you commit an offence.

But in Victoria you cant advertise them for sale without a chip number .You can give them away without a chip though. No chance of data collection here. Heaps of loop holes. My link

By the way this is from the Victorian one My link Compulsory microchipping All cats and dogs being registered with a Victorian local council for the first time must be microchipped prior to registration. You can be fined if you do not comply. In addition, councils have the power to require compulsory microchipping of all cats and dogs housed in their municipality. You should check with your local council as to what is required in your area. All cats and dogs aged three months and over must be registered with the local council. Laws are already in place requiring microchipping of restricted breed dogs, and declared menacing or dangerous dogs. It is also a requirement to microchip all cats and dogs when they are sold or given away from pet shops, commercial breeders and pounds or shelters. In the unusual event that the implantation of a microchip is likely to significantly prejudice the health of an animal, a supporting letter from a vet will exempt the owner from microchipping requirements." So people who are not commercial breeders don't have to chip before sale - hard to see that someone would claim its an offence to buy an unchipped puppy in Victoria too isnt it?