Steve

Ok Steve, I’m glad you edited the part of your post that say there are no penalties for the sale of unmicrochipped dogs under the age of 12 weeks. There absolutely is. For those people that have been mislead by your comments let me break it down for them. Section 8 of the Act http://www.austlii.e...1998174/s8.html in its entirety. Section 2 (2) A companion animal must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold). Section 4 relating to section 2 (4) A person who sells an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: (a) 8 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog, or (b) 50 penalty units in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog. Clearly it is an offence to sell a dog un microchipped and clearly there are penalties for the seller if they do. It surprises me that given your inference in this thread that you have some sort of role in an advisory capacity, and have full access to the entire Act that you cherry pick it and disseminate false and misleading information to others who may take this information and run with it. Absolutely, not disagreeing with anything here SG. Education should not be the only tool here as others have suggested but rather, used as a catalyst for change (legislative). This is my stance. Of course legislation doesn’t change without support……..... An example: a few years back Clover Moore tried to have legislation changed to stop pet shops selling live animals. It didn't get up. Personally I think this is a positive step in reducing some of the dogs ending up in shelters. It stops impulse buying of puppies. The pet barn only sells animals from the RSPCA. This is positive in my view. Im not that sure what you mean At no time did I say nor did I edit out any part of a post which said that there were no penalties for selling an un microchipped dog in NSW . I did say that it was not illegal in WA if thats what you are referring to and its not edited its still there. I did say that it was not an offence for someone to purchase an un microchipped dog in NSW nor can I see that it is an offence to purchase an unchipped dog anywhere in Australia Now Im more than happy to stand corrected if you can show me where there are penalties issued to someone who BUYS an unchipped pet . I can see where there is a penalty for selling one , I can see where there is a penalty for owning one over a certain age which is not chipped. However, if someone purchase an 8 week old puppy that is not microchipped as the buyer I cannot see where they are breaking the law. Dog dragon said quote It surprises me that given your inference in this thread that you have some sort of role in an advisory capacity, and have full access to the entire Act that you cherry pick it and disseminate false and misleading information to others who may take this information and run with it. If you can show me the false and misleading information or examples of where I have cherry picked I'm happy to correct it However, this discussion is not just about NSW so if you mean what I said in post 233 and 234 regarding the WA situation perhaps there is a misunderstanding and your accusation of cherry picking and giving false information of me is unwarranted. If you can provide evidence of a buyer committing an offence by purchasing an unchipped dog Im all ears. The fact as I know it is that it is not illegal to purchase an animal that is not microchipped anywhere in this country and there is no penalty attached to that. At no time have a said or remotely suggested that it is not illegal for a breeder/seller in NSW to sell a puppy which is not chipped. I believe that at this time legislation covers the sale of unchipped dogs with penalties for the seller in some states not in others. Thus why I think providing louder education and incentives to the buyer would see buyers refusing to buy unless they were chipped. Un microchipped puppies are not contraband.

If ear cropping and tail docking de barking are done by a vet none of them impact on the long term health of the dog .Im not advocating any of them. Im saying that in Australia we advocate for an animal's sexual organs to be removed for the purpose of easier management. Whether a vet performs any of the operations could have been legislated so not relevant to the debate but the whole wide world decided that taking a puppy's tail off was an act of cruelty - it is written into criminal cruelty laws and considered a very serious offence. It was argued Tails were docked in most breeds in case the dog got a tail injury. It was outlawed because it was a just in case procedure which altered the dog to aid the human manage it better. you have to go through all kinds of stress and trauma to a point where you can have your dog debarked Yet we consider that taking out organs which produce hormones that will impact on the long term health of the dog proven to at the least take time off its longevity is O.K.. Just in case the dog gets some cancers some cancers even though the potential risk of more cancers after desexing is more common. Just in case we have an unwanted litter We put them through a general anesthetic, watch them suffer the pain post operation much much greater than a debark or tail dock and pretend that removing testosterone and estrogen wont have any adverse long term health effects for any mammal. I believe desexing a dog is cruel and that Norway is correct sooner or later the rest of the world will catch up. I am not happy that people are pressured into having these operations done without being educated on the possible pros and cons. Just because its done to death in the USA and its been pushed here doesnt mean we should have to be politically correct and go with the flow . Its cuel. If its about unwanted litters and operating on dogs for our own management requirements is O.K. then why don't we do vasectomies and tubals ?

Companion animals act NSW My link COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 8 Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale 8 Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale (1) A companion animal must be identified as required by the regulations from the time the animal is 12 weeks old. (2) A companion animal must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold). (3) The owner of an animal is guilty of an offence if it is not identified in accordance with subsection (1). (4) A person who sells an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Says who? The current legislation is not working in its present form, even if the laws were enforced they are not adequate. Currently there is talk on making it an offence for landlords to refuse pet owners rental options. Actually SG whats changing the things I mentioned is legislation. Drink drive – higher penalties for doing it which includes jail, just a month ago I was in the local court where a man was sentenced to 2 years for his 3rd offence. Despite huge costs in education programs. Womens rights, too many changes in legislation to list but its all there for you to look up yourself. You can start here https://www.humanrig...gender-equality Smoking, increase taxes, increasing the cost, plain packaging and a number of other legislative changes. Despite huge costs in education programs. http://www.health.go...t/tobacco-plain Racism – Legislation changes to the Anti Discrimination Act, Aboriginal people were not even allowed to vote until 17 December 1965, the Elections Act Amendment Act was passed and came into force on 1 February 1966. This Act extended voting rights to all Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland. So in many cases we need to amend legislation to protect the rights of others because a lot of people are self-centered and dont give a damn about anyone/thing but themselves. That's just it……it cant in its current form can it? Yes is is illegal, in NSW anyways, https://www.olg.nsw....ng-registration At the end of the day all we have in terms of stat on dogs in pounds are numbers. We really can discount the reasons why people SAY they have to surrender them………People will lie to make it sound more palatable for the receiver. Can you direct me to the legislation in the companion animals act in NSW where it is an offence with penalties for the buyer for purchasing a dog that's not chipped. As far as Im aware the onus is on the breeder with legislation to fine them if they dont comply - its also on the seller to change ownership details. Once you own it then it has to be chipped before its 12 weeks but no penalty for the buyer for purchasing a dog thats not chipped no matter how old it is.

Sounds good except there is so much legislation around raffles, lottery etc that its a hard ask. to get anyone that motivated. A charity would be required to run it might be able to convince them its a good fundraiser.

Would appear in WA the breeder doesnt have to chip prior to sale My link

Have you reported them? No...who do you report to & what information do I need? Im not sure of the exact laws re chipping and puppy sales in WA but your local council is first stop. You will need as much info as possible to help them identify them and get them

Have you reported them?

But its not illegal to BUY a puppy not microchipped - and no incentive for doing so - its not part of the push in how to find a responsible breeder etc - no one comes around to check if you have a dog in your yard that's not chipped or registered - why should they care? How do we make them more aware and care?

I agree - its supply and demand. People want them so if the registered breeders dont want to rise to the occasion someone will take up the option. In fact why dont registered breeders who have the best for the breed at heart increase their production a bit to get in on the action ? They dont have to do it solely for the pet market but can also have more choices for the show ring and the gene pool. In some apartment buildings you can only have a dog where you can carry it off and on the premises so demand for small dogs suitable for small spaces that can be carried will be more in demand anyway. By the way they dont have anywhere near the problems that many brachy head breeds have - yet.

If we stick to the OP - Incentives via heavily reduced registration fees given for those who desex their dogs - No enforcement is required because it is not a legal requirement to have your dog desexed. Clearly someone has decided that desexing is a good thing for management of canines and have built this reward - incentive system into the registration process. No one really knows why it's state companion animal law that those who have a desexed animal will get a reduction except its always been done and obviously some people think that it will reduce the numbers of unwanted litters. So because it's been done historically the knowledge of potential unintended consequences between then and now have changed .We know that many of the things thought to make animals more manageable via desexing have been shown to not be true and more potential adverse health impacts are known to occur via having the animal altered in this way. Norway have determined taking out an animal's reproductive organs without being able to show medical reasons is cruel. It is written into their anti cruelty legislation and it is a criminal offence to have this done. We have no tail docking,no ear cropping etc written into our cruelty laws to a point where in Victoria even if you get a dog docked somewhere that is able to be done legally you become a criminal with a huge penalty if you take it with a docked tail to a dog show! We already know that mandatory desexing has no impact on numbers coming into pounds - clearly demonstrated via ACT stats before and after but also in numerous other places world wide where this has been introduced. I understand that some here don't want to hear that desexing an animal for nothing more than preventing it from being able to reproduce is an act of cruelty and that many will throw back what about pyo or testicular cancer etc however, many do think it is cruel to do this .enough science and enough places and enough people think it is cruel to take out reproductive organs to warrant a re think . Again I say what is the stated goal of offering an incentive to people to desex their dogs? Is it that it keeps down aggression - proven by science to be untrue Is it that it prevents unwanted litters - if it does by how much ? These days these unwanted litters still find homes. Rescue fight over pregnant dogs ,wont abort them and easily find homes for the puppies - breeders cant breed enough to fill the demand .BYB may have to reduce their prices but puppies are in high demand. Is it that it prevents such high numbers coming into pounds - proven by studies to not work Where do dogs in pounds come from - who is most responsible and how might we be able to change what has always been done to find realistic solutions to numbers in pounds? The incentive program intimates that if you desex your dog you are a better more responsible dog owner when in fact all you have done is decide to desex to get the incentive or to not have the management issues of an entire dog. You can still let your dog run wild, bark all day and all night, not train it and make the rest of the neighbourhood wish it was gone but you get the incentive. One of the goals of a registration system is to have all animals identified. This gives them a greater chance of getting back home, it means they will also be registered and if they cant stay with their family for what ever reason it enables data to be collected which will answer where do they come from and why and how can we realistically change things to try to prevent the problem of numbers in pounds. So if we are to use an incentive program to encourage desirable behaviour by breeders and owners whilst at the same time educating everyone that microchipping is a responsible behaviour a preferable incentive would be to provide a lower registration fee to those who purchase the animal when it is chipped before they get it.

Whilst I think education is a massive part of it all there is something else that I think we have to accept will always be there . Over the years Ive done the best I could to select great homes and the few times in that period that dogs I bred have been let down by their new owners without exception those owners have been educated .They knew as much about the breed and what they were getting into and the issues of dogs in pounds etc AS POSSIBLE. Last year I sold a Maremma pup to someone who ticked all the boxes - a school teacher who owned a hobby farm and wanted the dog to guard her babydoll sheep . She had already owned a rescue Cav which had recently died of old age and had another cross bred ex rescue house dog. I worked hard with her and thought I had gotten to know her reasonably well , and that hse knew about the breed and management issues better than most. I started the pup with sheep and when I put the pup in her arms the look on her face was one of falling in love with the pup. The pup looked into her eyes clearly said "I love you" and home they went. I get constant photos and updates about how well the pup was doing and there wasn't single sign that thing's'would go belly up. My notes and contracts all say if there is a problem come back to me so I can help rehome etc. The buyer is very aware of this and agree to do so. I work hard at developing relationships so they feel comfortable coming to me if something goes wrong. So when the pup is 6 months old I got notice that this dog had been shoved into an overnight cage at the pound. the owner had also left the paperwork which I provided with the pup in the mail box .she also left her ex rescue dog in the cage as well. Long story short I drive 1400 kilometres to pick the dog pay costs and bring it home. The paperwork not only included all of the pedigrees, vet certificates, microchip papers etc but it also still contained the worm meds I had provided with the pup. The owner hadn't even wormed her after taking her home. Never got her follow up vaccinations. When I rang and asked her why she did this ,what was the problem. Her answer was - she just didn't want to talk about it ,the sheep were going because they turned out to be too much work for her ,the dog had done nothing wrong and was working well but no work would be there for it after next week and she didn't think i would find out about it! She was worried that I would feel she had let me down. LET ME DOWN! She took that pup from her sheep, left her in a germ infested cage in the middle of the night, didn't worm her, didn't vaccinate her,didnt call me so I could help find her a new home,told me it had broken her heart to do it - good grief - .what about letting the pup down? Anyway my point is that no matter what there will always be the human element, things change for people which means they cant keep their dogs, and some people are just bastards and no amount of education is ever going to eliminate dogs being homeless whether they are desexed or not.

Try Brysnif they had dogs descended from your prefix back in 1984 and they are still breeding - might still have some of the old lines Maybe also Benanee found here

However, Im more open to incentives for puppy buyers rather than fines for the breeder.

Have to say that if this thread had been up before we placed that submission part of it would have been a suggestion to introduce an incentive into the registration system for those who purchase their dog already chipped.

...what would be a decent approach?...if there is a bigger problem in a society (and 'big' depends on the 'priority') you would normally get a commission together that investigate the problem and comes up with a proposal how to tackle it - here on a forum we can only scratch the surface a little bit. Such a commission requires people like you and other subject matter experts and politicians with a real interest. If there is really an interest in improving the current situation, such a proposal could be on the table in approx. 6 month time. Well that is exactly what recently happened .There was a parliamentary enquiry into the welfare of breeding dogs in NSW - with stake holders interviewed and submissions from those interested in the community. Im proud to say that we were heard and the MDBA was able to educate them a little on things they really had no idea of . We got pretty much everything we wanted and nothing we didn't - so the changes in July are a result of that. Problem is they get the bit about we need changes in the microchipping and registration system but don't consult between when we agree we need a change in the system to when it goes in so they don't anticipate how they are leaving loopholes and the potential unintended consequences.

Its always good to question things,toss things around, listen to those who agree and disagree and learn - and it is up to us to become as educated as we can and make the best decisions for our dogs even if that seems to go against public opinion and you are not the bad guy if you choose not to desex. As long as we focus on what is best for our dogs over and above all else even when we are proven wrong or make mistakes we are on the right track. There is much more that goes on in the world that you only get a glimpse of here.

A task force? Over the past few weeks I have had to lodge complaints with gumtree and the trading post due to people who are not MDBA breeders citing supposed MDBA breeder numbers in their ad . Ive picked these up because those using them have been so outrageously obviously breeding dogs our members dont breed so Im sure there are more that we havent seen and if we are having this problem I have absolutely no doubt what ever that there are a hell of a lot more using fake DogsNSW and Vicdog numbers. How would a task force have a hope of determining the real from the fake? How would the task force be able to track whether a microchip number in an ad is real or fake or just a typo?

Guns and cars are not puppies and right now there are thousands of puppies available for sale on line and in pet shops which come from people who do everything they can to breed more puppies and sell them for as much as they can get. you know this because they are advertised?...that would allow a task-force to track them down...and fine the people / parties involved. And yes, guns and cars and puppies are different things - but they are all 'goods' as part of a buying contract, and the principles to control the market are pretty much the same for any good...whether to adopt the required measures or not depends on the priority the problem has - and the evaluation of 'priority' seems to be one of the challenging questions to be answered too. Purchasing puppies is not purchasing contraband .A task force to track them down ? They cant even enforce breeders who advertise puppies in their own local papers and dont comply with codes - point it out to councils and the answer is they cant enforce it because they dont have the man power. the idea that they would even consider a task force is just a bit crazy. They could just go door to door , check chips and regos, check that the right fence is there to suit the dog etc but they cant even do that let alone a task force to track breeders who advertise who may not be following codes and laws especially when they are different in every state. Sorry Willem its a dumb idea in my opinion.

Dogs in pounds is simply a fact of life because its a human issue not a dog issue . Yes some dogs which are not desexed will have unwanted litters but everywhere else that has introduced mandatory desexing has shown it make no difference to numbers dumped. The reason the incentive to desex is there is because it helps them to be seen to be doing something because people who yell a lot push for this to be seen as the cause and the solution to high numbers in pounds no one is interested in your dog, your dogs health or welfare all they care about is management and votes. I think its all tied up in identification and without that we will never have accurate stats and we will never really know what realistic solutions may be ,nor will those responsible ever be held accountable. If there was an incentive for people to ensure that when they buy their puppies it comes with a chip it might help to increase the public awareness and help to stop some of those who don't chip etc It may not do anything but it has to be worth a go after seeing that simply introducing laws hasn't had the desired outcome. The new system after July 2 will fail as well unless you educate the buyer and perhaps offering an incentive reduction on your rego fees will help . Im not paying any more what if fees because others dont do the right thing and Im not going for more fines or laws until I see that they are able to be enforced.

Another REGISTERED breeder takes one pup from each sex to get vaccinated at 6 weeks - their vet doesn't attach a chip number to the certificate so he copies the certificate and hands them out to all of the new puppy owners .So far telling his puppy buyers to repeat vaccination at 10 weeks has worked and none have contracted parvo . risk fines? Some people are just capable of doing anything they think they wont get caught at.

Guns and cars are not puppies and right now there are thousands of puppies available for sale on line and in pet shops which come from people who do everything they can to breed more puppies and sell them for as much as they can get.

...usually you can't advertise an AK-47 on eBay, gumtree or over a newspaper (not so sure about Fakebook so) - obviously there are some measures in place that makes shopping for this type of goods pretty difficult. Why not applying those measures to dogs?...Ebay already doesn't allow the sales of dogs (and other pets). Once you start controlling the sales in this environment, you will get the registration numbers up. I can't see that it would make it more difficult for people that want to do the right thing - for my own dog buying experience not much would have been different, beside that I would have had to send off application papers before we bought the dog. This strategy will only push the sale of dogs underground with sellers finding other places to sell their puppies. The people that are doing the right thing are not the problem, the problem is the people who are currently doing the wrong thing as they will continue to do the wrong thing ...underground means also higher costs (higher risks, higher fines...)...which will benefit the recognized and registered breeders. If I intend to buy a dog, why should I embark on such a risky business where I can get heavily fined and have to pay eventually even more for a dog if I can get my dog without this stress the legal way? Regulation does not stop drink driving which is high risk and has high fines. Regulation does not work. ..that's debatable ...I still believe that getting reminded of the hefty fines help some people to consider a plan B. Hefty fines are nothing else than 'positive punishment', losing the licence is 'negative punishment'...a little bit keen to state on a dog forum that those methods don't work. O.K. Lets have a little look at the dog world If microchipping has been mandatory since the 90's then why dont many breeders microchip? How many have ever been fined . In 20 years I've heard of one. Since day one I have never allowed a pup to leave my property which is not chipped not because Im worried about a fine because if I copped a couple now I would have saved thousands anyway . In July an updated system is being introduced for microchipping in NSW which links more data than is currently linked. This is from an email I received from the dept of local government ayregistration online. Quote. A focus will be placed on collecting breeder information by assigning breeder ID numbers (or recognised breeder association number if applicable), which will also allow for quick lodging of a pet to a breeder when micro-chipped. The breeder can than pay a discounted registration fee, and/o r transfer the pet to the new owner (online). end quote Now I promise you already many breeders are working out how they can get around this because they don't want councils to know how many dogs they have how often they breed them and how many litters they have . Up till now this wasn't part of the deal. Also AWL and RSPCA are two of the agencies which have access to this as well as various pounds and whistle blowers for animal rights and statements have already been made that they will spot for litter numbers and be able to visit to check on them. Breeders good and bad dont like this one little bit. In other words those that haven't chipped up till now will not chip in future and some of those who have will decide not to. Breeder IDs are issued as needed to get the chips in so I had a conversation recently with a breeder who is preparing to have her staff get breeder IDs so no one can track her details. ANKC breeders have to have chip numbers to register their puppies and Ive spoken to two registered breEders who are working out how they wont get spotted by the RSPCA. fines so what ? How are you going to catch them?

...usually you can't advertise an AK-47 on eBay, gumtree or over a newspaper (not so sure about Fakebook so) - obviously there are some measures in place that makes shopping for this type of goods pretty difficult. Why not applying those measures to dogs?...Ebay already doesn't allow the sales of dogs (and other pets). Once you start controlling the sales in this environment, you will get the registration numbers up. I can't see that it would make it more difficult for people that want to do the right thing - for my own dog buying experience not much would have been different, beside that I would have had to send off application papers before we bought the dog. This strategy will only push the sale of dogs underground with sellers finding other places to sell their puppies. The people that are doing the right thing are not the problem, the problem is the people who are currently doing the wrong thing as they will continue to do the wrong thing ...underground means also higher costs (higher risks, higher fines...)...which will benefit the recognized and registered breeders. If I intend to buy a dog, why should I embark on such a risky business where I can get heavily fined and have to pay eventually even more for a dog if I can get my dog without this stress the legal way? Eta: ...btw, all these arguments against an 'upfront registration' mentioned so far are also valid wrt the de-sexing strategy Why? for the money - underground means lower costs unless you get caught and chances of getting caught are limited - even if you are its a smacked wrist breach of some code, pay the fine go again unless its a cruelty issue. People buy puppies from pet shops and puppy farmers because its easier to do it than waiting for a registered dog .Grown ups often think they want a puppy and they dont like the idea of someone telling them they work too much,they need better fencing, they are too old etc , they often don't want a breeder giving them the third degree and making them wait ,making them sign contracts and taking up their time. Puppies bred from underground breeders are not contraband and to be honest with regard to who pays fees and complies with XYZ anyone would be hard pressed to spot the good guys from the bad. Any suggestion of more fees, regs or rules, or laws is way out of the question because they simply become scoff laws. You are missing a very large part of the equation. Why would you complain that you have to pay fees for not desexing and yet advocate for others to pay just in case fees anyway?

Well humans usually react in numerous ways to a given stimuli. Some will care others wont - some here do. I don't think discussing the provable facts about the pros and cons of having your dog desexed is advertising the benefits of entire dogs but I don't agree that everyone who buys a new puppy should be considered and nutter and isnt able to see the facts and make a decisions that is best for them. how do you justify treating the majority of people who have pets as potentially irresponsible rather than treating the majority as if they will be responsible. MOST people who own dogs ARE responsible. In case Im an idiot tell me lies and allow me to make choices which will impact on my animals without by with holding knowledge ? I dont think thats easily justified