Steve

' She does not condone bullying in any form" Is she for real??????

My link Robbie Laing's daughter Grace receives graphic picture after singing national anthem at race meeting ANIMAL rights protesters have sent graphic messages to the 14-year-old daughter of horse trainer Robbie Laing. Grace Laing before singing the national anthem at Sandown racecourse. Grace Laing, a finalist on The Voice Kids, was "shocked and saddened" to receive the tweet of a dead horse after she sang the national anthem to a crowd of thousands at the weekend's Sandown Cup. The tweet showed a billboard picture of dead racehorse Pride Of Westbury, which Laing trained, with the message "wonder if she's seen this? Everyone else has". Her mother Rachael Laing said the message ruined what was an exciting day for the young singer. "She was just shocked, shocked and put back," Mrs Laing said. "She's just turned 14, she's a child, she shouldn't be subjected to seeing a dead horse on the ground and have to defend the racing industry." Mrs Laing said her husband was often sent graphic messages, but "when it's your children it's completely different". "I know we can't protect our children from everything but those anti-racing people should not be targeting children, it's just not right. Debra Tranter, a volunteer with the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses, sent the tweet in reply to the Melbourne Racing Club and said she didn't realise Grace was just 14. "I was just following Racing Victoria and doing a tweet storm to get the billboard out there," she said. "I sincerely apologise for any distress I've caused Grace, I didn't realise her age. "I apologise if Grace is upset by it but I'm an animal activist and I take every opportunity to raise awareness and educate." GRACE TO SHOW VOCAL TALENTS AT SANDOWN Ms Tranter, the founder of animal advocacy group Oscar's Law, stood down as public face of the group over the past week partly she said because of online trolling she had been subjected to. "I do not condone any bullying of any form, I saw my tweet more of posing a question."

I reckon its 99.9% genetics. Temperament is the traits its born with and behaviour is what you can train in or steer in the right direction. Ive put a lot of effort into being able to produce litters of puppies that have the same temperament over 40 years. Its very rare that I can see any difference between one pup and another in any litter because I've selected for those traits. Puppy buyers will ask me for the most adventurous, the shyest ,the softest etc but there really is no difference in my litters of Maremma. When they go home to whatever work they have to do they will be molded by the species they work with and the training they get so there are differences in behaviour but their temperament is extremely predictable. If we dont believe that its genetics then why do we bother with purebred, choosing the breed etc and why do we look for experienced breeders who have developed their own lines of predictably temperamented puppies? Fact is if you breed with a dog with a bad temperament you get rotten puppies and rotten grandpuppies - no argument .Train em all you want but put em under pressure and its a problem.

Registered breeders cannot argue restriction of trade in one breath and argue they should not be treated like a commercial enterprise in the next. the pet shops can in spades pretty rich to tell us that selling a puppy bred by a breeder will have poor outcome for the puppy and the buyer. BUT its fine for rescue pups and dogs? thats like telling Harvey Norman you can only stock Westinghouse and no other brand, THAT certainly is restriction of trade Then feel free to argue that to the politicians. Given one of the objections to this Bill's amendments is Dogs Vic's members are not a business it is not an argument that should be made about them. Free trade and consumer law isn't just about business. You are a consumer whether you own a business or not and therefore covered by australian consumer law. As a consumer we have a right to free access to a product of our choice without the availability being manipulated or the price being inflated due to lack of supply. Breeders whether they be hobbyists or businesses are suppliers.

That's interesting, there were numerous comments about how the legislation as proposed is a nightmare to deal with and that they mentioned they want to avoid another dangerous dogs legislation which proved to be unworkable and costly. From where I was reading it seems to me that the chair and one other person seem to be asking the right questions in terms of how it will be funded, how many people will be needed to enforce, why can't isn't the current legislation working and how will this new one be any different seeing how the current one isn't good enough. Even the bit I quoted where they were talking to the minister seemed to be pointing to the fact that they don't like the legislation as it stands. Am I missing something here? --Lhok That's how I saw it as well. Base common sense for the committee surely should say there is overwhelming opposition and very limited support. In fact the only real support is from Oscars Law and Animals Australia. RSPCA have admitted that welfare does not equal numbers. I have to say Im disappointed that part of the Vicdogs presentation wasnt some kind of statement regarding how welfare isn't associated with numbers in the fear that they would be seen to be supporting puppy farms. I think its really bad that in both the NSW enquiry and the Victorian one that breeders who have not been found guilty but who were given bad media have been used to demonstrate bad breeders. The one used in NSW is back in operation with their council's blessing and no charges laid and the Heather Healy case shouldn't have been used to try to take a stab at Vicdogs either at this stage of the game where there are no charges laid as yet. Id also like to know how many complaints they get ,who is lodging the complaints , how many have anything to answer for when they look at them and who these 80% of Vicdogs members are when Vicdogs members only breed such a small percentage of the dogs bred. It is either a beat up or the lesson is once again keep your campfires low and stay off the track. Their stats are so deceptive as they lump mice and rats in with dogs and cats re complaints so trying to understand how many complaints they get about dog breeders, how many are actually guilty etc is impossible and should not be considered to be bona fide without some kind of explanation When they asked the minister would she mind having a chat with Banksia Park it was like they may have been carrying the plague! .

Yeah well that's done it for me. If any of my family vote labor I'm not feeding them. What a bloody disgrace.

Get a look at this! My link

Probably if there were any statistics .wellington Shire couldn't even tell me [ and I have it in writing] what I would need to do to be able to breed dogs in their shire ."Every case was taken on a case by case consideration" In other words it's potentially corrupt.

Debra tranter tells us in her testimony that there are less puppies being bred by big commercial breeders so this proves that there is less demand for them - so why do we need legislation when the last amendments to the bill have only been around for about 12 months and appear to be working? Mind you I don't agree with her conclusions but its her position and doesn't show any need to have more laws introduced. Its a typical example of how they will snatch at anything and try to back up their hair brained ideas under the guise of animal welfare. Clearly something has already happened to get rid of illegal puppy farms because there are none left - even the terminology has changed from puppy farms to puppy factories. The fairy land stuff she says about what breeders do and how this amendment will make puppies be reared in a home environment is just so full of assumptions and a twisted view of the real world and what will be required of breeders who won't be able to dedicate their lives to what they do but will have to work and spend less time and energy on their dogs and puppies. The variables between breed differences, breeder resources and abilities is not even spoken of or in the mix. 10 large breed girls can give you up to 200 puppies a year .When large breed girls whelp it can look like a murder scene, They usually all come in around the same time and a couple of litters of large breed puppies is a truck load of poo - but they will be raised in the home? As if. That presentation from Banksia park shows they are doing more for their dogs and puppies than many small breeders do so why would they want them to shut down and encourage people to work out ways to not get caught and fly under the radar? The things of note to take from this are if you are a breeder don't let anyone know where you are or how many dogs you have. Don't let anyone attend your property, don't keep any of your' older dogs and don't rehome any older dogs but have them PTS by your vet. The RSPCA take the right to assess whether a dog is rehomed or whether it is more kind to the dog to have it PTS due to its health or temperament or history but if the breeder makes that decision its wastage and cruel.

My link Update

My link The MDBA has a good one.

How did she get this job? Every time she opens her mouth she sounds like Oscars Law. whats the odd's on her being a member? How does that saying go? "If it quacks like a duck?" It smells fishier than her just being a member.

How did she get this job? Every time she opens her mouth she sounds like Oscars Law.

Parliamentary Inquiry into the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms & Pet Shops) Bill 2016 (REPORT FROM TULLY WILLIAMS) G'day everyone, I just thought I would try to keep you all up to date on the developments in the changes the Labour government (in particular the agriculture minister Jaala Pulford and premier Daniel Andrews) are planning on passing. Due to the substantial outcry from all quarters in Victoria, a Parliamentary Inquiry was set up to investigate the likely effects the amendments would have. Yesterday (Tue 15th Nov) four representatives from the working dog associations appeared before the inquiry at parliament house, and made our presentation and answered questions. 45 minutes was allotted to make our points and answer questions. The four representatives were Rod Cavanagh, Jean Moir, Joe Spicer and myself. We were the second last group to give evidence at 3.15pm, and by this time the committee of inquiry (made up of 8 MP's from Liberal 3, Labour 3, Greens 1 and Shooters Fishing Farmers Party 1) appeared very much convinced already from all the previous evidence (over 2 days of inquiry) of the absurdity of the bill and the disastrous effects it would have, and even more so after our allotted time. Bill Scott (who has been doing a great deal of work on fighting this bill also, Nancy Withers is another who has been working tirelessly on it) and myself arrived at 9am and sat through all the days evidence which was quite interesting. There was quite a crowd there listening also, as this was a public hearing at parliament house. I estimate about 80 spectators, although the numbers did decline later in the day. A list of those giving evidence can be found below, and other information including transcripts of the hearing as they become available. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/eic/inquiries/article/3173 Dr. Liz Walker, CEO of the RSPCA, took quite a grilling from the committee over various points, and was obviously uncomfortable and squirming in her seat over many of the questions. She is big on "transparency" for breeders, obviously not so big on it where her own organization is concerned if her reticence in answering some of the questions is anything to go by. Some questions that stood out were: Does the RSPCA stand to make a lot of money from these changes, which will create a lot more work and attract a lot of funding for the RSPCA. After a fair bit of umming and ahhing Dr. Walker replied that she hadn't given it any thought. Colleen Hartland the greens member did ask Dr. Walker to get back to them with an accounting of their funding over the past 5 years and how it has been spent. No doubt a fair proportion is spent on what the RSPCA calls "education" which could better be termed "propoganda". It is interesting to see the WA RSPCA being caught using doctored images in its "education" campaigns. You may want to share the following article:http://www.perthnow.com.au/…/981ed42960cb9277a87648f6bf279a… Does the RSCPA endorse OSCAR'S Law? Once again after a fair bit of uncomfortable squirming due to the fact that the RSPCA admitted they do work in with OSCAR's law quite a bit, (despite the fact that OSCAR's Law has broken many laws and has said they plan to continue breaking them; I would have thought that makes RSPCA an accomplice...), Dr. Walker replied with a clear "No" they do not endorse Oscars Law. (It is quite amazing how organisations like Oscars Law or Animals Australian break the law, get a slap on the wrist, and continue to break the law and even openly proclaim that they plan on continuing to break the law, and yet they think breeders should follow the law... go figure). Is there any scientific evidence that the number of bitches a breeder has (this bill will put an absolute cap of 10 bitches for any breeder) is correlated with welfare standards? Dr. Walker's answer was that "No" there isn't any evidence. A previous parliamentary inquiry in NSW was quoted which found evidence of the opposite, that there is in fact no link. And this was after Dr. Walker had been at pains to point out that the RSPCA is an "evidence based" organization, obviously only when it suits them. The Australian Veterinary Association gave evidence also very scathing of the proposed bill. When asked directly why they thought the RSPCA is pushing a 10 bitch limit when there is not scientific evidence (as the RSPCA had previously admitted), the AVA replied that they believed it was the simplicity of being able to prosecute. Count up the number of bitches a breeder has (at this point the president actually counted to 10 on his fingers, 1,2,3...), they are fine, if they count to 11, they can prosecute, even though there is no link between numbers and welfare. The RSPCA again admitted that there are big breeders with excellent welfare standards, and people with one dog with poor standards. One final point the committee appeared quite astounded at, was that NO-ONE (except the RSPCA) was consulted. The almost absolute lack of any consultation genuinely appeared to amaze the inquiry. Not even the Australian Veterinary Association was consulted, even though they had been seeking such a meeting with the minister over the issue since last January. The RSPCA also made a worrying point that next year they are planning to expand to engage many VOLUNTEER inspectors extra to their paid staff. One can only imagine the type of person this will attract - no doubt more animal liberation type zealots the like of Debra Tranter (of Oscars law) who are willing to run into people in their cars, break laws, etc. Personally I find it quite disturbing that an obviously biased animal activist organisation like RSPCA is involved in enforcement. In my view this role should be taken away from the RSPCA. Only government should have that role. These functions would be much better administered by a government department. What happens now? The inquiry will publish the transcripts of the inquiry on the website (see above link). They will report their findings back to the upper house on December 6th. From there it is anyone's guess. The ag minister Jaala Pulford may choose to ignore it and go ahead anyway, or changes may be made, only time will tell. In the mean time, I had a meeting with my local Labour Minister Jacinta Allen last week who I have found (now and in the past when working on the previous code of practice) to be very level headed and a common sense type of person. Talking to her she was quite amazed at some of the effects this bill will have. She is going to try to arrange a meeting for us with the Jaala Pulford, and also with the Department where hopefully we can put our case directly. What can you do? As I said above, the minister can choose to listen to the results of the inquiry and their recommendations, or not. In order to pressure her into actually taking notice of the facts, instead of disregarding the likely effects altogether, we need public pressure to continue. I suggest continuing to contact upper house MP's (MLC's) and labour members, and also publicizing the inquiry results as much as possible. Please circulate this email as widely as possible if you can, and feel free to share it on facebook etc. Regards Tully.

Its the level of ignorance that amazes me. You would think that OL after doing what they do would know stuff they either just don't know or they lie about. Its the expectation that they can just wave some wand and have governments in people's lounge rooms, removing their base rights,preventing them from earning money,telling them what dogs they should and should not own and buy and there wont be opposition to it or huge wash back ! They say in one breath we want puppies bred in people's homes raised as part of the family but having to have a DAB means that no one can have them in their lounge rooms. Why didn't they know this and if it is about changing the requirements for a DAB then why wasn't that part of the amendments? Even if they take away the DAB and replace it with a permit why would anyone be O.K. about having to have the council or RSPCA in their homes to own a fertile dog. Clearly the aim is to make it so hard for everyone that no one can be bothered and those who dont make money out of it will chuck it in quicker than those who are making money. At every turn less and less breed dogs and people who want to own a fertile dog are treated as if they are criminals and animal abusers and need permission for such a silly basic right form government? Its pathetic. It looks like they have just taken the draft of the pilot program that was bought in on the gold coast and not clicked that the permit and codes they had there was not the same as was involved in Victoria. And the pilot program was a failure. No one turned up and applied for their permit and the only way anyone breeding or owning a fertile dog was pinged was if someone dobbed them in just as it always had been without the extra money. This stuff costs the Tax payers millions of dollars - for what - to catch out low risk people who own a fertile dog????? That takes resources away form looking at the larger ones and enforcing the laws now. OL are talking up a storm as if its their legislation, as if they have a clear pipeline through to the minister and that Vicdogs are negotiating WITH them [OL] before they were talking to the government when the second reading went ahead. What sort of government consults with animal rights and drafts legislation that suits the loonies without hearing from the stake holders.

Yep 100% agree and completely exposes the real agenda of OL.

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies? Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread? And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/ Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules. I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't. And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses. You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it. Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way. Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt. Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done.

A statement was made that this photo was not one of Heather's dogs. From memory it was one of the other dogs seized from another breeder around the same time. That sort of stuff should not be in the public arena anyway before its all been done and dusted. . Blabbing about people who are searched or who have had their dogs seized or what ever before there are any charges and before an investigation so their whole lives are ruined whether they are guilty or not is disgraceful. So is taking people's property without due process just as they did with the dogs owned by a breeder who took some of her dogs to a dog show after they had been debarked legally. It was weeks before that breeder knew where they were or what was happening , no opportunity for a second opinion and when they came home several were sick . Why on earth would we believe anything is as they say it is especially when in Heather case it was all timed to back up the Oscars Law agenda to take exemptions from the Vicdogs.

I am not sure what AO is standing for? It's not that I expect DogsVic to police their members strictly, that I am baffled and frustrated that those they have previously suspended or had disciplinary action against are not listed or indicated as such and that they let her keep her status within dogsvic. Why did they remove the suspension from 2010? Let alone let her become chair of a breed club (then back down to whatever it she was at the time of the raid). If not meeting what dogs vic supposedly stands for ("Promoting excellence in dog behaviour, health, companionship, work, community acceptance and responsible dog ownership. Maintaining pure breed standards and education") I would think and hope they would remove those who are working counter to that? When people are hunting for a registered purebreed to buy, they are directed to dolz online and dogsvic. But if people like Heather are included in the list without any indication of the strikes against them...that is trust damaging because I don't understand how one is meant to avoid the registered irresponsible breeders or registered puppy mill? The suspension from 2010 was due to a paperwork issue not that she was guilty of anything .Just because Animal lib say they had photos and they dobbed her in for whatever back then doesn't mean she was charged or found guilty of anything that would remove her from VD .She was the secretary of the breed club before the crap in 2010. The photos of the chis in small pens were taken in 2010 while she was cleaning the other pens -made to look like she kept them like that . Blind freddy could see she didn't because they would have been out of them in ten minutes and they were clean. AO is Applicable Organisation which is how they got the exemptions for their members. It means that everyone who is not a member must have a DAB if they have 3 fertile dogs but Vicdogs dont need one unless they have 10. That's one of the things they are trying to change. How do you know she wasn't doing everything "Promoting excellence in dog behaviour, health, companionship, work, community acceptance and responsible dog ownership. Maintaining pure breed standards and education" She bred over 200 champions and sold a hell of a lot of pet puppies so where are all the people who are complaining about them not cutting the grade as far as temperament, health, companionship is concerned? She sure as hell has proven she was looking after the standard. I don't know if she is guilty of something she should be punished for or not but she is entitled to be treated fairly and have a right to defend herself. I'm not defending her, I don't know her but I don't believe everything we are hearing either. Re registered breeders - bit silly isn't it to expect that just because someone is registered and breed purebreds that they will do it all the way the public has been told is the only way to do it but that's what has been fed out .

Policing their members for the DAB has never been a requirement of VD to be given AO status because its only their members who have under ten that have had the exemptions. The exemptions mean that they only had to comply with the code of ethics for VD not for the code for breeding establishments. If having the exemption meant they were or will be responsible for policing the code for rearing and breeding establishments they have rocks in their head if they go that way and will be set up in a heart beat. OL and the RSPCA were cheering when they got the opportunity to put the sensational stories out and used it to demonstrate that VD members shouldn't have the exemptions. Did the government or OL or the SPCA know that it was not VD responsibility to police this person or are they all just plain ignorant ? Are they being forthright now in saying it was the RSPCA and council who was responsible for policing this person or do they let the world think that VD have fallen down in what they were supposed to do and use it as an example to remove their exemptions? Everything about this is straight out of OL

Yep me too and that photo wasn't of her dog .

So the argument they use to market rescue animals is a great way to show there is no problem that their crappy amendments need to fix. Would be nice if they separated the number surender by those involved in the grey industry from breeders. My link “Just 9.5% of owners who brought their dogs and cats to us for rehoming said that problem behaviours – such as barking, aggression, destructiveness, chasing or inappropriate toileting – were the reason,” Dr Walker said. “A further 1.2% said that the animal’s health was the main reason for their surrender.” By contrast, human circumstances were the driving force behind 2,780 animal surrenders (67.2%). Of those who brought cats or dogs to RSPCA Victoria to be rehomed: 761 (21.0%) indicated that that housing was the main issue: they were moving, their homes were too small or their fencing was unsuited to keeping pets. This group included 40 owners facing homelessness or other crises who felt that relinquishing their animals was their only choice. 374 (10.3%) said that they could not afford to feed or provide basic vet care to their animals. 360 (9.9%) were pets of owners who had died or were in ill health. 232 (6.4%) said they did not have enough time to meet their pet’s exercise or social needs. 203 (5.6%) said they had too many animals. 58 (1.6%) indicated that the surrender resulted from the birth of a baby. 46 (1.3%) were seeking to rehome a pet after a relationship breakdown or divorce. “People’s lives and circumstances can change quickly, often for reasons beyond their control,” Dr Walker said. “It’s important that we understand that these things are beyond the control of the animals in our lives, too – but they have an impact. “It’s a powerful reminder to aspiring pet owners who might dismiss the adoption option, believing rescue animals as ‘problems’, ‘broken’, or ‘secondhand’. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. “Almost all of these dogs and cats have been the beloved companions of people who could no longer care for them the way all animals should be cared for. Those people have done the right thing in bringing their pets to us, in the hope that we can find new owners to love them and meet all of their needs.” Dr Walker said that in many instances, owners travelled huge distances to bring their pets to RSPCA Victoria for rehoming. Last year, for example, the organisation received six dogs from East Gippsland – a three-hour drive from its closest Animal Care Centre. “We are honoured that so many people come to us when they want their pets to have a second chance,” she said. Around 7.9% (287) of the dogs and cats surrendered last financial year came from breeders or those involved in the greyhound racing industry. A further 4.7% were brought to RSPCA Victoria by Good Samaritans who had either found them abandoned, or rescued them from neglect. One in ten people bringing in dogs or cats for surrender declined to give a reason.

Latest update .The RSPCA is fighting it. Hope Heather has lots of money because the other guys have got ours.

Vicdogs members who own more than 10 dogs are too frightened to say anything out loud because people who own more than 10 fertile dogs instead of being seen as being the ones who help a breed to survive are now seen as pond scum. Why would anyone who does own more than ten own up? for years the worst question you can ask a breeder is "how many dogs do you own?" With the first chatter that began about this amendment when Vicdogs were in consultation with OL and that was proclaimed all over OL facebook page it was about not being seen to be supporting the puppy factories. Vicdogs members who dont own more than 10 fertile dogs cant imagine that there may be a day when they might want to own 10 fertile dogs or why anyone would want to own 10 fertile dogs or how anyone could do a good job of raising puppies if they have more than a litter a year. Most of them are members of OL and have backed and cheered their crap in the belief they were going after their competition - not them! The big commercial breeders only care about the numbers because they have already done everything they had to do and comply with bullshit codes to operate. They dont care about a small breeder who only owns three fertile dogs who now has to have a DA. Vicdog members who have spent money , big money to comply with the codes are no one and just thrown under the bridge. Take people's businesses, their hobbies, their base human rights come right into their lounge rooms and have power to steal their property without due process and all of that is O.K. as long as it only happening to the others. Give us back our exemptions - everyone else sucks but we are the best and the only ones who can get it right . OOPs dont forget about the sensationalised stories of Vicdogs members who have been outed and their lives ruined ,their dogs and their pedigrees taken yet no charges laid. This just shows Vicdogs members cant police their own so no more exemptions. There is no data ,no facts - nothing to back up the idea that there even is a problem. There are tens of thousands of people who own puppies bred by big commercial breeders [ including Julia Gillard] , thousands who have bought a puppy from a pet shop, thousands who have bought a puppy from a registered breeder who owns more than 10 dogs, who love their dogs and are extremely happy with them, who would buy off the same source again and recommend them. There are tens of thousands including me who have advertised on gumtree or some other free classified website. Most of the stories thrown around about terrible breeders aren't even the breeders fault. Even the terminology has changed so we arent fighting against filthy puppy farms anymore in Victoria because there are none but now we fight against puppy factories - anyone who has 10 fertile dogs. And heaven help the poor bugger who just wants to breed a dog now and then who isnt a member of Vicdogs. They dont even know they are about to be judged as criminals and their puppies stolen without due process. The fact that the CCs have gone along like zombies and allowed them to interfere in our breeding programs that has no resemblance on science in order to make themselves look better and the "others" look worse is a bloody disgrace. Every time we turn around we have more bits added into the code of ethics or the regulations and NONE of them are about what is best for the dogs. None of this is O.K. and if the CCs haven't worked it out yet that they are the target as well as any other and that all dog breeders should have their rights protected anything they do to or take from anyone else will eventually impact on them. The worst thing about all of this is we get pushed around , our lives dictated by a government who has no business in telling us how to breed dogs and there is never a process included to assess the success or failure of their crazy ideas. Even when one clearly fails in one state its implemented in another .If it doesn't have the desired affect in Victoria they just keep amending the bill that should never have been bought in originally. The crap that is put out that the CCs go along with reaches into every inch of what we do. Its like being pecked to death by a duck. If they tried to bring in legislation that someone who owned two cows was doing a better job of cattle breeding than someone who owned 5000 they would be laughed out of the country .If they tried to tell a breeder of any other animal how often they could breed them or what they can breed them to and they would be told to wake up and stay out of what they dont know. But our CCs hear about something that might become law and introduce their own crap in the hope that their members will only have to answer to them - Then every poor bugger gets stuck with it BECAUSE the CCs don't stand up to them. Its no bloody wonder Trump got in.

Well I assumed Maddy meant that grey trainers drown puppies and what would I do if I knew ANKC breeders did it .Thats because of this that was said in an earlier post 30% PTS . Maddy, on 10 November 2016 - 12:08 PM, said: You're making assumptions there. I understand perfectly well why the industry does what it does. There is no great mystery to it. Desperately trying to pretend that those of us who feel that the current industry needs to be completely dismantled are somehow ignorant of the causes or possible fixes of the issue is almost as absurd as the arguments that equate greyhound trainers with refugees. If you think people who use small animals to bait dogs, or people who will euthanase 30% of a litter without a second thought, are deserving of even more chances to continue as they are, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what is/isn't acceptable for the welfare of the dogs. Way to represent ANKC breeders, btw- as essentially supportive of an industry that is rife with massive welfare issues, just to protect their own arses. Nice work.