Steve

...and sometimes it is just historical - like Border Collies. The fact that some colours are recognised forces people to register the dogs with the wrong colour. This can have major helath implications down the line (eg merle in the line). Not an issue these days you can DNA for colour and you know straight away whether there is a merle in there or not

I really dislike the Limited register because its used to stop people breeding. Co ownership also is fraught with issues and breeders wont sign off on this and that. I often think the ANKC is always reactionary rather then innovative. It never seems to get in front of or even with the times. Breeding is not politically correct nowdays and I think the ANKC has been really slow to counter it. Rather it panders to the animal rights rescue agenda, which from a population genetics point of view is extremely damgaing to dog breeds, this is even before you get into the issue of closed studbook and anti crossbreeding/outcrossing rules. Yep I'd agree with you 100%.

These are the Aussie stats - and keep in mind that because of the limited register use, only about 10% - 20% of those bred are able to be used for breeding registered puppies. My link If we keep the limit register which is not being used as it was originally intended to be used the gene pool shrinks more and more every year. If we limit breeders to having under 10 fertile dogs we give them even less choices in their breeding programs.

No need to prog test - jobs done already - let the dogs tell you.

Its not true - good reasons for saying this . He was having a go at you

I think we are misunderstanding each other because Im speaking of the POCTAA which is legislation and you are speaking of the POCTA codes and breeding establishments Codes. Notice this My link which may explain why it appears he wasn't given a higher penalty. I doubt he is a body corporate

Anyone want to take bets - property is now compliant so how long will it be before the wife or son or daughter, aunty , uncle etc continue on with dogs in their name rather than his? Why else would he pay the money to get compliant and then agree not to continue to breed?

POCTA are laws not codes and unless the specific bits of a mandatory code of practice is also in that POCTA and someone breaches the code its not able to be a cruelty charge which is a criminal offence. Think it through how can you charge someone for keeping 4 dogs the same way they can keep two simply because a mandatory code of practice says more than 3 fertile dogs you have to do things differently .Yes they can remove your licence and yes they can fine you but you wont get anyone charged with cruelty for breaching a code of practice unless its something that is also covered in the act . If this guy could have been charged with animal cruelty of course the RSPCA would have done so.You cant trust the reports about him moving dogs, not providing vet treatment etc because its information based on information from sources known to exaggerate and sensationalise. As far as him moving dogs around there is no requirement for dogs used for breeding to be only allowed on one property and not ever be able to visit others, stay in kennels live in guardian homes,go away for the weekend to a dog show etc . The council said he was now compliant and fact is if he hadnt of cut the deal he could have paid a bigger fine and continued to breed his dogs - because he was now compliant and according to the RSPCA hadnt breached cruelty laws. The more time, again and again we spend on beating up those who seem to be letting people off leniently and speculating about the evidence and the real life things which impact on a case the longer we will see more crap scoff regulations and codes and dogs will keep suffering.

Its only someone's say so that he was moving dogs around and so what if he was ? Its not against the law to move animals around as long as addresses and chips are changed .If the RSPCA have said that he wasn't guilty of animal cruelty why expect that council would be able to prove they were?

One has to wonder then what is considered animal cruelty ? If the photos are genuine isn't it cruel to keep an animal in such terrible conditions ? If they had to seize dogs & destroy dogs because they were in such bad physical condition isn't that cruelty to let them get to that state ? Isn't breeding from dogs with hip displaysia, sick dogs, old dogs & dogs in bad physical condition cruel ? Naturally people will yell, judge & get mad seeing those photos although I do agree that demanding more laws & regulations is useless. Maybe there needs to be more clarity in defining what cruelty actually is. The law in this case is an ass & all the new laws & regulations clearly do not work in the animals favour. If the photos are genuine - it wouldnt be the first time the photos were not genuine . They were obtained illegally anyway but read the prevention of cruelty to animals laws and you will see having rotting whelping boxes etc is not against the law. They didnt sieze the dogs but he has moved some out because he had more than the numbers he was allowed and until recently he was a Vicdogs member and scoring and screening and there is no evidence that council or RSPCA saw any such animals that are being discussed in poor condition or sick etc.

Thats the whole issue - the RSPCA cant put their own interpretation on things they can only work within the law - current animal cruelty laws. Breaching codes isnt under the same legislation as prevention of cruelty laws. Best you will get is fines. There isn't any point in blaming the RSPCA . These are issues we need to speak about and try to sort out solutions based on reality not perceptions and opinion. Everything that has gone before in Victoria is responsible for this - it has created more scoff laws and not saved any animal from suffering and we will see more and more unintended consequences.

If the RSPCA have inspected them and found they were not guilty of animal cruelty they can hardly charge them. In other words he was never charged with animal cruelty in the first place because from day one the RSPCA said he was not guilty of animal cruelty - there was no deal for him to be let off anything by pleading guilty to breach of the code. Its my experience that if he were guilty they would have charged him. You cant trust anything that is in that story including how many he bred and what prices he got for them or whether the council and RSPCA saw what is presented in illegally obtained photos when they attended the property. Oscars Law should be grateful they cut the deal to stop him for five years because all he needed to do was pay the fine get compliant and continue on. "Quote " The council initially confirmed the facility was under investigation for operating without permits and for breaching breeding guidelines – which set minimum standards for accommodation, health and nutrition – but on Monday issued a statement saying the property’s owner had ''fully complied'' with regulations It would be good if one day we can really talk about what is going on in the dog world and use cases like this to find solutions rather than have it beaten up - and get everyone mad and judging and yelling for a minute,demanding more laws and more regulations and wanting punishment handed out and taking us no where. Is the primary goal to stop dogs suffering or to punish and hate people for things the law says they are not guilty of?

Where was the RSPCA ?

Im a bit confused by this - Far as I know cruelty charges are not laid by council but rather police and RSPCA and the council can only go after him for running an illegal puppy farm as he didnt have the permits and didnt comply with the code of practice. Maybe things have changed but I dont think council could have made that deal because they cant charge him with those other offences.

You've touched on some of the problems which go on that few are aware of. The Domestic animal business in Victoria is not automatically recognised as a business by the ATO. Just because you have more than 3 fertile dogs doesn't qualify you for an ABN as to do so you have to have an intent to make a profit. If he could claim his breeding activities as a business then he would be able to claim much more than he could make. Many dog breeders would love to be able to claim our expenses such as purchase of our properties, fencing, vetting, phone, electricity, water, rates, internet access, fuel and motor vehicle expenses, stationary, freight and postage, postage and registration and insurance of our vehicles etc etc etc This guy may have made a profit but fact is the system wont find him guilty of fraud.

The limited register is the worst thing that could have happened to our breeds and is responsible for each year seeing smaller and smaller gene pools.

Yep but its still the limited register in Australia which stops you from being able to breed them. Take away the limited register or allow dogs which are not permissible according to the standard in the show ring and as long as the dog is of the same breed and parents are pure bred you could still use them to breed with.

The problem isnt the standard - they are pretty much the same world wide . The problem is the limited register because dogs which dont fit the standard due to colour cant be put on the main register.

When ever this sort of thing happens we start grabbing at straws to try to work it out. I doubt what you are seeing is related to this particular chemical. In my opinion you would be better off looking at chemicals and bugs Hearttworm meds high on the list and sometimes all it needs is a hit of anti biotics when the girls first come on heat - for both male and female and give them aloe juice until they have finished mating .The aloe gives them every amino acid and loads of vitamins and minerals and strips out any poisons or heavy metals. Diet is huge - really huge - but its not as simple as identifying one chemical.

After you pass and you are all done you should let them know your feedback so they can have a look at it and see if it needs amendment. This prevents others from having to have the same problems.

Sorry I dont agree with this - allowing someone to breed with a colour that isn't recognised in the show ring doesn't automatically open a door for more changes and the breeds are protected from someone wanting to change something and it being able to happen. Its not an insistence that the standard should be changed at all - its just that some dogs who have everything else going for them but colour should be able to be used for breeding as it was prior to the introduction to limited register and more recent regs. The standards stay the same - and those which dont comply with the standard [ colour ] cant be shown - its just that you allow dogs which dont fit the standard for colour to be used for breeding just as it is in most other countries. Unless, of course, the colour is disqualified for something other than a cosmetic reason. Yes agree - except. White boxers are born and some of them are litter picks except for the colour if two flashy boxers are bred together. You certainly don't want a situation where a white is mated to a white or a flashy but if you allow people to mate white to plain - you never get a white. If they banned flashy to flashy no white pup would ever be bred. No one wants to see merle to merle but there are DNA tests now to identify the carriers so its easily avoided. Colours shouldn't be automatically eliminated via the limited register [or as in the case of boxers the whites cant even have limited rego] in the year 2015 with the availability of science in most cases. Each should be considered and taken on a case by case basis after looking at the variables for each one. Side note - Years ago some boxer breeders would register their white with a dash of red boxers as red and white and use them for mating to a plain boxer and that ensures every pup born was a flashy no health issues in that and it made lots of very nice champions but not able to be done according to the rules.

Sorry I dont agree with this - allowing someone to breed with a colour that isn't recognised in the show ring doesn't automatically open a door for more changes and the breeds are protected from someone wanting to change something and it being able to happen. Its not an insistence that the standard should be changed at all - its just that some dogs who have everything else going for them but colour should be able to be used for breeding as it was prior to the introduction to limited register and more recent regs. The standards stay the same - and those which dont comply with the standard [ colour ] cant be shown - its just that you allow dogs which dont fit the standard for colour to be used for breeding just as it is in most other countries.

Once you have cleared both parents you cant get that gene back in unless you use another dog which is not clear - relax with these two dogs you have nothing to worry about

In other countries and registries they deal with it by allowing the colours which are not in the standard to be used for breeding but not showing and we used to do that here as well. The limited register system wont allow partipoodles to go on main here so they cant be bred with but in other countries it is bred with just cant be shown.

This is a crappy question I think the answer they want is recessive but they should have expanded the question because as its written any genetic disorder regardless of its mode of inheritance can be visible in the second generation and to answer it you need to know the staus of the parents. Without qualification of the status of the first generation as the question stands .... It can show in a recessive disorder in the second generation only if both parents are carriers. It can show 2nd generation in an autosomal dominant disorder if only one parent has the gene . Then there is X linked which is an autosomal dominant or recessive but is linked to the X chromosome which can show in the 2nd generation Then there is Complex disorders [polygenic] which are caused by the interactions of variations in multiple genes and environmental factors which can show in the second generation.