Steve

I reckon Ive had a go at most things and I dont believe that there is anything we can do here to prevent them but you can try and cut down the risks. Last year the Maremma took out 4 brown snakes in the house yard before they got to the other dogs or me. Best you can do is make sure the whole place has nothing on the ground that they can hide under so you can stand a chance of seeing them. Last night we were sitting on the porch and could hear the sound of the frogs so with these and mice its a gourmet meal waiting for them and at 4 o'clock this morning when I stepped out of the car at the front gate to open and close it twice in and twice out I was very aware of the long grass because of the recent rain and on full alert for sounds or movement. First job this morning when it got light was poisoning the grass around the entrance gate to the property and Ill wear boots and long pants. Low lying plants here are a risk - my son was weeding the Lavender last year and how the brown snake missed him was a miracle and we have had one sleeping under the Jasmine too. Hubby wont let us use the bird netting as he is worried that the dogs will be at more risk if the snake is trapped and cranky.

However, right now it is not possible for anyone to know where dogs that end up in pounds originate from and until they do legislating to take away people's rights based on nothing more than what animal rights has decided is the problem is pretty out there. the breeders these days that are supplying pet shops are breeders who have passed all of their requirements and inspections and follow codes to the letter. But the idea that we lay down and go along with it is mind boggling. Ive seen yelling and brawling about tail docking, and BSL with shouts that this is the beginning and they will take away our rights one by one etc yet when we see this happening - Where dog owners cant purchase a dog or their choice from a source of their choice where breeders will be restricted in how many dogs they can own, where breeders will be restricted even in where they can advertise them ,where only sales THEY stand to profit from can be sold through an outlet we go along like lambs because the nutters have sold the propaganda , we think this wont affect us ,watch while it happens and line up for the next beating is beyond me. Anyone with a bit of thought can see that how you care for and look after your dogs is not just about how many you own.

As far as I am aware the origin of pound animals has already been proven, via many studies available on the net including those by the RSPCA, UQ etc. I agree with the remainder of your post. As far as Im aware its not possible to determine who breeds animals that turn up in pounds.There are some stats which say who dumps them for individual orgs but no way could they say where they originate from. If there are any studies of this kind I would be interested to see them.

I spoke with a breeder yesterday who tells me they will be placing fertile dogs in guardian homes, if they bring them home 2 at a time or even if they bring more than that home at one time and they are registered in the guardian home name they can still whelp them raise them and sell them from their property anyway and always be under the radar - at any time they could have 50 or so puppies on their property and still only have 2 fertile dogs at any time. This means puppies will be taken off their Mums quicker too. Lots of loopholes turning up if they proceed with restricting how many you can own.

Again not sure what you mean they already have these requirements except the ability to advertise restricted . If you restrict their ability to advertise you restrict everyone's and you cant find a puppy when you want one. Edited to add currently anyone who has two fertile dogs is not considered a breeder so they only have to comply with codes for keeping dogs not any of the codes for breeding. There is no suggestion this will be changed.

I can only speak about the people I know who are BYB but the rules wouldn't affect them either due to the fact that most of them only have 1-2 dogs so a vast amount of them would continue to churn out the pups every time the bitch comes into season like they do now. --Lhok Yep and they dont have to comply with any codes or laws for breeding dogs.

Not sure what you mean. The proposed legislation in Victoria is a ban on anyone owning more than 10 fertile dogs regardless of them having a domestic animal business. Currently anyone who owns more than 10 fertile dogs in Victoria does have to have a Domestic animal business and have to show they have correct facilities. How will you be providing councils any more opportunity to crack down on anyone who owns more than 3 as they already need a permit in Victoria and the council and RSPCA already have legislation to crack down on illegal puppy farms. To suggest that everyone who owns more than 10 fertile dogs is running a business because their SPARE time is showing and breeding is way off the mark. I can have 10 fertile dogs and not show at all or I can have 10 fertile dogs and only breed one or two litters a year .I can have 10 fertile dogs which I show and NEVER breed, and ANKC breeders dont have a monopoly on having rights to own and breed dogs. Someone who owns 10 fertile great danes can turn over half a million a year and someone who won 10 fertile chis around $40,000 and you dont need a degree to work out EVERYTHING about caring for a giant breed is different to a toy breed. This isnt about keeping dogs in an acceptable manner - its about limiting the number of dogs you can own regardless of what breed they are, whether you want to breed them or not, whether you are at home 24 hours a day or 1 hour a day, whether you are in good health or bad, whether you have people living with you or working with you. Everyone is affected by the rules - those breeders who have more than 10, those who one day may want more than 10, those who want to be able to get a puppy from a breeder of their choice etc. Those who may have a fertile dog and waiting for them to be cleared for their health before they breed them, those that may want to keep some to pick the best as they mature to breed with and a whole bunch of other things. There is no evidence to suggest that more puppies sold in pet shops get dumped than any other source or that making it harder to find a pup in a pet shop is not going to make it easier to find them on every street corner bred by more people who have less dogs and dont know a thing about what they are doing.

NSW cant enact laws like Victoria - yet- and will not soon as its already passed through the process via parliamentary enquiry in this state quite recently. Dog breeders in NSW are able to continue to own as many dogs as they want and sell them where ever they want because in NSW dog breeding is still a legal activity without the need for a licence. If queensland goes down it will be because they haven't learned the lesson of victoria and rather than fight they will go along in the belief that it wont ever affect them and lay down while they introduce a state wide permit system - modelled on a pilot program on the gold coast that failed.Once that permit system is in then it become illegal to breed puppies unless you have a permit and they can change the rules any old time they like. If Victorian breeders move to NSW and help us to fight against licensing ever coming in for this state which has caused their downfall and the removal of consumer rights to purchase a puppy of their choice from a source of their choice in that state and removing the rights of dog breeders who want to own more than 10 fertile dogs the more that come across the border the better.

How the bloody hell do they seriously think they can stop interstate breeders selling puppies to people who live in Victoria ? Are Victorian residents not able to have a right to purchase a puppy of their choice from a source of their choice? How is this O.K. via our FEDERAL consumer laws?

My link Victorian dog breeders are moving their operations over state lines ahead of the Andrews Government's next tranche of proposed laws aimed at cracking down on puppy farms. One of the state's biggest breeders, Banksia Park Puppies, has teamed up with a Melbourne pet shop to buy a half-a-million dollar property to breed dogs in New South Wales, just 30 kilometres over the Victorian border. It comes as the government prepares to introduce the second stage of a suite of new laws aimed at stamping out industrial-scale puppy breeding. They include restricting the number of breeding dogs to 10 by 2020, and banning pet stores from selling puppies that do not come from rescue shelters. The proposed reforms have infuriated some dog breeders and pet shop owners, but the government maintains the changes will impact only a handful of the more than 10,000 registered breeders in Victoria. Banksia Park owner Matt Hams is campaigning against the legislation, arguing the 150 dogs he breeds in Gippsland are well looked after and that the government's proposal would force his business to shut down. Mr Hams recently started a new company with Melbourne pet shop owner Nick Croom and the pair have bought 90-acre property north of Cobram in Finley, NSW. Berrigan Shire Council confirmed it has now approved Banksia Park's application to build a "dog breeding facility" for up to 100 dogs at the site. nimal rights advocates say the move highlights a potential loophole that could allow interstate breeders to sell dogs online to customers in Victoria. Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford said she had been told about "a number of operators who have packed their bags and moved interstate" in anticipation of the new legislation, which is expected to go to parliament before the end of the year. "That suggests to me that puppy farmers think we're going to get this right," she told Fairfax Media. "There are people who are making a good buck out of this business and will be creative in trying to work around the rules." Matt Hams said there were "no plans at the moment" to operate in Finley. "It'll depend completely on the outcome here in Victoria," he said. "This is certainly where we want to stay but we have to be realistic about the government policy and the things that are happening within our industry." Mr Hams, who is the breeding director of the Pet Industry Association of Australia, said he intended to keep selling puppies but that he would "only ever operate somewhere where we can [do so] in the confines of legislation". "The specifics of who we sell to and how we sell will really be dependant on government policy and a lot of factors," he said. "We don't know what kind of restrictions will be imposed on the sale of puppies." Pines Pets owner Nick Croom, who only sells dogs supplied by Banksia Park, said his customers would have to drive across the border to buy puppies if the law changed. "We won't sell online as such," Mr Croom said. "If the Victorian government get through what they're talking about we won't be allowed to have a retail shop ... so people will have to travel to Finley to view the puppies." "If the government turn breeders into amateurs and make them have less than 10 dogs then we won't have a business here." Debra Tranter, founder of Oscar's Law, said the fact that breeders were moving out of Victoria highlighted the need for consistent laws in all states that were tougher on puppy farmers. "Mr Hams' behaviour has proven two things," Ms Tranter said. "That the legislation, if passed, will work in closing down Victorian puppy factories, and that we must continue to lobby every state government until we achieve nationally consistent legislation." Ms Pulford said the government was keen to capture the growing area of online puppy sales but that stopping breeders in other states was not possible. "Our legislation will regulate puppy breeding in Victoria and I hope that other states will look at what we are doing and think about their own arrangements, but what's going on in other jurisdictions is beyond our control," she said. The Andrews government has already brought in laws that limit breeding dogs to five litters and require pet shops to keep records on every dog and cat it sells. It has also provided $5 million to the RSPCA to set up a unit to investigate and prosecute illegal puppy farms.

Calf roping is required sometimes in the real world and the better the operator the less stress that animal goes through. Any calf being moved or herded ,restrained etc will be under stress when its happening. The people that compete in this are showing skills that help them to more humanely deal with their stock when they have to complete husbandry essentials. Calves dont just come when they are called. If having demos of it and encouraging those doing it to get quicker and better and being rewarded for doing it means more get better at it and less calves get any more stressed etc when they need to seems to me the fact that calves stress levels raise when it happens for a few seconds its not all bad. These days the MDBA has breeders and owners of some breeds doing fitness tests on their pets. This entails testing their vitals - stress levels etc then walking them for a period , then testing their vitals when its done and again 20 mins later .Clearly animals that are walked on a leash also have their stress levels elevated as well. If we are going to stop activities with animals based on stress tests the world is their oyster and there are a hell of a lot of activities we do for sport and every day management with animals that raise stress levels including putting them in pounds and flying them all over the country dropping them in new homes without knowing jack shit about them possibly incubating disease and how that stress level will play out. As far as quote" But people are trying to tell us what to do with animals so we have to rail against any animal welfare push no matter what. " For me its about being careful that we don't take everything they say at face value and I don't believe that people who work with animals know less than those who don't have a clue and don't live it. Im not backing anything they push by biased information and bullying calling for bans with at least a forum for a bloody fair hearing.

so you are unaware that wool buyers were told to refuse to buy wool from mulesed sheep? they even got the industry to promise to phase it out, trouble is flies have no mercy. http://www.animalsau...es/mulesing.php http://www.theaustra...6-1226557807686 the pressure did bring one interesting thing to light, there are some sheep with a naturally mulesed gene. selecting for that seems to be a good idea Still doesn't make it "banned". Public pressure is exactly that. And without that pressure their would have been zero motivation for industry to support research that FOUND that gene or identified methods of pain relief. And yeah, I grew up on sheep farms so do get the blowfly problem. We never mulesed but it did require additional management. Well to be fair I didn't read where any one said it was banned in Australia just that sheep were suffering due to the push to have it seen as cruel and the fact is due to the pressure many are experimenting with alternatives many of which dont work very well or wont make much difference to the risk of being fly struck. Not all sheep and sheep farms are equal much depends on the breed type and location and the weather . Finding pain relief sounds good except mulesing with pain relief is still mulesing and I doubt thats going to keep em happy. See above. Responding to asal. 1/3 of the wool clip bought last season was from sheep mulesed with pain relief. Yep you're right - sorry didnt see it that way.

so you are unaware that wool buyers were told to refuse to buy wool from mulesed sheep? they even got the industry to promise to phase it out, trouble is flies have no mercy. http://www.animalsau...es/mulesing.php http://www.theaustra...6-1226557807686 the pressure did bring one interesting thing to light, there are some sheep with a naturally mulesed gene. selecting for that seems to be a good idea Still doesn't make it "banned". Public pressure is exactly that. And without that pressure their would have been zero motivation for industry to support research that FOUND that gene or identified methods of pain relief. And yeah, I grew up on sheep farms so do get the blowfly problem. We never mulesed but it did require additional management. Well to be fair I didn't read where any one said it was banned in Australia just that sheep were suffering due to the push to have it seen as cruel and the fact is due to the pressure many are experimenting with alternatives many of which dont work very well or wont make much difference to the risk of being fly struck. Not all sheep and sheep farms are equal much depends on the breed type and location and the weather . Finding pain relief sounds good except mulesing with pain relief is still mulesing and I doubt thats going to keep em happy.

My link 7 news.

Yes I have always understood it is the only system but right now its miles easier for me to send in the form - which as yet don't have a breeder numbers on it , nor is there any need to show ID to get pups chipped, nor is it necessary to be the breeder or the owner to take puppies to the vet and get them chipped in anybody's name.

It's not a flawed system. It's just an issue with the datamatch. The details are being pulled from the NSW CAR. It's pretty simple to get it fixed - just ring your council and have the original details amended. The new system will prevent this kind of future issue. Regardless, the new system is here to stay. Vets, councils and authorised identifiers will all be using it. It's your choice to use it or not use it if you're a pet owner, but it certainly makes a lot of sense to begin using it. Well Im a way off seeing that the new system will prevent these kind of things happening in future because you still have to get exactly whatever the person entering the data typed in to claim it. Right now its not making a lot of sense to me to start using it as a breeder. Went to get some pups chipped yesterday and asked my vet about - not interested and wont even look at it not eager to do the councils work for them and data will not be entered online by their clinic.

No suspicion about it the science tells us breed em young and often but these days you get beaten up just for pointing out that the canine is a unique species and what the science says. The CCs went for PR and bought restrictions in based on what AR were screaming and some states made it law so now they cant change it back even if someone with a bit of umph was on the board. Talk about over restrictions and knee jerk reactions .What concerns me is we have a whole generation of breeders who believe doing the wrong thing is the right thing and getting their education from animal rights and those who have no experience or knowledge of breeding DOGS. AND WE SIMPLY LET IT HAPPEN WITHOUT A MURMUR.

My link My link Greyhound video evidence ruled inadmissible 29 August 2016 , 8:05 AM by Spencer Howson An animal cruelty case against a Queensland greyhound trainer has collapsed after a KEY piece of evidence was thrown out of court. The Courier Mail reports today - video of alleged greyhound live baiting was ruled inadmissible by an Ipswich District Court judge last Friday. It meant trainer Ian Hoggan will not have to face trial on one count of animal cruelty. Judge Greg Koppenal found the recordings - which featured in a 4 Corners program - were obtained illegally when animal rights activists secretly installed cameras by trespassing on private property. Yet - just weeks ago - a different judge in a separate case DID allow the same video to be used. So where does this leave future greyhound cruelty cases that also rely on the same footage? Bill Potts is a criminal defence lawyer and President of the Queensland Law Society:

I still don't think that is a good argument thousands on unemployment benefits and being educated to do another job isn't going to cost for years??? Looking after redundant Greyhounds as they said they were going eventually make a plan for ha ha isn't going to cost. 53 million is chicken feed. Jobs that you can live off are very very hard to get educated or otherwise. Greyhounds haven't made money for them through gambling for years, from what I've been told, that's why the TAB didn't help. there is a story in the telegraph on friday. Baird loses nothing by shuting it down, Saves millions not maintaining nsw tracks and the nsw govt will still get their share of all nsw bets put on interstate greyhound racing. 18.7 million was incomed from interstate betting. he will still be receiving that. Yep money in ,no money out. If lots are unemployed its a federal purse that pays them.You have to give it to him ,it was pretty clever and why labor wont re install it.

I also believe its not an animal rights decision and I think the animal welfare involvement was a convenient bonus for them that enabled them to do what they wanted and looking at the possibility that there would ever be a ban on pet ownership is way way too unrealistic for me to consider as a risk as a follow on from this. So while I think we have nothing to worry about regarding a ban on pet ownership I do think we should be looking at the activities we do with companion animals and assess what we do and how we can ensure dog owners and dog breeder rights are not eroded.

My link The Tasmanian Government has again committed to keeping the state's greyhound racing sector afloat after the Greens attempted to move a motion to end the industry. A Greens motion calling on the State Government tofollow the lead of New South Wales and the ACTand shut down greyhound racing was voted down in the Lower House on Wednesday night. Greens MP Andrea Dawkins said revelations last week that 1,600 greyhounds in Tasmania had been killed in three years was further evidence of cruelty in the industry. She also had doubts about a Tasracing promise to re-home all racing greyhounds unless there were health or behavioural reasons for not doing so. "The Greyhound Adoption Program (GAP) has suggested 100 per cent of greyhounds can be re-homed, well if that is the case, why weren't they?" she asked. "What made them unsuitable to be re-homed and what's going to change now to make those unsuitable dogs now suitable? "Either they always were or they never will be — there's no way it can be both." Ms Dawkins accused the Government of "rolling over" to an industry that receives taxpayer dollars. Racing Minister Jeremy Rockliff told Parliament the industry's problems were well publicised, but it deserved the right to reform. "In the past 12 months, significant progress has been made to address this," he said. "The Government believes firmly that the industry deserves the right to reform. "The Tasmanian Government will not close down the greyhound racing industry, the industry has not shied away from the problems that have been highlighted, it is making every single effort to address them." Labor also voted against the motion, with shadow treasurer Scott Bacon telling Parliament it pre-empted the findings of a parliamentary committee investigating greyhound racing, due to report in September. Tasracing already working on NSW report's recommendations Tasracing said it was already implementing 84 per cent of recommendations in the report that led New South Wales to close its industry. The report made 79 recommendations for the NSW sector if it was to continue operating. Tasracing said 66 per cent of those had already been addressed and another 18 per cent would be addressed. Interim chief executive Mark Tarring said the remaining recommendations related specifically to NSW legislation or were not applicable to Tasmania. "From the outset, Tasracing has said it was unfair to draw comparisons between the industry in NSW and in Tasmania because they are very different," he said. "The Tasmanian industry has introduced a number of reforms over the past five years with animal welfare issues a significant considerations."

,.

If a dog on Dol was anywhere close to as bad as Hellyeah Tom was, people on here would be horrified and that dog would be reported to the RSPCA. As it should be, because leaving a dog in that sort of condition is unacceptable, disgusting cruelty, regardless of breed. I don't want anything both ways, by the way. What I would like is for welfare issues to be addressed- don't kill young, healthy, rehomeable dogs, don't leave chronically ill dogs to suffer and die slowly. You wouldn't think this is a particularly difficult ask but apparently for the industry, it really is. Maddy I want the same thing you want but I just don't happen to think that this particular example is indicative of the industry. All reports are that the participants in the industry are more likely to kill them than keep them when they are not up to the job. I agree it was the wrong thing for him to do but I'm saying that it happens regardless of breed and its only national news because of the push on greys. It's news because it's a particularly bad case of neglect. You can't blame this "push" to end the industry on every news article that pops up about greyhounds. Someone down here did something that was shitty but significant enough to make the news in its own right, it's as simple as that. If the media were interested in really raking through the shit, it'd be as simple as going through weekly steward reports. You could have a new headline for every day of the week and some of them would run a hell of a lot murkier than Ricki's incompetence in caring for his dog. If anything, the media down here has been very careful in how much of the issue they will present and whose side they present it from. Very careful. This isnt worth an argument and you know more about this than me but all I know is that I personally never saw any of this type of reporting regarding greyhounds up until very recently. That's why I think it's more aggressively reported now than it has been in the past and more likely now to make headlines than any other dog or owner at this time. If its not that then I assume its an isolated incident that has been reported because its so bad and no grey people have been guilty of such things enough to report them as aggressively prior to now.

wrong thread.

If a dog on Dol was anywhere close to as bad as Hellyeah Tom was, people on here would be horrified and that dog would be reported to the RSPCA. As it should be, because leaving a dog in that sort of condition is unacceptable, disgusting cruelty, regardless of breed. I don't want anything both ways, by the way. What I would like is for welfare issues to be addressed- don't kill young, healthy, rehomeable dogs, don't leave chronically ill dogs to suffer and die slowly. You wouldn't think this is a particularly difficult ask but apparently for the industry, it really is. Maddy I want the same thing you want but I just don't happen to think that this particular example is indicative of the industry. All reports are that the participants in the industry are more likely to kill them than keep them when they are not up to the job. I agree it was the wrong thing for him to do but I'm saying that it happens regardless of breed and its only national news because of the push on greys.