lester

So, the NSW Government has a report from a committee chaired by an MP who is a vet, with recommendations including licensing that have the support of the RSPCA and AWL who are organisations that are much loved by the public and as a result have 1) deep pockets, 2) widespread connections in the media and elsewhere and 3) high cred with the politicians who will decide this matter. What do you think are the chances of the Government just saying "oh well, a few posters on DogzOnline don't want laws, they want an education strategy. How many millions have they got for a campaign to persuade our voters? Not a one? Oh well, that doesn't matter - let's be brave. Forget about laws, let's just do a few pamphlets for the kiddies." Hmmm? In politics, "brave" is a 5 letter word. That's 4 letters with an extra one just for emphasis. Do you think that if the MPs went soft on this they wouldn't be reminded forcefully by the animal rights groups about their campaign that brought the Australian live beef export industry to its knees and engulfed politicians and industry in huge embarrassment and huge financial losses? Do you think they wouldn't be reminded of the dreaded BBC campaign and hear us all being branded as irresponsible breed fetishists? Do you think the animal rights people wouldn't draw comparisons with us, the responsible pure bred dog breeders of Australia? Perhaps you think the animal rights people are too fair and honest to do such a thing. Do you? It's time for a reality check people. This issue will not go the way of the "educate don't legislate" people, and it will not go away. We have a chance of grabbing it and turning it into a good thing for dogs and a good thing for responsible breeders if we are sensible, reasonable, clearly understanding of the issues and united behind a positive proposal. Say "no" to licensing on the feedback form and support the DogsNSW proposal to take up the registration/licensing role in the comment section, and in respectful but passionate letters to MPs and Ministers. The rest is detail.

The situation so well described by Inez is one of the strongest arguments for supporting the DogsNSW proposal to pick up the registering/licensing function in NSW. The point is exactly that the Taskforce proposal as it stands will mainly impact on current registered, responsible breeders. It will not stop the fly-by-nights who will still get around it. By going the DogsNSW route the Government will get a single system, built on what's there already rather than creating whole new bureaucracies, that brings together all relatively responsible dog breeders, and it has the potential to engage a large number of people - mainly members of DogsNSW - in local monitoring of illegal dog sales at almost no cost. This is the time for standing together to make sure that change, which is most likely inevitable, has a positive result and not a negative result. Make sure you get your feedback in to the Government and in the comments at the end of the document state clearly that you support the DogsNSW proposal. If you can't use the form, just write to the Ministers and your local member saying you support the DogsNSW proposal. You can get the details from the Dogzonline Home Page links.

How would them inspecting all breeders benefit their own members? How would it ensure their members were not disadvantaged when they would have a set of criteria and everyone would have to be judged equally according to the licence requirements? the fact that we are small breeders already disadvantages us regardless of who is doing the inspecting. Of what benefit is it to the government to hand this over to Dogs NSW ? Now if you were telling me they wanted to inspect only their own members I get that but seriously asking for them to allow Dogs NSW to take on this role for all people in this state who might want to breed a litter or 500 is really pushing the ticket in my opinion. Either way they couldn't treat their own members any differently to any other person anyway - that's called corruption. We should be yelling from the roof tops no licencing rather than conceding that if we are licensed we want it to run one way or the other. If we give signs we will simply go with the flow its a lost battle before we start. I agree. The K.Cs stance on cross breeds is a conflict they can't get around.The public will demand equality of treatment and services I.M.O that DogsNSW won't be able to provide. Again, I don't want to be speaking on behalf of DogsNSW but as nobody else is, here goes. The benefit to all dog breeders from the DogsNSW proposal is that licensing and inspection will be conducted by people who are not committed to closing down dog breeding. It will also leave DogsNSW breeders with 2 rego requirements - DogsNSW and the CAR - whereas under the Taskforce recommendation they will have additional costs and paperwork. As for the conflict about cross breeds, I'm pretty sure DogsNSW can continue to promote pure breeds and responsible breeding while accepting responsibility for general licensing. Already DogsNSW has provision for cross breeding under planned, responsible circumstances. Plus they will be running courses with TAFE Riverina in September to help identify breeds and their crosses. And think about this, if the public are not going to accept DogsNSW as a licensing body as Moosmum suggests, will they accept NO licensing at all instead? I don't think so. It's a question of getting real here. If you're going to tell me that the average MP will understand a "no licensing" message when the RSPCA - who they will see as "the goodies" - is telling them licensing will save 22,000 dogs every year (regardless of the validity of that argument), then I am going to tell you that you're very, very mistaken. We need a more sophisticated, reality based strategy than "we don't like it." And we need unity behind the DogsNSW message.

Steve, I don't really want to speak for DogsNSW although I am a Member, but if you see page 6 of their 2012 submission to the Taskforce (go to the news item on the DogsNSW homepage and go through the links) you can see they were not proposing to take over or replace the CAR (Companion Animal Register) or any Council functions. They were proposing to pick up the Taskforce's proposed licensing function, with its related inspection activities, for all dog breeders including those who are members of Dogs NSW and for all other dog breeders. In other words, there would be one "licensing" or registration body for dogs in NSW and that body would be DogsNSW. Not having seen any evidence to the contrary, I imagine that is still the DogsNSW position. This would meet the need for accountability of dog breeders that the Taskforce seems to want, without seriously disadvantaging registered pure bred dog breeders which a Gov Licensing Service would do. The microchip based CAR would continue separately.

After discussion the MDBA have had behind the scenes I don't believe that is the case. However, there is a push in that task force document to have a single body which will determine what will go on with all dogs - there isnt anything new in that some have been pushing for it for quite a while - the concept that Dogs NSW would be it is never ever going to fly and it would be a body made of of differing group representatives. DogsNSW was on the Taskforce. It has the recognition, the systems, the ethics and the coverage to pick up this task, with a few tweaks and an accountability agreement with the government. It behoves us all to support this option.

Seems lots of people are having the same problem. Hi - I just completed the form over about 45 minutes with no problems, using the www.dlg reference I gave in my other posting.

Hi, there is no Bill before the NSW Parliament on the Companion Animal Taskforce issue. There are 2 Reports from a Taskforce which the NSW Government set up in August 2011 to investigate ways to reduce the number of dogs and cats being euthanased each year, and to address the issue of dangerous dogs. To develop a Bill would require a quite lengthy process of Party Agreement, developmment of a draft, notice of intention, a number of readings, agreement by both Houses of Parliament, the management and resubmission of any amendments, etc etc. There are 22 Recommendations in the Companion Animal Welfare report and none of them indicate anything that would lead to the catastrophic costs outlined in some postings in this forum. However, there are problems and they require action to be taken by responsible pure bred dog fanciers. One of the Recommendations calls for making the best practice Guidelines in the NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice into mandatory standards. Already that code includes a large number of mandatory standards that we all MUST comply with and the Guidelines would not add much to that. However, if there are to be changes to the Code, they should be properly consulted and discussed and this has not yet happened, which comes pretty close to a breach of natural justice. Another problem for responsible breeders is that the Recommendations include a new tier of licensing that would be in addition to current registration with DogsNSW. As a result responsible breeders would face DogsNSW registration, Licensing and Companion Animal Registration requirements. This is clearly over-regulation, and it primarily affects those responsible breeders who are not even major contributors to the pound and euthanasia problems the Taskforce was set up to solve. The recommendations also include a licensing inspection process of breeder premises by the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League on a prioritised, risk management basis. Many of us have no problem with those organisations as such (although some do believe that they are not always as well-intentioned as the community thinks) however, the recommendation would expose responsible breeders to inspections by people who may have hostile agendas and who may make inspection reports that reflect those agendas rather than what is actually happening at the premises. Of course, the fly-by-nights would hardly be touched because they are used to finding illegitimate ways to run their cruel and horrible businesses. Finally, the Taskforce's approach imposes a costly extra level of regulation and administration that is contrary to the general principles about self regulation and reduction of red tape espoused by the current NSW Government. What is needed is effective self-regulation, conducted under an agreement with the Government and subject to the usual transparency and accountability requirements. This is basically what DogsNSW is seeking and what members and their friends need to impress upon their Local Members of State Parliament. You need to fill in the comment form which you will find at http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/eventregistration/eventstaskforce/ and you need to talk to your local member about the positive self regulation option being proposed by DogsNSW.

Hi, all Members of DogsNSW need to actively support the DogsNSW position on this issue. It needs the support of thousands of us, not just the hundreds who have been involved to date. You can find out more by going to the DogsNSW website and reading the 1st news item. Basically, the NSW government has a report that recommends a new breeder licensing system on top of the DogsNSW registration system, with additional fees and inspections by the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League. The aim is supposed to be to reduce the number of dogs euthanased every year (21,600 in 2010/11). DogsNSW put in a submission to become the registration body for all dog breeding in NSW but this was ignored. The advantage of DogsNSW doing it is that they have the systems, the ethical framework and the experience. It's a better option than creating a new bureaucracy and it would change things for unethical puppy farmers without penalising breeders who are already bound by the DogsNSW Code of Ethics. Our Code of Ethics commits us to the NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice. The main things to do are to read the report, read the DogsNSW submission, complete the online feedback form (deadline 10 May 2013), contact the 2 NSW Ministers involved and contact your local NSW State MP. You can find more info and the necessary links at the DogsNSW website in the first news item (click on Read more) and the Poodle Club of NSW website at the Companion Animal Taskforce page. It will take a little bit of your time but if you value our hobby of breeding and showing pure bred dogs, you need to do it. Cheers

questions that a buyer needs to ask when considering buying a standard poodle puppy are: 1) can I see the parents? there is no good reason for not being able to see the mother. If you can't see her, and the pups are under 8 weeks, walk away right now. If the pups are over 8 weeks and mum lives elsewhere, obtain details and enter no commitments until you have seen her. The only good reason for not being able to see the father is that he lives at a great distance. Details about where he is should be provided and the buyer should be helped to follow up the father if he is not available. The parents' temperament is a fair indicator of what the puppies will be like. 2) Can I see the evidence of current health testing on both parents, in particular AVA or equivalent certificated hip scores, SA skin punch biopsy results, von Willibrands Disease result, a certified ophthalmological test of eye health covering PRA, entropion, cataract as a minimum. Some "conventional wisdom" has been put forward in other postings that SA is not around and only some USA lines are likely to have it. This is an old chestnut. All modern standard poodles are from US lines. Some may have very small amounts of old English or European breeding, but it's not significant. The SA tests are not conclusive but they are the best we have and failure to apply them or any of the other tests shows a lack of commitment to breed health on the part of the breeder. An ethical and well organised breeder will happily provide copies of certificates that you can follow up for yourself. 3) Where do the dogs live day to day? Can I see it? If not - walk away. If you do see where the dogs ordinarily live, it should be comfortable and clean, no old poo lying around. It should be safe, it should be sheltered from heat, rain and wind and at the same time afford access to light, air, and enough space for running around. It should be clear that the parents and the puppies are part of an active household, not stuck away in a kennel out in a paddock. Only by living with people can they be properly socialised. All dogs and puppies should be clean and presentable. 4) Can I see the original pedigree of the mother showing the breeder as the owner? Can I see the service certificate showing the registered mating, and a copy (at least) of the father's pedigree? Obtain contact details for the father and write down the father's registered name and number from the pedigree copy that has been shown to you. You will want to contact the owner of the father and confirm all details. If the answer is "no" or a block to any of these, walk away. The breeder is not functioning responsibly as a registered breeder. 5) Can I see the breeder's ANKC/DogsNSW membership card? Does the breeder have a copy of the Code of Ethics and are they willing to show it to you? If the answer to any of these is "no," walk away. The breeder is not properly fulfilling their obligations as a registered breeder. 6) What is the vaccination and worming schedule for the puppies and are there vet certificates showing the schedule has been carried out? 7) Have the front dewclaws been removed? This is not essential but it can become an annoyance and a health risk later on if they have not been removed. 8) What are the parents and the puppies eating? Ask for a full diet chart. Check it with your vet. 9) Ask for a full care schedule for the growing pup and the adult poodle, including accommodation and safety, feeding, grooming, exercise, training and routine veterinary visits. 10) Ask what commitment the breeder is offering to "after sales service." Obtain a written statement of circumstances under which the breeder will take the puppy back with a full, partial or no refund. That's 10 basic questions to start off with.