Souff

No, actually it isnt, according to the link that you gave. My apologies are extended to the RSPCA. Perhaps Pam, you might like to ask the organisers of the rally that that you are promoting to come on to this site and tell us about Mr Hinch's credentials in the area of dog breeding? Souff

Pam, Who is speaking on behalf of the legitimate breeders of purebred dogs? What are Derryn Hinch's credentials as an authority on dogs? edited cos I spelled Derryn's name wrong ... would never do Souff Hi Souff I have NO idea, and can not answer your questions, but that is why I will be attending, to find out. It is a tad worrying what these high profile people who can and do get media attention will have to say and will ALL breeders be put in the same basket, therefore I think it is important for as many breeders of pure bred dogs and ethical breeders regardless of breed attend to see what is said. No good complaining after the event if we are not prepared to attend and find out, hopefully some good suggestions will come from this rally though. Pam Pam, I will be a long way from Melbourne on that day so will not be able to attend. Perhaps one of the RSPCA's event organisers could explain to people on this site what relevance and authority Mr Hinch has in relation to the breeding of dogs? Also, perhaps they could also tell us who is going to speak on behalf of those breeders who consider themselves to be acting in the best long term interests, i.e those who are trying to ensure that whole breeds of dog don't get wiped out by the zeal of those who seek to eradicate "puppy farming". In all things in life BALANCE is required, particularly in nature. I don't see or hear any balance in the promotion of this event. Souff

Pam, Who is speaking on behalf of the legitimate breeders of purebred dogs? What are Derryn Hinch's credentials as an authority on dogs? Souff edited cos I spelled Derryn's name wrong ... would never do

This is one of my problems: NOBODY CAN TELL ME WHAT A "PUPPY FARM" IS ! How on earth can the general public be expected to know what the difference is between a puppy farmer and an ethical breeder who has numbers of dogs? Does Derryn Hinch know? What is Derryn's association with dog breeding? Who are the speakers who represent the legitimate breeders of purebred dogs? Souff edited cos I spelled Derryn's name wrong .....

Well said Mita. It should be about WHAT happens at kennels and yes, there are good breeders who have excellent kennels that pass inspection and their dogs are healthy and happy. Scaring off DA applicants who are going to be visible is NOT the way to go. Crazy stuff. Souff

All very normal and the pup that she was "teaching" will be a better dog because of the experience. Souff

Yes, and that is just ONE market in ONE town on ONE weekend. We have a country of 21 million people and many of them are dog owners.

Dobbing in illegal activity is something that can always be done. However, no army general worth his salt would scare the enemy underground, because you won't know where they are operating then. Keeping the enemy in your sights is a far better tactic. All I can say is that Victoria has some very poor strategists and tacticians. Let's hope we never have to rely on them to save us in a real war. Souff

Yes, dogs do need your protection ..... There are homes in every state of Australia where females are bred from - every season. Often there are more than one undesexed bitch at these properties. The bitches are often large and of mixed breed and they often deliver up to 10 pups at a time. Their owners often find homes for 3 or 4 (if you are very lucky) and the rest find their way eventually to the dog shelters, often having first been given away to unsuitable owners. 20 pups a year from 1 bitch at one household. These people fall right under the "puppy farmer" radar. They wont be putting in DAs to council. They wont be visited by the RSPCA unless somebody complains, and who would? They only have the dogs as pets ..... don't they? Their bitches are given food, shelter and water. The owners are not necessarily fond of dogs but the dogs are useful creatures and they can get a few bucks for the pups to help pay the power bill or whatever. Oh, but this is not puppy farming, is it? It is just small time, everyone says, not a big problem like those breeders who have lots of dogs. Those people are just in it for profit. Well yes, one could say that ..... until you multiply it by around 10 to 20 thousand "pet" owners, which would be a very, very conservative estimate when you start talking to vets in country towns. All under the radar! What the "pet" owners (who breed) make is also profit (read undeclared income) with almost no vet bills, and they dump their leftover unsold pups on to society and we all end up paying for their irresponsibility. The number of these owners grows bigger every year. Some were formerly registered breeders, and their numbers keep on growing. As I said before the RSPCA have all the laws they need to supervise known breeding places - and if they KNOW where the breeding establishments are located, they can use those powers. Can they stop people breeding from a bitch every season? Probably not. But nature often takes care of that in any case. Do you know what often happens when bitches are overbred? They often slow down the production rate! The breeders who look after their bitches have a much better chance of getting a good number of pups in a litter. Breeders who overbreed and end up with something like 2 pups in a litter instead of 8 tend to be very unimpressed For my money, 1 puppy farm with 50 breeding dogs (wth full details known to council) pales in comparison to the far greater problem that Australia has in regard to the welfare of dogs - unregistered backyard breeders of mutts. When some of your people can find ways and means of delivering a better deal for the undesexed breeding bitches in backyards right across Australia, then I might start taking you all seriously. "Stopped in their Tracks"? I hardly think so. What you people in Victoria have most likely done is to push another insidious problem underground! That is hardly helping the dogs. Souff

From the first post: Tuesday August 3, 2010 - North Central Review ..... .............. lodged an application with the Mitchell Shire to run 50 breeding dogs from a property off the Kilmore-Glenaroua Road (Broadford Victoria) on June 8. Since the permit request was lodged the RSPCA, Dogs Vic and Animal Liberation Vic all lodged formal objections to Mitchell Shire against the application. .......However on Thursday July 29 the application for the breeding permit was withdrawn.

Nekhbet, Steve's comparison is a fair one. If councils KNOW where someone has kennels, there is a better chance of them being under surveillance by groups such as the RSPCA who can legally visit the premises etc. When you have unknown numbers of dogs on properties that are not identified as kennels, then you have the situation where the council doesnt know what is going on, and the likes of the animal libbers taking the law into their own hands and doing midnight raids with cameras etc. This is not the way to go. In another thread on here an RSPCA officer describes the overwhelming stench of ammonia at one place. Why let it get to that? The RSPCA already has the laws to ensure that the welfare of dogs is taken care of - IF they know where these places are. Whether we like it or not, the current trade laws allow people to "farm" puppies and there is little that can be done to legally stop this practice. Pet shops also have the law on their side. The police and the RSPCA already have the laws within which they can act to ensure that at least the dogs used in this awful trade are well looked after. As I see it, is a matter of enforcing the existing laws and codes that are already in place. People have to act within the law, otherwise we might as well not have laws. Stopping "puppy farmers" completely is a pipedream imho, and in the first instance, nobody seems to be able to accurately define what a "puppy farmer" is. If a legal definition of a "puppy farm" does not exist, how on earth do well meaning people think they can shut down "puppy farms"? Sorry if I sound negative, but the ideas of many on this site recently are a bit too idealistic and not realistic enough. I'm with Steve on this one. Better to know where they are and let "the authorities" pay them regular visits. Souff

Absolutely.

Agreed. There is a lot of wishful thinking and naivity showing in this thread. The subtitle of the thread speaks of a "win". How do you have a win if the battle hasn't started? :D The paper tells where the state of play is: " .......However on Thursday July 29 the application for the breeding permit was withdrawn" Now they know what the arguments against are, they will simply find the ways and means to overcome those arguments. Puppy farmers they might be, but business people they are. I very much doubt that they have packed up their bat and ball and gone away. Souff

Yes, there is always the risk of corruption when a charity that loves donations (and what charity doesn't love donations) is the policeman. Souff

Well, there is no reason WHY they should "get away with it". THE RSPCA ALREADY HAVE THE LEGISLATION THEY NEED .... they just have to USE the legislation that they already have. Here are some of the powers that the RSPCA has in New SOuth Wales, and this legislation is very similar to the laws in other states of Australia. Division 2 Powers of inspectors 24D Interpretation and application of Division (1) In this Division: inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer. land includes premises or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft. (2) The Minister, or the Director-General or a Deputy Director-General of the Department, may issue an officer with an authority for the purposes of this Division and may revoke any such authority. (3) An inspector may not exercise powers under this Division in relation to animal research carried out in accordance with the Animal Research Act 1985 on designated land within the meaning of that Act unless the inspector is also an inspector within the meaning of that Act. 24E Power to enter land (1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any function under this Division. (2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may exercise a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that: (a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and (b) it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment. 24F Search warrant (1) In this section: authorised officer has the same meaning as it has in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. (2) An inspector may apply to an authorised officer for a search warrant if the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that there is, in or on any land: (a) an animal in respect of which an offence against this Act or the regulations is being or has been committed or is about to be committed, or (b) evidence of an offence against this Act or the regulations that has been committed. (3) An authorised officer to whom an application is made under subsection (2) may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, issue a search warrant authorising an inspector named in the warrant, together with any person so named: (a) to enter and search the land, and (b) to exercise any functions of an inspector under this Division in or on the land. (4) Division 4 of Part 5 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 applies to a search warrant issued under this section. 24G Powers of inspectors in relation to land used for certain commercial purposes (1) This section applies to the following land: (a) land used for the purpose of a sale-yard or an animal trade, (b) land in or on which an animal is being used, or kept for use, in connection with any other trade, or any business or profession (including a place used by a veterinary practitioner for the purpose of carrying on his or her profession). (2) For the purposes of ensuring that the provisions of this Act or the regulations are not being contravened, an inspector may, in relation to land to which this section applies, do any or all of the following: (a) inspect and examine the land, any animal that is in or on the land and any accommodation or shelter that is provided in or on the land for any animal, (b) inspect and examine any register that is kept under this Act or the regulations and that is in or on the land, © require any person found in or on the land to produce any such register, (d) take copies of, or extracts or notes from, any such register. (3) A person must not fail to comply with a requirement made by an inspector under subsection (2) ©. Maximum penalty (subsection (3)): 25 penalty units. 24H Powers of police officers to detain vehicle or vessel (1) If a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a vehicle or vessel contains an animal in respect of which an offence against section 5, 6, 7 or 8 has been or is being committed and that the animal is in distress the police officer may: (a) stop the vehicle or vessel, and (b) enter the vehicle or vessel, and © enter any land for the purpose of entering the vehicle or vessel, and (d) examine the animal. (2) For the purpose of entering the vehicle or vessel or examining the animal concerned, the police officer may direct the person operating the vehicle or vessel to do any or all of the following: (a) to manoeuvre the vehicle or vessel in a specified manner or to a specified place (including a place that is appropriate for examining the animal concerned), (b) to park or secure the vehicle or vessel in a specified manner, © to remain in control of the vehicle or vessel while the police officer is exercising his or her functions. (3) A person must not fail to comply with a direction given to the person under this section. Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units. (4) A direction under this section to stop a vehicle or vessel must be made in a manner prescribed by the regulations by a police officer who is identified in a manner so prescribed. (5) For the purposes of subsection (1), an animal is in distress if it is suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. 24I Powers of inspectors generally to examine animals An inspector may examine an animal if the inspector suspects, on reasonable grounds, that: (a) an offence against this Act or the regulations is being, has been or is about to be committed in respect of the animal, or (b) the animal has not been provided with proper and sufficient food or drink during the previous 24 hours (or, in the case of the provision of food to an animal of a class prescribed by the regulations, during the period prescribed for that class of animal) and is still not being provided with that food or drink, or © the animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is necessary that the animal be provided with veterinary treatment and the animal is not being provided with that treatment, or (d) the animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is cruel to keep it alive, and the animal is not about to be destroyed, or is about to be destroyed in a manner that will inflict unnecessary pain on the animal. 24J Powers of inspectors in relation to care of animals (1) If, after examining an animal in accordance with this Division, an inspector suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the animal is in distress (as referred to in section 24H (5)) or any of the circumstances referred to in section 24I exist in relation to the animal, the inspector may do any or all of the following: (a) take possession of the animal (or, if the animal is dead, the animal’s carcass), (b) if appropriate, remove the animal (or carcass) to such place as the inspector thinks fit, © retain possession of the animal (or carcass), (d) provide the animal with necessary food, drink or veterinary treatment, (e) destroy the animal in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain. (2) An animal (or carcass) to which section 24I (a) applies may be retained by an inspector for a period not exceeding 60 days or where, within that 60-day period proceedings are commenced in respect of the offence concerned, until the proceedings are finally determined (unless the court otherwise directs). (3) Despite subsection (2), an animal retained under this section that is in distress or to which section 24I (b), © or (d) applies may be retained for such period of time as is sufficient for the animal to be provided with necessary food, drink or veterinary treatment, or to be destroyed in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain, as the case requires. (4) The reasonable expenses incurred by: (a) an inspector who is a police officer or another person on behalf of the NSW Police Force, or (b) an inspector who is an officer of a charitable organisation or another person on behalf of the organisation, or © an inspector who is a member of staff of a Department (within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002) or another person on behalf of the Crown, in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section in respect of an animal, or in complying with the related duties imposed by this Act or the regulations, may be recovered from the owner of the animal as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction by the inspector or any other person acting on behalf of the NSW Police Force, a charitable organisation or the Crown. 24K Power of seizure of evidence of offences (1) An inspector who is lawfully on any land investigating a suspected commission of an offence against this Act or the regulations may seize any thing that will afford evidence of the commission of the offence. (2) An inspector who seizes a thing under this section must provide the occupier of the land with a receipt acknowledging the seizure of the thing if the occupier is present and it is reasonably practical to do so. (3) If an inspector seizes a thing under this section, it may be retained by the inspector until the completion of any proceedings (including proceedings on appeal) in which it may be tendered in evidence. (4) However, an inspector may retain seized documents under subsection (3) only if the person from whom the documents were seized is provided, within a reasonable time after the seizure, with a copy of the documents certified by an inspector to be a true copy. (5) Subsection (3) ceases to have effect in relation to any thing seized if, on the application of the person aggrieved by the seizure, the court in which the proceedings referred to in that subsection are instituted orders the inspector to return the thing seized. 24L Period for search limited (1) An inspector who enters land under this Division must not remain on the land any longer than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose for which the land was entered. (2) A police officer who detains a vehicle or vessel under this Division must not detain the vehicle or vessel any longer than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is detained. 24M Inspectors may be assisted in exercising powers An inspector may exercise a power conferred by this Division: (a) in a place other than residential premises—in the company and with the aid of such assistants as the inspector considers necessary, or (b) in residential premises—in the company and with the aid of such assistants, being persons of a class prescribed by the regulations, as the inspector considers necessary. 24N Notices in relation to animals (1) If an inspector is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a person is contravening a provision of this Act or the regulations in relation to an animal, the inspector may give the person a notice in writing requiring the person to take such specified action in relation to the animal as the inspector considers necessary to avoid any further contravention. (2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a notice is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units. (3) A person cannot be convicted for both an offence against this section and another offence under this Act or the regulations in respect of the same act or omission.

Gosh, all of that sounds very confusing Legislation is much easier to understand.

No, Souff is not confused at all. You put forward these aspects from a website and I am telling you that most of these things have already been done. You could think of it as a service to the community from Souff if you like. Do you know how many people don't know that legislation about many of these aspects is already in place, often not being used properly, and gthat many f these same people think that all these aspects are new and that some more legislation will "fix" the problem? It doesnt "fix" anything if you are targetting the wrong area of government, as is likely to happen here if they go down the federal road. A bit like having the fire brigade on the wrong side of town while your house is burning down. Souff

Yes, taxation is a federal matter and the laws are already in place, and being used effectively, to catch those who have a cash income and do not declare it. They might be puppy farmers or they might be top end business operators but the tax man is on their trail .... reds under the bed included. Export provisions ... now that is interesting. Dept of Trade maybe but they are usually only interested in megabucks transactions that good lobbyists take them out to lunch for. They would probably be lucky to get a decent cup of coffee from the dog world lobbyist, not a good lunch You could be meaning export quarantine restrictions I suppose .... invent a story that Australian dogs have monkey virus and keep them out of other countries that way. But I understand that has already been done too. Good luck with the last 2 .... you only have to look at other state laws and the variances between them to see that it is a case of every bunch of state bureaucrats protecting their career 'patch' to understand that this is a big ask. Getting back to the original call, trying to make out this is a Federal matter and that our federal political aspirants will drop everythig and make some wild promises ..... well, we know all about political promises Don't we? Souff

No, those are your words. What I am saying is that it is NOT a Federal matter. There are dog owners in Australia who have the intelligence to know this, but the dopey ole Sydney Morning Herald forgets that from time to time and just goes on insulting people's intelligence, while others relish the opportunity to get publicity. Souff

double post

You are very lucky to have the private area available to you, but I will guarantee that 99.8% of other dog owners with similar dogs are not that lucky. Your logic cannot be applied to the majority. Dog parks were put there for DOGS and it is up to the owners/handlers of those dogs to use them properly and to make sure that no other dogs get hurt.

Nice of Heather to bring this to the attention of voters, however I don't recall hearing the new Julia (or the old one for that matter), or the neverending Dr Brown, nor the one who likes his budgies, mention any policies about doggy matters. Perhaps this is because under Australia's constitution it cannot be a federal matter. And this is a federal election, is it not? Yes, that probably would be why. Isn't Heather FEDERAL President of the RSPCA these days? If so, one would think that she would know that this could not be a topic of Federal elections ...... but then again you know what they say about any publicity ..... sigh Souff

*sigh* yep more rspca bashing. Got to love that about this forum. As if it would be left to the police! As if they have any time for that with their already stretched resources. Last time I looked, the police are authorised to enforce animal welfare legislation. Not every town has an RSPCA officer down the road. Souff

I am appalled at the number of so-called dog lovers in this thread who have said "No". EVERY DOG NEEDS TO BE EXERCISED - and walking a dog on a lead is not always as good as a run (for the dog). It is up to the owner of that dog to choose carefully the place and the time. If danger is on the horizon, get out of there! Not every dog is passive, some are aggressive. And please stop calling people "morons" because they allow their dog to run up to yours. It is a natural behaviour of dogs and not all dogs fear other dogs. The responsibility for the dog rests with the owner, or in some cases, the handler. My answer to the OP is "YES - but with a wholly responsible owner/handler who knows when NOT to be there". Souff

Good analogy re apes/man. Pity more people didn't think it through instead of believing the spin that has been around on this supposed direct connection between wolves and dogs. Perhaps too many were influenced by Humphrey B Bear in the critical childhood development periods and some of those little cerebral connections were just not extended enough. Thinking further than what is written by others, and researching about the finds about primeval times, is healthy brain activity. Souff