Ringo

All the points mentioned above are what councils tell you in relation to breeding is how they consider the situation. They are relying upon the NSW Local Environment Plan that each council must develop and they are all working from the same template for this plan with the same definitions for land zoning, activities etc. The idea is to have the whole state covered by the same zoning laws eventually. Have a look at your own local council website and and you will be able to see past LEPs and the current one either now in force or being developed (some councils are slower than others). For and individual council to change their LEP they must go to the department of planning & dept of local government & convince them they are special and need to have something specific for their area. You can also view the template and the definitions it has on the department of local government website. All planning decisions when contested by either party end up in the NSW Land & Environment Court (NSWLEC) and they give legal and binding decisions on how each party has interpreted the LEP and it's definitions. To view these cases google '"New South Wales Case Law" which will bring up a website with various courts listed. Choose the Land & Environment Court option then search for dog breeding. It will list a number of cases, some relevant others not so. You need to read the decisions carefully to follow them, especially why the parties are in court. (ie the initial situation) The one I have spoken about is from 2011, decision handed down in 2012 from the north coast of NSW. But there are a number of other decisions which make interesting reading, especially the one about the two horses a woman had on a city block. They also apply the same rules to rescue organisations as they '... board, train for a commercial purpose'- dogs/cats are sold for money. BTW if anyone knows grey hound breeders/racers then tell them this report will affect them. At the moment they think they are solely governed by the Greyhound Racing Act and GRNSW own policies. - They actually comply with POCTA through these regulations and if these recommendations are introduced as law then they will be covered by them as 'breeders' and will need to be licenced. Guess that will be the end of greyhound racing in NSW. Just think of all the ramifications of these recommendations : Pet Food industry goes down hill as number of dogs, cats owned by people declines. Currently worth six billion Australia wide & growing weekly. Number of vets declines, and then getting an appointment for rover will be like going to the doctor now - your appointment will be in three weeks time at 2pm !! Too bad for the dog/cat. Insurance companies will suffer as pet insurance will decline with decline in number of pets Council revenues decline as number of pets declines. Number of associated industries for pets declines, no more on line stores, finding a pet barn will become harder as they hit the wall, no more mobile dog washes, no more personalised trainers for dogs. And one for the Hunter Shooters, Fishers Party - no more hunting with dogs as it will be illegal to breed them unless you are a registered breeder hence no more 'pig dogs' hence no more hunting with them. How about all the farmers & graziers who breed excellent working dogs, kelpies, cattle dogs, border collies - no licence to breed no breeding. So who works the sheep, cattle with/for the farmer - ten extra people ??? to do the same job. The ADF takes all breeds of dogs some pedigree, others not for their work - guess that will decline as well, although as a Commonwealth organisation they are automatically exempt for most things, regardless of that other people think. Peoples health declines as they no longer own cats/dogs and take part in activities with them - interesting recommendations abt tenannts and nursing homes (?) though It took me two hours to come up with these side effects of the recommendations - some will have an affect sooner than later but eventually if this comes to be then they will all happen. On the other hand maybe I'm just a born pessimist and the light of reason will be seen.

And to add insult to injury the NSW Land & Environment Court has already given a ruling in a matter in 2012 that in simple terms distinguished between "dog breeding, boarding, kennelling for commercial purposes" and one that was not for commercial purpose. As should be done when this bill is formulated the INTENT of the person undertaking the activity is the most important thing and was one thing the NSW LEC highlighted. To paraphrase part of the finding, '.. one would expect the same activities to be undertaken with respect to dog breeding, etc for a commercial purpose and one that was not ...'. In other words it is what your intent is with the activity and I have come across only a few people who would make money from this activity and could be deemed to be undertaking it for a commercial purpose. One of the litigants was, surprisingly a local council trying to rectify their own error which back fired on them. The case is at time mentioned in general terms as a 'problem' by some of the parties involved in this working group and is mentioned in part of the documents made public by the working group. The problem would appear to that it has finally defined an activity they want considered as a commercial enterprise. So worse case parts of the bill may end up being challenged in court if things turn pear shaped.

I think you will find it is illegal to use an attachment like that in NSW on roads or road related areas ??

And the inmates are running the asylum

Part 1 (5) Dog & Cat Management Act South Australia Definition of owner as far as dogs & cats are concerned for owner Yes it is a legal definition for the enforcement of this act

For 'owner' of a dog (as property) in New South Wales, refer to section 7 of the Companion Animals Act Gives three definitions of 'owner'.

Yes first stop for determining the owner of a dog in NSW is the microchip details as recorded on the microchip register. It is contained in the Companion Animals Act. There is the option of a stat dec being completed to vary this however false information on this is a criminal offence. Try fronting the RSPCA with the microchip papers showing owner details and tell them you are the legal owner. Only way to dispute this is as above - make them check the register to see who the owner is. If no luck then solicitor & letter ASAP to them outlining the legal status of the animals. Regardless of what they think they are able to do the RSPCA is bound by the same legislation as everyone else. PS A complaint to the local Police might also be a good idea - have them explain to the Police their legal standing for taking & keeping the animals - the Police are required to get back to you with this information & also ask them to officially record the details of the dispute for future reference. Nothing like talking quitely & carrying a big stick when the time is right.

So what happens when the RSPCA's guidelines clash with those issued by the Dept of Primary Industry where certain parts are actually enforceable and would already be adhered to. The RSPCA's are issued as GUIDELINES and are just that - unless they are backed up with legislation they fall back onto POCTA. Pity people don't realise that food comes from somewhere & does not just appear in the supermarket or butcher shop overnight delivered by the fairies.

Well the discussion paper has been submitted and it makes interesting reading. Wonder if people have really looked at the impact some of the proposals will have on ALL people involved with companion animals. Can't see any ideas mentioned though to start reducing the rate at which animals are put to sleep before some of the other ideas mentioned start to take effect. Reminds me of one of those government ideas of 'we'll have a review/inquiry into that & get back to you in six months time"

Not in NSW - the Dept of Local Government continues to tell councils they cannot use the LGA or LEPs in relation to dog complaints, yet they continue to try and produce Local Orders Policy in relation to limiting the number of animals (not just dogs but cats, guinea pigs, rabbits etc) which they are unable to enforce. Go read the Dept of Local Government website and start looking at the notices and circulars they publish for the information of councils about how to conduct business. Unfortunately most councils seem to think they are able to ignore these until they are forced to recognise them, then they go quiet or just ignore the things they don't want to acknowledge until they are forced to. All depends on how hard you are prepared to stand up for your rights. After all they are the only form of government in Australia that is not recognised in the constitution and they want a referendum at the next federal election to change the consitution to recognise them. Don't like their chances but our money will be spent by councils to run a campaign to have people say yes. The best description I heard to describe local councils was a person very experienced in dealing with them who described them as the 'body corporate' for the rate payers and nothing more. Seemed pretty apt. And what makes it all worse is each state runs their local councils differently.

Not a hypothetical

What about this idea - your local council (NSW) decides that no registered breeders (ANKC & Dogs NSW) are able to carry out a 'commercial purpose' in any land use zoning other than rural. The commercial purpose they are referring to relates to the sale of puppies as money is exchanged/taken. As all councils now use the same Local Environment Plan template presumably the same will eventually apply across the state. So the breeders that have 1/2 litters a year are suddenly to be in breach of their councils LEP with the possible consequences of this an order under the LGA with the resultant possibly penalties. And by association any person that breeds/makes things as a hobby and takes money for them will be in the same boat unless they are doing something that is not prohibited under their council's LEP. Opens up a big can of worms for the Department of Local Government. Wonder what all those people that breed birds and sell them and the greyhound owner/trainers will think when their council comes knocking about their commercial purpose activities.

So how did this pan out, any success as yet?

Any updates on this before court on the 7th October

If they are trying to eliminate the puppy farmers, unethical breeders & those who are suspended and rejoining under different names why not go about this from the direction of the dogs they are registering - DNA proof of parentage is now available and if the ANKC actually made the agreements then the cost would be minimal. Would take time to get the database working however needs to start somewhere. Photo ID works fine however fake IDs are also able to be obtained and who will spot one of those with VicDogs ?? when it is produced. DNA would move the organisation into line with international standards and would also stop things like extra papers being given out when non existent puppies are registered as has been mentioned here.

Try calling it a level back which is what it is, not a straight back. You also need to talk to the breeders you are looking at, as what they would term a 'high drive'dog v what you call one. I would suggest that the high drive you see in your dob will be nothing compared to a german shepherd with a high drive.

No Commonwealth legislation exists at the moment similar to each states Companion Animals Act (or similar) To implement these proposals would at the moment require all states and territories to enact their own legislation. For those who thinks these ideas are good, think about it a moment longer. The RSPCA is the only body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. No other body that enforces legislation does this, they all respond to government proposals for new/changes to legislation. These ideas have been around for some time now and are raised by the RSPCA periodically. The practicalities of what they are talking about are huge. And as has been said, it won't stop the BYB. The concept of the family dog, a persons companion, sometimes the only one they have, doesn't exist for some people anymore. Perhaps it's time the respective state pedigree dog organisations and the ANKC stood up and did more than take money to issue certificates to say someone says this dog is a pedigree dog. These organisations exist with voluntary compliance, perhaps that should change.

If they are relying upon the local council policy/orders then they have very little power to back these up. Local councils are continually told by the Dept of Local Government to rely upon the CAA and POCTA to deal with dog/cat complaints, don't make up your own local policy as it cannot be enforced. It's like some councils passing local policies limiting the number of companion animals (not just dogs) that people are able to keep. They can do this all they like, but cannot enforce any of it because there is no legislation to back them up.