Linda K

As we live on a farm, yes we have a policy to cover damage to the fences etc, and a bog part of that is the public liability in case someone visiting is injured, or a horse gets out onto the road. It is over $1500 a year. So the costs of even being a DAB could be several thousand before one has even had one puppy or kitten

This bit from Hansard is particularly interesting Furthermore, the bill creates the opportunity for rescue groups, community foster care networks and other organisations to apply for an exemption from the prohibition on unregulated sales of animals from public venues including car boot sales, markets and car parks provided for under 96 of the act . The government recognises that there may be some circumstances in which the sale of animals in a public venue would be acceptable such as adoption days What a great idea - lets have multiple animals from all sorts of sources all brought to the same spot for a car boot sale. And then this from Labors website about this policy "Thanks to the Labor Government, there will be fewer homeless pets and more Victorians safe in the knowledge that their new dog or cat has been bred responsibly". Um how exactly??????? Oh yes my shelter pet that has been trucked across the border from a rural pound, or from a alley has certainly been responsibly bred, and of course it has a health guarantee with it and is as free from genetic issues as the purebreds that now no longer will be easily able to be found Hansard makes it patently obvious if there was any doubt just whose rights are being even further strengthened Consider this bit A foster carer may apply to their local council for registration. This is a voluntary process . Those individuals that choose to register will be provided with a reduced registration rate for the animals in their care and access to pet shops to help improve rehoming of dogs or cats over the age of 6 months . The reduced rate for animals in foster care will reduce costs to foster carers for the first twelve months that the animal is in their care

from a horse site, it appears that these horses had been dumped there over many years, not a mass killing all of a sudden, but possibly one by one as they either were too old or whatever. Appears might be a racehorse trainer, potentially, and charge could be $150,000 fine. Certainly far heftier than had he done it properly. Very sad end either way for the horses, and less dignified than they deserved

under the code, you are able to have 9 fertile females and so long as you are a member of an applicable organisation and no less than 2 are not registered with the AO you are not classed as a DAB. If 2 or more are not registered with the applicable organisation (eg Dogs Voic), then you are a DAB. This is then classed as a small business if it is less than 5, or a large business if 5 or more. Under existing legislation, anyone with 10 or more fertile females (irrespective whether they are a AO member or not), must register as a DAB. This change will then limit the number of females to 10, mean only 5 litters for the lifetime of the bitch, and compulsory vet check prior to a breeding cycle for a female. Of course council permits take precedence over all of this, and whether or not you can actually get your local council to even allow you to have more than 2 animals, no matter how many the government says you can have, is certainly a far bigger problem now too Animal rights loons certainly have control of the steering wheel here in Vic, and we are heading for the rocks

Hi all, Forgive me if this has already been covered, as I have been off the board for awhile due to personal commitments. I did do a search, but couldn;t find anything already covering this, so thought it best to bring it to the attention of the dog breeders out there on this board. I found out yesterday from the Vic Minister for Animal Welfare (DEDJTR), that the code of practice for breeding and rearing business is currently in another public submission period (opened in March, closes next week - April 23 at 5pm) The part of the code up for review is as below "Breeding and rearing businesses NOTICE: Breeding Code is to be amended, public comment now open The Minister for Agriculture has taken action to further crack down on illegal puppy and kitten farms. The Minister has proposed an amendment to the Code which would require breeders to obtain a veterinary health check for all female dogs prior to each mating cycle. In addition, the amended code contains minor typographical corrections, and minor amendments to update the Code with respect to Machinery of Government changes and the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Act 2014. Public comment for this amendment commences March 26 2015 and will close April 23 at 5pm. If you are unable to download the document, please email [email protected] or call 136 186 to obtain a copy of the Code. Making a submission All submissions must be made in writing. Submissions will not be accepted without the submitter's full name, contact email address, postal address and affiliation (where applicable). Submissions can be emailed to [email protected] or posted to: Breeding Code Public Comment 2015 475 Mickleham Rd, Attwood Vic 3049 Submissions must be postmarked or emailed by 5pm on 23 April 2015 to be accepted. Details are available at: www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets/domestic-animal-businesses/breeding-and-rearing-businesses/code-of-practice-for-the-operation-of-breeding-and-rearing-businesses-revision-1 Certainly no one I know has been aware we were even in a review period, this has been nicely kept under the hat, however as I say, if this is not the case and actually is common knowledge and duplicates another topic, then mods, feel free to delete this one

strongest of the codes is only for breeding establishments - the shelter / pound one is laughable, considering all the things the AR nuts went nuts over that were in the breeding code, theirs is way looser and a joke really

interestingly enough, looking at the Vic legislation for breeding establishments, shelters / pounds, and boarding operations, it may probably not surprise you to find that only 1 is strict upon it actively needing to be there (breeding code), there is not mention in the shelter code at all for them to even have a plan, and just touched on in the boarding code that they should have a plan - but nothing in any code to say what the plan actually needs to cover. No idea about other states, but would be interesting to see if in fact it is mentioned in other codes

any aniomals being left without water in this weather is just inexcusable. But manipulating photos to tell a story you want is also a well known AR tactic too, so would certainly not take the word of a group like OL as gospel, esp since is not banning the sale of dogs and cats in pet shops they really want, it is only that they want to control the supply and for pet shops to only be stocked from facilities they deem unsuitable (ie rescue groups or shelters). They certainly don't have any problems with dogs and cats from rescue shelters being in there, and given how happy most of these groups seem to be to foster to anyone - I have yet to see one ask for proof before someone applies to be a foster carer that they actually have a multiple animal permit allowing them to go over their numbers allowed by council in the event they already have existing animals for instance, and since people can generally not visit any animals at foster carers homes, who knows if these ones have access to water 24/7, or are living in clean surrounds

have flown a brachy breed cat (persian) from Germany to Aus a year and a half ago, (also on emirates), and he was fine

whay are animal rights and animal welfare people the ones making the input to gov - because they are the ones that have fundraised from members of the public in order to have snazzy media campaigns, and employ campaign managers, and have the pollies ears, and since the pollies are convinced this is what the public wants, they do it. Look what happened in Victoria. I know we in our cat group have been trying just to get the ear of local councils, local members, and the giv in general, and get hit with brick walls every time - they do not give a damn about hobby breeders and how this is all reducing numbers of breeders as they give up as it becomes all too hard to keep jumping through hoops

all so wrong, and so hypocritical - just exposes the double standards we as breeders operate under

and that in itself is attrocious - can only imagine the screaming if it was a breeder who had that many animals over the permit (which I recall was only 20?) had them under those conditions and was not immediately shut down - and so many discrepoancies here - it claims she had to go back to work yet we were told she looked after all the animals full time, and they are saying there was 121 and an unknown number of cats - how the hell can they even all be properly socialised when there are that many. And she is allowed to go on looking after them. That is just so wrong, but of course, yet again, it is rescue and that is a different kettle of fish according to the AR brigade. The fact that it needed teams of workers to even bring it up to an acceptable standard as quoted in the link by the magistrate, is also sad for those animals that should never have been in those sort of conditions at the start

and yet again, they have only listened to the AR mobs who have no idea on practical animal husbandry, or the need to actually protect fragile newborns from unnecessary vet visits, no lets expose them all to a vet surgery so they can catch god knows what or cause the new mother who may already be stressed to want to have nothing to do with the babies instead of being allowed time and space to bond with them. Yep, brilliant idea.

some did, but some just showed themselves for the stupid keyboard warriors they are, that will believe any images put in front of them

not when it is then being used by Oscar's Law - they do not tend to make jokes about stuff like this, and would certainly not use it as a amusing thing