Wags

The breeder has just advised me that while she agrees with the facts I have posted today, as the family has threatened legal action, she feels that this forum is just another means of manipulation and harrassment for the family and she would prefer that any clarification of any points be done with private contact and with identification of the writer. She further wishes me to state that she is willing to resolve this issue in a calm, receptive and fair manner at any time, but will not be receptive to harrassing or bullying, or manipulative tactics.

The presence of the puppy murmur is not in dispute, the liklihood of it being innocent is in dispute - the breeder is prepared to wait and see, and stand by her offer to refund if it does not disappear in a very short period of time - the family is not prepared to wait despite admitting that they are not eligible for a refund if the murmur does disappear. The actions of the family are also disputed.

It commenced with the tone of the severance of the purchase agreement.

If you are going to ask for assistance, it's a good idea to give the actual facts. I know this breeder and have been privy to interaction between the two of you. Firstly, the puppy murmur was diagnosed as 'probably innocent' - details you left out. Secondly, The breeder asked you to contact her if you had any queries or qualms when she provided you with the health certificate. When you contacted the breeder, three days later, you made if very clear that you wished to take delivery of the puppy and only wanted reassurance that the breeder would be there if the puppy's murmur had not completely disappeared. You expressed to the breeder that you were completely happy with the discussion. You also told her you wish you had contacted her in the first place instead of worrying about it all weekend. You were asked by the breeder to contact her again if you had a dose of the doubts or needed any clarification. This was a very calm, chatty, receptive conversation, as witnessed by a third party, it so happens. At no time did the breeder insist or demand that you take the puppy on time, nor did she demand final payment. At no time did you raise any form of delay in taking the puppy, in fact you insisted that you wanted to take delivery of the puppy. Two days after this, the breeder was advised by her vet that your vet had contacted her. You did not afford the breeder any form of common decency of contacting her, not even to advise that you still had some doubts and were intending to have your vet contact mine. The breeder readily gave her vet permission to contact yours. That evening, the breeder contacted you again, advising that she had been advised in regard to the vet contact and asking whether you had heard back from your vet, whether you still had any doubts or wished to discuss anything with her. You insisted no, that the vet contact was only as a result of a casual conversation with your vet while having your other dog innoculated. You said you had not yet heard back and had forgotten all about it. You insisted that you were fine with everything and all was well. The next day, you sent an email severing the purchase agreement and demanded your refund back. The breeder - again in a state of confusion about your duplicity, contacted her vet and ascertained that she had come out of surgery to phone your vet as as your vet was busy, she left a message with the receptionist advising what she had noted on the health certificate and also adding that she was 90% sure that the puppy murmur would disappear within the 12 weeks. It was at this point that the breeder replyed to your email exercising her right to retain the deposit by way of compensation. The terms and conditions are CLEARLY indicated on the breeder's website. In an effort to resolve the matter, the breeder has also made extremely reasonable efforts to resolve the matter of the refund while you barraged her with harrassing emails, changing tack with nearly every email and threatening her in the process. Frankly, I believe this breeder is well within her rights to retain the deposit when the facts are known. She has been communicative, understanding, receptive, resolving and honest. If that is the case then the breeder needs to understand that a potential health issue is quite a large thing for a prospective owner to wrap their heads around and what she sees as the buyers being "duplicitous" could merely be them trying to be polite and not cause a scene to her face whilst privately freaking out at the situation. After processing it they have concluded that they do not wish to take on this pup and the breeder, irregardless of the purchasers actions, should be ethically bound to refund. I do not believe that this breeder has any rights to retain the deposit when the whole issue is surrounding the possible ill health of a pup. Whether the potential purchasers are acting badly or not, it does not give the breeder the right to behave poorly in return. The breeder should , in my opinion, take the higher road, refund the money and wash her/his hands of the situation that is clearly angst driven on both sides and have done with it. The breeder has acknowledge to the family that a puppy murmur can be very scary to anyone who hasn't had the experience of them, as with the breeder and her vet - this was acknowledge when providing the health certificate in the first place. Please note that the breeder conducted herself in a manner to communicate, calmly and receptively and in an understanding manner with the family and was indeed ready to not only work out details that suited both parties, but stated that she would rather not provide a puppy if there were doubts - it was the family insistance they wanted to take delivery that set the direction of the discussion. If you had, as I have, viewed the correspondence between the parties you may have more understanding of why the off by the breeder to refund if the murmur continues is a very fair one. Frankly the harrassment she received and responded calmly to would have had other repercussions for the family if dealing with anyone else. Not only does she deserve compensation for what she has had to endure, but also a medal.

Yes, well, the problem is that the family has agreed in writing that if the heart murmur disappears, she is not eligible for a refund, but then family has changed tack and will only accept the non-refund of the deposit include the completion of the purchase of the puppy !!!!!! The breeder understandably refused this offer and indicate that since the first contract has been severed, a new contract would be required. She further advised that given the attitude and behaviour that has been displayed to her, she would not be prepared to provide a puppy to he

If you are going to ask for assistance, it's a good idea to give the actual facts. I know this breeder and have been privy to interaction between the two of them. Firstly, the puppy murmur was diagnosed as 'probably innocent' - details that have been left out. Secondly, The breeder asked the family to contact her if they had any queries or qualms when she provided them with the health certificate. When the breeder was contacted, three days later, they made if very clear that they wished to take delivery of the puppy and only wanted reassurance that the breeder would be there if the puppy's murmur had not completely disappeared. The breeder then discussed with them what her actions would be if in the remote chance this did occur. They expressed to the breeder that they were completely happy with the discussion. The casller also told her she wished she had contacted her in the first place instead of worrying about it all weekend. She was asked by the breeder to contact her again if she had a dose of the doubts or needed any clarification. This was a very calm, chatty, receptive conversation, as witnessed by a third party, it so happens. At no time did the breeder insist or demand that you take the puppy on time, nor did she demand final payment. At no time did the family raise any form of delay in taking the puppy, in fact she insisted that she wanted to take delivery of the puppy - after the breeder has advised her that if she had any qualms at all about taking the puppy, she would rather not provide it to her. Two days after this, the breeder was advised by her vet that the family's vet had contacted her. The family did not afford the breeder any form of common decency of contacting her, not even to advise that she still had some doubts and was intending to have her vet contact the breeder's. The breeder readily gave her vet permission to contact the family's. That evening, the breeder contacted the family again, advising that she had been advised in regard to the vet contact and asking whether they had heard back from their vet, whether they still had any doubts or wished to discuss anything with her. She insisted no, that the vet contact was only as a result of a casual conversation with her vet while having your other dog innoculated. She said you had not yet heard back and had forgotten all about it. She insisted that she was fine with everything and all was well. The next day, she sent an email severing the purchase agreement and demanded her refund back. The breeder - again in a state of confusion about her duplicity, contacted her vet and ascertained that she had come out of surgery to phone the family's vet as as their vet was busy, she left a message with the receptionist advising what she had noted on the health certificate and also adding that she was 90% sure that the puppy murmur would disappear within the 12 weeks. It was at this point that the breeder replyed to the family's email exercising her right to retain the deposit by way of compensation. The terms and conditions are CLEARLY indicated on the breeder's website. In an effort to resolve the matter, the breeder has also made extremely reasonable efforts to resolve the matter of the refund while the family barraged her with harrassing emails, changing tack with nearly every email and threatening her in the process. Frankly, I believe this breeder is well within her rights to retain the deposit when the facts are known. She has been communicative, understanding, receptive, resolving and honest.

For your information Jed ..... I misread Sandy's original comment regarding the Accredited Breeders Scheme - yes I am in favour of anything that makes breeders, registered or otherwise, more accountable and responsible. And what was the inferance in Sandy's raising this ..... what relevance did it have to the State Govt scheme? It certainly wasn't meant to give credence to my posting about the State scheme, was it? In fact it was no doubt meant to have the opposite affect. The denigration heaped on Dogs Qld in regard to the ABS scheme in my view is indicative of the general attitude of some posters on this site - negative, derogatory, destructive and maligning. The excuses for boycotting the scheme are weak as well as the things I've just stated - and the accountability is dodged in the process. In my mind, that's speaks enough on it's own. To malign and denigrate those who are positive about the scheme and partake is childish bullying - and in speaking up for Dogs Qld and the scheme I reaped a great deal of inferred and direct negative and malign attitude. No need to redo the link, I remember it well and it gave me quite a taste of the attitudes and behaviour of a lot of posters on this site. As to the use of colloquialisms ...... do you really think that snide references like this are meant to be positive or complimentary inputs ...... Give me strength. Lets hope that posting the information did reach some more mature and balanced minded breeders who might go on and use the opportunity to state their worries (whatever they are) where it matters, with the State Govt. The ones who merely used this post for another fun negative game and don't do anything proactive about having their say, get what they deserve, and no doubt will winge loudly about the outcome in the future. It's their bag to carry. I'll stick to more positive and proactive forums in future. Enjoy denigrating and putting everything down - It's a pity these posters don't have better things to do with their lives.

Yep, sure is. I thought "we" was a perogative of the Queen of England? And there is no need for legislation of this type, which will cost registered breeders more money, and cause a lot of grief, without reducing the level of suffering at all. All the government needs to do is ban the sale of pups in pet shops. They have banned other similar things, there is no reason not to do this. I would be really interested in knowing why they simply wont do that. Vested interests in PIAA, or..................... It would indeed seem that assumptions that are incorrect are rive on this site ..... from people who are indeed not necessarily what they purport to be. It would seem that Jed would be the one referred to Sandra's assumption. And perhaps one should not throw stones if they live in glass houses - either of you.

I'm not sure I totally agree with your interpretation of these points, but nevertheless, I really don't have a problem in the accountability. Which is what it boils down to. I think you'll find that much is status quo for the canine control registered breeders, so there is little impact on that sector. I actually think they'e done a good job of integrating the current registered breeders while establishing a State register of breeders.

To be absolutely frank ...... I'm not really into issues of 'power over' and don't really have any problems with the RSPCA do police the legislation, just so long as it's policed. In my mind the issue isn't 'who polices it' and I don't see why this would be an issue to any breeder doing the right thing - the issue is that ALL breeders are included, not just a select few comparatively. That is the only way the legislation will have the desired affect. This opportunity can be utilised proactively or not, it's the individual's choice, but it certainly wasn't posted as an avenue to continue a negative campaign in regard to the choice of the policing agency. If you feel so strongly about it, voice your thoughts to the State Government.

THIS!! I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this. Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders. Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ???? The problem I have and which I was trying to illustrate is that a non government organisation has the power to be involved in creating a law, enforcing the law, and prosecuting the law. An organisation that can allocate power that exceeds that of law enforcement officers. However it gives this extreme power to itself. The same organisation that can set its own costs to be claimed via court and does not have any external body to be accountable to. How much stronger definition of "Conflict Of Interest" do you need? If a member of the police force exceeds their authority there is an ombudsman that is supposed to act as an independant umpire. There are also procedures in place to allow you to appeal their actions. If a solicitor acts wrongly there is an ombudsman that acts as an independant umpire as well as consquences for inappropriate actions. Who does the RSPCA have to answer to? No-one. Thats the problem. They can do what they like and do not have to justify it. Who sets the amounts that the RSPCA can claim in court for costs? The RSPCA. Do you really believe that it costs $85.00 per dog per day to feed a small dog. Of course it doesn't but thats what they have been known to claim. What can you do if you do not agree with an inspectors decision? Appeal to the RSPCA. Thats it. There is no independant body that you can go to. Are there any protocols for dealing with a power hungry inspector. None seen so far. Who deems the RSPCA inspector fit to act in the role? The RSPCA. Reality is any one connected with the RSPCA could be an inspector. Take for example a small branch of the RSPCA in a small country town. Lets say there is a vet and a secretary at this branch. The Secretary could be given the role of an inspector. They do not have to have any specific qualifications. They simply need to be appointed by the RSPCA. They may not even know much about animal welfare. They don't need to. They are now an inspector that has more power than a police officer and with none of the complications of due process and accountablility If you care to do a google search on Ruth Downey and look what the RSPCA did to her on the grounds of what an RSPCA Inspector said. Indeed one of those RSPCA inspectors involved with Ruth Downey was a former police inspector with very little knowledge of animal welfare generally. The RSPCA was not intended to be a law enforcement body. That is the issue I have. Its not specifically the RSPCA its the entire process of a non government charity that was never intended to be a law enforcement now making itself into one. Its not just being given power, it is also creating the power and then giving it to itself and in so doing does not have to justify its actions to anyone. There are several errors in your information. For the sake of clarity please note that I am referring to RSPCA Qld only in my response. Despite what people continually want to sprout on this forum, RSPCA Qld - in terms of its Inspectorate functions - is accountable. It is accountable to the State government department that is responsible for administering the Animal Care and Proection Act 2001 - the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Any complaints made about Inspectors must be reported by the RSPCA to DEEDI, and DEEDI can conduct their own investigation if they deem fit. This is just one of the many reporting arragements that are in place in order for RSPCA Qld to act as an agent for DEEDI in enforcing the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. Inspectors are not appointed by RSPCA Qld. Inspectors are appointed by the chief executive of DEEDI, and only when the chief executive is satisfied that the person has satisfactorily finished training approved by the department. They are required to undergo several modules of study - in law, investigations, and animal welfare - then pass an exam, before they can be appointed as Inspectors. So no, it is not a situation of the local vet making their secretary an Inspector. Decisons made by Inspectors such as to enter a property and seize an animal or issue an Animal Welfare Direction ARE reviewable. The decisions are reviewed by an external authority - DEEDI. Persons subject to such a decison are informed of their right to appeal, as the information is supplied in an information notice given to them by the Inspector at the time. The Inspector MUST show DEEDI the reasoning for the decision, they must demonstrate that it was supported by the law and the DEEDI procedural guidelines for that decision to be upheld. That's right, the procedural guidelines are set by DEEDI - not RSPCA Qld. If the person subject to the decision is not happy with DEEDI's response, then as it is a state government department, they can go to the Ombudsman. If there is any doubt regarding the accuracy of this information then please feel free to do your own research of the Act itself; s114 Appointment of Inspectors, s150, s155, s160 - requirements for information notices about decisions (an information notice means the decision is reviewable). Also the Biosecurity Qld website gives information on how investigations under the Act are conducted. Knowledgeable sanity at last !!!! Thank you. Hopefully it might put paid to the deflection from the real issue. Thanks for trying anyway.

There are smaller breeders who fall into this category as well, and they usually sell through the pet shops or via the local papers. They need to be caught in the loop as well.

As I understand it, only those with less than 10 dogs will not be compelled to register and an ID number will be voluntary. Points of sale will require an ID number which negates any choice for the larger breeders, if they are to continue to sell their puppies. This I believe includes advertising points of sale. Breeders with less than 10 dogs are under the radar - which is the point I'm trying to make. The requirement for breeder ID to be included on microchipping papers ought to bring a lot o non ID'd breeders in, but there are still a vaste number of puppies which are not microchipped - hence the point of advertising or sale ID requirement. Obviously, as with every system there will remain a small number of breeders who manage to bypass, but it should still have an impact.

The problem - as you see it - is what you have stated. Those that choose to focus only on a negative campaign against the RSPCA, who are not perfect admittedly, but I don't see any other suggestions as to who could adequately police the legislation - are of course, free to be tunnel visioned as they choose. But it is not achieving anything proactive so far a I can discern. I just hope that enough less single focussed people view this post with a more proactive view and focus on the issue of putting ALL breeders in a position of responsible and accountable breeding practices. THIS is the purpose of the legislation. You all have the ability to express your concerns at the website for the State Government as noted in my first post - I have brought the matter to notice - you have the chance to have your say where it will count, and any concerns can be expressed on that site. I've done my bit, the rest is up to you as individuals to do something proactive - or not.

THIS!! I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this. Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders. Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ????

THIS!! I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this. Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders.

My apologies I assumed because you used the word we that you were speaking on behalf of a group rather than from a personal start point. I also agree that to date council have been disgraceful at policing laws and I tend to agree that the RSPCA is probably a good candidate but I will not support this until such time that there is an outside accountability process in place which allows a system of perceived fairness and an ability to be more transparent about their dealings and behaviours - just in case now and then a zealot gets in or influences something they shouldn't. I will have to think about why those who choose to breed dogs deserve to loose their right to privacy and free enjoyment of their property and assumed potentially guilty before they are reported - why do you say there are no requirements of of practice on breeders when the POCTA acts and mandatory codes and council by laws cover such things . If I could see some new requirements on breeders practices covered in this proposal I may understand but to date based on your link and what I have seen nothing in that regard will change.The requirements are the same as they are now. I say there is no accountability - because a lot of the problem breeders are anonymous and therefore unaccountable. For instance, go an ask a pet shop for the details of a breeder of a puppy in their shop ...... you will not get it, believed me, nor will you get it if you try to trace them through the vaccination card vet details. Registered breeders are traceable and accountable through their registration with canine councils - unregistered breeders are not at this point in time. Why do you assume that the RSPCA will, out of the blue, for no reason, stomp over your property ???? Their ability and stimulation to do so is no different to local councils, in my experience. I have also heard of situations where they are called and walk away disgusted because they've been called out on a grudge mission where their services are definitely not needed or justified. These situations aren't as newsworthy of course.

Hi yarracully. :) I understand you were replying to wags. However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal. So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation. The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency. Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant. The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past. Regards Px Tralee I think you might want to re-read your own posting . The wording you have quoted shows that a member of a charitable organisation (RSPCA) can enter premises without a warrant if they suspect anything being done to harm an animal. They do not require any proof prior to entering. They only need to suspect. The inspectors are not independant. How can they be when they operate under the umbrella of a body involved in formulation of the law and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the law. Recent history has already shown what can happen when a body is involved in formulating and enforceing law. The same body will also be involved in prosecuting this law. There has to be a seperation of power so that some form of accountability can exist. Under this law (As has already happened in NSW and VIC) an RSPCA inspector can walk past your front gate and hear one of your dogs bark/howl/growl. Under this act they have the right to enter your property and seize your dogs because they "Suspect" harm being done. They will then prosecute you in court and the whole time run up a huge bill for feeding your dogs which if you succeed in court (months later) you will have to pay (I believe at one point they were claiming upto $85.00 per day per dog). Thats unless they decide to rehome your dogs so that you cannot have them returned or they decide the dogs are not able to be rehomed and are PTS. All before the actual day in court. Also remember that if you do happen to win in court (Expensive to fight- they have donated money to fight with, do you?) you cannot sue for compensation or return of costs as they are acting within the law. As I have said before look at the two cases mentioned that have already occured. The new law will not redress the issue of abuse of power as this wording is the same as in the NSW and VIC laws that created the abuse of power. Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repaet it. There have also been cases where the RSPCA have been called, and they've walked away, finding the report to be bogus. As is normally the case, the focus will lie with the negative. Agreed that some members of any rescue organisation can be so wrapped up in materism that they are unable to see clearly and the situations you describe do occur, but others are more discerning. Unfortunately, the over-zealous situations make more news than the balanced ones. The question of who would do the policing, other than an organisation like the RSPCA, would seem relevant.

Firstly I'll deal with your assumptions ..... I am not speaking for an organisation. I am a concerned registered breeder who merely wants other concerned breeders to be aware of the legislation and the shortfalls and have their individual say on the matter, while the opportunity is available to do so. And I agree with your comments on breeders with less than 10 dogs. I believe it is very possible that those very breeders you comment on could well be responsible for that shortfall, ie keeping themselves under the radar. However, there are still the backyard breeders and smaller puppy farms to be made acountable as well. As to the RSPCA policing the legislation ..... I cannot totally disagree that there have been times where the RSPCA have been over zealous in their efforts to stamp out animal cruelty - I see this happening often in animal rescue organisations as they become too wrapped up in marterism to see clearly. However, their initial aim is good and as with any organisation, some members can make the whole organisation look out of kilter. However, there is the question of who would police the legislation and provided the RSPCA have guidelines to work with, they may well be one of the few organisations in a position to police it. This legislation is more beneficial because at the moment, a situation has to be reported before being policed because of breeder anonimity. It also places requirements of practice on the breeders which are currently non-existent. The breeder ID takes away that anonimity and gives families a means to identify breeders to authorities and report misnomers, and for the number of misnomers to be recorded, as is currently available for registered breeders. In fact it places the currently anonymous breeders under the same regulations and requirements and responsibilities as a registered breeder. Frankly, I can't understand why the benefits to the dogs (and for that matter, the families who are naive enough to buy these puppies) through this legislation needs to be explained. It's blatantly obvious to me.

I would personally like to see the same legislation for all breeders, particularly unregistered, whether accidental or intentional, regardless of the number of entire dogs owned. If you actually read the information, you will see that responsible registered breeders remain under the jurisdiction of their canine control council, apart from requiring an ID number from the State Government. They are deemed to be responsible already. It is not just about registering puppies, it is also about operating breeding programmes responsibly, and introduces health testing requirements as well as standards of care for breeding dogs and puppies. It seems that so far, posters on this forum are too stuck on issues of 'power over' to be able to see the proactive move towards stamping out BYB and puppy farms. You can have your say, direct to the horses mouth, by following the link I've provided. Ok. Im interested - go slowly - So how will this affect breeding programs and health testing or standards for breeding dogs and puppies. I see nothing in this proposal which will change anything which is already required in this regard. Are you saying that what ever agency is given the responsibility of keeping the registration details will also become involved in counselling or enforcing their own conditions on how an animal is chosen for breeding? Based on what is presented even if only one thing happens - that the RSPCA is charged with keeping these records and policing the regs and laws already in place whether someone has more than 10 dogs or how they want to sell and advertise their puppies everyone who has a litter will show up anyway as all puppies sold in Queensland have to be chipped. They would show up on current council records So whether or not anything changes these things could be policed and people prosecuted now - why do we need anything new? Because at the moment loads of puppies are being sold un-microchipped and there is no tracing or policing ability. Unregistered breeders currently enjoy no rules, regulations or requirements and of course anonimity. The breeder ID deletes their anonimity and also educates them on proper breeding practices, enforces those practices and yes, polices and prosecutes those that don't comply. Frankly, I believe that if they don't comply, they deserve to be prosecuted. We were afforded access to the full version of the legislation proposed and the requirements were more fully explained. I will see if I can find that document again - believe me, it's not just about microchipping, although breeder records on microchipping papers are included in the proposal. This can only be a good thing. Again, my only concern about the legislation is that it does not cover every breeder, whether accidental or intentional, and regardless of the number of dogs owned.

I would personally like to see the same legislation for all breeders, particularly unregistered, whether accidental or intentional, regardless of the number of entire dogs owned. If you actually read the information, you will see that responsible registered breeders remain under the jurisdiction of their canine control council, apart from requiring an ID number from the State Government. They are deemed to be responsible already. It is not just about registering puppies, it is also about operating breeding programmes responsibly, and introduces health testing requirements as well as standards of care for breeding dogs and puppies. It seems that so far, posters on this forum are too stuck on issues of 'power over' to be able to see the proactive move towards stamping out BYB and puppy farms. You can have your say, direct to the horses mouth, by following the link I've provided.

Hahahah !!!! Way off the mark there ..... in fact I'm an accredited breeder.

1. My identification level is no different to yours, and therefore I could ask the same question of you. If you are inquiring as to whether we might be associated with an organisation, the answer is no, but we are concerned registered breeders :D 2. We have not come onto a forum to persuade, but merely to inform and also to give the opportunity for individuals to 'have their say' of their own free will. 3. I think it's very possible that you are a little misguided in regard to 'big brother' tactics being utilised, given that rules, regulations and requirements will need to be met by breeders, which in turn gives guidelines to those inspecting. Misuse of power, in our view, would not be viewed as acceptable. Perhaps sensationalism about misuse of power might be a little pre-emptive on your part.

Qld State Government are introducing legislation to help stamp out Puppy Farmers. In essence, it is a great piece of legislation, however, it falls short in one area. Where breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland, this has little impact and in fact, the requirements of breeders is based on the requirements of Dogs Queensland breeder registration. Breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland only require to obtain an ID number with the State Government, which will more than likely be issued to them free - all else remains basically the same. Registered breeders puppies continue to be registered in the same manner as currently required. Unregistered breeders will be subject to fees and charges to obtain their ID number and register puppies etc. They will be given requirements and regulations to adhere to and will be prosecuted if necessary. The problem arises with the fact that the proposed legislation only requires breeders with 10 or more dogs to obtain a Breeders ID number and therefore fall under the regulations to be imposed. They've only gone halfway. Even 9 dogs can contribute greatly to the same problems we have currently with naive or irresponsible backyard breeders and the smaller puppy farms. This leaves plenty of loopholes for the continuation of abhorrent practices and the only way the new legislation can have a proper affect on the overall situation is to delete any reference to the number of dogs owned. Their initial outline of the legislation was to cover 'any breeder, whether acidental or intentional' with no reference to the number of dogs owned or utilised in breeding practices. If you even remotely care about these poor puppies, please take 5 minutes to have your say on the proposed legislation to regulate the large scale breeding of dogs in intensive breeding establishments. We believe the legislation should cover ALL breeders, accidental or otherwise and there should be no stipulation as to the number of dogs owned, because naive or irresponsible backyard breeders are as much of a problem as puppy farmers. If you agree, you can express your opinion in the comments section of the form. Closes 5th March Follow this link http://www.getinvolv...n/315/view.html

Qld State Government are introducing legislation to help stamp out Puppy Farmers. In essence, it is a great piece of legislation, however, it falls short in one area. Where breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland, this has little impact and in fact, the requirements of breeders is based on the requirements of Dogs Queensland breeder registration. Breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland only require to obtain an ID number with the State Government, which will more than likely be issued to them free - all else remains basically the same. Registered breeders puppies continue to be registered in the same manner as currently required. Unregistered breeders will be subject to fees and charges to obtain their ID number and register puppies etc. They will be given requirements and regulations to adhere to and will be prosecuted if necessary. The problem arises with the fact that the proposed legislation only requires breeders with 10 or more dogs to obtain a Breeders ID number and therefore fall under the regulations to be imposed. They've only gone halfway. Even 9 dogs can contribute greatly to the same problems we have currently with naive or irresponsible backyard breeders and the smaller puppy farms. This leaves plenty of loopholes for the continuation of abhorrent practices and the only way the new legislation can have a proper affect on the overall situation is to delete any reference to the number of dogs owned. Their initial outline of the legislation was to cover 'any breeder, whether acidental or intentional' with no reference to the number of dogs owned or utilised in breeding practices. If you even remotely care about these poor puppies, please take 5 minutes to have your say on the proposed legislation to regulate the large scale breeding of dogs in intensive breeding establishments. We believe the legislation should cover ALL breeders, accidental or otherwise and there should be no stipulation as to the number of dogs owned, because naive or irresponsible backyard breeders are as much of a problem as puppy farmers. If you agree, you can express your opinion in the comments section of the form. Closes 5th March Follow this link http://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/315/view.html Added Later: There are some who are viewing this post as it was meant - to assess the impact the legislation might have on the responsibility of breeding practices and accountability of ALL small and large breeders and thereby reduce and/or regulate puppy farming and backyard breeding practices to bring them into line with registered breeders. There are others who seem more focussed on a negative campaign against the RSPCA, particuarly in regard to being the policer of the legislation. EVERYBODY has the ability to express their concerns by going to the website and expressing them directly to the state government. You have the avenue, you have the notice ..... hopefully most of you, at least, might be proactive enough to take up the opportunity.