chriswiddler

"If you're thinking of getting a dog, consider visiting the RSPCA or another reputable rescue organisation first. There are many wonderful animals looking for new loving homes. But if you're seeking a specific breed then you'll need to find a responsible breeder. Check out the RSPCA Smart Puppy Buyer's Guide for some advice on how to go about it. " And there we have it. Competition for the customer's dollar. Let the R$PCA show the parents and where the animal was born!! Lining their own pockets at the dog's expense. If they don't sell they die. Who is the real villain here?

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 I believe that the R$PCA has learnt from PETA and the Humane Society that it's not the message but the messenger that's important. The toxic sludge they spread is more appealing when touted by celebrities. Never mind dogs will suffer even more than at present. Difficult tounderstand how so many are allowed on a dog site given their anti-dog message. They will simply undermine any attempt to fight the legislation.

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 ..... A puppy farm is anyone who breeds dogs. It never ceases to amaze me how these ratbags never report a single incidence of cruelty. They want to stop breeding altogether. They have even infiltrated DoL with their toxic slurs on dog owners. The law is there and enforceable, strengthening it to include ordinary breeders under the guise of ending puppy farms will simply make it less enforceable and they can continue to seize and kill harmless family pets with gay abandon as they treat them as disposable commodities. If dog owners and breeders don't unite soon the days of companion animal ownership are coming to an end.

Dogs killed by the truckload obviously don't faze you. As long as they're not yours of course?

Well said. Opponents want to end all breeding, puppy farms is just the emotional shoe-in to anti-breeding legislation.

Ditto. Regulate dangerous dogs and their owners, not breeds as there is no such thing.

Today it's Puppy Farmers (i.e. anyone who breeds more dogs than you do) tomorrow it'll be BYBs and then registerd breeders. Be careful what you wish for. Better to regulate than ban.

This was one of the lowest acts the R$PCA have done, poor Clifford a Pitbull never had a chance. Poor Clifford was thrown from a car in Sydney in 2004, emaciated and injured he was taken to the R$PCA the society that claims to care for all creatures great and small. The R$PCA said please donate as much as you can to help poor Clifford and raised about $3500, then announced this poor dog had suddenly become aggressive or some BS to that effect and PTS poor Clifford and kept the money. :rolleyes: Why was poor Clifford PTS ? Because the R$PCA does not rehome Pitbulls that's why. Shame, Shame, Shame R$PCA. thanks for explaining Cliiford to me. What a sad story. :D It's amazing how money can change things. I'm sure when the idea of the RSPCA was first thought of it's intentions were good but as we know, money corrupts. Actually , historically the RSPCA was formed to get animals off the street. The belief was that dead was less suffering than wandering the streets savaging for food. This fitted in with the pollies of the day who also wanted stray dogs off the street so they were backed heavily in that regard. Rehoming to people other than their owners them is a relatively recent development, so too is private rescue. Actually when the R$PCA was formed it was more about horses and mules being mistreated and overburdened and the same people involved also fought to end slavery. It waspart of the enlightenment. Killing animals to save them is a new concept which seems to have evolved as the use of horse and carts went by the way. Goebbels would be proud at the debasement of the language to mean the opposite of what it says. Homeless dogs do not necessarily suffer as many societies show in fact dogs with homes seem to suffer more especially at the hands of their saviours!!!

That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the RSPCA being incompetent They are case studies of what the organisation is about. Lining their own pockets in view at the expense of animals.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Show us yer facts, Max! Seizing and killing harmless family pets by the thousands because of their looks is a good place to start!!!!

It doesn't mean friendly either. Do we have some objection to friendly dogs in some breeds? Do you seriously expect that every breed of dog greets people they do not know , slobbering and with their tail wagging ? I've spent plenty of time with dogs that according to their breed standard should be "aloof". They certainly haven't taken the arm off or threatened someone that's approached them. Aloof means that they simply don't give a toss, it does not mean they are timid , aggressive or otherwise unbalanced. The arguement of changing the breed standard just doesn't wash with me, given the calls to add such breeds as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to the list. It makes no sense when the SBT has written into it's standard and requires a dog that is highly intelligent and affectionate. You are focusing on the word "aloof" as if it was written to mean killer To many people an aloof dog means just that - killer. An aloof dog is also harder to "read" when approaching. It's OK it's aloof not getting ready to strike by eyeing you down. Given people can't read dogs in general better to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing. Just as silly to call the English Bull Terrier the gladiator of the canine race. If we don't act others will as is happening now.

Because there is no merit. They kill and abuse far more animals than the animal abusers they claim to oppose!!! And that's a fact Jack!

You are quite correct. An aloof dog is more likely to bite and as you say socially unacceptable to people today. ANKC are simply digging their own grave as they did with BSL. Dog owners are facing massive attacks at the moment without having the usually suspects white-anting them from within.

The puppy farm arguement is just a red herring. They can be easily be controlled. The real victims will be dog breeders in general. They want to make it too expensive for people to comply and those that can will do so while those that have little money to fight pexpensive court battles will be the real victims. Needless to say the self-styled animal welfare lobby will pocket the cash and kill the animals. Is that conflict of interest with animal abuse ?

Well said. "Work with State/Territory Governments to develop national standards for the breeding and selling of companion animals"" is the real agenda of the self-styled animal welfare lobby and it's hangers on. Easy targets first then eventually all breeders. Of course they wont ban breeding outright just make it so expensive no one can comply and the real animal abusers who have the money to fight back will continue on as usual as they pick on the mentally ill and indigent. They in any case will continue to kill by the truckload in the name of saving animals. Hmm reminds me of "special treatment" IN ANOTHER TIME AND ANOTHER PLACE STILL WITHIN LIVING MEMORY!!! Linguists would have a field day with this mobs debasement of the English language.

The small ,print says it isn't able to detect breed in pure-bred dogs either!

The suffering of dogs in puppy farms is miniscule to the suffering caused by the RSPCA to companion animals and their owners Australia wide. Killing dogs primarily on looks (animal abuse in my mind). We need independant verification on all they claim as mostly it is media spin for donations. In my opinion they shpold be like Mothers Against Drink Driving they should simply be a lobby group and enforcement should be left to the police who don't have a conflict of interest, perceived or real.

Dogs will continue to die as long as groups like RSPCA treat them as disposable commodities. There is a shortfall in pets in Australia and that is being filled by pet shops and non-registered breederfs. When RSPCA goes no-kill then we may see a change in community attitudes to companion animals.

If the common law states APBT and AST are the same then even if council considers them restricted wouldn't that automatically make them unrestricted

If the dogs are considered to be Pit Bulls then according to common law in Queensland wouldn't that would make them Amstaffs and so now not covered by restricted legislation? The Minister needs to address why harmless family pets are to be killed!

And if for some reason the owners didn't show up within the 72 hour holding time the animals would be put down. Disgusting behaviour by the council but typical of what to expect from ACOs whose qualifications for their job are ... nil!!! Expect more of this as the attacks on dog owners increase with council powers.

If the government legislates that ASTs are not PBs then wouldn't this over-ride Qld Common Law that they are? Or does it mean PBs are also ASTs and so no longer restricted? It will probably take another court case to clarify.

Well I guess we see it differently I knwo the last time was in the seventies and when you are talking 35 years or so that is nearly half as long as the amstaff has been around and in that long you can breed 20 generations deep so in dog breeding terms it is a long time. Fighting lines of both exist and they are dual registered and interbred so people who claim they are different need to explain how an AST without papers is automatically an APBT. Whatever way you cut it an APBT and an AST are one and the same. Legally the world includes the SBT in the same fashion. Given that strains of both are also indistinguishable and until the 1970s they were also interbred, especially in the US then they too are also the same breed. The Boston has been bred completely away so is a different breed now, though they can be quite fiesty little beasts.

I hope you are right.