Waldem

Hi! Does anyone know of a reputable dog chiropractor in the Perth area please? I have a pet puppy buyer (dog is now 7) that sounds like she needs a check up. I'm in Qld so no contacts in WA unfortunately. Thank you!

Ok, Fit for A King, you don't know anything about GCCC rulings, that's fair enough. Could you then perhaps be so kind as to let us all know exactly the precise benefits that Mark Shepherd has obtained for DogsQld members in your Shire please? That would be very helpful to your Gold Coast fellow DogsQld members as I can then go and hit Mark up as to why he has not managed to obtain the same benefits for us - whatever they may be - I'm really dying to know. I have emailed Mark in great detail twice and spoken to him on the phone at great length once. I'm now waiting for him to reply to my last email. I'm certainly not talking about him behind his back. I'm simply continuing to talk while I await his answer! No point sitting around. I also contacted today the President of my Dog Obedience Club as they are quoted by GCCC as supporting and being consulted in the Breeder Permit system. This apparently is not the case and this is the first she knew of their honorable mention. They were against the "dopey" idea from the start. Makes one wonder yet again about the ethics of the people putting all this through.

Yes, this is exactly what we don't know. Are these laws enforceable even when they clearly contradict State Laws or simple Civil Rights - like Lawful use of your property, enjoyment of your property (ie the dog), discrimination of one group over another, hindering my competitive ability over my peers, etc., etc. so how do we find out I wonder?

Fit for A King - I'm still waiting to find out exactly what those "results on the ground" are that Mark Shepherd has achieved for Gold Coast residents - specific results please. Not waffle - Sections, sub-sections, Codes - written "on the ground" real results. I say he has achieved absolutely NOTHING, not one single advantage for DogsQld members.

Definition of a kennel for Gold Coast City Council is: “kennel” means any place used or intended for use for the keeping, boarding, breeding or training of more than three (3) dogs; GCCC is giving themselves accolades for hosting the only Pilot Scheme but they have done this without any public meetings - certainly none that I've heard of and I belong to two of the Clubs they've quoted as being part of the creation of the scheme - DogsQld and Gold Coast Dog Obedience.

I've just spent 9 days on a 33,000 acre cattle property as a guest. The dogs there are all farm bred for many generations and LOOK like they could have come out a Mexican back alley! However, they are incredible and it would be completely impossible to muster without them. I agree that farmers do not need this extra concern but that is what they will be facing.

Yes, Steve, I agree, we are not perceived as being any better than any other type of dog breeder nor can we expect any discriminatory special treatment from any other dog would-be breeder. However, here on the Gold Coast we already have a group (Greyhound breeders - most of whom would be recreational) who do have special rights – no registration required and no limit on the number of dogs. Do we have a precedent? If they are allowed, why can’t every other recreational dog owner/breeder/exhibitor have the same privileges? My other point is that we can all sit back and assume that DogsQld is in there fighting for breeder’s rights as I was naively doing but the fact of the matter is that here on the Gold Coast DogsQld has achieved absolutely totally nothing for their members, not one tiny new advantage. (I am still waiting to be corrected on this by the Poster constantly telling everyone about Mark’s “results” – section and subsections need to be quoted please). Mr Shepherd also told me verbally that he has to wear an RSPCA “cap” too. I have thought about this and emailed him about this too. RSPCA is completely and totally opposed to dog breeders, especially purebred dog breeders. If Mr Shepherd feels he needs to wear an RSPCA cap, then he has no right to wear a DogsQld Cap. If he did this in my workplace here, he would be sacked immediately. You wear the cap of the organization that is paying you to wear their cap. As an aside, I exhibited at two dog shows this month and have spoken to as many people as were unlucky enough to be standing near me at any point in time – unanimously they all were only interested in looking after themselves and were either moving to another Council, not keeping their dogs registered, dogs in the house, dogs registered to other people and properties, etc. So no breeder I spoke to was planning further than the ends of their own noses and also the current legislation is already forcing law abiding people into being non law abiding. I am not a political scaremonger by the way, I’ve never even read the Local Laws until now and until this month didn’t know what an LGA even was – I’m a law abiding little dog owner/exhibitor who has read what my Council has publicly published on their website and have scared myself. We are all in big trouble and more importantly so are our dogs and the breeds we are passionate about. Oh and another thing – in regard to farm bred dogs – you are of course in exactly the same boat as every other owner of an entire dog in Australia. The fact that there is no other way to muster vast tracts of Australian high country than with well bred dogs is of no interest to PETA and Co – they don’t want you having cattle and sheep either or having them stomp all over potential pristine wilderness. And the fact that your method of breeding dogs for a job, rather than for a look won’t help you much when the PETA type groups catch onto the culling rate of farm bred dogs. Everyone animal on an income producing property either does a job or provides an income or they are culled – most of us completely understand this realty. You will have no chance of getting an Animal Liberationist to understand that. Remember we have one well known Aussie Actress currently fighting for the rights of Wild Pigs

Could the person on this forum who keeps bleating about “results achieved by Mark Shepherd” please enunciate EXACTLY what those results are in relation specifically to the Gold Coast City Council because I’m on the Gold Coast, have just read through all the Breeder Permit information, the GCCC By-Laws (specifically Subordinate Local Law No. 12 Keeping and Control of Animals 2007), the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 that GCCC and Mark Shepherd claims is the cause of the decision to create a Breeder Permit system and I can see nothing, not one new advantage that has been achieved for DogsQld breeders. I also spoke to Mark Shepherd a couple of weeks ago (DogsQld). I’ve just emailed him again with many more questions. It’s easy for Council or DogsQld Representatives to make soothing verbal statements to us but if you’d all care to google the above By-Laws and read through them, I myself have been thoroughly frightened. If you do agree to pay $369.00 for a Breeder Permit and get issued with same, make sure you read through all the conditions as you may find yourself agreeing to things that as an experienced dog owner you don’t actually wish to do. For example in the GCCC Code of Practice For the Keeping and Breeding of Entire Cats and Dogs (note: this is for “keeping”, not just “breeding” entire dogs – more on that later) under Section S30 “A permit condition may require the holder of the permit to desex an entire female animal which the holder of the animal has retired from breeding”. The wording is vague – “may”. The following Guidelines are also a little hazy “The permit holder should desex each animal retired from breeding (retirement age is now compulsory at 6) or provide a written statement from a registered veterinarian as to why it cannot be desexed.” Four years (from age 2 to 6) is not enough time for a breeder to breed his dream litter because as we all know there are so many variables. Our personal circumstances may not be good, the ideal stud has not shown himself, a large breed bitch may cycle 18 months apart, finances not available for a couple of years for import semen, failure of AI, messed up seasons, etc. Four years goes fast. If I finally am able to obtain the perfect import semen to match my particular bitch and she so happens to be 9 years old, then why should some other authority arbitrarily declare I can’t use her? The old DogsQld system of a vet check over 8 years of age or over 4 litters was completely reasonable and fair but an arbitrary age is not. Mark Shepherd verbally assured me that the fact that I may wish to show my 8 year old bitch and she needs to be entire for showing is enough. However, there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing anywhere in the GCCC bylaws that I can find that will allow me this. Mr Shepherd assured me that in my particular case, since I have no plans to breed in the foreseeable future there is no need to apply for a Breeder Permit. However I now read at Section 19(a)(i) of the GCCC Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 2007 that it specifically states that if you wish to keep one or more entire animals you must get a breeder permit. This is completely regardless of whether the dog is a pet or for breeding – the wording implies that any entire animal is a breeding animal. If you don’t apply for and are successful in obtaining a breeder permit and your dog is entire, whether you an ANKC registered breeder or an average pet owner, you are immediately in breach of the by-laws. Once again verbal assurances from DogsQld are not matching up with written By Laws. Obviously they are not yet pouncing on the thousands of registered entire dogs living on the Gold Coast but the By-Laws are already in place to the effect that we have near enough to Mandatory Desexing. Perhaps they plan to run this “pilot scheme” for two years, claim it highly successful and then enforce these 2007 by-laws? I’ve seen discussion on the forum that ANKC breeders are the only ones likely to receive a Breeder’s Permit but with GCCC, once again, there is NOTHING in writing to suggest that an ANKC breeder has more right to breed their dog than any other dog owner. The only thing I can see that a DogsQld member has an advantage in is cheap registration and the ability to not have to wear a registration tag if the collar damages the coat for showing. That’s it. There is no other extra special deal guaranteed in writing for registered ANKC breeders. The above two benefits have been in place for years – right back in 1980 when I first joined CCCQ in fact. There is nothing in the Breeders Permit conditions to state that your dog must be purebred or that you be part of an Association. Only that you take reasonable care to not pass on hereditary defects. We are not getting any special treatment at all. That was my original complaint to Mark Shepherd and after reading the relevant Acts, my complaint stands. I agree though with “Steve” that it would be impossible to legislate to only breed purebred dogs and there is a huge anti purebred dog sentiment out there. Also ultimately a dog is simply an item of property and is it possible for our Councils to control such things as feeding, vaccinations, desexing etc., when ultimately no one can stop us from humanely killing our “property” for any reason or no reason? I’m not a legal person at all, but this does not make sense to me. They can’t stop me killing my dog but they can force me to desex it?? Also the GCCC Permit system states that this is being put in place as a result of the Qld State Law that has been enacted, namely, Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. This is an easy document to read through and you will not even find the word “Breeder” in this Act. Nor is it mentioned or implied in Section 3 Purposes of the Act. This State Law is in relation to registration and identification (microchipping) of cats and dogs and management of restricted dogs. Nothing at all to do with breeders. So why are we being told that the State Government is behind the Breeder Permit system when it’s not? Does anyone know any different to this or can enlighten me please? To the contrary Section 6(3) of the Act states in part, “…if this Act and a local law are inconsistent about a requirement, the local law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency” So are the Council By Laws and Breeder Permit system invalid? Additionally Section 7(1) states in part "... this Act does not limit a civil right or remedy that exists apart from this Act, whether at common law or otherwise" - therefore, surely the GCCC by forcing me to desex my dogs and/or cost me a fortune building pens and paying their $369 permit fee every 3 years, or simply not allowing me to keep more than 2 dogs or keep them entire or breed them as a hobby - surely this is limiting my civil right to enjoy my property (dog) and also to not be disadvantaged in my hobby of showing my dogs and offsetting my hobby costs in selling puppies occasionally as a breed fancier (not a kennel) against other breed fancier's in other parts of Australia? I personally loathe the Designer Dog fad or the stupidity of crosses advertised such as Border Collie x Great Dane, Kelpie x Staffie, etc., however I THINK these owners have a civil right to enjoy their property and even commercially benefit from it and the legislation I’m facing is not only unworkable, it’s quite possibly unlawful. Education would probably be far more beneficial that almost impossible legislation. Additionally Mr Shepherd told me that it’s approximated that only 9% of puppies produced in Australia each year are from ANKC breeders. Additionally that a walk down the aisles of the Gold Coast Animal Welfare League will show maybe only one or two dogs that appear to be purebred (purebred not necessarily meaning papered) – so are purebred ANKC breeders the main problem as to why so many dogs are being euthanized? Obviously not and yet we’re the ones being targeted as we are openly registered dog breeders. On the Gold Coast too, for many years we have only been allowed one dog on land under 600 m2 and two dogs on land over 600 m2. You can apply for a third dog (non refundable approx $300 fee) but one of the conditions of the application is that all 3 dogs must be desexed. Once again now that I’ve actually sat down and read the State Law, there is nothing in there that allows any Council to limit the number of dogs we can register with them arbitrarily. So now we have limited numbers of dogs allowed, something near enough to mandatory desexing, compulsory breeder permits – all of which it is claimed is required by Qld Law but absolutely none of which is stated in Qld Law. Does anyone out there know if this is lawful or unlawful and what can be done about it? Remember that the GCCC scheme is a two year “pilot scheme” so if we don’t squeal now and stop this, it will be hailed a marvelous success and rolled out straight through all of Qld. Interestingly Greyhound breeders are free to do as they please on the Gold Coast by comparison to ANKC breeders and the Greyhound Racing Authority receives a number of mentions in the Council by-laws. They can have as many dogs as they please provided (according to Section 37) they are not a nuisance to neighbors. Incredibly, they don’t even have to council register them!!!!!! As long as they are all registered with the Greyhound racing association. That seems to be the only association that has truly moved to provide real benefits for its members and yet I would guess that the mortality rate in their offspring would be immeasurably higher than those of an ANKC or even a Designer Dog breeder! We all know what happens to greyhounds that aren’t fast. An ANKC breeder is obliged to take back and rehome any pup they breed. Why has DogsQld not been able to get a similar deal for its registered breeders? We have an extremely strict Code of Ethics but at least it makes sense and if we want to do something like line breed a generation we can talk to people at DogsQld that are also experienced breeders and deal with knowledgeable people – not someone like that goose at GCCC that thinks a dog will mate when struck down with Parvovirus (page 20 Code of Practice) – they probably think it’s an inheritable disease, but I digress. It makes far more sense for DogsQld to have a Code of Ethics that we all agree to and designed by people who do actually breed dogs, then if we break that Code of Ethics, we get thrown out of DogsQld and tossed to GCCC which we would then deserve. Designer dog breeders as they like to call themselves can form an organization too with a Code of Ethics! Mr Shepherd also stated to me that it was all in place under the Companion Animal Act but (a) this is a NSW Act and has nothing to do with Qld so I have just asked him next if there is a Companion Animal Act in Qld that I have not been able to discover, and (b) it also states under Frequently Asked Questions Part 2, question 17 that "Councils do not have powers under either the Local Government Act or the Companion Animals Act to generally enforce a limit on the number of animals kept as pets by all residents. Nor do councils have powers to require a person to apply for approval to keep more than the number of animals specified in a local Orders Policy". Granted that is NSW not Qld but since none of the Qld Act make any mention of number of animals to be kept, does our GCCC have the power to do this? How have they got away with it for 10 years with no one saying anything? I do hope someone on this forum has a legal mind and is able to enlighten me on all of the above! I agree with a previous post that we should all be sticking together and it’s not enough to simply find a way round the laws temporarily for yourself and not care about the group or the future. Myself I only have two female dogs right now, one too old and one too young to breed and no plans whatsoever to breed in the foreseeable future anyway. So I could ignore all this. However, 2-3 years from now I will probably want a third young dog to start up and right now I can’t have that and I may want to breed a litter if my girl grows up as planned and if I can find a stud – by then it might be too late and I have no interest in breeding “illegally” as such. Right now, if my Council decided to enforce its By-Laws today I would have to either desex both dogs or pay $369 and HOPE to get a breeders permit even though I have no desire to breed. For those of you who are content with this status quo, I’m sorry but something is very wrong with this new system. For the person or people telling me what a great job DogsQld have done, you need to come up with some facts.