Tralee

Hi Maremma Sheepdog Beagle Saluki Great Dane Dappled Grey (Its a horse) :D Px

Hi Kirty. Lucky you. I can't describe the feeling I got watching your pup, but you must get that everyday. I am so jealous. Here I was thinking my dogs were dependant on me, and made me feel needed. What a lucky, lucky dog. Px

Hi Sky. You could use the other side of a broomhead. You are basically looking to sanitise the carpet in place of the disinfecting it. I just wonder how a weekly brush with Sodium bicarbonate (alkaline) will affect the carpet. Px

Hi ncarter Yep Sure is We always freight dogs/pups ourselves. It is much cheaper, and no more touble, to put them through Australian Air Express (AAE). Px

Agreed Except you haven't been very specific. Px

Let me explain it in simple terms.......... The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1979 applies to everyone who has anything to do with dogs (and other animals) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 2006 is additional to the above Act (made under the provisions of the Act) and provides further guidance on specific circumstances. In this case Part 3 sets out specific ADDITIONAL regulation for those involved in breeding). It applies NOT just when a person is undertaking the act of breeding a dog but THE WHOLE TIME A DOG IS KEPT WITH THE INTENT OF THAT PURPOSE The Code of Practice EXPANDS on the individual requirements set out in the above Regulations. The law is a TIERED SYSTEM with each additional document expanding on the specific requirements of the one above it. The code does NOT apply ONLY to the specific time of mating and whelping. What you expect, and what is fact in the legislation are two totally different things. I can comply but that I expect may be the exception. I think it would be errant to interpret the law outside of the spirit in which it was written. Aftererall, we live in a compassionate society. And the reading being made I think lacks compassion. From this point of view I suggest: Some of the standards will clearly not apply if I am not; mating two dogs; have a pregnant bitch or a bitch in whelp, or weaning puppies. Therefore it follows that the code is specific and particular and not universal. Although, it applies universally at those to times to everyone involved in the activity of breeding. It is absurd to link the times I am showing with the activity of breeding. The law may be an ass but to to make a reading in like manner simply makes a farce of the whole process. And, this is what I was saying earlier. The document lacks nuance. Px

Hi Ness1409 Yep. Its all very confusing. What you have to do is register you dogs with your local council. They will update the microchip details on the Qld registry. If you move to NSW then you will have to register the dogs again with the council from the area you are living in and they will update the microchip details. However, if you are travelling then the last recorded registry will need contact details. This is how it works in NSW, but here in QLD the council registration has nothing to do with the microchip, you actually have to do it separately I wish there was just one national register, that would make life SOOOO much easier In Vic council rego has nothing to do with the m/c either. Best thing to do is register with one company, I would recommend either Central Animal Records or National Pet Register, anyone in Australia at a pound etc will be able to check all 5 registries. Ehh Sorry if I muddied the waters over this. Council Registration has nothing to do with the NSW Companion Animals Register that records microchip details either. I should have said that you could have it done at the same time. The council should have access to the registry. They do have Rangers afterall. Px

When this was first published I rang and spoke with the person in charge of this with the DPI and I was told that in the activity of breeding dogs meant anyone who breeds a litter. I can give you examples of people who have been advised of what they have had to do to comply with this after visits from the RSPCA who have less than 6 dogs. One had a call from the RSPCA ... the breeder had dogs in a large fenced area - no puppies and was told that it did not fit the code and was given 4 weeks to comply. ... When the ranger returned again she was told she couldn't breed dogs on her premises as it did not comply with the code. steve Well Yes. Anyone who breeds a litter is involved in the activity of breeding, and they would need to demonstrate that they have the facilities required whether they are permanent or temporary and that they can be brought into service as needed. It means somewhere that can be set aside. Without such evidence, decisions might have to be made. Now just indulge me a minute here. For the purposes of comparison, let's compare hospitals(veterinary clinics if you like) with kennels. Maternity is a special facility but it is only needed during birth. It is simply absurd to suggest that dogs need to be permanently housed in kennels akin to a maternity ward. Therefore, owners are no more required to maintain permanent whelping facilities than they are to permanently house their dogs in runs away from the house. On the other hand, if you want to be extremist, this could all be leading to the situation where whelps need to be overseen by a Vet and the dogs have to kept at a clinic for, and from, mating through to whelping and homing of the pups. That is just plainly unrealistic, impractical and too costly. During the time frame of mating dogs, caring for a pregnant bitch, whelping, weaning and homing of the pups extraordinary considerations do have to be made. But I expect that the document is an adjunct to existing documents and applies to the specific and particular time of mating, whelping etc. Other wise it would make the other documents redundant and it is clearly stated that it does not. I understand that some people ruin things for the rest of us, but that's what we all have to contend with in all avenues of life. Px

Hi Ness1409 Yep. Its all very confusing. What you have to do is register you dogs with your local council. They will update the microchip details on the Qld registry. If you move to NSW then you will have to register the dogs again with the council from the area you are living in and they will update the microchip details. However, if you are travelling then the last recorded registry will need contact details.

Maybe you just can't get a bad Kelpie. ;) I just figured I was such a kelpie tragic I have a blind spot for their faults Well, if its a brown trout calender, look closely at the puppies. they just may be chocolate labs.

Hi mooki A crate trained newby. So get yourself a crate, it's a safe place for puppy and you may need it at times. You should definately introduce the puppies at a park. But only if both dogs are rested. It is not a good idea to bring a dog together with another one if it is tired and stressed from travelling to your place. I unfortunately did not foresee this problem with my new eight week pup. We arrived at about 10pm and the new pup practically barked down the street in protest. If you can get someone to help you to take the pup and meet with you and your staffy at the park as though it is a perfectly natural and chance meeting. It is not enough just to throw them together at a park. The less it appears to be staged the less concerned both dogs will be. You then adopt the puppy from the park and staffy gets to show off at home to the new house mate. And of course, you would not leave a new dog unsupervised. You should crate the puppy while you can't be watching it. Good Luck Px

Maybe you just can't get a bad Kelpie. ;)

good idea thanks showdog I'll keep that in mind for next years office SS. Px

Congratulations Gayle I was given a generic ACD calender from the Hire firm. ;) I agree that pet poses totally outclass show stacks. Px

Alyosha Exactly. Those guidelines scream to me of a hospital type situation or accomodation, a more institutionalised facility. There, strict controls on 'biosecurity' are paramount. And I think you are right again it is a Code. But more than that it falls within the auspices of both the DOGS NSW Code of Ethics and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200. That I think places it in its intended perpective as far as DOGS NSW are concerned. To those of us with a prefix it is a sub-code. Px

Agree with espinay - I have a website that says "no puppies available at the moment" but which also clearly indicates I am contemplating breeding. So I'm caught in this. I'll be working with the requirements to sort out my compliance, something which annoys the hell out of me because I think dogs are better bred in family homes, and this is not a set of guidelines suited for a family home. Maybe someone needs to wind Dr Dunbar up to send a message to our regulators when he is out here in January? This is rubbish regulation, apart from anything else. Does NSW have an OBPR equivalent I wonder? SkySoaringMagpie It is a rubbish document if, and only if, it does not apply specifically to the particular activity of breeding. It is not a rubbish document if it has to be observed universally. In saying that I do not intend a contradiction. I think it needs to be understood as it is encompassed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1979 To wit: And that there are other laws and regulations, for example; the Local Government Act, 1993; or the Companion Animals Act, 1998 that cater for 'other activities.' In my efforts to come to terms with the document I don't think it is helpful to take a literal or fundamentalist position. That would be to claim the document is comparable to our Quarantine practices and processes and it does not seem to me to have been the authors' and collaborators' intentions. Regards Px

espinay2 Well, it now becomes a philosphical argument over the meaning of Breeding. It can be taken as an adjective, which I would hasten to add makes the document 'punative.' Or, it can be understood as a verb as in 'the breeding' of cats and dogs, which obviously casts the document in a less restrictive light. It will be necessary to start interpreting the document in a more abstract manner by which I mean imagining the situation in the guide dog and greyhound industries. There the animals may be, for all intents and puposes, permanently housed and therefore permanently regulated. I don't think mum and dad breeders would or should warrant breaches. But again, I am going to sit with the interpretation of the document as 'the breeding' of cats and dogs and not extract the meaning from it to be 'a breeding' cat or dog. Px

Hi SkySoaringMagpie. My 2012 Maremma Calender should arrive soon. In fact, it may be the article that is awaiting collection at the P.O. People can find the calender by going here. Maremma Articles Px

And therein is the escape clause, namely, where it states: 'the activity of breeding dogs and cats' should be read as the time and duration in which dogs or cats are bred. I can't imagine many people are going to have multiple dogs involved in 'the activity of breeding' all at the same time. Therefore many of the clauses are redundant. If they have multiple dogs or cats being mated simultaneously, then it is for them to address the issues as they arise. This whole exercise in this thread is only an attempt to firstly, make sense of the document and secondly, to consider its ramifications. If I appear to be advocating for it or taking a stance in opposition to it then I have been misunderstood. My dogs can't read, I have to do it for them. Px

Exactly. The issue is about choice. And that bring us back the the triple criteria I have mentioned before. Which practises, with which dogs, in which situations will be the most efficacious? The permutations and combinations are enormous. But most importantly, as I have been thinking about the document, if the meaning of the title is not skewed to an understanding of breeding as an adjective, that is breeding as in keeping an entire dog (which would put the document into the context of anyone with a prefix) but is extended to the meaning of breeding as a verb which is to say the time in which the animals are mated, whelped and weaned, then the requirements of the code become particular and limited. In other words, it only needs to be enacted during the actual breeding (verb) of the animals. The other documents will, therefore, cover other non-breeding times. But the other point is that the document could not have been envisaged or compiled with the intention of applying to one individual person with dogs. It must be particular and universal. That is why I made the point: I suspect the definition of terms is lacking the essential nuance companion animal owners will be looking for, and who can be expected to start screaming about its ommission. Just as homing pet shop puppies before eight weeks of age does not apply to all puppies, the setting of a baseline in which to define the criteria for which investigations may be assessed, could not have been designed, in particular, to undermine the majority of dog owners but was surely intended more universally to apply to those who believe they can disregard the dignity of our more favoured sentient beings. Regards Px

Well you shouldn't remove my comment from the context of byb. But your question is exactly what my query is. How does the code benefit, and not restrict, among others of course, the breeding of working dogs like the Maremma? Also, the situation in Italy is very interesting but we are concerned with NSW at the moment. Px

Hi Jumabaar. And there in lies the dilemma. I am certain there is no differentiation between a single bitch that lives at home with the family and who sleeps on the 'sofa' and, for want of an example in context, a large greyhound breeding complex. I will be looking at the document many more times, but I suspect the definition of terms is lacking the essential nuance companion animal owners will be looking for, and who can be expected to start screaming about its ommission. Px

Yep. I don't want to prattle on because I have more to add. But, if we approach the document from a minimal compliance viewpoint, such as mum, dad and the kids who have two dogs which they show and who breed one litter, then I think it could be argued that, at present, while the standards are mandatory some of them would be unnecesessary and nigh impossibile. Those standards then become ridiculous. And yet, if one litter can be bred from a bitch then another five could follow. So now we venture into moral and ethical territory. Let's face it: You cannot legislate for saintliness. But you can legislate against its antithesis. More to follow. Px

That is so sweet! Chloe was very clever to take herself up the driveway of someone like SC, who'd care about helping her home. Your Frenchie, being just as clever, would probably board a ship bound for New Caledonia or Tahiti where it could ask in its native language, what's the way home. Yeah maybe! But I think you mean my Maremma and I am more likely to say: Arrivederci il mio cane :D