liverchips

Ahhh, fair enough

"Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group." If you are registered member if the ANKC you don't get any physical inspections by the club to ensure you are actually housing your dogs correctly and that they are in good health or that you are following the mandatory codes and have the right type of "set up". If you are not a member of the ANKC you will be inspected by a council officer and your kennels will have to comply with the code of practice. If you are a member of the ANKC you are exempt from this.

So you believe that the general population should have to do what they are told by a government regardless of whether they think it is what is best for their dog in case someone somewhere else they don't know might have unwanted litters? Sorry not me. Before we go making new laws about stopping where we think dumped dogs come from to a point where it reduces all dog owner rights to non existent we need accurate stats. No one has a hard time selling puppies, there is a constant demand for them and none of this is addressing the demand or why people dump them. Exactly. Where are the stats to support all the claims made by these extremist groups Even the number of dogs destroyed every year seem to change every time an expert quotes the number of pets PTS every year. At some stage the blame needs to be put onto the people who dump their dogs. If every dog was chipped you could track that dog all the way back to the breeder and even the vet who chipped it. We should try and understand exactly why these dogs are being dumped rather than making emotional assumptions about why they are dumped, otherwise we will waste a heap of time and energy targeting the wrong type of breeder or business and achieve nothing for these dogs.

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/animal-group-wants-all-pet-dogs-desexed/2568442.aspx?page=4 Animal group wants all pet dogs desexed DAMON CRONSHAW 25 May, 2012 06:10 AM The state government should introduce mandatory desexing for dogs, a Hunter-based animal welfare group says. The call follows a state report released this month that said 21,670 dogs were euthanised in NSW in 2010-11, which represented 33per cent of all dogs impounded. To read the Herald's opinion, click here. The Newcastle Herald recently reported a savage dog attack on Mirrabooka’s Natalie Southam, aged 19. Two American Staffordshire terriers jumped two-metre fences and attacked Ms Southam on Friday, May 11, leaving her with wounds to her ear, back of the neck and arms that required 19 stitches. The Society of Companion Animal Rescuers spokeswoman Callie Redman said such incidents should prompt the government to introduce mandatory dog desexing and a licensing system for breeders. ‘‘I don’t like breeding full stop. I despise it,’’ Ms Redman said. ‘‘There’s too many animals living in horrendous conditions and dying every day.’’ Lake Macquarie mayor and MP Greg Piper said he backed licences for breeders and mandatory desexing for dogs of non-registered breeders. The state government has established the Companion Animals Taskforce, which Charlestown MP Andrew Cornwell, a veterinarian, chairs. Mr Cornwell said the taskforce had released a discussion paper, which recommended the introduction of a breeder licensing system. But he said an incentive-based desexing system was recommended, rather than a mandate. The taskforce’s recommendation involves a rebate for owners who desex their animals within three months of registration. He believed the move would be ‘‘far more effective’’ than a mandate. Cr Piper said he would examine why the taskforce was ‘‘shying away’’ from mandatory desexing. ‘‘I imagine it might be a regulatory problem, but the state government is willing to regulate in other areas for community risk,’’ he said. Cr Piper said the taskforce seemed to be using the ‘‘carrot as opposed to the stick’’ in the case of owners desexing dogs. But he said the carrot approach may not work. ‘‘Many of the people who are irresponsible in the way they breed dogs are probably not going to be attracted by an incentive,’’ he said. ‘‘There seems to be some machismo associated with having fertile dogs.’’ Ms Redman said the government should put a stop to puppy farms. ‘‘Animals are suffering at the hands of people using them like factory machines and pumping out puppies for profit,’’ she said.

So what is your definition of a "puppy farm" or "puppy factory"? If a show judge has 50 Golden Retrievers is he a puppy farmer? or is he factory farming dogs?

One of the arguments used by anti "designer dogs" is that designer dogs like "cavoodles" and "spoodles" etc. are bred in puppy farms. If a puppy farm is registered or if a puppy is sold through a pet shop i.e. domestic animal business they must be microchipped. Does anyone have any actual data or stats that support this theory The 'theory' that they're bred in puppy farms? The problem is that there's no universally accepted version of what a 'puppy farm' is. Some establishments that I would consider puppy farms are actually registered businesses that are licensed to do what they do - thus, they're not illegal. Being legal in my opinion doesn't make them okay, or something that I would ever consider supporting by buying a dog from them. Nobody advertises that they're a puppy farm, that would be marketing suicide. But a lot of registered establishments that are perfectly legal domestic animal businesses that microchip their pups and operate all above board, but are what I would consider puppy farms. A lot of similar establishment aren't registered though. I'd never support either kind, regardless of how legal and officially legitimate they are. I'm not going to name establishments on here, but there are a number of "kennels" with nice sounding names like heatherview palace or blah blah fields, that type of thing, that you can order puppies from online. They're not going to put pictures of animals kept in cages and continually bred from. They have pictures that look like stock, getty images type photos of puppies running through fields etc. Lots of crosses like cavoodles, spoodle etc, are bred by "backyard breeders" - you find them through ads in the paper, and someone's bred their pet or decided to start breeding dogs. Those aren't what I would consider puppy farms, but they're equally not something that I want to support. Have a google, it won't take you long to find some pretty shocking things. I agree with your definition of "puppy farm/factory". The term "puppy farm" conjures up different images into different people’s heads but normally its images of dogs in tiny cages in their own filth etc. These same images have been used by animal liberation type groups to get the publics attention but I came across a thread on the burkes backyard forum about a new "kennel" being built in Victoria. Some people have called it a "puppy farm" and although I don't support commercial breeders I was surprised to read that this breeder intends to build a "dog park" with sand pits and even an in ground swimming pool amongst other things. They have a website that goes over everything www.hepburnpark.com Would you consider this place a "puppy farm"? Look, I'm not going to get into the realm of defamation and unsubstantiated comments, but my understanding is that that establishment is being developed by the operator of a known .. establishment that I in no way support. I could never lend my support to any operation, commercial or otherwise, that exists to breed dogs like that. Crosses, designed to cater to a market that really should be educated and informed. That's a nice website with great PR and it's slick and could really be marketing anything. It's got a lot of words but they don't actually say anything. (I'm a bureaucrat, I'm very adept at writing crap like that and smoothing things over and promising everything while providing nothing. I can recognise it a mile away, too.) Dogs don't give a rat's about landscaping and how pristine gardens are. That's designed to appeal to people, and no amount of landscaping, lawns, paths, hedges and trees are going to convince me that something like that is something worth supporting in principle, financially, or in any other way. The whole website reads like it's trying to convince me of its virtue and almost cover its arse - to me, it screams run a mile. The part defending itself against Animal Activists as if they're a cohesive group of devilish clones with a unified agenda who could never supporting the breeding of dogs, is ludicrous. And it's dog whistling. I find places that are designed and purpose built to breed dogs like that fundamentally unnecessary. I disagree with them on principle, and even if the dogs are given access to a "private dog park" and whelp in boxes with whatever thickness of insulated whatever.. I don't care. What Jed said is spot on - dogs aren't agricultural creatures and they can't be treated that way. The pictures on that site are from god knows where, as it appears that the place hasn't even been finished yet. Whether I think it's a puppy farm or factory or whatever is irrelevant, really. I don't condone places like that - and look, who cares what I personally condone. I'm just a loser on an internet forum who's very passionate about animals. There's been enough discussion about this kind of thing on this and other forums, I don't know what else I can say that will really clarify or shed light on or do anything other than add to the white noise. My moral objections aren't going to change this or any other similar place. All I know is that while there are great rescues and brilliant breeders out there, I'm not going to lend any credence to places like that. Yes, there are dodgy rescues and sh*t ANKC registered breeders who aren't worth the weight of hte paper their pedigrees are printed on. I wouldn't buy a pup fro them either - slick marketing, a dot com and a Harry Potter-esque logo does not a good breeder make. I agree with some of your points but my question was would you consider this place a "puppy farm" not if you condone this place. I don't think I could condone this type of place but it doesn't really fit into my definition of a "puppy farm" either. When I think of puppy farms I think of dogs being kept in filthy places with very little or no vet care, no socialization and normally very hidden. This place hasn't been built yet but if it was to be built the way the owner says it will it's difficult for me to see how the dogs would be suffering and its clearly being open about its intentions and motivations. I don't like the idea of dogs being bred for money but it doesn't automatically mean suffering for the dogs, so when your niece comes to you and says she wants to buy a "cavoodle" from Hepburn Park and you say they are a puppy farm what do you say when she answers "no they're not, look they have dog parks, they are clean and even have a swimming pool etc."? How do you convince your niece without using words like "probably" "may" "usually" "often" in other words not assuming the worst is happening there but having some proof of the suffering taking place there?

One of the arguments used by anti "designer dogs" is that designer dogs like "cavoodles" and "spoodles" etc. are bred in puppy farms. If a puppy farm is registered or if a puppy is sold through a pet shop i.e. domestic animal business they must be microchipped. Does anyone have any actual data or stats that support this theory The 'theory' that they're bred in puppy farms? The problem is that there's no universally accepted version of what a 'puppy farm' is. Some establishments that I would consider puppy farms are actually registered businesses that are licensed to do what they do - thus, they're not illegal. Being legal in my opinion doesn't make them okay, or something that I would ever consider supporting by buying a dog from them. Nobody advertises that they're a puppy farm, that would be marketing suicide. But a lot of registered establishments that are perfectly legal domestic animal businesses that microchip their pups and operate all above board, but are what I would consider puppy farms. A lot of similar establishment aren't registered though. I'd never support either kind, regardless of how legal and officially legitimate they are. I'm not going to name establishments on here, but there are a number of "kennels" with nice sounding names like heatherview palace or blah blah fields, that type of thing, that you can order puppies from online. They're not going to put pictures of animals kept in cages and continually bred from. They have pictures that look like stock, getty images type photos of puppies running through fields etc. Lots of crosses like cavoodles, spoodle etc, are bred by "backyard breeders" - you find them through ads in the paper, and someone's bred their pet or decided to start breeding dogs. Those aren't what I would consider puppy farms, but they're equally not something that I want to support. Have a google, it won't take you long to find some pretty shocking things. I agree with your definition of "puppy farm/factory". The term "puppy farm" conjures up different images into different people’s heads but normally its images of dogs in tiny cages in their own filth etc. These same images have been used by animal liberation type groups to get the publics attention but I came across a thread on the burkes backyard forum about a new "kennel" being built in Victoria. Some people have called it a "puppy farm" and although I don't support commercial breeders I was surprised to read that this breeder intends to build a "dog park" with sand pits and even an in ground swimming pool amongst other things. They have a website that goes over everything www.hepburnpark.com Would you consider this place a "puppy farm"?

One of the arguments used by anti "designer dogs" is that designer dogs like "cavoodles" and "spoodles" etc. are bred in puppy farms. If a puppy farm is registered or if a puppy is sold through a pet shop i.e. domestic animal business they must be microchipped. Does anyone have any actual data or stats that support this theory

what's the point of drawing a magical line in the sand ? some people think a back to back is wrong, others know that it can be done and is not detrimental to a bitch when they are in excellent health. What should the magical number be ? Lord knows the canine councils have already done it and it doesn't stop someone from breeding a litter from an unhealthy bitch. Some very experienced breeders believe it's much better to breed a bitch more often while she is younger and then retiring her earlier as opposed to breeding a bitch less often and therefore breeding her when she is getting older and less fit. Problem is in the 'dog world' breeders can't be open and honest about certain issues with out being attacked by others who consider themselves the ethical experts.

I agree. I think breeders (all breeders) should be encouraged to care for their dogs correctly. Regardless of their motivation, be that financial or otherwise. In respect to commercial breeders, if there is financial gain in breeding healthy dogs which have been health tested and housed in good facilities then it's ultimately a good thing for those dogs even if we don't agree with what the commercial breeders are doing. If all breeders were encouraged to be registered then we could regulate and monitor them to make sure they are accountable. By pushing them underground we can't monitor them and will therefore also attract criminals rather than people who are prepared to breed dogs correctly and be held accountable. All breeders and dog owners should be treated the same and therefore be punished the same regardless of the motivations.

Seems like Macedon Ranges is clamping down on all dodgy domestic animal businesses in their shire. Macedon Ranges is also trying to shut down Pets Haven. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/woman-drops-puppy-farm-compensation-claim/story-fn7x8me2-1226286584876

Nuh. Disagree I am not ususally the optimist, but what is needed is the banding together of like minded people. Have you never heard of things like "Class Action." The lines are being drawn as we type this and we need to align ourselves on the side we wish to advocate for, ie, the dogs. Its a democracy and its your vote that will ultimately count. A class action against who? Commercial Dog Breeders?? What would you be taking them to court for?

Sadly, I believe that in the near future larger registered businesses/breeders will be considered the professional breeders and small hobby breeders will be seen to be backyarders or ameatures. If healthy well bred dogs become big money then the larger breeders will be the only ones who can afford to buy large properties and provide their dogs with all kinds of benhefits including full time staff caring for them and fancy websites to promote their businesses. Everytime legislation becomes tougher it's going to be us smaller hobby breeders that can't keep up so be careful when supporting certain animal rights groups because they don't have our best interests in mind. Animal Rights groups would prefer to see dogs becoming so difficult to breed that they become very expensive and dog ownersship will decreas.

I am very suspicious of groups like Animal Liberation, OL, PETA etc. because they often they are lead by extremists who sucker good intentioned people into believing that it's just the 'bad' or 'unethical' breeders they are going after when in fact they want to ban all breeding and in some cases all pet ownership because they believe no animal should be 'owned' by anyone. It's time breeders starting asking these groups some questions before blindly giving them our support because one day I believe that their true intentions will be shown and they will turn on us.

Yeah, I didn't agree with that one either...poor chimps