150 Dogs Seized Wondai

[Kirty]

I do hope these poor dogs will be given every chance to find a home. That poor Cocker. I can't imagine the fear and stress she must be feeling. God I hate people sometimes.

[Joan of Arc]

I have refrained from commenting until now on this absolutely disgusting issue. Living as far south in NSW as I do there is very little I could do to assist - although those who need to will contact me when and if they need my assistance.

However on the issue of early desexing I would just like to make this one comment. I totally support Blackdog and those who are against this practice. If for no other reason I am convinced that the practice of early desexing intefers with the maturing process of animals. Regardless of thier pet/show/trial suitability all animals should be afforded the opportunity to reach a natural maturity or close too.

Blackdog you have figures I am sure about litter mates being desexed at different ages.

[Steve]

Dear Pointeeblab - still nothing privately received from you.

But never mind - now I know who you are.

We may all be better served if you actually completed your "apprenticeship" first.

Next time you decide to share your significant depth of knowledge remember that one litter does not a breeder make.

Please give my regards to Poppy and Dash.

Sorry, but what's the point of this? Are we back to only breeders are allowed to comment even though this is a rescue topic? And are we now deliniating which breeders can comment based on how many litters they've had?

The point of this is that when people get attacked on a public forum they like to defend themselves I guess.

If they cant handle the heat they should stay out of the kitchen.Commenting on a topic isnt what that was about

it was about commenting on someone's personal situation in public trying to degrade them and lay guilt trips on them. Blackdog is simply

giving a tap back.

Oh dear. All a bit too pot kettle black for me.

Spit it out Sheridan - I dont have a problem handling the heat dear.

[Jed]

Interesting regading the EAD, because a recent document I read found that there was no significant difference between desexing at 8 weeks vs desexing at 6 months. There were no increased risks during the surgery or as a result of the surgery.

There is lots of information against it, and a lot of it involves difference in growth etc between early desexed or not. If you google Dr. Harry Corbett, a vet in Vic, you will find he has a lot of practical things to say about it.

Are you serious?? Dr Corbett is a nutter. He is against desexing ANY animal at a young age, including kittens, despite all the information out there proving how safe it is. He frequently rants in my local paper about how many kittens have died at his clinic this week because of being desexed early... Absolute rot. Sorry but have no respect for him AT ALL. The paper I am referring to was based on research conducted by numerous vets. I'll try and dig it up.

I've read most of the published papers for and against Kirty. I made my decision some years ago, so I have probably already seen what you have. And there is a lot of information against early desexing. I personally think rescues should be desexed before being rehomed, but I don't believe it is the overall best option. It is just the best option for those animals at that time. The lesser of two evils.

Have you met Dr. Corbett, or are you basing your opinion on what is published in the local paper? Is he a nutter because people bring their early desexed kitten to him because it is sick, and it dies? Do you not think his anecdotal evidence as a vet is at all valid? There is a lot of research into mortality rates of early desexed cats (not from Dr. Corbett) and his "rantings" seem to agree with that research, as they would, if the research is correct.

blackdog

And those risks are exactly why CCCQ and it's members fought so hard to overturn the Mandatory Desexing legislation that was proposed in Qld in 2008. For the first time (in a long time) Qld members of CCCQ banded together and fought against what was an ill conceived and draconian proposal. And to their credit the Qld Govt commissioned two reports from leading Uni Vet experts and they both advised against the introduction of EAD. Additionally reviews of where this type of law had been introduced (parts of USA & Europe) showed absolutely no difference in the number of dogs (and cats) being surrendered to pounds and shelters.

Too right. Looked a bit scarey for a while, didn't it? Worried me that the CCCQ sat on it's collective hands for so long, but once it was pointed out that they would be desexed out of existence, there was a bit of action!! And I loved those surveys the DPI had available. We all filled them out. A rare win for commonsense.

[Kirty]

Jed, he writes his own articles and letters. Its not someone else reporting on him. He believes that stray cats are purely to blame for cat over-population and that people who own undesexed cats are not responsible for the problem... I have had a few newspaper-based arguments with him because of his views. The facts are out there on early age cat desexing - there are NO greater risks. I know dozens of rescuers and breeders who have been early desexing for years. I don't know a single person who has lost a kitten because of it being desexed. And no long-term issues either.

I won't argue about dogs because I haven't done the research, but with cats the risks/problems just aren't there. All the recent research shows that. If a kitten dies while being desexed, it has nothing to do with its age. There are no greater risks when desexing a kitten compared to an adult. The recovery times are much, much faster. There is just no argument AGAINST early desexing of kittens. The practise of desexing cats at 6 months is outdated and irresponsible when you consider that most moggies come into season at about 5 months and most owners don't keep their cats indoors.

[blackdog]

Jed, he writes his own articles and letters. Its not someone else reporting on him. He believes that stray cats are purely to blame for cat over-population and that people who own undesexed cats are not responsible for the problem... I have had a few newspaper-based arguments with him because of his views. The facts are out there on early age cat desexing - there are NO greater risks. I know dozens of rescuers and breeders who have been early desexing for years. I don't know a single person who has lost a kitten because of it being desexed. And no long-term issues either.

I won't argue about dogs because I haven't done the research, but with cats the risks/problems just aren't there. All the recent research shows that. If a kitten dies while being desexed, it has nothing to do with its age. There are no greater risks when desexing a kitten compared to an adult. The recovery times are much, much faster. There is just no argument AGAINST early desexing of kittens. The practise of desexing cats at 6 months is outdated and irresponsible when you consider that most moggies come into season at about 5 months and most owners don't keep their cats indoors.

Kirty - Absolutely agree with your argument in favour of EAD of kittens.

The RSPCA Qld & AWL have both acknowledged in stakeholder meetings that:

"If they could solve the cat overpopulation problem in Qld the whole issue of euthanasia rates would disappear".

EAD is not an appropraite strategy for use with puppies. It is appropriate with kittens.

Oh and JBTW - the vast majority of surrendered dogs are cross bred working / hunting types.

The following link takes you to the RSPCA Qld annual report for 07/08.

Page 16 has a summary of shelter operations - it clearly demonstrates that the big issue is cats - not dogs.

http://www.rspcaqld.org.au/aboutus/RSPCA-Q...t-2007-2008.pdf

[Jed]

This mornings Courier Mail reported that a blind 10yo cocker was about to have a litter.

10 years. That's it, breed them until they can breed no more, then shoot them

Poor, poor old girl. Such a lovely soft breed too. They deserve better, don't they?

Blind. Chances are the dog is affected by PRA. It may have ulcerated both eyes by running into a stick, but my bet is on PRA.

So, some of the pups will be affected too, and go blind.

These pups should have a DNA test prior to rehoming, so someone isn't landed with a dog programmed to go blind.

*sigh*

And we are arguing about the damage registered breeders do to purebred dogs?

I do think someone should take notice of this. Puppy farm unregistered dogs, none tested for anything, and the producer uncaring whether they have any diseases or not.

But, they are purebred, so the registered breeders get the blame, even though these dogs are probably 2nd or 3rd generation puppy farm bred.

Fact is, there are too many homeless cats anyhow, so if they are desexed at 6 weeks, and a percentage dies, that would probably be better than going on to breed. If they are dead at 6 weeks, they can't breed.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Jed

[blackdog]

This mornings Courier Mail reported that a blind 10yo cocker was about to have a litter.

10 years. That's it, breed them until they can breed no more, then shoot them

Poor, poor old girl. Such a lovely soft breed too. They deserve better, don't they?

Blind. Chances are the dog is affected by PRA. It may have ulcerated both eyes by running into a stick, but my bet is on PRA.

So, some of the pups will be affected too, and go blind.

These pups should have a DNA test prior to rehoming, so someone isn't landed with a dog programmed to go blind.

*sigh*

And we are arguing about the damage registered breeders do to purebred dogs?

I do think someone should take notice of this. Puppy farm unregistered dogs, none tested for anything, and the producer uncaring whether they have any diseases or not.

But, they are purebred, so the registered breeders get the blame, even though these dogs are probably 2nd or 3rd generation puppy farm bred.

Fact is, there are too many homeless cats anyhow, so if they are desexed at 6 weeks, and a percentage dies, that would probably be better than going on to breed. If they are dead at 6 weeks, they can't breed.

Absolutely right Jed - and here's the kicker.

The whole premise of the UK doco Pedigree Dogs Exposed was that breeders of pure breds were exacerbating hereditary defect problems.

But as I have stated may times on various threads there is a real difference between UK breeders and Australian registered breeders.

UK breeders do not need to be members of the Kennel Club - there are exactly like what we would describe as BYB here.

In Aust a registered breeder must be a member of a State Controlling body and hence is obligated to be bound by rules & code of ethics.

In the UK all a breeder needs to have is two pedigree registered dogs of the same breed and any subsequent puppies will be registered by the kennel Club UK.

The owner of the Wondai complex could operate quite legitimately in the UK.

They could breed from untested dogs and bitches (because they are not bound by any general or breed specific rules) and have any subsequent litters registered and pedigrees issued by the Kennel Club UK.

It is not acceptable to film a doco in one country and then apply the same presumptions to other countries.

It is highly likely that in the UK the breeder/s of the Boxer taking a fit or the Cavalier with a brain disorder were exactly the same as the breeder operating from the Wondai puppy farm complex.

[Steve]

This mornings Courier Mail reported that a blind 10yo cocker was about to have a litter.

10 years. That's it, breed them until they can breed no more, then shoot them

Poor, poor old girl. Such a lovely soft breed too. They deserve better, don't they?

Blind. Chances are the dog is affected by PRA. It may have ulcerated both eyes by running into a stick, but my bet is on PRA.

So, some of the pups will be affected too, and go blind.

These pups should have a DNA test prior to rehoming, so someone isn't landed with a dog programmed to go blind.

*sigh*

And we are arguing about the damage registered breeders do to purebred dogs?

I do think someone should take notice of this. Puppy farm unregistered dogs, none tested for anything, and the producer uncaring whether they have any diseases or not.

But, they are purebred, so the registered breeders get the blame, even though these dogs are probably 2nd or 3rd generation puppy farm bred.

Fact is, there are too many homeless cats anyhow, so if they are desexed at 6 weeks, and a percentage dies, that would probably be better than going on to breed. If they are dead at 6 weeks, they can't breed.

Absolutely right Jed - and here's the kicker.

The whole premise of the UK doco Pedigree Dogs Exposed was that breeders of pure breds were exacerbating hereditary defect problems.

But as I have stated may times on various threads there is a real difference between UK breeders and Australian registered breeders.

UK breeders do not need to be members of the Kennel Club - there are exactly like what we would describe as BYB here.

In Aust a registered breeder must be a member of a State Controlling body and hence is obligated to be bound by rules & code of ethics.

In the UK all a breeder needs to have is two pedigree registered dogs of the same breed and any subsequent puppies will be registered by the kennel Club UK.

The owner of the Wondai complex could operate quite legitimately in the UK.

They could breed from untested dogs and bitches (because they are not bound by any general or breed specific rules) and have any subsequent litters registered and pedigrees issued by the Kennel Club UK.

It is not acceptable to film a doco in one country and then apply the same presumptions to other countries.

It is highly likely that in the UK the breeder/s of the Boxer taking a fit or the Cavalier with a brain disorder were exactly the same as the breeder operating from the Wondai puppy farm complex.

Dead right - And guess what - inside info - they are waiting on a report to come out from the UK to use to petition a change in legislation on us.

They are all poised and ready to go.

[Sheridan]

Dead right - And guess what - inside info - they are waiting on a report to come out from the UK to use to petition a change in legislation on us.

They are all poised and ready to go.

And what legislation are the ubquitous 'theys' putting forth and in which state?

[blackdog]

Dead right - And guess what - inside info - they are waiting on a report to come out from the UK to use to petition a change in legislation on us.

They are all poised and ready to go.

And what legislation are the ubquitous 'theys' putting forth and in which state?

The "theys" are most likely to be the Welfare groups in consultation with geneticists like McGreevy Sydney Uni.

The Royal Veterinary College London report entitled "A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION INTO INHERITED DEFECTS IN PEDIGREE DOGS

Lisa M. Collins, Lucy Asher, Gillian Diesel & Jennifer F. Summers - January 2009" is available via email from Jemima Harrison.

The report is not finalised (and not peer group reviewed) but is already circulating amongst RSPCA and AWL.

So proposed legislation may take the form a super sized version of what has recently been introduced in NSW or the new Hereditary Defect Breeding Legislation in Vic. Any organisation or individual can propose new legislation (initially in the form of a discussion paper) as long as it is submitted and supported by a State Govt sitting member. Such was the case with the proposed Mandatory Desexing Legislation in Qld in 2007/08.

[blackdog]

Dead right - And guess what - inside info - they are waiting on a report to come out from the UK to use to petition a change in legislation on us.

They are all poised and ready to go.

And what legislation are the ubquitous 'theys' putting forth and in which state?

The "theys" are most likely to be the Welfare groups in consultation with geneticists like McGreevy Sydney Uni.

The Royal Veterinary College London report entitled "A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION INTO INHERITED DEFECTS IN PEDIGREE DOGS

Lisa M. Collins, Lucy Asher, Gillian Diesel & Jennifer F. Summers - January 2009" is available via email from Jemima Harrison.

The report is not finalised (and not peer group reviewed) but is already circulating amongst RSPCA and AWL.

So proposed legislation may take the form a super sized version of what has recently been introduced in NSW or the new Hereditary Defect Breeding Legislation in Vic. Any organisation or individual can propose new legislation (initially in the form of a discussion paper) as long as it is submitted and supported by a State Govt sitting member. Such was the case with the proposed Mandatory Desexing Legislation in Qld in 2007/08.

Far be it for me to suggest that there are "reds under our beds" but has anybody else wondered why Ms Harrison started the IN THE NEWS topic entitled "Victoria legislation - opinions" ??

Apologies to Jemmima if I'm sounding a bit suspicious but why would a UK based documentary producer be even remotely interested in what is happening in the state of Victoria?

I have become very distrusting of all media - and that goes for BBC, ABC and commercial TV journos.

[Jed]

My opinion, stated in discussions here when the BBC doco first aired in Britian is that JH is a full blown PETA supporter at least, if not a card carrying member. She is certainly supporting Ingrid Newkirk's ethos and aims in a major way.

I don't believe that anyone could assemble something as skewed as that doco without having a major agenda, which has nothing to do with the health of pedigree dogs.

Of course she is interested in the Victorian legislation. It's allied with her aims.

[iffykharma]

Such was the case with the proposed Mandatory Desexing Legislation in Qld in 2007/08.

Sorry, this is a little off topic.....

Blackdog, can you point me in the direction of any info you have the introduction of a Bill in Qld Parliament that would have legislated mandatory desexing in Qld. The only thing I'm aware of was the Managing Unwanted Cats and Dogs Discussion Paper, which from my perspective appeared to be a genuine Discussion Paper (and by that I mean where the Gov't hasn't already made up its mind) seeking community feedback on a whole range of proposals, one of which was mandatory desexing. In fact I'd have been suspicious if mandatory desexing hadn't been canvassed as an option.

What came out of that process was mandatory microchipping (legislated) and a non-mandatory CoP for Pet Shops (not legislated).

Thanks

[Jed]

Will see if I can find it for you, iffy, it was put on this forum a while back.

[Sheridan]

My opinion, stated in discussions here when the BBC doco first aired in Britian is that JH is a full blown PETA supporter at least, if not a card carrying member. She is certainly supporting Ingrid Newkirk's ethos and aims in a major way.

I don't believe that anyone could assemble something as skewed as that doco without having a major agenda, which has nothing to do with the health of pedigree dogs.

Of course she is interested in the Victorian legislation. It's allied with her aims.

I noticed that when Jemima arrived, Jed, you were conspicuous in your silence. I kept expecting you to jump in with 'You're a member of PETA' and the rest of it. How about next time she's on you actually put that to her. I believe she'll point out that she has purebred working gundogs which pretty much disqualifies her from animal rights activism.

[Steve]

Such was the case with the proposed Mandatory Desexing Legislation in Qld in 2007/08.

Sorry, this is a little off topic.....

Blackdog, can you point me in the direction of any info you have the introduction of a Bill in Qld Parliament that would have legislated mandatory desexing in Qld. The only thing I'm aware of was the Managing Unwanted Cats and Dogs Discussion Paper, which from my perspective appeared to be a genuine Discussion Paper (and by that I mean where the Gov't hasn't already made up its mind) seeking community feedback on a whole range of proposals, one of which was mandatory desexing. In fact I'd have been suspicious if mandatory desexing hadn't been canvassed as an option.

What came out of that process was mandatory microchipping (legislated) and a non-mandatory CoP for Pet Shops (not legislated).

Thanks

This was the letter the MDBA tendered at the time.

State-wide Mandatory Neutering of All Dogs and Cats

Discussion Paper

Contributed by: MDBA Pty Ltd [Master Dog Breeder’s Academy] 28.7.07

I am writing on behalf of the Master Dog Breeder Academy members to

express our concerns and issues we feel should be taken into consideration by your government in discussions on Mandatory Neutering of all dogs and cats .

The MDBA is a coalition of Registered purebred Dog Breeders, Canine Welfare and Rescue Workers and Responsible Dog Owners dedicated to animal welfare, animal health and well being, and responsible animal ownership, We support reasonable laws that promote the well being of animals and limiting risks of over population of unwanted pets . We strongly oppose laws that ignore science and interfere with decisions that should in the main be made by dog owners and their veterinarians.

Whilst the MDBA supports the sterilization of non breeding animals we oppose mandatory sterilization laws. We believe that any laws which are passed which dictate when an animal should be neutered or which animals should be neutered are unreasonable and will produce severe unintended consequences if passed.

Unintended Consequences.

Improper Government Role

Introduction of mandatory desexing needlessly and recklessly interferes with the traditional relationship between Queensland veterinarians and their animal patients' owners. The decision to perform surgery on one's pet should not be taken over by government. In addition, any bill which establishes an arbitrary age as the standard for mandatory spaying or neutering ignores the variables between breeds and scientific research . The proper age for this procedure is a matter of serious debate in the animal care community, with well documented medical and behavioural problems that can develop from neutering dog’s too early.

It must remain a veterinarian's judgment whether a particular animal's health would be jeopardized by following the state mandated standard, and pet owners must be able to make the decision in conjunction with their health professional based on education and knowledge rather than be given no choice because of laws imposed.

.

Pet sterilization programs alone won't solve the remaining problem .

The assumption that drives mandatory spaying and neutering is that pets end up in animal shelters solely because of overpopulation and that mandatory sterilization laws will therefore solve the problem. Proponents of this bill ignore the fact that most of the animals in shelters today:

1) are not young puppies;

2) that a high number of kittens are from feral cats;

3) that according to the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, studies conducted by the National Council on Pet Population Studies and Policy and other organizations, about a third of shelter animals were given up by their owners because of personal issues such as moving, financial strain, or because the pet had a behaviour or health problem; In essence, the data shows that public education, low-cost resources for the poor and reasonable registration/ licensing programs can work . Some proponents deny the role of consumer choice in pet population dynamics, thinking that more sterilization of publicly owned pets and more marketing of shelter animals will solve the problem. They do not recognize that people choose purebred puppies and pedigreed kittens for valid reasons. Consumers want the predictability of a purebred and they want the opportunity to raise the puppy or kitten into the sort of family pet they desire. These are both values that encourage long-term pet retention. We contend that if pet owners choose pets which are more suited to their lifestyles with an understanding of the management issues associated with the dog that this has a huge impact on the animal’s chances of being discarded .

4) that many pet owners use shelters as an alternative to a veterinarian when seeking euthanasia of an old, sick or dangerous animal; that many shelter animals are already neutered;

5) that the number of animals entering shelters in many parts of the world has been steadily declining for decades with some of the steepest drops occurring in areas with the least coercive laws.

We support shelters and many of our members work in pet rescue; and have agreed to a strict code of conduct which states their stance on placing animals with problems but nonetheless and despite considerable efforts aimed at marketing shelter animals, consumers are aware that a substantial number of shelter dogs are there because of behavioural or medical problems and that not all re homes are done by putting the family needs above the need to “save “ the animal.

Supply and demand and unintended consequences

Please consider the laws of supply and demand and unintended consequences in any attempt to reduce animal shelter populations. Mandatory pet sterilization deals only with the supply side of the dog and cat shelter problem. The pet-owning segment of the Australian population is growing and this will not lower the demand for pets; it will just shift consumers to outside sources. It will encourage large scale breeding establishments and volume breeding. Any legislation that attempts to solve surplus shelter problems by focusing solely on the supply side of the problem is destined to fail. To make further reductions in shelter populations, efforts need to be focused on encouragement for responsible breeding practices, on the demand or consumer side of the issue; public education, low cost services and resources for the poor, and reasonable licensing/registration options. Imposing more regulations also runs

the risk of diminishing the best source of dogs and cats available to Queensland consumers, which, since demand is constant, will be replaced by out of state puppies and kittens at great cost to the Queensland economy , without improving the welfare of Queensland pets at all. In other words, using a risk-analysis model this entire bill would mean that animals which turn up in shelters will be neutered, not that less will turn up in shelters and that less people will breed more numbers with profit driven motives. This in itself leads to numerous legal and management problems.

Forfeiting Millions of Tourism and Trade dollars .

Further, the citizens most likely to be adversely affected by an introduction of such a bill are the members and registrants of the Queensland Canine Council, Master Dog Breeders Academy, Cat registry members and hundreds of breed clubs. These organizations generate millions of dollars to the Queensland economy each year

These are the same people whose volunteer efforts have the greatest

impact on improving the shelter surplus problem through their voluntary work on the consumer or demand side of the problem promoting responsible pet ownership. Their clubs work year-round to help the public make responsible choices in selecting, raising, training, socializing, permanently identifying, licensing and basically learning about how to become a responsible pet owner. They provide and fund rescue services, host microchip clinics and fund numerous animal welfare and health projects at no cost to Queensland taxpayers. To over-regulate this group, as the introduction of this bill would, is a simply recipe for killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

In addition to harming responsible dog and cat breeders which are members of recognised registries, some service and working animals bred for specific characteristics and temperaments may not be registered with a recognized registry.

Many of our members breed animals under registries other than QCCC and we have grave concerns that introduction of laws for mandatory desexing would restrict their ability to continue with their work and limit the breeding of certain animals that assists the public, such as guide, therapy search and rescue, quarantine and working dogs and ,of course, those working on new breed developments which are not yet recognised .

Enforcing this program would put an additional administrative burden on local agencies.

Current figures of those households owning domestic pets indicate that pet ownership is a widely held community value. If the problem being addressed by this bill is of the magnitude it targets, is it fair that the tax to pay for it be levied only against the people with intact pets who are responsible enough to get their pets registered? They are no more guilty or responsible for causing problems than the non-pet-owning segment of the public. This proposed legislation is the equivalent of increasing the cost of a driver's license to prevent speeding, rather than increasing the fine for the act of speeding itself.

In most scenarios, a few bad apples cause most of the problems, so the goal is to identify them and impose the necessary regulations. This situation is much more complex. The players include the irresponsible pet owners who won't properly care for or register their pets regardless of laws; pet owners who need informational resources and low cost services to become better pet owners; and it includes a very large pool of animals -feral cats -that have no owners. Because none of these groups above are good subjects of regulation, this bill proposal goes after the responsible group that is not causing the problem and asks them to pay for and be penalised by the whole mess. It won't work. This bill will simply create more scofflaws and ill-will toward government.

TRADE LAWS AND LEGAL ISSUES.

Finally, current law defines animals as the "property" of the owner. The laws of the land guarantee fundamental right of property ownership. The ability of a property owner to make important decisions regarding their property is the most fundamental element of property rights. This is why breeders become so frustrated as contracts made to encourage pet owners to do the right thing after they take ownership don’t hold up in court because the new owner has these rights to fundamental ownership. The result of this bill would be to eliminate the property owner's right to make decisions about their pets' care and give that right to the state and local government entities. This interference of a pet owner's right to make decisions about their pet violates all laws and ethics of natural justice , since the pet owner would be denied control over their property without any semblance of overriding state interest in the outcome. Also , the proposed

bureaucratic structure in the bill would lead to unequal treatment of similarly

situated individuals in different Queensland sub jurisdictions if local governments are ultimately responsible for creating the list of breeds that would be allowed to obtain permits for intact animals, it is inevitable that the breed lists will differ from locality to locality. This would mean unequal treatment of some breed and cross breed owners and breeders in the state and raises questions under the ACCC by restricting a breeders’ right to free trade .It raises issue with limitations the bill would place on interstate and international commerce. Markets for intact animals whose breed names do not appear on approved registries would disappear, and anyone engaged in breeding those animals in Queensland would be forced out of business. The ACCC are specific about state laws that interfere with such commerce, whether applied to mega-corporations or to an individual in sole proprietor activity.

The MDBA has accumulated a wealth of information and first hand experience and observation in this arena; we have introduced voluntary codes of conduct for dog owners, dog breeders and Canine Rescue workers in the belief that education and reward for positive behaviours is a large part of the answer for our current concerns of pet over population and dumpage .If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact us.

[Jed]

My opinion, stated in discussions here when the BBC doco first aired in Britian is that JH is a full blown PETA supporter at least, if not a card carrying member. She is certainly supporting Ingrid Newkirk's ethos and aims in a major way.

I don't believe that anyone could assemble something as skewed as that doco without having a major agenda, which has nothing to do with the health of pedigree dogs.

Of course she is interested in the Victorian legislation. It's allied with her aims.

I noticed that when Jemima arrived, Jed, you were conspicuous in your silence. I kept expecting you to jump in with 'You're a member of PETA' and the rest of it. How about next time she's on you actually put that to her. I believe she'll point out that she has purebred working gundogs which pretty much disqualifies her from animal rights activism.

Get your specs checked, Sheridan, and go and have another look.

I noticed she didn't answer anything which didn't suit her, and I noticed she said she had flatcoats. You have said before she doesn't support PETA. I don't believe that. I didn't ask her again, I took your word that she told you she wasn't a card carrying PETA member. And as you had previously related what she said, I didn't suppose I'd get a different answer.

Did you lie about that?

And she couldn't be bothered answering any of the other questions she didn't want to, so, why bother?

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, has feathers and quacks, it's a duck for me.

We are what we give witness to, Sheridan.

[Sheridan]

My opinion, stated in discussions here when the BBC doco first aired in Britian is that JH is a full blown PETA supporter at least, if not a card carrying member. She is certainly supporting Ingrid Newkirk's ethos and aims in a major way.

I don't believe that anyone could assemble something as skewed as that doco without having a major agenda, which has nothing to do with the health of pedigree dogs.

Of course she is interested in the Victorian legislation. It's allied with her aims.

I noticed that when Jemima arrived, Jed, you were conspicuous in your silence. I kept expecting you to jump in with 'You're a member of PETA' and the rest of it. How about next time she's on you actually put that to her. I believe she'll point out that she has purebred working gundogs which pretty much disqualifies her from animal rights activism.

Get your specs checked, Sheridan, and go and have another look.

I noticed she didn't answer anything which didn't suit her, and I noticed she said she had flatcoats. You have said before she doesn't support PETA. I don't believe that. I didn't ask her again, I took your word that she told you she wasn't a card carrying PETA member. And as you had previously related what she said, I didn't suppose I'd get a different answer.

Did you lie about that?

And she couldn't be bothered answering any of the other questions she didn't want to, so, why bother?

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, has feathers and quacks, it's a duck for me.

We are what we give witness to, Sheridan.

Where Jemima says she has a working flatcoat.

We are indeed what we give witness to, Jed, but perhaps some of us can use the search function better than those who post, tripping over their feet in their haste to call others liars.

"PETA is a bunch of crackpots who do not care about anything but publicity and making money. They have not bothered to contact us -- and, indeed, if they did we would make it very clear we do not want their support. It devalues and marginalises a film that raises a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and quickly."

- Jemima Harrison, 8 January 2009, LA Times.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yes, because that doco was the very epitome of journalistic integrity.