Frankston Council (vic)

[SpikesPuppy]

Can someone tell me if the expemptions apply to DOGS that are VCA registered but owned by non-members/breeders???

I have a puppy enquiry and the home sounds fantastic BUT if it's going to have to be desexed prior to 3 months of age I wont sell the pup to them. Harsh, I know, but I will not allow my babies to be put through that until AT LEAST 6 months of age (preferably 9 months or more).

As for desexing- from now on, I am only planning to do it if required for the dogs' health or when the dogs is older to reduce the risk of testicular or mammary cancers. Keeping an entire dog or bitch honestly is not that difficult if you are prepared to make the effort ;) And IMO it should be upto the owners to decide whether they do it or not. Frankly, the irresponsible ones who don't register and allow their dogs to roam aren't going to register the dog in the first place so, um, who is this going to help??? It will only affect those responsible owners who have researched desexing throughly and made the choice based on said research to keep their pet entire. And yes, what does this mean for breeders who place breeding dogs into pet homes??? And what about people who want to show but are not breeders?

[Jed]

I still think if its my dog its my choice as to whether I will remove its hormones.And breed or who bred it shouldnt come into it.

You cant expect me or anyone else to be forced to do things with our dogs whcih we dont think is in their best interest because there are some people who get it wrong.Why should any dog have to suffer because of who bred it?

No offence but I do think you are looking at this through your personal point of view, you are probably a responsible dog owner, but you need to understand that puts you in the minority.

There is a lot of bad stuff happening to dogs out there and I think anything that can be done to stop these people having dogs is a good thing.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "bad stuff". Is desexing likely to stop the bad stuff happening?

If by bad stuff,you mean cruelty, the POCTA act has many clauses under which people can be prosecuted for all kinds of cruelty. Surely that would be a better method of enforcing legislation, rather than neutering all dogs, and having mandatory desexing laws? Enforcing current legislation about having dogs contained in yards seems a more viable one to me.

This erodes freedom still more, and I cannot see how mandatory desexing will curb cruelty? Perhaps I don't understand what "bad stuff" is.

In Victoria, you may not walk your dog on the collar of your choice, you may not do quite a lot of things which I (and most other people) would consider reasonable. I believe that in some council areas, leads must be 1m long, which certainly does not suit all dogs or owners, and is certainly not best practice for all.

Each of these laws erodes someone's lifestyle with dogs. There is a lot of proof that early desexing is not in the animals' best interests, yet this council (and others) are making decisions which will impact on the dog for whole of life.

[Steve]

Yes to a point I am speaking of my own personal circumstances.However,if I lived there I would have the exemptions because I only own CC registered dogs.

That 's the issue though isnt it?

There have been laws in this shire for ever which can punish people if their dogs are at large and whether or not those dogs are able to have pups or not isnt the biggest problem caused by dogs which roam the neighbourhood and remember this isnt just about dogs which end up at the pound.The laws say that unless your dog is registered with Vicdogs -therefore a pedigree,bred by an ANKC registered breeder which you have paid money to Vicdogs for to register the dog in your name you have to have it desexed.

You are assumed responsible enough to own an entire dog and make decisions based on what you feel is best for your dog based on this criteria.

Whether my dog is a purebred or not - its my dog, my responsibility yet my right to make decisions based on what I think is best for my dog is taken away because a very small minority of people who own entire dogs have unwanted litters?

MDBA dog owners are as responsible as anyone who is a member of Vicdogs and in many cases they are more responsible and about half of them own crossbred dogs.They should have equal rights to make decisions on whether to have their dogs desexed as any purebred dog owner and the way the system is set up it gives Vicdogs an unfair market advantage.Its disgraceful.

Its straight out Breed Specific legislation.

[Crisovar]

there are several studies which show a greater risk of HD in males which are desexed I cant dig out the references as my computer blew up and this one has none of my

But isnt this a risk worth taking, getting 95% of the dogs away from the scum that just want to use them for BYB, worth the unfortunate 5% that may have future issues. ( my stats are not accurate, just an example)

Remebering that the number grows exponentially, 95 BYB dogs quickly turns in to 1000 puppies, sold to scum.............. for the same purpose. The 5 that may have developed HD are still only 5.

Goodness me, thats a big assumption that buyers of BYB dogs are scum.

Mandatory desexing of all dogs willnot cut down on the numbers of dogs in the pund that belong to irresponsible owners.

Many repeat offenders in our pound are desexed, they have stupid owners who do not shut gates, or will not fix fences, or simply believe in their dogs god given right to roam as it pleases.

Mandatory desexing takes away the rights of responsible owners to make educated choices for their own animals and their own situation.

[Kirty]

Everyone seems to be missing a key point here - if your dog is registered with the council (which ALL dogs are supposed to be), then you cannot be made to desex it. So if people are doing the right thing, they have nothing to worry about.

[BJean]

Everyone seems to be missing a key point here - if your dog is registered with the council (which ALL dogs are supposed to be), then you cannot be made to desex it. So if people are doing the right thing, they have nothing to worry about.

No, I think you are missing a few key points ;)

If you would like to register your dog, the council will not register it unless the dog is desexed.

That is mandatory desexing.

Yes ALL dogs are supposed to be registered

so it puts new dog owners of Frankston in a pickle doesn't it?

Because unless they join Dogs Vic, then they will not be able to either keep their dog entire

or exercise their right to desex their puppy/dog at a healthy age.

Puts a mockery on responsible dog ownership and putting dogs' health first, doesn't it?

Not only that, there will be some Dogs Vic breeders who wil not sell a puppy to those living in Frankston and Kinston councils, because they will not risk the health and longterm welfare of their puppies by subjecting them to early desexing.

[Kirty]

Ah, missed that bit. In my council you have to register your dog by 3 months, but it only has to be chipped.

[BJean]

Ah, missed that bit. In my council you have to register your dog by 3 months, but it only has to be chipped.

Yes my council is same ;)

I have no problem with registering dogs only if they have a microchip

that is a good way to try to ensure all dogs are identified and can be traced back to their owners

[Harry Corbett]

I have noted certain scurrilous and ill-informed statements made about the opinions I have expressed on the subject of Victoria’s mandatory desexing Laws (MDLs). My introduction to this subject (4 years ago) related to a client who was being forced by her local council to have her 9 week old puppy desexed. A superficial glance at the data produced by advocates of MDLs was something of a revelation: the arguments advanced did not make sense and most of the statistics were simply made up. These factors were amalgamated with a constant stream of vilification of the usual suspects: irresponsible owners, backyard breeders and pet shops. On a day to day basis I see all of these people and my observations could not be reconciled with the vitriolic rantings of the apparatchiks of the animal welfare politburo.

Time has proven me correct. There is now a solid momentum behind groups questioning the integrity of those running establishments that kill tens of thousands of animals each year whilst hiding behind the mantra that “there are not enough homes”. Australia has a declining pet population and it is in no small part due to the Wonks who have been misleading the public for decades.

Under Victoria’s MDLs a council official can knock on your door and impound your 13 week old pet if it is not desexed. You will not get it back unless you agree to it being desexed by a veterinarian you do not know and may never meet. Under some circumstances these laws enforce the desexing of 4 and 5 week old pets. If you want MDLs this is what you get. You get council officials who advise owners “he just need to be desexed or be put down”; officials who believe an undesexed animal is such a threat to the fabric of society that “he” has to be killed. Unfortunately Jed, it is all “legal” though there are exemptions available to those who bother to read the laws and understand them. Government and Council officials do not.

I anticipate a robust debate on the issue. Everyone has to pull together on this.

[Erny]

Everyone seems to be missing a key point here - if your dog is registered with the council (which ALL dogs are supposed to be), then you cannot be made to desex it. So if people are doing the right thing, they have nothing to worry about.

Personally, I think there is now cause to turn this back to Council.

I'd like to know how much of our registrations is specifically spent on or towards our dogs and their activities within the community and its facilities. If it is only a small percentage of the funds, then I think that is cause for objection.

In the past, registration served as not only a means of providing funds for Councils to ply back into that component of community sharing activities, but also as a means of identification and owner location.

Nowadays, we have mandatory microchipping, which to my mind takes care of the ID side of things. So it seems to me that the only real purpose of the funds we pay year in and year out, is for the purpose of revenue which goes to ....................... what?

If the fees we pay are not being predominantly used towards and in relation to dogs within the community, then I think to say to anyone "we [council] won't make you desex your dog if you pay us" is akin to [legal] blackmail. Because of mandatory microchipping (which I think is a good thing) I do not accept that NOT registering your dog makes you an irresponsible dog-owner. But it does make you a person who is breaking the law.

Does anyone else share my thoughts?

ETA: I think my points need to be addressed on a 'Council to Council' basis, as I suspect there are some Councils who might put more of the dog-raised revenue back to dog-facilities and services than others.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Erny

[Steve]

I have noted certain scurrilous and ill-informed statements made about the opinions I have expressed on the subject of Victoria's mandatory desexing Laws (MDLs). My introduction to this subject (4 years ago) related to a client who was being forced by her local council to have her 9 week old puppy desexed. A superficial glance at the data produced by advocates of MDLs was something of a revelation: the arguments advanced did not make sense and most of the statistics were simply made up. These factors were amalgamated with a constant stream of vilification of the usual suspects: irresponsible owners, backyard breeders and pet shops. On a day to day basis I see all of these people and my observations could not be reconciled with the vitriolic rantings of the apparatchiks of the animal welfare politburo.

Time has proven me correct. There is now a solid momentum behind groups questioning the integrity of those running establishments that kill tens of thousands of animals each year whilst hiding behind the mantra that "there are not enough homes". Australia has a declining pet population and it is in no small part due to the Wonks who have been misleading the public for decades.

Under Victoria's MDLs a council official can knock on your door and impound your 13 week old pet if it is not desexed. You will not get it back unless you agree to it being desexed by a veterinarian you do not know and may never meet. Under some circumstances these laws enforce the desexing of 4 and 5 week old pets. If you want MDLs this is what you get. You get council officials who advise owners "he just need to be desexed or be put down"; officials who believe an undesexed animal is such a threat to the fabric of society that "he" has to be killed. Unfortunately Jed, it is all "legal" though there are exemptions available to those who bother to read the laws and understand them. Government and Council officials do not.

I anticipate a robust debate on the issue. Everyone has to pull together on this.

No debate from me I agree with you.

Julie

[Erny]

No debate from here, either, HC.

[SpikesPuppy]

No debate from me...

I wonder if the council can be held liable if something happens to the very young pet whilst going under this forced operation???

[shel]

I have noted certain scurrilous and ill-informed statements made about the opinions I have expressed on the subject of Victoria’s mandatory desexing Laws (MDLs). My introduction to this subject (4 years ago) related to a client who was being forced by her local council to have her 9 week old puppy desexed. A superficial glance at the data produced by advocates of MDLs was something of a revelation: the arguments advanced did not make sense and most of the statistics were simply made up. These factors were amalgamated with a constant stream of vilification of the usual suspects: irresponsible owners, backyard breeders and pet shops. On a day to day basis I see all of these people and my observations could not be reconciled with the vitriolic rantings of the apparatchiks of the animal welfare politburo.

Time has proven me correct. There is now a solid momentum behind groups questioning the integrity of those running establishments that kill tens of thousands of animals each year whilst hiding behind the mantra that “there are not enough homes”. Australia has a declining pet population and it is in no small part due to the Wonks who have been misleading the public for decades.

Under Victoria’s MDLs a council official can knock on your door and impound your 13 week old pet if it is not desexed. You will not get it back unless you agree to it being desexed by a veterinarian you do not know and may never meet. Under some circumstances these laws enforce the desexing of 4 and 5 week old pets. If you want MDLs this is what you get. You get council officials who advise owners “he just need to be desexed or be put down”; officials who believe an undesexed animal is such a threat to the fabric of society that “he” has to be killed. Unfortunately Jed, it is all “legal” though there are exemptions available to those who bother to read the laws and understand them. Government and Council officials do not.

I anticipate a robust debate on the issue. Everyone has to pull together on this.

Agree completely.

There is no science or example where mandatory desexing has decreased shelter killing.

When you start ignoring science and start giving weight to personal belief – then start allowing groups to mandate those personal beliefs into law, then you’re on a very slippery slope to giving a few people ultimate power without accountability or audit. “Because we say so” should never be the basis for legislation.

Edited January 24, 2010 by shel

[Steve]

[Jed]

Shel

When you start ignoring science and start giving weight to personal belief – then start allowing groups to mandate those personal beliefs into law, then you’re on a very slippery slope to giving a few people ultimate power without accountability or audit. “Because we say so” should never be the basis for legislation.

And unfortunately, councils and governments are now givng credence to groups which wish to mandate personal beliefs into law, which will have the ultimate consequences you have stated.

Harry Corbett

Unfortunately Jed, it is all “legal” though there are exemptions available to those who bother to read the laws and understand them. Government and Council officials do not.

My apologies. I received advice from cousel with regard to the implementation of statewide mandatory desexing laws in Qld, which related to "property". I should not have assumed Vic legislation was similar :D

I anticipate a robust debate on the issue. Everyone has to pull together on this.

Absolutely, and if we want to continue to keep dogs and cats, we do all need to pull together. There are too many diverse laws which disadvantage pet owners, and more seem to appear every week. If councils enforced the laws they already have, things would improve markedly.

Oh, Harry Corbett, you'll get no argument from me either!!

[Erny]

When you start ignoring science and start giving weight to personal belief – then start allowing groups to mandate those personal beliefs into law, then you’re on a very slippery slope to giving a few people ultimate power without accountability or audit. “Because we say so” should never be the basis for legislation.

Shel - beautifully and succinctly said. Rounds up the whole situation (especially) Victoria seems to be in right at this very moment.

[menacebear]

Everyone seems to be missing a key point here - if your dog is registered with the council (which ALL dogs are supposed to be), then you cannot be made to desex it. So if people are doing the right thing, they have nothing to worry about.

No, I think you are missing a few key points

If you would like to register your dog, the council will not register it unless the dog is desexed.

That is mandatory desexing.

Yes ALL dogs are supposed to be registered

so it puts new dog owners of Frankston in a pickle doesn't it?

Because unless they join Dogs Vic, then they will not be able to either keep their dog entire

or exercise their right to desex their puppy/dog at a healthy age.

Puts a mockery on responsible dog ownership and putting dogs' health first, doesn't it?

Not only that, there will be some Dogs Vic breeders who wil not sell a puppy to those living in Frankston and Kinston councils, because they will not risk the health and longterm welfare of their puppies by subjecting them to early desexing.

Why would they no longer sell to them? Wouldnt they register all puppies from the litter be it either main or limited? Even if they go to a pet home they will still have pedigree papers won't they? Thats all they need to provide to stop the animal from being desexed. I apologise if I'm wrong but I thought registered breeders registered all the pups in the litter?

[SpikesPuppy]

Everyone seems to be missing a key point here - if your dog is registered with the council (which ALL dogs are supposed to be), then you cannot be made to desex it. So if people are doing the right thing, they have nothing to worry about.

No, I think you are missing a few key points :D

If you would like to register your dog, the council will not register it unless the dog is desexed.

That is mandatory desexing.

Yes ALL dogs are supposed to be registered

so it puts new dog owners of Frankston in a pickle doesn't it?

Because unless they join Dogs Vic, then they will not be able to either keep their dog entire

or exercise their right to desex their puppy/dog at a healthy age.

Puts a mockery on responsible dog ownership and putting dogs' health first, doesn't it?

Not only that, there will be some Dogs Vic breeders who wil not sell a puppy to those living in Frankston and Kinston councils, because they will not risk the health and longterm welfare of their puppies by subjecting them to early desexing.

Why would they no longer sell to them? Wouldnt they register all puppies from the litter be it either main or limited? Even if they go to a pet home they will still have pedigree papers won't they? Thats all they need to provide to stop the animal from being desexed. I apologise if I'm wrong but I thought registered breeders registered all the pups in the litter?

I am awaiting conformation on this- I have been told that the owner of the reg'd dog must be a registered breeder, pet owners with reg'd puppies don't count... But I am not 100% certain.

I have had an enquiry from Frankston council, I don't have a pup for them atm anyway but they sound like a fantastic home, however if a pup I sold had to be desexed by 3 months of age because they weren't reg'd breeders, I would refuse to sell the puppy. Even if you do not have to be a reg'd breeder, just own a reg'd puppy... I would still worry that they would be pushed into the early desexing

Also, what of the breeds that are NOT ANKC recognised???

ETA- yes, all living pups must be registered with the ANKC here in Victoria.

Edited January 24, 2010 by SpikesPuppy

[menacebear]

Spikespuppy, as long as the new owners go to DogsVic and join themselves up and transfer the pups papers into their name there will be no problem. The owners do not have to be breeders, just financial members of DogsVic.

Breeds that are not ANKC recgonised such as american bulldogs, bull arabs, working border collies and kelpies for example are not exempt from the rules and have to be desexed even if they are fully papered with THEIR breed registery