Frankston Council (vic)

[Lindyx]

I didnt have to show any form of VCA membership, just his pedigree paper's.

The lady who served me just checked my name was on his papers and took a copy.

[shoemonster]

Ah ok, I guess then if the papers are still in the breeders name, you might have had to show your membership

The way the VCA go with processing papers lately, they take 3 months to get them back to you!

[Erny]

ETA: Sorry, Erny- did not mean that to sound so narky

No "narkiness" taken, SP ;).

The way I see it, the only 'good' that comes of any of the laws pertaining to this registration/desexing/ANKC excepted business is money for the authorities involved in this. People need to realise this rather than being snowballed by nice speeches that make one think it makes a difference to current problems associated by irresponsible people and their dogs.

I want some proof from the authorities that what they do actually helps before I commit myself to agreeing that their laws/proposed laws (which will also affect me and any decisions I would otherwise have the freedom to make for the benefit of my dog). They've had long enough to accumulate that. I would like them to put their our money where their mouths are.

ETA: Even then, I, as a responsible dog owner, object to being railroaded by laws that would impose upon me and potentially upon my dogs' health and what I chose is the best for that. Remember - this is all supposed to be about animal welfare.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Erny

[Longcoat]

If the fence blew down and the ranger picked the dog up, provided the dog is registered- no problem! If the dog was registered with another council and the owner could provide proof of that- no problem!

I was at a seminar where a representative from Frankston City Council spoke and the dogs are only desexed once the owners come forward for many reasons-

1- if they didn't and the dog did have an issue and died on the table, the council would be liable. They need to get the owner to sign something but the law allows them to compel desexing if they don't meet any of the requirements for an exemption

2- the dog is not legally the property of council until after the impound period anyway so no work of a permanent nature can be done during this time

3- if the dog was desexed on entry, and unclaimed= wasted council funds.

The list goes on..

I fail to understand why people with registered dogs (local council rego) would be in any way concerned about this type of legislation?

I have to agree with you Cosmolo. I don't understand the harshness of the legislation either as it primarily targets only dog owners who don't play the game. There is really no excuse not to register your dog with council other than to flaunt with the laws

[Longcoat]

I fail to understand why people with registered dogs (local council rego) would be in any way concerned about this type of legislation?

Not all farmers register their dogs with local council. A working dog works best entire. These days most councils charge higher rates for undesexed dogs or you need to produce proof of desexing. You get the picture.

Do they work better unregistered too???. Sorry Kelpie-i, I just couldn't resist my response

[menacebear]

Would Companion Dog Club (which is a form of VCA membership) membership plus VCA registered papers be enough for Frankston council? CDC is only $25 a year, and as far as the requirement goes you need to show them the membership at the time of registering the dog, not further along the track, so you would only need the first years membership

As another posted said also her vet wrote a letter saying the dog would be desexed at 6 months and they also accepted that

This law may not be perfect (working dogs and breeds not yet recognised at ANKC), but it shows that they are trying to do something about byb and cross breeding. It had obviously been in planning for a while before it was passed?

It has been accepted before so it may be again. In the case of dogs who are already impounded people just go down to KCC and they membership is done on the spot. It's right near the pound.

[Rebanne]

I didnt have to show any form of VCA membership, just his pedigree paper's.

The lady who served me just checked my name was on his papers and took a copy.

it shows on the dogs paper's who the owner is and where they live. So for your name to be on the papers it does show that you were/are a member of the VCA.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Rebanne

[SpikesPuppy]

If the fence blew down and the ranger picked the dog up, provided the dog is registered- no problem! If the dog was registered with another council and the owner could provide proof of that- no problem!

I was at a seminar where a representative from Frankston City Council spoke and the dogs are only desexed once the owners come forward for many reasons-

1- if they didn't and the dog did have an issue and died on the table, the council would be liable. They need to get the owner to sign something but the law allows them to compel desexing if they don't meet any of the requirements for an exemption

2- the dog is not legally the property of council until after the impound period anyway so no work of a permanent nature can be done during this time

3- if the dog was desexed on entry, and unclaimed= wasted council funds.

The list goes on..

I fail to understand why people with registered dogs (local council rego) would be in any way concerned about this type of legislation?

I have to agree with you Cosmolo. I don't understand the harshness of the legislation either as it primarily targets only dog owners who don't play the game. There is really no excuse not to register your dog with council other than to flaunt with the laws

Because (according to some DOLers who live in these councils), you cannot register a dog that is undesexed (with the exception of VCA reg'd pups or with a letter from the vet so it seems), meaning you MUST have your puppy desexed before it reaches 3 months of age.

Call me cynical or paranoid if you wish but I also see this kind of 'power' that the councils are putting over pet owners as another step toward zero or at the very least, heavily regulated pet ownership. We can't own the breeds we want, we can't own entire dogs, you wait and soon there will be NO exceptions to this desexing rule in certain areas. There will probably be height and weight restrictions in some areas too.

Edited January 24, 2010 by SpikesPuppy

[Jed]

That sucks big time.

There is no reason for such laws, as Frankston council have themselves published that THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM with stray dogs.

Also sounds like a stitch up job with Dogs Vic who will get a lot more membrships out of it.

Make rotten legislation which is not necessary.

I hope people can see the big picture here --- council makes it impossible to own an entire dog, even though there is not a dog problem. And other councils do the same.

No one will be able to breed dogs except puppy farms way out in red neck country. I believe this legislation would deter some people from wanting to breed registered dogs.

And there is no dog over population.

If we continue to allow councils to bring in such legislation, in 10 years there will be no dogs full stop.

And I certainly wouldn't sell a pet pup to anyone in Frankston council area. It would have to be desexed by 12 weeks, and when it developed problems later via early desexing, it would be the breeder's fault, including if it grew too tall, didn't get a coat, and next thing the breeder would be in court for producing a dog with "hereditary flows".

We have already permitted bad laws to flourish, based on flawed and untrue statistics. Councils and governments are now adding more bad laws.

Sigh

You people wont have any dogs at all if you don't stand up to this type of legislation.

[Cosmolo]

Jed, as i said earlier Frankston have done this not to combat supposed over population but to try and reduce a big problem with BYB.

[Purpley]

No one will be able to breed dogs except puppy farms way out in red neck country. I believe this legislation would deter some people from wanting to breed registered dogs.

I don't understand this comment - those people that breed responsibly need to be a member of Vic dogs as they need to register the litter. Why would it deter purebred breeders?

The only people this law effects regarding breeding, is those breeders of non pedigree dogs eg: BYB's.

[Erny]

Jed, as i said earlier Frankston have done this not to combat supposed over population but to try and reduce a big problem with BYB.

But how does this reduce any big problem with BYB? They can still breed. Isn't it the new owners (who have paid their moneys for the pups to the BY breeders) of the BY bred dogs who pay the registration fees and desex the pups? That's like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, isn't it?

I'm trying to see your view Cosmolo - I really am. But I can't. So please, explain the steps, the semantics, of how this law will actually work to achieve that aim.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Erny

[Cosmolo]

Erny a desexed dog can't breed in the first place so there would be no pups to sell.

[shoemonster]

Does anyone have any other ideas as to how a council can try to reduce the amount of BYB out there?

[Purpley]

I have more of a problem with the compulsory vaccinating than I do with the desexing issue.

[Erny]

But Cosmolo ....

So, we are relying on an irresponsible BYB to register their dogs and of course desex them so that they can register them? The only whereforehows that are going to affect that BYB so that they end up desexing and registering is if their dog or dogs are caught straying. But isn't it said here that there really isn't a problem with stray dogs?

Edited January 24, 2010 by Erny

[shoemonster]

I've heard many times on DOL people say that pet owners should be licensed too, which I dont disagree with, but the same reaction would happen, all the responsible owners would feel like they were being unfairly treated, everyone would complain that it is revenue raising and forget that there was a reason for it to happen in the first place, oh and the people who are going to abuse animals wouldnt bother to get the license anyway

[Erny]

Does anyone have any other ideas as to how a council can try to reduce the amount of BYB out there?

Make it mandatory that they have health checks? Hip scores, Elbow scores, Eyes ...... all the usual. Which ones they have should I guess be dependant on the parentage cross. If one parent is a lab, then they must conduct the usual health checks for the lab. If another is a beagle, then the usual health checks for a beagle. And if they are using an F1 cross as a parent, then all of the above as would apply.

That's a thought off the top of my head - I'm sure there is more. And I'm sure my thoughts are flawed with difficulties. Do Pet Shops already have to record where the pups are born from (ie which BYB)? This would render them traceable.

Maybe the BYB's need to be licensed? Perhaps the laws need to direct their attentions to the places who sell the pups in the first place and have it mandatory that the pups from whence they take pups in for sale, must be licensed and they need to obtain proof of that to be able to lawfully accept the pups for sale?

Would that send BYB's underground though? (Maybe it would - but it would make it more difficult for public access . )Perhaps that's where the "education" component comes into it. But for that, the media needs to come on side and make people aware. The authorities need to send out publications I mean (rightly or wrongly) they did that with tradespeople such as electricians, didn't they? Made it so that only licensed electricians should do your electrical work?

I dunno, SM. But the point is, it seems to me that the laws that are being flogged affect the END person who ultimately owns the pup that's already been bred, and of course, the pup itself. And that seems to me to be the wrong entrance for an effective plan to commence.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

I have more of a problem with the compulsory vaccinating than I do with the desexing issue.

The "compulsory vaccinating" where? Kennels? Shelters? Sorry - not sure what you mean.

[Purpley]

I have more of a problem with the compulsory vaccinating than I do with the desexing issue.

The "compulsory vaccinating" where? Kennels? Shelters? Sorry - not sure what you mean.

From the Frankston council website -

Vaccinations

Part of responsible pet ownership is to ensure that you provide your cat and dog with full vet care which includes immunisation, regular worming including heart worm treatment, flea treatment and a yearly immunisation booster.

Does this mean that if you dog is picked up and isn't vacc'd, that they make you have the dog vacc'd before picking it up etc?