Rspca Serves Warrant On Dogs Vic

[WreckitWhippet]

Yes but the little fish come with rego papers, microchips, a paper trail, vet records and they are very easy to find and stomp all over.

[Bisart Dobes]

With our breed & vWD under the law you can still breed 2 affected dogs together it just has to be a part of a breeding program plan !!!!!!! So whats the point of this legislation ! I don't get it - I wouldn't breed with an affected dog ever.

Also I would never let them take my dogs to one of their dirty pounds or kennels - my dogs would rather die - I would take the jail option for myself than ever let them get their hands on my dogs. They can all go to hell

[pebbles]

I'll join you there BD. Not going to take mine either We'll end up in the 'News' thread

[Crisovar]

I'd say there would be quite a few making the headlines if they were were put in that position.

Says something about the most widely known "animal welfare" organisation doesn't it.

[BittyMooPeeb]

At this point the RSPCA has more powers than the police, god help us all.

That's a pretty inflammatory statement. What is your evidence for this?

BTW, the police/courts issue the warrants for the RSPCA, they don't write them themselves!

[fifi]

Yes but the little fish come with rego papers, microchips, a paper trail, vet records and they are very easy to find and stomp all over.

Too true.

Unlike all the hellish puppy mills operating anonymously in farm sheds over the countryside, I know of at least three within 100km - they sell to the public, and there are a few more that I suspect that ship out to pet shops.

No one would ever know they exist, isolated farms, no paper trail of any kind, no COE or regulation.

fifi

[Bilbo Baggins]

I spoke to Judy about this today.

DogsVic has created a area of major concern for all breeders in Vic.

As a breeder we register a litter all legit and above board. We give the papers to the new owners.

They have to JOIN DOGVIC before they can transfer the ownership. Thus we have many dogs still technically owned by us which if that dog is declared dangerous we could be libel.

When they turned up at Judy's they had a wad of paper and wanted to know where all the dogs were.

The other aspect is microchipping. If the new owners do not transfer the dog its in your name.

And now that is cost $6 to transfer I supply a cheque made out to CAR as part of my puppy pack.

For clarity. It is not possible to register the pups in to the new owners name.

[Jed]

Lappiemum

it depends on the heritable disease. Late onset PRA is in my breed, and some breeders are breeding carrier to clears, which is legal. I know for a fact one of these breeders has not tested the progeny from the last carrier litter, and this is perfectly fine with the legislation, that only states a breeder should test all the litter, not must. The breeding program for the Vic Breed club states that in terms of carrier to clear matings, only dogs and bitches intended for breeding need to be tested for PRA status, so there is nothing to compell the testing of carrier to clear litters - its up to the breeder.

The thing I find most concerning about this is that you can breed a carrier, sell it on limited register as a pet, provide full disclosure to the buyer, and a couple of years later, they get the s#$ts with you, and complain. Buyers, in my experience are flat out remembering what was in the diet sheet you gave them, never mind some complicated explanation about a hereditary disease where their dog has the genes but not the symptoms.

So, off they go and complain. If I was in Vic, I would make everyone who bought a pup sign a waiver to say that they did know the dog was a carrier, did not want to breed, and accepted that,.

Then, when pushed, they say they were "only a pet owner" and could not be expected to know or understand that. They bought the dog in good faith, they decided to breed with it, and you are in the you know what.

Just the hassle of some official turning up to find out what you did and didn't do puts me off. check through your records (if they don't seize them) find the buyer and the litter, find the signed agreement, find it isn't done properly, even though you thought it was.

And things like this do happen. I've been breeding long enough to know they do. Greyshaft is only one of many people like him who want their pound of flesh.

And the laws are incredibly convolvulted and difficult to understand,. Despite the Gov and RSPCA saying those laws are for puppy farmers, that is not spelled out, so if you have been breeding for 30 years, whelp a perfectly normal litter, the bitch is perfectly normal, but you don' t take her to the vet for a post whelping check, you are in breach of the laws, and liable to a large fine - and again, the RSPCA can seize the bitch and pups.

It's not about doing the crime for me. I am a very law abiding person - it's about the RSPCA seizing my dogs.

Poodlefan

BYBs are caught by the same law. If you can demonstrate that your breeding will not produce dogs with heritable defects, I'd say that's a defence. Time will tell.

If a byb can't test because there is no test developed, they are in the clear. And they are impossible to find anyhow.

And it may not have been a competitor who reported them - as with Judy Gard it may have been some misguided animal rights vet. It seems obvious that they are out to collar people.

It will be interesting to discover the full story behind this.

Jed

no records at an easily accessed place, no pubic addres, no names, no pack drill, happily flying under the radar

Oh, dear, I think that has to be the freudian slip of the year.

[WreckitWhippet]

Just on the issue of chipping. For VIC it may be different but in NSW the breeder is responsible for making sure that the microchip papers are transferred into the new owners name. You as the breeder get the new owner to fill in the transfer form and you lodge it with your local council. There are fines for not doing it within 14 days of the puppy/dog changing hands.

Chip papers in the eyes of the law, are the one's that count.

I'm sure just about every breeder out there has dogs under their name with their CC's, when infact they have been with new owners for years.

[Missymoo]

sigh

Edited January 26, 2010 by Missymoo

[oakway]

When you sit back and look at all this, it makes me wonder if our worst enemies are not our own controlling bodies.

[ellz]

Have often thought that oakway.

Especially considering when you ask THEM for help, you get the reply that they are a registering body only, it's a civil matter and you should seek legal advice.

And again, the fact that each state is a "separate" entity could make things difficult. There needs to be one set of rules, one set of regulations for ALL controlling bodies.

[Bilbo Baggins]

Have often thought that oakway.

Especially considering when you ask THEM for help, you get the reply that they are a registering body only, it's a civil matter and you should seek legal advice.

And again, the fact that each state is a "separate" entity could make things difficult. There needs to be one set of rules, one set of regulations for ALL controlling bodies.

Absolutly spot on ellz. An Australin set off rules would be fantastic.

[tarakay]

If only we could get the controlling bodies to see what we see in the need for one control!

[SparkyTansy]

Would a same set of rules work everywehre though?

[Furkidsforever]

DogsVic has created a area of major concern for all breeders in Vic.

As a breeder we register a litter all legit and above board. We give the papers to the new owners.

They have to JOIN DOGVIC before they can transfer the ownership. Thus we have many dogs still technically owned by us which if that dog is declared dangerous we could be libel.

In SA the breeder arranges the transfer of papers into the new owner's name. The new owner doesn't have to be a DogsSA member.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Furkidsforever

[lappiemum]

Lappiemum

it depends on the heritable disease. Late onset PRA is in my breed, and some breeders are breeding carrier to clears, which is legal. I know for a fact one of these breeders has not tested the progeny from the last carrier litter, and this is perfectly fine with the legislation, that only states a breeder should test all the litter, not must. The breeding program for the Vic Breed club states that in terms of carrier to clear matings, only dogs and bitches intended for breeding need to be tested for PRA status, so there is nothing to compell the testing of carrier to clear litters - its up to the breeder.

The thing I find most concerning about this is that you can breed a carrier, sell it on limited register as a pet, provide full disclosure to the buyer, and a couple of years later, they get the s#$ts with you, and complain. Buyers, in my experience are flat out remembering what was in the diet sheet you gave them, never mind some complicated explanation about a hereditary disease where their dog has the genes but not the symptoms.

So, off they go and complain. If I was in Vic, I would make everyone who bought a pup sign a waiver to say that they did know the dog was a carrier, did not want to breed, and accepted that,.

Then, when pushed, they say they were "only a pet owner" and could not be expected to know or understand that. They bought the dog in good faith, they decided to breed with it, and you are in the you know what.

Just the hassle of some official turning up to find out what you did and didn't do puts me off. check through your records (if they don't seize them) find the buyer and the litter, find the signed agreement, find it isn't done properly, even though you thought it was.

And things like this do happen. I've been breeding long enough to know they do. Greyshaft is only one of many people like him who want their pound of flesh.

And the laws are incredibly convolvulted and difficult to understand,. Despite the Gov and RSPCA saying those laws are for puppy farmers, that is not spelled out, so if you have been breeding for 30 years, whelp a perfectly normal litter, the bitch is perfectly normal, but you don' t take her to the vet for a post whelping check, you are in breach of the laws, and liable to a large fine - and again, the RSPCA can seize the bitch and pups.

It's not about doing the crime for me. I am a very law abiding person - it's about the RSPCA seizing my dogs.

Poodlefan

BYBs are caught by the same law. If you can demonstrate that your breeding will not produce dogs with heritable defects, I'd say that's a defence. Time will tell.

If a byb can't test because there is no test developed, they are in the clear. And they are impossible to find anyhow.

And it may not have been a competitor who reported them - as with Judy Gard it may have been some misguided animal rights vet. It seems obvious that they are out to collar people.

It will be interesting to discover the full story behind this.

Jed

no records at an easily accessed place, no pubic addres, no names, no pack drill, happily flying under the radar

Oh, dear, I think that has to be the freudian slip of the year.

This is quite a contentious issue, Jed. I fall on the side that if you breed a carrier litter, you should have the progeny tested gentically. You can have the result registered with the genetic company, provide disclosure to the puppy person in writing (as is required) and that way everyone is covered.

The other danger in not testing a litter is that while breeders try to screen everyone who wants a puppy from their breed, there is still the distinct possibility that one day there will be unregistered litters for sale from back yarders, who have managed to get into the breed though "pet" purchases. Registration and health checks will have no meaning for them, only $$. however, eithout knowing the genetic status of the parents, you could end up with affected litters without ever knowing it.

[oakway]

It is very hard to get all the states to agree. The wealthy states don't want to give their money to the poorer states. The ANKC is farce as it is only made up of state members. Some see it as a sub committee. The ANKC should be the main body and the states made of sub committees not the other way around.

Then one can say look at the English Kennel Club, who would have believed that bastion of dogs in the UK would have folded like a pack of cards after just one TV show.

The only way we can defend ourselves is to have a body that has the power to stand up and defend us.

The way I see it is that our state bodies will not defend us at all in any of our claims. But they sure want all the fees they can get off us.

I am not saying that all state bodies are the same but they are starting to get that way.

If something is not done soon they will have no members left to pay the fee's for their wages.

[Dogsfevr]

Also remember not all states have equal votes,some states have 2 votes & the smaller ones 1

[oakway]

Also remember not all states have equal votes,some states have 2 votes & the smaller ones 1

Yes that's correct.