Rspca Discussion Paper On Puppy Farming

[SpikesPuppy]

If the RSPCA were serious about stopping puppy mills, they could have done so but this isn't what they want.

This is true. They already have the power to seize dogs in puppy farm situations (matted fur etc) so why the Hell don't they do it?????

[Steve]

They dont need any of this anyway.

Councils could have a method of seeing who is breeding what with a slight tweak of the microchip laws and ensuring they are policed.

Problem with that is that council cant just blab about microchip data because part of the way it was allowed in from the beginning was with respect to people's privacy.

All they have to do is ensure that every pup is chipped and that the breeder details are noted and that eliminates at least half of what they are worried about. Council would pick up if someone were breeding a hundred pups they would know how many were on the property and when to go and have a look to see if they were complying with laws and alert the RSPCA if they are not.

But for that to work current laws have to be enforced.

[Natsu chan]

My feeling is that the mircochipping laws won't get tweaked simply because the RSPCA would see that as removing the control from them to the councils. That nasty little clause about being able to seized and sell dogs unless you pay them a bond is a win win for them. Either way they stand to make money out of it. I can just see this being passed and then the CCs being served with warrants for the details of all prefix holders and dogs being seized and sold right left and centre. Given most registered breeders are ordinary people without easy access to large amounts of money it would be a given that most dogs they seized would be sold.

Puppy farmers won't care one dog is as good as another as far as they're concerned but for us things are different. One individual being seized could have implications for a whole breed especially if it's a rare breed.

Call me cynical but the way this is structured just strikes me as a way for the RSPCA to micro manage dog breeding and ultimately to have free access to any dog they want.

I know the RSPCA aren't perfect but after years of Wirths endless criticism of anyone but himself and the org and the way serious complains get ignored, while oceans of money get spent pushing for more and more restrictive laws that don't actually solve anything, I have very little faith left int them.

[Steve]

My feeling is that the mircochipping laws won't get tweaked simply because the RSPCA would see that as removing the control from them to the councils. That nasty little clause about being able to seized and sell dogs unless you pay them a bond is a win win for them. Either way they stand to make money out of it. I can just see this being passed and then the CCs being served with warrants for the details of all prefix holders and dogs being seized and sold right left and centre. Given most registered breeders are ordinary people without easy access to large amounts of money it would be a given that most dogs they seized would be sold.

Puppy farmers won't care one dog is as good as another as far as they're concerned but for us things are different. One individual being seized could have implications for a whole breed especially if it's a rare breed.

Call me cynical but the way this is structured just strikes me as a way for the RSPCA to micro manage dog breeding and ultimately to have free access to any dog they want.

I know the RSPCA aren't perfect but after years of Wirths endless criticism of anyone but himself and the org and the way serious complains get ignored, while oceans of money get spent pushing for more and more restrictive laws that don't actually solve anything, I have very little faith left int them.

Microchipping laws in NSW wont get tweaked because that would tell who bred every puppy thats sold and it takes away the ability for puppy farmers to remain anon when they sell to pet shops or agents. PIAA will fight this and so will breeders who have to date been able to avoid chipping or who have chipped straight into the new owners name so council doesnt know they are in their shire and breeding commercially.

[Jed]

I have no problem with that Steve, but if you read lilli's and jed's posts, they are saying they will not be involved.

Where does it say that in either post?

[WreckitWhippet]

My feeling is that the mircochipping laws won't get tweaked simply because the RSPCA would see that as removing the control from them to the councils. That nasty little clause about being able to seized and sell dogs unless you pay them a bond is a win win for them. Either way they stand to make money out of it. I can just see this being passed and then the CCs being served with warrants for the details of all prefix holders and dogs being seized and sold right left and centre. Given most registered breeders are ordinary people without easy access to large amounts of money it would be a given that most dogs they seized would be sold.

Puppy farmers won't care one dog is as good as another as far as they're concerned but for us things are different. One individual being seized could have implications for a whole breed especially if it's a rare breed.

Call me cynical but the way this is structured just strikes me as a way for the RSPCA to micro manage dog breeding and ultimately to have free access to any dog they want.

I know the RSPCA aren't perfect but after years of Wirths endless criticism of anyone but himself and the org and the way serious complains get ignored, while oceans of money get spent pushing for more and more restrictive laws that don't actually solve anything, I have very little faith left int them.

Microchipping laws in NSW wont get tweaked because that would tell who bred every puppy thats sold and it takes away the ability for puppy farmers to remain anon when they sell to pet shops or agents. PIAA will fight this and so will breeders who have to date been able to avoid chipping or who have chipped straight into the new owners name so council doesnt know they are in their shire and breeding commercially.

Is that really all that stands between us and getting a tweak of chipping ?

Edited January 30, 2010 by SBT123

[Steve]

My feeling is that the mircochipping laws won't get tweaked simply because the RSPCA would see that as removing the control from them to the councils. That nasty little clause about being able to seized and sell dogs unless you pay them a bond is a win win for them. Either way they stand to make money out of it. I can just see this being passed and then the CCs being served with warrants for the details of all prefix holders and dogs being seized and sold right left and centre. Given most registered breeders are ordinary people without easy access to large amounts of money it would be a given that most dogs they seized would be sold.

Puppy farmers won't care one dog is as good as another as far as they're concerned but for us things are different. One individual being seized could have implications for a whole breed especially if it's a rare breed.

Call me cynical but the way this is structured just strikes me as a way for the RSPCA to micro manage dog breeding and ultimately to have free access to any dog they want.

I know the RSPCA aren't perfect but after years of Wirths endless criticism of anyone but himself and the org and the way serious complains get ignored, while oceans of money get spent pushing for more and more restrictive laws that don't actually solve anything, I have very little faith left int them.

Microchipping laws in NSW wont get tweaked because that would tell who bred every puppy thats sold and it takes away the ability for puppy farmers to remain anon when they sell to pet shops or agents. PIAA will fight this and so will breeders who have to date been able to avoid chipping or who have chipped straight into the new owners name so council doesnt know they are in their shire and breeding commercially.

Is that really all that stands between us and getting a tweak of chipping ?

Yep.

[Jed]

This whole thing just gives me a headache. I really don't think it's a practical solution but I suspect it won't matter the RSPCA seems to have registered dog breeders in their sights and that's that. I'm sure they know it will cause people to just stop breeding and as a bonus side affect you won't be allowed to own a show dog if you aren't a breeder either.

I don't think Spikes puppy mean that we shouldn't care about what happens to the dogs in puppy farms it's more the complete feeling of doing your best and still being treated like some sort of criminal. Registered breeders are feeling more and more cornered and frustrated and powerless and I think that's where Spikes puppy's comments are coming from. I don't even breed and I feel the same way!

This is exactly what I meant, thank you for understanding Natsu chan & Steve.

I think what puppy farms do is abhorrent and I DO care about all dogs but I also see the reality of the issue- more regulation (ie: on puppy farms) equals more regulation on the little guys (responsible, ethical breeders) which equals more fees, more 'hygeine' recommendations = no more whelping the litter in your bedroom! Nope, it must be in a correctly constructed kennel xxx amount of metres from any residential premesis and you must follow xxx regulations on weaning, vaccinating, worming, feeding. No more old family remedies. You will be required to take the dog/puppy to a veterinary professional for every little cut or scrape it may get.

If you look at the situation realistically- the puppy farms DO have the time, money and facilities/space to comply with these proposed laws. I certainly do not and I don't know any registered breeder who does!! They also have the money to fight legislation against them- otherwise why has it taken so long for Clover Moore's bill to go through ??? Because the PIAA and co HAVE THE MONEY that we do not.

I knew what you meant, and I agree with you and Natsu Chan. The pf will circumvent the laws, brecause the have the income to do it.

And it's not, imho, all about puppy farms. They have shown they do have registered breeders in their sights. Under the POCTAA acts in all states, they have the power to compel puppy farms to do things right, and they simply don't do it. Now they want more, and as far as I can see, unconstitutional and over-riding powers.

Woofnhoof

I think there should be an option for people to either join this new licensing system or remain with their current governing bodies so long as they have acceptable and enforceable codes of practice, that way people don't have to pay mulitple licensing fees and they are still subject to standards, if they get kicked out of their CCs or other registries then they are forced to join the government one. It would be a good opportunity for the registries to come together and work towards unity and also ensure that they are a part of any process involving dog breeding, far better to be part of the machine than trying to work on it from the outside.

Interesting that you read it as two separate registries. I read it as state CC members having to pay an additional licensing fee to the gov.

Personally I don't think it matters if you have to make puppy buyers sign various contracts, you do that when you buy a car and once everyone knows what the gist of it is no one sits there and reads all the fine print anyway, I haven't read the fine print on contracts for years just skim over it to get the gist of it. It's just there to protect both buyer and seller, it could work well for those breeders who offer health guarentees becuase you can state clearly what your guarentee does and does not cover, bit like warranties on cars. Not only that signing a contract can make people think a bit more carefully about their decision to purchase, more so than if they were just handing over a few hundred bucks at the market.

A pup costs about 1/20 of the price of a car. A car yard is a business, with employees. Breeding is a hobby, with no employees, run by people who mostly work full time, have house and garden chores, and care for dogs, as well as undertake their hobby. I don't want it to a business. I don't want my puppy buyers to be "customers"

My buyers already sign a heap of paperwork, all of which needs to be explained to them. If they do not understand it, later they can say that they signed something they did not understand .... and that is a viable defense in court. Anyhow, I want them to understand it, I want them to be happy, I want them to feel that they can contact me whenever they want, whether they have a problem or not. I want to be the first point of contact if there is a problem, not to be contacted when their numpty vet has cost them a few grand for no resolution, and they are feeling pretty shitty generally. I don't want that relationship to be one of "business" and "customer".

The point is, breeders don't want to be bothered. So they will walk away. I don't think people who are not breeders get it, and I don't think they will ever get it unless they actually do it.

And I again ageee with Natsu Chan - the RSPCA wants to micromanage dog breeding, despite having no practical knowledge, and no interest.

[Jed]

The easy solution is to allow registered breeders to continue to be regulated by their state CC.

Yeah, sure, that allows the registered puppy farms to continue, but the CCs could clean that up if they wished. And in all fairness, they do ride the registered pfs quite a bit, making things difficult for them.

But I don't think that is what is required - so it wont happen.

RSPCA should then, if they wish, try to have legislation enacted to prevent pups being exported, except to proper registered breeders, and to accompany their owners. I don't think they will win that one.

Christina

Even registered breeders can not agree & comment on how many is too many dogs, how many litters at once, how close to breed & on & on.

Because it is not a matter of how many, or what is done, it's the WAY it is done. And we cannot know that without seeing, which is why any 'one size fits all' rule is never going to work.

I know people with 30 dogs, all well cared for and happy. I know people with 4 dogs which should be removed. I know people with 2 dogs which look ok, but which are unhappy.

Making laws about walking dogs daily, not using dual feeding bowls are not solving the problem either. They are simply making it more difficult for people to comply with the laws and keep pets.

There are breeders who do close matings, and we would fall over to buy a pup - there are other lines that we would avoid if we saw the same dog twice. I don't think you can regulate something which is more art than science with any degree of success, particularly when it is a hobby.

I feed my dogs together - they share bowls. This is because some of my dogs are princesses, and if I feed them individually, they look at the food with disgust, and turn their heads away. They are waiting for roast turkey, or salmon mousse. When they discover that if they don't eat it, someone else will, they decide they will have chicken and veges thanks, and not wait for roast turkey. So they muck in with the common herd. This includes the dogs I show, and no one has ever thought they were mal nourished. This system would not suit all dogs and all breeds. I used to feed individually, but some dogs simply didn't eat enough, despite being in very good health, and were very light in condition. This system works better, bearing in mind the best interests of my dogs. I don't do it because I am lazy or stupid, I do it for the welfare of the dogs.

If I lived in Victoria, I could not do that. It is against the law. So, to obey the law, my dogs would suffer. Numerous dog breeders use the same system, because it does work with some breeds.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Jed

[shel]

The major problem is that it's such an easy 'sell': We have a puppy farm problem in Australia - should we have a breeder licencing scheme?

<public>Of course we should - it'll get rid of those nasty puppy farmers!

But a person who treats dogs appallingly, neglects them, lets them live in covered in feces, overbreeds and finally kills them without vet assistance - is already breaking the law.

Someone who has an clean, regularly inspected bulk kennels, with all the required permits, hundreds of breeding dogs and absolutely no regard for where their pups end up - can never be eliminated, unless we decide as a community that treating pets as livestock is unacceptable and stop buying.

Like it or not, in Australia it's ok to use animals for human use. People who farm dogs, are able to claim the same rights as any other farmer. Licencing schemes can't and won't change that.

But, imagine for one moment, everyone that kept household chickens were treated in the same manner as someone who had thousands and produced supermarket eggs for a living. Licencing, reporting, legislation, enforcement; what would that even cost?

Unfortunately, the emotion of animal welfare groups out to get the 'greedy evil breeders' has meant we're now facing a future of absurd and emotive 'solutions'.

[Steve]

The major problem is that it's such an easy 'sell': We have a puppy farm problem in Australia - should we have a breeder licencing scheme?

<public>Of course we should - it'll get rid of those nasty puppy farmers!

But a person who treats dogs appallingly, neglects them, lets them live in covered in feces, overbreeds and finally kills them without vet assistance - is already breaking the law.

Someone who has an clean, regularly inspected bulk kennels, with all the required permits, hundreds of breeding dogs and absolutely no regard for where their pups end up - can never be eliminated, unless we decide as a community that treating pets as livestock is unacceptable and stop buying.

Like it or not, in Australia it's ok to use animals for human use. People who farm dogs, are able to claim the same rights as any other farmer. Licencing schemes can't and won't change that.

But, imagine for one moment, everyone that kept household chickens were treated in the same manner as someone who had thousands and produced supermarket eggs for a living. Licencing, reporting, legislation, enforcement; what would that even cost?

Unfortunately, the emotion of animal welfare groups out to get the 'greedy evil breeders' has meant we're now facing a future of absurd and emotive 'solutions'.

:D :D

[BJean]

** is there an RSPCA web link for this discussion paper? **

I need it for my VCA AGM item submission, thankyou L:)

[BJean]

The RSPCA is asking for submissions. Instead of sitting on here bitching, why doesn't everyone write up a 'better idea' and send it off. If all the reg'd breeders did this and demonstrated how passionate they were about animal welfare BUT also why some of the proposed plans are not suitable, then PERHAPS the RSPCA might be willing to listen and help. This is everyone's chance to help stop puppy farming but also protect reg'd breeders.

I've written a 'better idea' to my Canine repesentative, Dogs Victoria.

The RSPCA are asking for submissions and "PERHAPS they be willing to listen and help"???

Well we should all be so grateful.

No thankyou. I will put my effort to where I believe a difference can be made.

btw I dont believe the RSCPA are the only organisational body for animal welfare,

and I wont laud them as such.

Edited January 30, 2010 by lilli

[Jed]

Good post shel.

I agree with you, lilli, and I wonder why a charity is able to mandate on laws which affect a proper organisation which they have nothing to do with.

I don't believe the RSPCA wants suggestions, I believe their course is already charted, and I certainly wont be writing to them with suggestions, I will make any effort I make count

[Souff]

1. Regulation of breeders

• All breeders should be required to obtain a government licence to breed dogs - whether

they are breeding purebred, cross-bred or mixed-bred dogs, and whether they breed

commercially or as a hobby.

Good heavens! They stole my idea!

[Jed]

I was considering smacking you one upside of the head for that one Souffie, but it occurs to me that registered breeders are already licensed with their state CCs.

Now, the CC's might not do much in this regard, but they do about as much as the government does with r.e. agents, motor dealers, plumbers etc, so licensed with the CC; OR the government if not a CC member will do

Except it's not happening. There wont be enough people applying for licenses to make it worthwhile having a special department with 120 people to handle registrations.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Jed

[Souff]

I was considering smacking you one upside of the head for that one Souffie, but it occurs to me that registered breeders are already licensed with their state CCs.

Now, the CC's might not do much in this regard, but they do about as much as the government does with r.e. agents, motor dealers, plumbers etc, so licensed with the CC; OR the government if not a CC member will do

Except it's not happening. There wont be enough people applying for licenses to make it worthwhile having a special department with 120 people to handle registrations.

Good Evans, violence on DOL! Yes Jed, we are already licensed, well if I renew this year I will continue to be. The envelope arrived the other day.

No, no, this is really all about getting an income stream for the RSPCA methinks .....just another fine to add to the list of fines for things like "fleas on dog".

Puppy farmers will be able to claim their licence fee as a tax deduction and trade legally under the Trade Practices Act and the whole double standards matter of Federal vs State will continue, and the good breeders will still be targetted as an easy mark. Ho hum. Cant see much change happening really. Breeding those fluffy dogs for KMart is the only way to go.

Souff

[Steve]

Being a member of the CC is no where near what they are going after. They want to know who is breeding and where they are.

They want the freedom to enter and check you out without having any reason to do so, take your dogs and make you pay up front if you want to argue. They want your dogs housed as boarding kennel dogs which only stay for a week or two on concrete floors and they want store owners and vets to dob you in - not because they think you have been cruel to a dog but because you get more than average puppies vetted and buy your food in bulk.

Better still they dont just want to know themselves but they want our street addresses put up on a website so people can just drop in and check out our homes.

We're right back to judging breeders by whether or not they advertise their litter in a newspaper or on websites and whether they put their street address up on their websites. So big places who are set up with big kennels and they dont use ther backyards and loungerooms get a steady stream of people coming to their shop front and smaller breeders have to let people know they have pups available by ESP.

Those of us who breed rarely would have to put up with people dropping in and wanting to look at puppies that dont exist or check out our kennels [homes] because they know where to find us via a website. Puppy farmers would see these as customers but I would

see it as a major pain in the neck.

A couple of years ago I was living in Wagga on 500 acres and at about 6.30 pm on a Sunday evening 2 men arrived at my front door

wanting to see my puppies - I didnt have any but they pushed and wanted to see my dogs so like an idiot I allowed them to see my dogs and where and how they lived. I had just recently mated one of my girls. I asked them how they found me and one said off the net .I said not true my husband would kill me if I put my street address up on the net and they admitted that they had been to Eagle Boys Pizza and given my phone number to one of the workers who accessed my address from their data base and gave them directions on how to find me. They asked me to contact them when my puppies were born,I told them all the puppies were already spoken for and they left. That litter of puppies were stolen at 6 weeks of age.

Another time Saturday afternoon my whole family was at my house - pretty rare now as most are older and not living close and a bunch of friends.We were all in the back yard having a bar be que to celebrate one of them getting engaged and one of my kids told me someone was asking to see me.Husband and wife and 2 kids were asking to see my dogs which were in pens about 40 feet from where they were standing in full view of everyone in the yard because of the party.

I was a bit shocked,but I was polite and said now isnt a good time, but by now their kids were up at the pen poking their hands through the wire to pat the puppies. Mum was begging "could we please just cuddle some of the puppies while we are here we travelled a fair way to get here" Padlock on the pen - key in the house, 40 or so guests, food going cold ,uninvited and unwanted people wanting to play with puppies? Nup - told them it couldn't be done and there were no puppies not spoken for anyway.One of their kids threw a wobbly and screamed blue bloody murder - didnt want to leave until she got a puppy,the other kid was riding my kid's bike which had been parked up the side of the garage out of the way of the party goers and someone had given Dad a beer.

So I got a bit tougher and said "Where did you get our address from" Turned out it was from someone called Malcolm and it took me weeks to think through who the hell Malcolm was [oneof the shearers]but I said "look I dont mean to be rude but we have a rather special family thing going on here,now isnt a good time and I would prefer it if you left" then it was "well when is a good time " I told her to ring me and I would speak to her via phone because now isnt a good time - again. As they head out the gate Mum says "how bloody rude - its a wonder they ever sell a dog"

There's not a chance in hell Im putting my street address up on any internet website. And thats a fact.

[whippets]

I wish the RSPCA would curl up and die.

......along side PETA of course.

[Are You Serious Jo]

"• Defendants to be required to pay court bonds prior to any litigation appeals or appeals in

relation to the forfeiture of animals. The bond amount should be based on the financial

cost of caring for the dogs on a daily basis, acknowledging that during this period such

this care is being provided by RSPCA or other rescue group and not by the defendant.

Where a court bond is not paid, the owner would be required to surrender the animals for

rehoming."

This really is the scariest thing I have read so far. I know they have unprecedented powers, but surely this is unconstitutional and can't be allowed to go through?

If they care so much about puppy farms why haven't they used their powers they already have, as everyone has said, they already have the tools and power to go after them. They really have it in for registered breeders.