Rspca Discussion Paper On Puppy Farming

[gundoglover]

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.

Thankfully, I haven't had the dreadful experiences that you have described - how awful to have a litter of pups stolen and rude people gate-crashing your family party! But I, too, was very alarmed that my home address would be placed on a website. In the job that I do to pay for my hobby, I would not want anybody to know my street address & take care to use a PO box & have an unlisted number, etc. If this ruling came in, I would no longer be breeder. I understand that the RSPCA is worried that puppy farmers conceal their activities & send puppies by mail, etc., but depriving the rest of us of the privacy of our homes is surely going too far. Genuine puppy enquirers are welcome to phone or email & make an appointment with me on those few occasions when I have puppies, but for the general public to just have the address & drop in unannounced is not on - I am not running a pet shop!

[WreckitWhippet]

I would be pissed off to say the least if I had people rocking up on my door step on a Sunday arvo, just because my address was listed and they could.

I have no issues with genuine people coming to visit, but if they are interested in our dogs or a pup, they can call first and come when it suits me. I'll bake a cake, make the a cuppa and make sure I can spend a decent amount of time with them.

[Jed]

I would never advertise my address, anywhere. When people enquire about pups, if I am satisfied via email and phone that they could be suitable homes, I organise a time and day for them to call. I will not give them the address until the appointment is set. If people want the address without a time, I wont give it out. And Iwont give my address out unless I have names, a landline number, which I have checked in the white pages, and an email address which is not yahoo or hotmail.

And I suspected a couple of times in the past that people have been creeping around after pups late at night, so now I don't tell anyone I have pups, and I don't advertise until they are nearly ready to leave. Apart from that, I rely on my big girls to protect my pups, and so far, they have. Hundreds of pups and porential breeding dogs are stolen each year.

I was thinking about the RSPCA and their desire for increased power. They recently busted a puppy farm in Qld, seized 240 dogs. People have been lodging formal complaints about this operation, to my certain knowledge, for the past SIX years, including 2 pet shops. No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I know about. It took them six years to do anything, and they have always had the power to seize the dogs.

That emotive stuff about puppy farms is quite true, but like all their media releases, they have couched it in the most emotive terms possible, to pull at the heartstrings of the publlic. It's a tactic they always use.

RSPCA spent $M1.2 on advertising to make the pubilc see breeders who docked as cruel heartless bastards. According to Jane Speechly, they got a good deal on the advertising.

Why haven't they put another $M1.2 into advertising the evils of puppy farms, so the public wont buy from people on the side of the road, from pet shops, from people with a shifty ad and a mubile number?

Advertising worked to encourage people to neuter dogs, it worked in the case of docking, why don't they do it again?

Because they want to stop breeding, not stop puppy farms. All breeders are anathema to the RSPCA

I don't think responding to the RSPCA will be effective. For those who want to be effective, I think writing to your own MP, and the minister for agriculture or primary industries in your state would be more effective. CC members should write to their state CC as well, or in the case of Vic, attend the AGM and ensure the matter is discussed, and the CC is listening to the members.

As with BSL and docking laws, I'll write the submissions. I've had plenty of practise now!! I'll do what I can.

But our protests are too late. We should have stood together and stopped BSL and stood together again, and stopped anti docking legislation, but some people wouldn't support pitbulls, others wouldn't support docking, because they only saw the small item, not the large agenda. And they wouldn't put aside their own small preferences for the greater good of the hobby.

Many still will not do anything, because they believe puppy farms should be stopped, and don't believe anyone would want to stop registered dogs being bred. And I am sure the RSPCA has stitched up another deal with the government, and any protests will reach the aleady committed in another direction. And don't think the RSPCA hasn't already been lobbying, of course they have. For years.

And me? Well, as you all know, I've been warning of this for years. I think I may have a bitch in whelp, those pups are going to previous puppy buyers who want another, and who I feel bound to breed one last time for. After that, she is going to a new home, to live with people who bought 3 pups from me over 30 odd years. The oldies are staying, the middle aged all have new homes. Seeing this coming, I have 3 young dogs to show. They will do me, I'll have showing as a hobby, and nice dogs to grow old with.

I renewed my membership and prefix, but as soon as I've registered the litter (if we have one), I'm turning in my prefix. And maybe I'm getting a PO box.

Even if the RSPCA loses this round, they will be back, time and again, on one thing or another, until they win.

And they know they will win, registered breeders, via the state CCs, have continued to demonstrate that they will llie down, roll over and play dead in previous circumstances. The CCCQ AIDED the RSPCA and government in instigating BSL and provided advice. Why would the RSPCA expect not to win?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Jed

[SpikesPuppy]

You know, come to think of it- I don't recall seeing anything from the RSPCA speaking negatively of puppy farms???

I was a member for a few years when I was a kid (and before I knew the truth) and got regular newsletters etc. Lots of articles and distressing pictures of battery hens, piggery cruelty, docked puppies, international meat trade, even poor starving cattle and horses with no trees to shelter under as well as individual cruelty acts (neglect, amputations, festering wounds or too tight collars etc) as well as anti-hunting campaigns. But I honestly cannot think of a single lone article on puppy farm hellholes????? Am I wrong??

[Kissindra]

havent read all the replies but do wonder where private/small rescuers who take in pregnant bitches from pounds will stand. Would they count as breeders if they choose to whelp and rehome the pups?

[WreckitWhippet]

Never fear, the RSPCA wants to make sure that "rescue" outside of their doors , doesn't exist either.

[Jed]

You know, come to think of it- I don't recall seeing anything from the RSPCA speaking negatively of puppy farms???

I was a member for a few years when I was a kid (and before I knew the truth) and got regular newsletters etc. Lots of articles and distressing pictures of battery hens, piggery cruelty, docked puppies, international meat trade, even poor starving cattle and horses with no trees to shelter under as well as individual cruelty acts (neglect, amputations, festering wounds or too tight collars etc) as well as anti-hunting campaigns. But I honestly cannot think of a single lone article on puppy farm hellholes????? Am I wrong??

Now that you mention it, I've never seen anything either. A good advertising campaign would reduce sales

[Steve]

They wont stop here note the first sentence- the welfare issues which need to be addressed in Australia today.

puppy farming, pedigree purebred health and welfare, and inbreeding.

This one appears to go after puppy farms but purebred health and inbreeding will come any minute and will also be covered if the have their way with POCTAA laws for puppy farms which will have sub clauses in there regarding indiscrimminate breeding - in breeding and selection of breeding dogs INCLUDING purebred ones.

Im watching with interest the purebred dog world - in particular those who are heavily involved in showing their dogs

and many still think its everyone else but them that are under the gun and yet they are the primary target. Their arrogance that they are the only ones who get it right because they show and belong to the CCs amazes me. Not even the flack they have received from the PDE program or the fact that if anything on the puppy buyers page and hints in everything the RSPCA do including this paper state that being registered isnt necessarily a good thing has made them realise that this is about everyone who breeds or sells puppies.That it would affect their choices in what and how they have been doing things, their privacy and their basic rights.

[pebbles]

Is there anywhere one can view any minutes of meetings etc of the RSPCA where these proposals are formatted?

Would be interested to see what expertise these people have and what, if any, organisations have representatives on these Committees.

[Jed]

ANKC RESPONSE TO RSPCA

ANKC STATEMENT : PEDIGREE DOGS EXPOSED - RSPCA CALL FOR CHANGE

The ANKC is actively addressing recent concerns raised on a review of breeding practices in Australia and would like to provide the following information.

1.Australia differs considerably to the UK – we agree there are problems (just as there are in humans, cross bred dogs and other species) but are working hard to improve dog health and welfare across the board.

2.We already have Disease Control Schemes running in a large number of breeds and have been doing so for long periods of time, with good results. We have cleared Copper Toxicosis from Bedlington Terriers, Fucocidosis in Springer Spaniels and Haemophilia A from the German Shepherd.

3.We annually donate close to $100,000 collectively across Australia to Research into dog diseases and DNA Test Development.

4.Breeders are heavily involved in testing dogs and assisting in research often by donating funds and samples.

5.With regards to Inbreeding we are collaborating with the Sydney University Faculty of Veterinary Science investigating the status in Australia. We do not anticipate major problems in the numerically larger breeds, smaller breeds may have higher figures, however Australian breeders have a long history of importing new bloodlines, especially due to our geographical isolation.

6.Breed Standards were promoted in the BBC Program as the ”cause” of many genetic diseases – rarely is this true, many diseases are enzyme or organ based. Breed Standards are an outline guide and breeders and judges are urged to avoid exaggeration.

7.Health Control Schemes – there is widespread use of health schemes in Australia by dog breeders – hips, elbows, eyes. The use of DNA Testing is expanding rapidly as tests become available. The ANKC has partnered with the AVA in CHEDS (Canine Hip and Elbow Scheme) and ACES (Australian Canine Eye Scheme). Some breeds have adopted LRL’s (Litter Registration Limitations requiring parental screening for certain heritable diseases before a litter can be registered.

The ANKC and its Member Bodies are committed to the improvement of the Health and Welfare of Pedigree Dogs and where it is presented with scientifically based evidence of health problems in a breed it will consult with relevant experts to work towards a solution.

MEDIA RELEASES

21 July 2009 New Stem Cell Technology Combats Arthritis click here to view

4 August 2009 Blood Donor Dogs Save Lives click here to view

18 August 2009 Hereditary Disease in Dogs a Fact of Life click here to view

26 August 2009 Dog breed shows are not "all show" click here to view

15 Sepember 2009 Dog Breeding in Australia click here to view

29 September 2009 Tick and Flea season predicted to be the worst click here to view

4 November 2009 Dogs 'Smell Out' Cancer click here to view

MEDIA INFORMATION

About the Australian National Kennel Council - click here to view

Media Backgrounder - click here to view

Pebbles, I have no idea. I suppose that information would only be available to members

MEDIA SPOKESPERSON

Australian National Kennel Council Media Spokesperson - Dr Peter Higgins

For further information or interviews, please contact:

Dr Peter Higgins

0410 676 365

Or email: [email protected]

[poodlefan]

Dogs ACT will be making a submission on this paper.

[Jed]

Excellent, PF, I think some of the other CCs will be doing so as well

[WoofnHoof]

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.

I think the paper means for that but that is why I would suggest an either/or option to avoid that doubling up, either that or integrate the CCs & other registries into the proposed system so that the licensing is the same across the board and the same rules apply to everyone. It can be argued that requiring CC registered breeders to join an additional licensing system is discriminatory and contrary to the aims of the paper which is supposedly not to penalise good breeders.

Overall I really agree with having a licensing system for all dog breeders because at the moment the only ones following a licensing system are the purebreed and working registries and therefore they are the only ones leaving a paper trail, having a licensing system that covers ALL breeders means that there is a more level playing field.

You might be right about the contract setup I suppose I see it more like how if you are selling a car privately you have to get a safety certificate and because the licensing system supposedly covers all breeders I would think it would be feasible to get a standard sort of contract that can be amended to suit, sort of like the standard EFA lease contracts you can get for horses it's a standard document that can be used by anyone who is a member and the animal must be registered with them.

[SpikesPuppy]

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.

I think the paper means for that but that is why I would suggest an either/or option to avoid that doubling up, either that or integrate the CCs & other registries into the proposed system so that the licensing is the same across the board and the same rules apply to everyone. It can be argued that requiring CC registered breeders to join an additional licensing system is discriminatory and contrary to the aims of the paper which is supposedly not to penalise good breeders.

Overall I really agree with having a licensing system for all dog breeders because at the moment the only ones following a licensing system are the purebreed and working registries and therefore they are the only ones leaving a paper trail, having a licensing system that covers ALL breeders means that there is a more level playing field.

You might be right about the contract setup I suppose I see it more like how if you are selling a car privately you have to get a safety certificate and because the licensing system supposedly covers all breeders I would think it would be feasible to get a standard sort of contract that can be amended to suit, sort of like the standard EFA lease contracts you can get for horses it's a standard document that can be used by anyone who is a member and the animal must be registered with them.

But dogs aren't cars or EFA quality horses. People generally purchase dogs or puppies as household pets & companions and the majority keep the same dog for it's entire lifetime.

The content of puppy contracts has too much variation between individuals IMO for something like this to work. Some people, for eg. require desexing of all pups, others only encourage desexing, some have rules on where the dog may be rehomed to or what other dogs it can or cannot be mated to...

Have registered breeders really changed so much over the last few years that we need to turn breeding & selling puppies into a business transaction?????

I am also concerned about privacy and puppy buyers with having them sign too many documents. Businesses (in theory) have privacy clauses and can get into big trouble for leaking personal information, but what is to stop a dodgy breeder from using supplied information for the wrong reasons???

[~Anne~]

I only have a few comments to make.... surprise, surprise. :D

The document is very poorly written, based on anecdotal evidence, and filled with controversial assertions. I am actually surprised at the lack of intelligent analysis and factual information in the document and because of this; I find it hard to take it seriously. The fact that the National CEO has put her name to this document is remarkable.

The RSPCA, and all those who are involved in one way, shape or another with companion animals, should firstly and foremost look to creating national unity on legislation and laws. The fact that each state administers independent laws and legislation, sometimes in direct opposition to each other, is farcical.

Secondly, there MUST be a national enquiry to determine where the issues really are, what current legislation exists, what it achieves and where the failures are, and what current practices and processes can be improved, refined and made particable.

Edited February 1, 2010 by ~Anne~

[poodlefan]

The RSPCA, and all those who are involved in one way, shape or another with companion animals, should firstly and foremost look to creating national unity on legislation and laws. The fact that each state administers independent laws and legislation, sometimes in direct opposition to each other, is farcical.

Farcical it may be Anne but it won't be changing anytime soon. As I said in another thread, we've been a Federation for over a century and we still don't have uniform road rules. :D

[pebbles]

Good heavens Anne - your post makes sense so that's the end of anything like that happening :D

[Erny]

The RSPCA, and all those who are involved in one way, shape or another with companion animals, should firstly and foremost look to creating national unity on legislation and laws. The fact that each state administers independent laws and legislation, sometimes in direct opposition to each other, is farcical.

The RSPCA has been pushing for a long time for National laws. Given the extremely poor and often wrong and devastating administration of them though, and the people (or at least one of the few persons) who would have a major influence in wielding the almighty and powerful sword, National laws (read : National 'power') scares me. No - until the people start getting their game right and show us that their animal welfare intentions are true and honourable, then I'm against nationalising of the laws.

[Howl]

I was thinking about the RSPCA and their desire for increased power. They recently busted a puppy farm in Qld, seized 240 dogs. People have been lodging formal complaints about this operation, to my certain knowledge, for the past SIX years, including 2 pet shops. No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I know about. It took them six years to do anything, and they have always had the power to seize the dogs.

Actually Jed the recent bust you refer to was led by Biosecurity Qld, not the RSPCA, although RSPCA assisted. RSPCA Qld operations do not cover the whole of Queensland - it is a shared responsibility between Biosecurity and RSPCA. The location of the puppy farm made it the responsibility of Biosecurity Qld and not the RSPCA.

And how did you know that it took 'them' (Bio. Qld) six years to do anything? For all you know investigations may have been conducted, maybe an educational approach was attempted first??? Who knows???

[Jed]

I was thinking about the RSPCA and their desire for increased power. They recently busted a puppy farm in Qld, seized 240 dogs. People have been lodging formal complaints about this operation, to my certain knowledge, for the past SIX years, including 2 pet shops. No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I know about. It took them six years to do anything, and they have always had the power to seize the dogs.

Actually Jed the recent bust you refer to was led by Biosecurity Qld, not the RSPCA, although RSPCA assisted. RSPCA Qld operations do not cover the whole of Queensland - it is a shared responsibility between Biosecurity and RSPCA. The location of the puppy farm made it the responsibility of Biosecurity Qld and not the RSPCA.

And how did you know that it took 'them' (Bio. Qld) six years to do anything? For all you know investigations may have been conducted, maybe an educational approach was attempted first??? Who knows???

I know.

I don't write things unless they are true.

And I know about BioSecurity aka DPI and non metro areas. Do you think I should have given BS some of the kudos for the bust? I said "RSPCA" because that is where the complaints were lodged.

Do you have a problem? Inspector for the RSCPA now?

Edited February 2, 2010 by Jed