Rspca Calls For Getting Tough With Breeders

[Steve]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/29/2858606.htm

The RSPCA wants tougher enforcement of laws governing the sale of dogs and cats in the ACT.

CEO Michael Linke says thousands of animals are offered for sale in classifieds and on the internet each year in Canberra.

He says 5,000 animals were listed in the classifieds of one local publication in 2009.

Mr Linke says many breeders are unlicensed and are selling animals that are not desexed or microchipped.

"Seventy-three per cent of dogs sold through classified advertising were not desexed at the point of sale," he said.

"So there's a tremendous number of dogs out there continuing to breed.

"It's just making a mockery of the laws in place in Canberra where we have compulsory microchipping, compulsory desexing and licences available for breeders."

Mr Linke says the Government needs to send a message to the community that it is serious about enforcing those laws.

"The laws are good, we're got some of the strongest animal welfare laws in Australia ... but there is no policing, there is no follow-up," he said.

[~Anne~]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/29/2858606.htm

The RSPCA wants tougher enforcement of laws governing the sale of dogs and cats in the ACT.

CEO Michael Linke says thousands of animals are offered for sale in classifieds and on the internet each year in Canberra.

He says 5,000 animals were listed in the classifieds of one local publication in 2009.

Mr Linke says many breeders are unlicensed and are selling animals that are not desexed or microchipped.

"Seventy-three per cent of dogs sold through classified advertising were not desexed at the point of sale," he said.

"So there's a tremendous number of dogs out there continuing to breed.

"It's just making a mockery of the laws in place in Canberra where we have compulsory microchipping, compulsory desexing and licences available for breeders."

Mr Linke says the Government needs to send a message to the community that it is serious about enforcing those laws.

"The laws are good, we're got some of the strongest animal welfare laws in Australia ... but there is no policing, there is no follow-up," he said.

Totally agree.

[Kirty]

Hmmm and I wonder how many of those breeders advertising in the paper were registered? Why can't they ever make a distinction between BYB and reg breeders.

[~Anne~]

Hmmm and I wonder how many of those breeders advertising in the paper were registered? Why can't they ever make a distinction between BYB and reg breeders.

Why would they? It isn't illegal to breed a dog.

Just because you don't belong to an association, which is afterall what it is, that doesn't mean you should be penalised. There is a difference in my opinion in offering top quality goods and using a membership as a signal that your goods are good and not using one. Much like a 'quality builder' might advertise that they belong to the Master Builders Association. Sorry if it doesn't make sense... I know what I mean but am having trouble putting it down.

[sandgrubber]

I'd say good on the RSPCA. Seems like there's an enforcement vacuum here. Not that I know anything on the local situation.

[Kirty]

My point is that they do NOTHING to try and stop BYB and puppy farmers pumping out copious amounts of dogs (and cats) each year, yet the are intent on bringing down reg'd breeders. At my work, so many of the animals we see are pet shop and BYB puppies and all I can say is hybrid vigour my arse! We see so many problems in these crossbreeds and unreg animals that are all but non existant in reg breeds.

[poodlefan]

My point is that they do NOTHING to try and stop BYB and puppy farmers pumping out copious amounts of dogs (and cats) each year, yet the are intent on bringing down reg'd breeders. At my work, so many of the animals we see are pet shop and BYB puppies and all I can say is hybrid vigour my arse! We see so many problems in these crossbreeds and unreg animals that are all but non existant in reg breeds.

Not true for the ACT Kirty.

[Diva]

I heard this story on the radio, the term BYB was used and the point was made that most of the dogs being sold unmicrochipped or not desexed were coming from breeders who weren't registered.

It's not the RSPCA after reg breeders here. It's a legitimate concern the very good ACT laws aren't being properly policed.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Diva

[~Anne~]

My point is that they do NOTHING to try and stop BYB and puppy farmers pumping out copious amounts of dogs (and cats) each year, yet the are intent on bringing down reg'd breeders. At my work, so many of the animals we see are pet shop and BYB puppies and all I can say is hybrid vigour my arse! We see so many problems in these crossbreeds and unreg animals that are all but non existant in reg breeds.

Not true for the ACT Kirty.

I'd say not true for all of Australia actually. Yes, they have committed their sins, they stuff up, the focus of some are a little off, but overall they do a lot to protect dogs and cats (and other animals) across Australia.

The need for some to express their frustrations or hostilities against the RSPCA blinds them to many facets of the animal welfare debate imo.

[Jed]

Is there something in ACT legislation that pups must be neutered prior to sale, or was that simply media license?

[Diva]

Is there something in ACT legislation that pups must be neutered prior to sale, or was that simply media license?

You can't keep an undesexed dog without a special permit. I can't remember the fee for the permit, but the discount for being a member of a canine association makes it affordable. It's pretty steep without the discount though. If you sell an undesexed dog you have to advise the name and contact details of the buyer.

This only applies for dogs over six months I think, so technically selling puppies undesexed is OK. And they could stay undesexed if the buyer gets the permit. So desexing isn't really mandatory, but keeping a dog undesexed is made more difficult. If it is enforced.

No dog can be sold unchipped. From next year, all dogs must be chipped by 3 months of age.

Edited: just checked the fees - if you are member of the greyhound racing fraternity or canine assoc the sexually entire permit is just over $60 per dog for a lifetime permit. If you aren't it's over $300. There is a pensioner discount too.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Diva

[WreckitWhippet]

I'd prefer to see no permits and no restictions on numbers. I'd like to see emphasis on the chipping and rego. Got to start with the basics or it just doesn't work.

[Diva]

All dogs over 8 weeks have to be registered, and registration is for life. No annual renewals required.

I like the regs, just wish they were better enforced.

[WreckitWhippet]

They don't do anything to encourage people to do the right thing. I really think that Government need to get the most basic of basics working and have excellent compliance, before they can even think about things like mandatory desexing.

The number of dogs that end up in DAS that aren't chipped or registered, should tell them that it's not working.

[Kirty]

Reading that article though, there is no distinction between BYB and reg'd breeder. For the average person reading that, they think 'Those dodgy reg'd breeders at it again' and then happily trot down to PP and buy their oodle.

[Jed]

My point is that they do NOTHING to try and stop BYB and puppy farmers pumping out copious amounts of dogs (and cats) each year, yet the are intent on bringing down reg'd breeders. At my work, so many of the animals we see are pet shop and BYB puppies and all I can say is hybrid vigour my arse! We see so many problems in these crossbreeds and unreg animals that are all but non existant in reg breeds.

Not true for the ACT Kirty.

I'd say not true for all of Australia actually. Yes, they have committed their sins, they stuff up, the focus of some are a little off, but overall they do a lot to protect dogs and cats (and other animals) across Australia.

The need for some to express their frustrations or hostilities against the RSPCA blinds them to many facets of the animal welfare debate imo.

Whilst the RSPCA in any state goes about seizing perfectly healthy pedigree dogs, taking them to places unknown, making them undergo surgical procedures, and returning them in ill health, costing the owner thousands in legal and vet fees, and then fails to bring charges, people are unlikely to harbour positive feelings for the RSPCA in any state.

When a state RSPCA has the following prominantly displayed on their website, any liklihood of them winning support from registered dog breeders is -0. And on top of past grevious sins, it is unlikely they will gather further support in any state.

http://www.rspcavic.org/campaigns_news/ima...d_Questions.pdf

Is there a problem with pedigree dog breeding in Australia?

Yes. A wide range of serious welfare problems currently exist in pedigree dog breeds in Australia due to

selective breeding to breed standards. This is a major concern for the RSPCA. These problems include:

- difficulty breathing

- difficulty walking

- difficulty giving birth without veterinary intervention

- serious problems with their eyes

- serious problems with their skin

- chronic back and hip problems

Are the issues in Australia similar to those in the UK?

The documentary – Pedigree Dogs Exposed – uses specific examples about problems with pedigree dogs

in the UK, however, we do have similar problems here in Australia. All the breeds featured in the

program are present in Australia. The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel is the 4th most popular ‘registered’

breed, Pug 7th, Boxer 11th and Rhodesian Ridgeback 19th. While the full extent of these problems in the

Australian pedigree dog population is currently unknown, there is no evidence to indicate that they are

significantly different from those experienced overseas. Dog breeding in Australia is subject to the

same breed standards and breeding practices as in the UK. The only major difference is that the

pedigree dog population is much smaller, which means there are less individuals in each breed.:

[~Anne~]

Whilst the RSPCA in any state goes about seizing perfectly healthy pedigree dogs, taking them to places unknown, making them undergo surgical procedures, and returning them in ill health, costing the owner thousands in legal and vet fees, and then fails to bring charges, people are unlikely to harbour positive feelings for the RSPCA in any state.

When a state RSPCA has the following prominantly displayed on their website, any liklihood of them winning support from registered dog breeders is -0. And on top of past grevious sins, it is unlikely they will gather further support in any state.

Given that pedigree dog breeders in this country represent about 0.1% of the population, at a guess, and about 15% of the dog/pet owning population, I am not sure that it will make any difference. Instead, that 0.1 % of the population loses face with the public for their continual agitation at anything the RSPCA, animal welfare orgs and or legislators do.

[Stitch]

From reading this thread, one of the things that concerns me is the early desexing ie. prior to sale of pup at 8wks

I don't know if this is law in other states but in Qld. it isn't - thank heavens!!

In my opinion it is way to early to desex a pup as they need all their bits to develop normally.

I would agree to compulsory desexing after 6mths of age for pets though.

[Chocolatelover]

I'd prefer to see no permits and no restictions on numbers. I'd like to see emphasis on the chipping and rego. Got to start with the basics or it just doesn't work.

Can I ask out of curiosity why you would prefer no permits or restrictions on numbers?

If a back yard breeder is turned off breeding by having to pay $300 for a permit then isn't this a better place to start than saying they have to be chipped and registered once they have all ready been brought into the world???

Edited March 31, 2010 by Chocolatelover

[Diva]

From reading this thread, one of the things that concerns me is the early desexing ie. prior to sale of pup at 8wks

I agree. The regulation says six months and that I'm more comfortable with. I think you can also get a refund on a sexually entire permit if the dog is desexed within 3 years.

So, although it would require an upfront cost, I could in the ACT get a permit for my giant breed dog which enabled me to keep it entire until the age I would be happy desexing at, which would probably be 18 months, and then get my permit fee refunded. At least there is that much accomodation in the govt processes for those of us that are nervous about desexing our large/giant breeds at a young age.