Mandatory Code Of Practice

[j]

Sorry, but the article isn't on the Canberra Times website, but on Page 3, 26 June 2010, there is an article titled

"Bid to clamp down on ACT Puppy farms"

The article goes on to detail what puppy farms are, the type of problems they create, the increased number of dogs which are dumped, the impact the surrounding regions have on the ACT pound and RSPCA and also includes a few comments from a local dalmatian breeder, Rebecca Woiwade and the testing she undertakes within her breed.

"Ginninderra MLA, Mary Porter, outlined possible changes to laws this week to regulate the companion animal industry. ... She will issue a discussion paper by August and plans to push through the first mandatory code for animal owners in Australia. ... I anticipate a mandatory code would ultimately apply to all sellers of companion animals and will seek to apply practical measures that cover sales advertised on the internet or in the printed media, as well as in pet stores"

I will take the article to work on Monday to scan it in for you.

Sorry the Canberra times is such a pathetic website

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Article is up now but is an abridged version:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local...ms/1869388.aspx

Bid to clamp down on ACT puppy farms

BY PHILLIP THOMSON

26 Jun, 2010 12:00 AM

Puppy farms breeding dogs with health defects are producing too many canines for the pet market and forcing ACT authorities to euthanise more dogs.

The intensive dog-breeding operations likened to the cruellest of battery chicken farms could soon be bitten by stricter ACT laws now being debated. Experts say the dark side of the canine industry makes bitches give birth every six months to earn thousands of dollars.

The oversupply forced ACT authorities to put down dozens more dogs this year.

Domestic Animal Services euthanised 209 dogs this financial year, 20 per cent more than the 172 dogs put down in 2008-09.

A greater number of puppies from interstate farms are also ending up in the ACT. The territory's 96 per cent success rate at finding homes for orphaned animals is putting more pressure on the ACT as Canberrans save dogs from NSW.

RSPCA ACT chief executive Michael Linke said, ''We've had a lot of people rescuing dogs on death row in Goulburn or Yass and handing them to us.

''Or people from places like Cooma will come into the ACT to surrender their dogs because they know about our re-homing rates.

''We're dealing with 20 per cent more animals than five years ago.''

Pet owners no longer wanting to look after their dogs are waiting as long as three months to get their canines into the RSPCA, according to Ginninderra MLA Mary Porter.

Ms Porter outlined possible changes to laws this week to regulate the companion animal industry. The MLA wants laws to make it compulsory for published dog advertisements to contain the breeder's specifics, including address and identification number.

She will issue a discussion paper by August and plans to push through the first mandatory code for animal owners in Australia. ''The RSPCA is at capacity in terms of sheltering unwanted dogs,'' Ms Porter said.

''I anticipate a mandatory code would ultimately apply to all sellers of companion animals, and will seek to apply practical measures that cover sales advertised on the internet or in the printed media, as well as in pet stores.''

For more, pick up a copy of today's Canberra Times.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Also, I thought when I first heard that DAS ad bragging about great rehoming rates in the ACT that it was a big mistake to do that. The article seems to bear that out.

[Sheridan]

An ACT code of practice will be of no value to people handing in dogs that they've "rescued" from NSW puppyfarms and pounds. Nor will it affect NSW puppyfarms pumping out dogs unless they advertise in the ACT. Ms Porter should try to apply a little logic.

[dog enthusiest]

things about a code of practice. its not law.

found that out last week doing oh&s essays and assignments.

and act is law. but code of practice is a code which people choose to follow.

[Sheridan]

things about a code of practice. its not law.

found that out last week doing oh&s essays and assignments.

and act is law. but code of practice is a code which people choose to follow.

Then why can people get done for violating a code of practice?

[j]

An ACT code of practice will be of no value to people handing in dogs that they've "rescued" from NSW puppyfarms and pounds. Nor will it affect NSW puppyfarms pumping out dogs unless they advertise in the ACT. Ms Porter should try to apply a little logic.

And plenty of NSW people do advertise in the ACT. We can't legislate the rest of the country. We can only legislate for the ACT. At least somebody is doing something. If all the other states and territories follow suit, perhaps it will be effective.

"The journey of a thousand miles, starts with a single step."

Someone, somewhere, has to take that first step.

things about a code of practice. its not law.

found that out last week doing oh&s essays and assignments.

and act is law. but code of practice is a code which people choose to follow.

A mandatory code of practice has offences built into it. There are sections that are "codes of practice" therefore you choose whether or not you comply with them, but the "Mandatory" things are legislated and you will receive a fine for failing to comply with them.

[j]

Also, I thought when I first heard that DAS ad bragging about great rehoming rates in the ACT that it was a big mistake to do that. The article seems to bear that out.

What ad are you talking about?

These figures are released every year in the annual report. I have never seen an ad for DAS? Articles, quite often. One recently about the wonderful volunteers at DAS, but never an ad.

[Sheridan]

An ACT code of practice will be of no value to people handing in dogs that they've "rescued" from NSW puppyfarms and pounds. Nor will it affect NSW puppyfarms pumping out dogs unless they advertise in the ACT. Ms Porter should try to apply a little logic.

And plenty of NSW people do advertise in the ACT. We can't legislate the rest of the country. We can only legislate for the ACT. At least somebody is doing something. If all the other states and territories follow suit, perhaps it will be effective.

"The journey of a thousand miles, starts with a single step."

Someone, somewhere, has to take that first step.

Certainly, but the article complained about "rescuers" who take dogs from NSW to hand into the ACT. How on earth does stopping advertising prevent that?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Also, I thought when I first heard that DAS ad bragging about great rehoming rates in the ACT that it was a big mistake to do that. The article seems to bear that out.

What ad are you talking about?

These figures are released every year in the annual report. I have never seen an ad for DAS? Articles, quite often. One recently about the wonderful volunteers at DAS, but never an ad.

Radio ad, about 6 months ago IIRC. I posted about in the rescue forum at the time.

[shel]

So let me get this straight;

We have an animal services department in the ACT (RSPCA + DAS) promoting their amazing success, getting their kill rates to a very low rate for dogs of 8%.

People are waiting up to three months to get their dogs into care, because contrary to the idea that they're uncaring irresponsible owners, they want their pets to be given a chance to find a new home, with a new family.

People from Sydney are saving dogs from local pounds and bringing them to the ACT, to give them a chance to be saved.

And rather than celebrate this achievement; rather than bottle this success and demand that every pound in NSW implement the programs that have brought about these changes - we've again gone after the "greedy, evil breeders"?

The solution of having unwanted pets being brought to a place of safety, isn't to try and build walls to keep the people from knowing about where this place is, but to make more places safe. If pets are being shipped across the border, the solution isn't to regulate breeders in the ACT, but to make the pounds in NSW take on board the amazing techniques being used in the ACT and save more lives.

It's only when we stop chasing the outdated mantras of sheltering: that we need to eliminate "irresponsible owners", eliminate puppy farms and create the perfect set of laws, before we can stop killing and instead fully implement those programs which genuinely make pounds a safe place for healthy, adoptable pets, that we will see kill rates come down.

The ACT is successful because their pounds have decided to implement programs which save lives. There is no good reason for every single pound in NSW couldn't be doing absolutely the same thing.

Edited June 27, 2010 by shel

[Steve]

So let me get this straight;

We have an animal services department in the ACT (RSPCA + DAS) promoting their amazing success, getting their kill rates to a very low rate for dogs of 8%.

People are waiting up to three months to get their dogs into care, because contrary to the idea that they're uncaring irresponsible owners, they want their pets to be given a chance to find a new home, with a new family.

People from Sydney are saving dogs from local pounds and bringing them to the ACT, to give them a chance to be saved.

And rather than celebrate this achievement; rather than bottle this success and demand that every pound in NSW implement the programs that have brought about these changes - we've again gone after the "greedy, evil breeders"?

The solution of having unwanted pets being brought to a place of safety, isn't to try and build walls to keep the people from knowing about where this place is, but to make more places safe. If pets are being shipped across the border, the solution isn't to regulate breeders in the ACT, but to make the pounds in NSW take on board the amazing techniques being used in the ACT and save more lives.

It's only when we stop chasing the outdated mantras of sheltering: that we need to eliminate "irresponsible owners", eliminate puppy farms and create the perfect set of laws, before we can stop killing and instead fully implement those programs which genuinely make pounds a safe place for healthy, adoptable pets, that we will see kill rates come down.

The ACT is successful because their pounds have decided to implement programs which save lives. There is no good reason for every single pound in NSW couldn't be doing absolutely the same thing.

Yep I agree - but also seriously why do they think anyone in their right mind regardless of what they are doing is going to agree to have their addresses published?

All they are doing is pushing more breeders to sell pups via a third party! How on earth do they honestly think that anyone is going to back them in when they have chosen the most stupid illogical

steps to try to do something.

This wont just apply to breeders anyway - it will apply to anyone including rescue who ever sells a dog.

In the mean time they pick on animal husbandry issues such as the poor bitches who have to breed every season and they have no clue about whether that is in fact doing them good or harm.

Canine reproduction specialists from all around the world are telling us its better for a bitch to mate every season if she is in good condition and the stuff they have in via codes of practice laws and guidelines put the poor bloody dogs on concrete all their lives!

What gets up my nose the most is that it places us in a position where we have to end up fighting from the same side as the puppy farmers.

We will not agree to having our addresses made public to the whole world and thats just a start.

Id love to help the RSPCA sort out ways of stopping mass produced puppies or at least of ensuring dogs don't suffer any more than they have to while its being done but until they will listen to what breeders and private rescue have to say it's difficult to see how what they are proposing is going to stop the demand for puppies or anyone breeding them in the thousands each year.

Its also time those brilliant young students slogging away in Australian universities did some serious study in their PHds which would enable us to see the truth of what each side is saying.

There also has to be some cut off point - there's a big difference between someone who is breeding a thousand pups a year to someone who is breeding 50.

Cant they see that if you make a breeder publish their address the big puppy farms are O.K. with that and its only people who breed a puppy now and then in their lounge room or who rescue a dog who don't want people arriving at their front door to see the animals before the have been screened to see if we want them at our front doors who they will stop? Cant they see we are knocking ourselves out trying to get breeders to sell the pups themselves and all this will do is push them to find a way to sell them where they don't have to say where they live ?Looks to me like they don't want to stop it they just want to know where they are. If that's their aim there is a much simpler way of doing that without infringing on people's rights and increasing the supply for pet shops.

[Stitch]

The same or very similar article appeared in the Saturday Courier Mail.

As much as I dislike and am repelled by 'puppy farmers' and their practices I think it is important to be aware that often the likes of PETA and Animal Lib (working behind the scenes in the RSPCA) put forward this kind of generally acceptable proposal.

Unfortunately it can be the responsible purebred dog breeders who are also tarred with the same brush and end up getting their activities curtailed if legislation is successful to control 'puppy farming'. We all know that PETA etc. are no friend of purebred dog breeders!!

Any changes caused by this kind of push by the RSPCA would have to be very well investigated and thought out & only target 'puppy farmers' for me to support it.

[j]

I've saved the document as a PDF, but I don't know how to reduce it and it's too large a file to upload.

Does anyone know how to reduce a PDF file? I can email it to you

[merijigs]

Anyone who knows me knows I hate the fact that the b#$%^&s who run the ACT Canine Association continue to process hundreds of puppy export licences (at $75.00 ea. last time I looked) for registered breeders who are actually just puppy farmers with more legal protection. When and what can be done about this despicable practice? Absolutely nothing so it seems. Before anyone goes slinging off about the RSPCA, PETA DAS or anybody else, i wish we breeder/owner/exhibitors could clean up our own act!!! Somehow!

[Steve]

Anyone who knows me knows I hate the fact that the b#$%^&s who run the ACT Canine Association continue to process hundreds of puppy export licences (at $75.00 ea. last time I looked) for registered breeders who are actually just puppy farmers with more legal protection. When and what can be done about this despicable practice? Absolutely nothing so it seems. Before anyone goes slinging off about the RSPCA, PETA DAS or anybody else, i wish we breeder/owner/exhibitors could clean up our own act!!! Somehow!

I not only hate that they do it but encourage it. Though I suppose when the biggest registered puppy exporter in the country is also the son of one of the directors of a CC its a bit of lost battle before you start!.

They couldn't stop it even if they wanted to however, because its against the trade practices law to prevent people selling their product where ever and how ever they want. You wont clean up the sellers until you clean up the breeders. Raise the bar - join the MDBA - our members cant sell to pet shops or agents.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Steve

[The Spotted Devil]

things about a code of practice. its not law.

found that out last week doing oh&s essays and assignments.

and act is law. but code of practice is a code which people choose to follow.

Then why can people get done for violating a code of practice?

In essence, if an organisation or individual can demonstrate they follow the specified CoP, it is much more difficult to achieve a prosecution. So while it's not law as such it does often link in with the legislation.

[Steve]

In the preface of the NSW code for breeding dogs and cats"

This code contains both standards and guidelines for the care of dogs or cats fro breeding.The standards have legal effect in 3 ways.

Failure to meet a standard may result in a penalty infringement notice or a prosecution under clause 20 of the Prevention of cruety to animals act 1979.

the owner or the designated carer of the animal is legally responsible for meeting the standards of this code.

Page 2 - This code comprises both enforceable provisions and guidelines. The enforceable provisions are identified by the word standards.

Mandatory codes of practice means they are compulsory.