Rspca Proposals For A Mandatory Code For Puppy Farmers.

[Souff]

What they dont seem to get is that its not just the dogs we are worried about.We breed dogs in our homes. talk of getting security cameras and locking the place up when we go out etc are crazy in my opinion- why would anyone want to live like that because they have a litter of puppies now and then they want to find homes for? But what about the other risks associated with anyone posting where they live on the net? What about the safety of my kids and myself and my possessions? What of our right to privacy? All well and good to tell me what to do to protect my dogs while a breeder is not at home but what of risks when they are? What of women who live in semi isolated areas alone and a bunch of other things which come to mind? All I know is that ever since I first turned on the internet everyone in my life has told me not to place my home address up there and yet now Im being pushed to place my address up there.

Bloody hell even pedophiles get to keep their street address private!

All good points Steve, and if its OK with you I will be including such in my submission to my Member of Parliament.

I will also be pushing the point that some of the "cottage breeders" are amongst the best breeders in the world imho, and do not deserve to be lumped in with the real puppy farmers.

Horses for courses.

As I have said before, blanket legislation or "one-size-fits-all" legislation DOES NOT WORK.

It frightens the bejesus out of the very people who should continue breeding in a responsible manner.

It is a good time to write to your local member folks, elections are in the offing. But be nice!!!

Souff

Edited to correct a MAJOR oops! ;)

Edited July 22, 2010 by Souff

[poodlefan]

Its a bit like lumping recreational fisherman under the same code of practice as long liners really. ;)

[Souff]

Its a bit like lumping recreational fisherman under the same code of practice as long liners really. ;)

Exactly.

[Kissindra]

I've been asking questions and getting responses from RSPCA QLD.

"RSPCA policy and RSPCA Qld do not support BSL - we believe it should be the "deed not the breed" that is judged. Dr Hugh Wirth only speaks for RSPCA Victoria and NO OTHER state. Please read his comments with regards to RSPCA Vic ONLY, some of his views are not supported by RSPCA policy or other states positions on certain issues.

Close Puppy Factories:

RSPCA Qld has a petition - see here: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPet...4&lIndex=-1

We are calling for the current Pet Shop Code of Practice to become mandatory, rather than mere suggestions - you can view the QLD Pet Shop code of Practice here: http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Animal...ForPetShops.pdf

The Code of Practice would be enforced by the State Government, and officials from the government, some of these powers may be utilised by the RSPCA Inspectorate. We are also calling for a mandatory licensing scheme for Pet Shops, so consumers can recognise a responsible pet shop, and so responsible pet shops, do not have their reputation destroyed by irresponsible pet shops.

We are calling for a Breeders Code of Practice to be created - this would be lead by the State Government and would require consultation and committees of all the stakeholders to draft and write. We would also encourage a licensing scheme for Breeders, again so consumers can recognise a responsible breeder, and so responsible pet shops, do not have their reputation destroyed by disreputable breeders.

New Codes of Practice would be enforced by either: local council, state government, department of Primary Industries DEEDI and or RSPCA - this would depend on the legislations and the way it is written. We are not legislators - so this will depend on the State Governments decisions.

RSPCA would be seeking interactive involvement from Government bodies to assist with the prosecutions of potential puppy factories; we have previously worked in conjunction with government departments and had successful results.

RSPCA QLD can not verify these figures from the RSPCA Victoria campaign - in fact the industry in Queensland is so well hidden and underground - there is not enough anecdotal evidence to arrive at a scientifically viable figure to comment or report on. Suffice to say it is prevalent and the full extent of the issue is yet to be revealed.

Mandatroy Desexing:

RSPCA is pursuing Mandatory Desexing at point of sale. The legislation and issues surrounding this would be legislated by the state government, and would require stakeholders (including the public) to make submissions and inform the process of formulating the legislation. – this is not a major component of the Puppy Factory Campaign, but is an ongoing issue we are perusing. Your issue is valid and would require Vet and Breeder consultation when writing the legislation.

Hope that all helps – if you would like please email campaigns@rspcaqld with any inquires. Please also email and ask to be added to the Close Puppy Factory Campaign Action Pack – when it is released SOON!"

[Are You Serious Jo]

We would also encourage a licensing scheme for Breeders, again so consumers can recognise a responsible breeder, and so responsible pet shops, do not have their reputation destroyed by disreputable breeders.

Interesting.

[ellz]

All I can say is that dog breeding, and indeed companion animal ownership will soon be a thing of the past. I and a few others expressed this opinion back when the tail docking debate was just beginning to gain momentum and we were all howled down as doomsayers.

We can fight the good fight, but the reality is that it is only a matter of time.

They say they are targetting the puppy farmers and disreputable breeders, but in the eyes of many Joe Q's, registered and reputable breeders might as well not even exist. We are all lumped in the same basket.

And yes, call me a doomsayer, but the writing is on the wall IMO.

[minky]

All I can say is that dog breeding, and indeed companion animal ownership will soon be a thing of the past. I and a few others expressed this opinion back when the tail docking debate was just beginning to gain momentum and we were all howled down as doomsayers.

We can fight the good fight, but the reality is that it is only a matter of time.

They say they are targetting the puppy farmers and disreputable breeders, but in the eyes of many Joe Q's, registered and reputable breeders might as well not even exist. We are all lumped in the same basket.

And yes, call me a doomsayer, but the writing is on the wall IMO.

I feel the same way

[Ringo]

No Commonwealth legislation exists at the moment similar to each states Companion Animals Act (or similar)

To implement these proposals would at the moment require all states and territories to enact their own legislation.

For those who thinks these ideas are good, think about it a moment longer. The RSPCA is the only body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. No other body that enforces legislation does this, they all respond to government proposals for new/changes to legislation.

These ideas have been around for some time now and are raised by the RSPCA periodically. The practicalities of what they are talking about are huge.

And as has been said, it won't stop the BYB. The concept of the family dog, a persons companion, sometimes the only one they have, doesn't exist for some people anymore.

Perhaps it's time the respective state pedigree dog organisations and the ANKC stood up and did more than take money to issue certificates to say someone says this dog is a pedigree dog. These organisations exist with voluntary compliance, perhaps that should change.

[inez]

Street address will be a big scary thing for some breeders, and a not so scary thing for others.

I know breeders who advertise their street address and others who also have signs on the front of their property.

Security cameras are a wonderful thing and do not cost as much as you might think.

A sign saying that you "are under camera surveillance when on this property" or similar is a very powerful deterrent to would be dog-nappers.

As is a not-so-friendly large dog or 2 waiting to greet them

If you have things up to scratch and not much to hide, then you dont have too much to fear from inspectors.

Some of them are OK, some might have an agenda and kick over the water bowl or something like that, but you wont be too worried about that if the security cameras are running. Gotcha!

Souff

fat lot of good security camera's will do if the theives are unknown or can't be recognised. Bye bye pups and maybe adult dogs as well, never to be seen again. Even if the theives are caught what are the chances of you getting your dogs back? And as for having a large, not friendly dog, you have to be kidding don't you, there's even more trouble waiting to bite some one on the arse, not to mention people are already restricted on how many dogs they can keep. One of my dogs saw the vet for the 1st time in 3 years recently, another hasn't seen a vet for at least 4. No need for them to. Can't believe this rubbish has come from you Souff.

Being a Security Officer/Special constable for the past 15 years for a NSW Public hospital ED and also some Static work for K9 Security I know for a fact that Security Equipment is expensive and not all the time are tapes clear to identify offenders and not all the time are they excepted in a Court of Law. Besides the Law is not tough enough on offenders, especially where animals are concerned. I had a dog taken once and rang police and because I knew who it was I was told it was a Civil matter. Oh I got my dog back my way and since then extra security measures have been taken but honestly if a good thief wants to get in to steal something, they will and won't worry who they hurt in the process. So why should we have to let people know where we live and what we have!

Pretty neatly worded too, would I be mistaken they have you over a barrel, if you dont want to comply then hey, obviously then you must have something to hide.

So agree, pay, and give out your address or..................

Somehow I doubt they give a rats you might come home and no dogs left.

Edited July 27, 2010 by inez

[Souff]

The RSPCA is the only body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. No other body that enforces legislation does this, they all respond to government proposals for new/changes to legislation.

And that, my friends, is the most dangerous part of all.

And only by writing poligtely and firmly to your State Member of Parliament will you have any chance of seeing commonsense and balance being taken out of the cupboard and used on this one.

Nobody is going to do it for you and get an effective result.

Souff

[casowner]

One of the problems I see is that there is no accountability when people give "facts" and the credibility of processes get damaged because of it. One example of this is the "honourable, non agenda making" Hugh Wirth at the meeting and the RSPCA getting caught out fudging the figures that have been disclosed to the media – Dr Wirth stated in the Melbourne Age that 57% of dogs are sold through pet shops – it was pointed out by a RSPCA staffer that the question asked of the public was “where did you purchase your pet from” – this include all pets including fish. So how can anything be expected to be taken seriously when sensationalism is the key objective, not truth or the real way forward.

[Howl]

The RSPCA is the only body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. No other body that enforces legislation does this, they all respond to government proposals for new/changes to legislation.

Rubbish. Local and state government enforce regulations that they themselves create. Local governments lobby state governments for changes in legislation that they enforce. The police lobby for changes to the criminal code.

[asal]

Steve Ive sent u a pm

[Natsu chan]

I received a letter back from my local MP about this, it was surprisingly positive. Not completely satisfactory but hopeful, so don't give up and do try.

[bulldogz4eva]

Welcome to the brave new world.This has been touted in NSW for some time and now here it is.They will let you come and have your say,even listen to what you say then do it anyway.They are not interested in your point of view.Just like BSL they will rail road it through.This is the beginning of the end of dog ownership and is not as much about puppy farmers as it is about the government encroaching on your civil liberties and getting their slice of the pie.They control what you sell and get there cut through fees every year.As far as I am concerned they can go F*** themselves.

Once again the governement and the RSPCA will use each other to hoodwink the public into thinking they are doing something for animal welfare in this country while the real puppy farmers will still thrive and you as registered breeders will get screwed.Stop donating money to the RSPCA and when it is no longer viable for the government to continue to fund them they will disappear.

I find it disturbing but not surprising.If you look back over legislation in this country there is always a consistent theme.The 'Give em enough rope mentality'.They do nothing until things get out of hand then throw out some ideas,hold some meetings and push through what they want.Is this the sign of a democracy?I think not.By all means go and tell them what you think.If i was there I would tell them they can stick it where the sun doesnt shine.

[Lally]

I've just returned from walking my two cavaliers in the local park. We were enjoying a nice romp, on lead, we stopped and talked with other dog-walkers and we then chatted with a few mums out with their young children with dogs in tow who were delighted with my two and oohed and aahed over them, my boy and girl basking in the attention and the pleasures of interacting with 'little people', when a very large Akita descended upon us and tried to get to my dogs, one of whom is a desexed female, t'other, a little entire and very gentle boy.

The Akita was aggressive (hair standing up), it was snarling, my dogs were terrified, the children were screaming, the mothers were desperately trying to stand between their children and the dog, yelling for the dog's owner as they did so. She eventually arrived on the scene but her dog did not respond to her commands.

She said that her dog was voice-trained(!!!) and a certified obedience champion (!!!) We saw no evidence of any of that. She also said that hysterical people such as we give dogs like hers a bad name.

None of us know what we did to alarm the Akita - we weren't even moving at the time.

His owner said that nothing like this has ever happened before.

I understand that there's a lot of ill-informed and unjustified criticism of some dogs and that BSL legislation goes a tad too far, but I'm blowed if I'm prepared to put up with being threatened by incompetents and their unsocial dogs any longer.

'Never done such a thing before'!!! she said. I simply don't believe it!

Four of us are making formal complaints to the Council and the police about this incident. At the very least, there'll be charges against the dog's being off-lead, but I hope that there's more than that.

My dogs, and even human beings, have a right to our local parks and necessary exercise without being intimidated in this way.

I'm thoroughly fed up!

[bulldogz4eva]

I've just returned from walking my two cavaliers in the local park. We were enjoying a nice romp, on lead, we stopped and talked with other dog-walkers and we then chatted with a few mums out with their young children with dogs in tow who were delighted with my two and oohed and aahed over them, my boy and girl basking in the attention and the pleasures of interacting with 'little people', when a very large Akita descended upon us and tried to get to my dogs, one of whom is a desexed female, t'other, a little entire and very gentle boy.

The Akita was aggressive (hair standing up), it was snarling, my dogs were terrified, the children were screaming, the mothers were desperately trying to stand between their children and the dog, yelling for the dog's owner as they did so. She eventually arrived on the scene but her dog did not respond to her commands.

She said that her dog was voice-trained(!!!) and a certified obedience champion (!!!) We saw no evidence of any of that. She also said that hysterical people such as we give dogs like hers a bad name.

None of us know what we did to alarm the Akita - we weren't even moving at the time.

His owner said that nothing like this has ever happened before.

I understand that there's a lot of ill-informed and unjustified criticism of some dogs and that BSL legislation goes a tad too far, but I'm blowed if I'm prepared to put up with being threatened by incompetents and their unsocial dogs any longer.

'Never done such a thing before'!!! she said. I simply don't believe it!

Four of us are making formal complaints to the Council and the police about this incident. At the very least, there'll be charges against the dog's being off-lead, but I hope that there's more than that.

My dogs, and even human beings, have a right to our local parks and necessary exercise without being intimidated in this way.

I'm thoroughly fed up!

Pray tell what has this got to do with the above thread?

[chriswiddler]

The RSPCA is the only body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. No other body that enforces legislation does this, they all respond to government proposals for new/changes to legislation.

Rubbish. Local and state government enforce regulations that they themselves create. Local governments lobby state governments for changes in legislation that they enforce. The police lobby for changes to the criminal code.

I would hardly place RSPCA, a private organisation, in the same category as elected governments and sworn police officers!!!

[Howl]

The RSPCA is the only body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. No other body that enforces legislation does this, they all respond to government proposals for new/changes to legislation.

Rubbish. Local and state government enforce regulations that they themselves create. Local governments lobby state governments for changes in legislation that they enforce. The police lobby for changes to the criminal code.

I would hardly place RSPCA, a private organisation, in the same category as elected governments and sworn police officers!!!

The statement was that the RSPCA is the ony body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. It's twaddle, because plainly other bodies do too. I noticed that you stated 'elected' governments - like that makes a huge difference. I mean, who exactly were these governments representing when they brought in legislation such as BSL?

Yes, the RSPCA is a private organisation as opposed to the government, but in enforcing legislation they are agents of the government.

And what is the problem with a welfare organisation wanting to lobby for legislative change in animal welfare? Would you also not think that the very people who try to enforce animal welfare law and bring positive results for animals would have some idea of what works and what needs changing?

Clearly there are problems with what the RSPCA is proposing. Why not then engage with them, put forward other views and suggest alternatives in a positive, collaborative manner? After all it is a proposal - a plan that they are seeking feedback on.

[chriswiddler]

The RSPCA is the only body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. No other body that enforces legislation does this, they all respond to government proposals for new/changes to legislation.

Rubbish. Local and state government enforce regulations that they themselves create. Local governments lobby state governments for changes in legislation that they enforce. The police lobby for changes to the criminal code.

I would hardly place RSPCA, a private organisation, in the same category as elected governments and sworn police officers!!!

The statement was that the RSPCA is the ony body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. It's twaddle, because plainly other bodies do too. I noticed that you stated 'elected' governments - like that makes a huge difference. I mean, who exactly were these governments representing when they brought in legislation such as BSL?

Yes, the RSPCA is a private organisation as opposed to the government, but in enforcing legislation they are agents of the government.

And what is the problem with a welfare organisation wanting to lobby for legislative change in animal welfare? Would you also not think that the very people who try to enforce animal welfare law and bring positive results for animals would have some idea of what works and what needs changing?

Clearly there are problems with what the RSPCA is proposing. Why not then engage with them, put forward other views and suggest alternatives in a positive, collaborative manner? After all it is a proposal - a plan that they are seeking feedback on.

Killing dogs because of their looks is hardly an animal welfare issue. In my view it is animal abuse. If they took on animal abusers rather than the mentally ill and poor they may learn not to c*ck up when they didn't have soft targets.