Broadford Puppy Farm Stopped In Their Tracks

[Steve]

The RSPCA are calling for people to be up front , traceable and monitored in their proposals on the table right now with their suggestions for a mandatory code.

If thats what THEY want then what has just happened is not condusive to that ever occurring.

[Nekhbet]

there are plenty of farmers who are known to both council and RSPCA. They visit them (IF they can be bothered), see not much wrong and let them keep running in the filthy conditions they are in. Well that is until Animal Lib take a few photos and release to the media then all hell breaks loose and suddenly there is an uproar. Please, I've been in the midst of farms enough lately and I can tell you the fact is councils a lot of the time like the revenue, and dont give two hoots about shutting people down or the fact these numbnuts are releasing diseased or dangerous animals into society. They dont even bother visiting, so why invite them? There is regulations for pet stores and I can tell you few, if any, that sell live animals abide to them fully. Profit first, animals somewhere down on the scale.

This country is too happy with complacency. We also come up with these grand schemes about zero tolerance policy does nothing ra ra ra then we let people go do what they want and dont even enforce what restrictions we have put on them. So it becomes 'OK'. We want to stop people impulse purchasing yet we find it OK to let people farm dogs, WTF. How is that going to change any attitudes at all? It wont. It makes it mainstream and OK. People pumping out litters with NO health testing, NO regard to welfare and quality first and keep mass dogs above their capabilities for the fact of simply profit are farmers. Having an ANKC registration has nothing to do with it, look at the last one shut down around here who had a prefix. By the way they disposed of their dogs on a flaming heap ... no authorities had an issue with that either.

If you want 50+ dogs you hire the necessary staff to cope with them. Just like a kennel facility has to, or a pound, or rescue org. Simple, if you want to be a commercial breeder you start hiring staff and a vet has to sign off at least every few months that your dogs are healthy. Cant afford it, dont breed it.

[Steve]

there are plenty of farmers who are known to both council and RSPCA. They visit them (IF they can be bothered), see not much wrong and let them keep running in the filthy conditions they are in. Well that is until Animal Lib take a few photos and release to the media then all hell breaks loose and suddenly there is an uproar. Please, I've been in the midst of farms enough lately and I can tell you the fact is councils a lot of the time like the revenue, and dont give two hoots about shutting people down or the fact these numbnuts are releasing diseased or dangerous animals into society. They dont even bother visiting, so why invite them? There is regulations for pet stores and I can tell you few, if any, that sell live animals abide to them fully. Profit first, animals somewhere down on the scale.

This country is too happy with complacency. We also come up with these grand schemes about zero tolerance policy does nothing ra ra ra then we let people go do what they want and dont even enforce what restrictions we have put on them. So it becomes 'OK'. We want to stop people impulse purchasing yet we find it OK to let people farm dogs, WTF. How is that going to change any attitudes at all? It wont. It makes it mainstream and OK. People pumping out litters with NO health testing, NO regard to welfare and quality first and keep mass dogs above their capabilities for the fact of simply profit are farmers. Having an ANKC registration has nothing to do with it, look at the last one shut down around here who had a prefix. By the way they disposed of their dogs on a flaming heap ... no authorities had an issue with that either.

If you want 50+ dogs you hire the necessary staff to cope with them. Just like a kennel facility has to, or a pound, or rescue org. Simple, if you want to be a commercial breeder you start hiring staff and a vet has to sign off at least every few months that your dogs are healthy. Cant afford it, dont breed it.

You're preaching to the converted ,however the people who wrote submissions against these people - RSPCA and Vicdogs are the very people who are calling for a mandatory code which includes them doing it the way these people attempted to. Noone watching that will stick their head up and try to get an approval and will instead simply do what ever they want - just as most of them do now.

What are Vicdogs doing getting involved in this anyway ? Many of their own members own 50 plus dogs. Its not so long ago that this was seen to be a good thing for registered breeders. Some of the best in the country owned more than 50 purebred dogs and many still do.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Steve

[Julie R]

there are plenty of farmers who are known to both council and RSPCA. They visit them (IF they can be bothered), see not much wrong and let them keep running in the filthy conditions they are in. Well that is until Animal Lib take a few photos and release to the media then all hell breaks loose and suddenly there is an uproar. Please, I've been in the midst of farms enough lately and I can tell you the fact is councils a lot of the time like the revenue, and dont give two hoots about shutting people down or the fact these numbnuts are releasing diseased or dangerous animals into society. They dont even bother visiting, so why invite them? There is regulations for pet stores and I can tell you few, if any, that sell live animals abide to them fully. Profit first, animals somewhere down on the scale.

This country is too happy with complacency. We also come up with these grand schemes about zero tolerance policy does nothing ra ra ra then we let people go do what they want and dont even enforce what restrictions we have put on them. So it becomes 'OK'. We want to stop people impulse purchasing yet we find it OK to let people farm dogs, WTF. How is that going to change any attitudes at all? It wont. It makes it mainstream and OK. People pumping out litters with NO health testing, NO regard to welfare and quality first and keep mass dogs above their capabilities for the fact of simply profit are farmers. Having an ANKC registration has nothing to do with it, look at the last one shut down around here who had a prefix. By the way they disposed of their dogs on a flaming heap ... no authorities had an issue with that either.

If you want 50+ dogs you hire the necessary staff to cope with them. Just like a kennel facility has to, or a pound, or rescue org. Simple, if you want to be a commercial breeder you start hiring staff and a vet has to sign off at least every few months that your dogs are healthy. Cant afford it, dont breed it.

You're preaching to the converted ,however the people who wrote submissions against these people - RSPCA and Vicdogs are the very people who are calling for a mandatory code which includes them doing it the way these people attempted to. Noone watching that will stick their head up and try to get an approval and will instead simply do what ever they want - just as most of them do now.

What are Vicdogs doing getting involved in this anyway ? Many of their own members own 50 plus dogs. Its not so long ago that this was seen to be a good thing for registered breeders. Some of the best in the country owned more than 50 purebred dogs and many still do.

Do you know for sure that Dogs Vic submitted an objection to this application???

Pam

[Souff]

Do you know for sure that Dogs Vic submitted an objection to this application???

Pam

From the first post:

Tuesday August 3, 2010 - North Central Review

..... .............. lodged an application with the Mitchell Shire to run 50 breeding dogs from a property off the Kilmore-Glenaroua Road (Broadford Victoria) on June 8.

Since the permit request was lodged the RSPCA, Dogs Vic and Animal Liberation Vic all lodged formal objections to Mitchell Shire against the application.

.......However on Thursday July 29 the application for the breeding permit was withdrawn.

[Julie R]

Do you know for sure that Dogs Vic submitted an objection to this application???

Pam

From the first post:

Tuesday August 3, 2010 - North Central Review

..... .............. lodged an application with the Mitchell Shire to run 50 breeding dogs from a property off the Kilmore-Glenaroua Road (Broadford Victoria) on June 8.

Since the permit request was lodged the RSPCA, Dogs Vic and Animal Liberation Vic all lodged formal objections to Mitchell Shire against the application.

.......However on Thursday July 29 the application for the breeding permit was withdrawn.

But what I was asking in my previous post, was do you know that it is factual that Dogs Vic actually lodged an objection.

[Steve]

http://www.newspaperhouse.com.au/index.php...-love-wins.html

This news report says they did.

[Julie R]

if you were going to do the right thing there wouldnt be a problem. The puppy farm was also going to try and cram too many dogs onto the space and cause all sorts of logistical problems with waste, noise, water etc.

Wow didnt think I would hear people rather puppy farmers go ahead and be monitored. No one monitors them now, councils have the bare minimum of officers, who's going to do regular checks? Laws dont work without people regulating it. Dogs are not animals that need to be kenneled their whole lives and bred like farm animals period.

Nekhbet, Steve's comparison is a fair one.

If councils KNOW where someone has kennels, there is a better chance of them being under surveillance by groups such as the RSPCA who can legally visit the premises etc.

When you have unknown numbers of dogs on properties that are not identified as kennels, then you have the situation where the council doesnt know what is going on, and the likes of the animal libbers taking the law into their own hands and doing midnight raids with cameras etc. This is not the way to go.

In another thread on here an RSPCA officer describes the overwhelming stench of ammonia at one place. Why let it get to that?

The RSPCA already has the laws to ensure that the welfare of dogs is taken care of - IF they know where these places are.

Whether we like it or not, the current trade laws allow people to "farm" puppies and there is little that can be done to legally stop this practice.

Pet shops also have the law on their side.

The police and the RSPCA already have the laws within which they can act to ensure that at least the dogs used in this awful trade are well looked after.

As I see it, is a matter of enforcing the existing laws and codes that are already in place.

People have to act within the law, otherwise we might as well not have laws.

Stopping "puppy farmers" completely is a pipedream imho, and in the first instance, nobody seems to be able to accurately define what a "puppy farmer" is.

If a legal definition of a "puppy farm" does not exist, how on earth do well meaning people think they can shut down "puppy farms"?

Sorry if I sound negative, but the ideas of many on this site recently are a bit too idealistic and not realistic enough.

I'm with Steve on this one.

Better to know where they are and let "the authorities" pay them regular visits.

Souff

Yes I agree... if the dogs in these people hands are not being bred to death every time they come into season and IF the council and the RSPCA would use their powers and put a stop to the cruelty BUT they do not... so if people have to over react and get emotional then so be it. BUT someone and somehow we have to protect these poor dogs, and if it takes people’s emotions taking over and if they can achieve something, anything then so be it, but at the moment it appears that no one with the authority and power is doing anything to stop it.

So the more pressure we can put towards putting a stop to this over breeding/overcrowding, lack of care and attention, and actual cruelty, then I say go for it.

No animal regardless of species deserves to be treated unkindly or cruelly for human gain, they were not put on this earth for humans to treat in a manner that is just so unacceptable in our society today. Everything regardless has a right to live their life without pain, fear or suffering.

[Julie R]

there are plenty of farmers who are known to both council and RSPCA. They visit them (IF they can be bothered), see not much wrong and let them keep running in the filthy conditions they are in. Well that is until Animal Lib take a few photos and release to the media then all hell breaks loose and suddenly there is an uproar. Please, I've been in the midst of farms enough lately and I can tell you the fact is councils a lot of the time like the revenue, and dont give two hoots about shutting people down or the fact these numbnuts are releasing diseased or dangerous animals into society. They dont even bother visiting, so why invite them? There is regulations for pet stores and I can tell you few, if any, that sell live animals abide to them fully. Profit first, animals somewhere down on the scale.

This country is too happy with complacency. We also come up with these grand schemes about zero tolerance policy does nothing ra ra ra then we let people go do what they want and dont even enforce what restrictions we have put on them. So it becomes 'OK'. We want to stop people impulse purchasing yet we find it OK to let people farm dogs, WTF. How is that going to change any attitudes at all? It wont. It makes it mainstream and OK. People pumping out litters with NO health testing, NO regard to welfare and quality first and keep mass dogs above their capabilities for the fact of simply profit are farmers. Having an ANKC registration has nothing to do with it, look at the last one shut down around here who had a prefix. By the way they disposed of their dogs on a flaming heap ... no authorities had an issue with that either.

If you want 50+ dogs you hire the necessary staff to cope with them. Just like a kennel facility has to, or a pound, or rescue org. Simple, if you want to be a commercial breeder you start hiring staff and a vet has to sign off at least every few months that your dogs are healthy. Cant afford it, dont breed it.

WELL SAID, COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

[mita]

The bottom-line problem with puppy farming remains, even if accommodation is clean, the dogs well fed & vet treatment made available & checked by authorities. And that's the issue of socialisation whereby the puppies are not socialised to be close to humans & to be exposed to a range of experiences, sights & sounds (as appropriate to their developmental level).

It's been scientifically ascertained that there's a key 'window' of opportunity for when that must occur with puppies. 6 to 14 weeks. It's not psychological waffle. It links with the maturing of the neurological system, the laying down of brain cells. Exactly the same as occurs for children. Horrible thought, but if young babies/children are similarly deprived in that early stage, there are long-term consequences for learning and behaviour.

So the provision of socialisation, of both puppies and the adult dogs, is the final, essential criterion for whether someone who's breeding puppies, is a puppy farmer or not. There is even evidence that the extent of socialisation of the mother dog, affects the behaviour of her puppies. It's therefore just as important to continue to socialise adult dogs.

If there's to be any monitoring of dog-breeding, whoever does it, there needs to be developed a scientifically viable checklist of actual socialisation provisions. Shouldn't be hard to find. There were criteria set out in the study which checked for the extent & influence of socialisation. Also criteria is available from people who are breeding/raising puppies for specific purposes to work alongside humans, like the military dogs. And, especially, from those registered breeders who have been found to socialise their dogs well.

'Farming' in the sense of raising and caring for livestock is totally inappropriate for breeding/raising puppies bound to be companions to humans & sharing their lives, whether as pets or working or both. It's socialisation that counts...& that must be provided for and monitored.

Edited August 12, 2010 by mita

[Steve]

O.K. I agree But those things need to be addressed differently to a development application. And I also get the basic feeling that anything done to stop even one is a good thing but my point is that the current proposal from the RSPCA - which Vicdogs and animal lib have said they support calls [without exception] on mandatory laws- that would make puppy farmers - or all breeders do exactly what these people attempted to do.

So surely when they do what the proposal is asking them to do its up to the council to decide whether they have covered environmental issues and other considerations needed for all people who put in a DA. If they had of kept the proposal up they may have been knocked back or they may have been able to show they will do what ever the council feel is necessary to be able to operate.

Anyone watching what just happened will think twice about putting in a DA proposal for 50 dogs and that to me is exactly the opposite to what we are asking them to do.

This may be seen as a victory for a blow against puppy farmers but in reality its a hard hit against any idea that breeders whether they are puppy farmers or not will do anything to tell anyone where they are or what they are doing. Forget about any idea of licensing or putting their street addresses on a website. Do you really think that people who have decided to breed dogs for a living are going to simply not do it anymore ?

What figure is a good figure for a breeder to apply for? At what point do you have to worry about having all this attention focused on what you want to do ?

10,15,20,30,40?

Mita I agree with all you say but thats not something that needs to be considered - or could be considered in a Development application. These are things which have to be covered in codes and state laws, POCTAA etc. - and then how do you police them?

I just think you would be better off to let them go through the motions and apply and be considered under equitable standards for their approvals for their DA and then at least you know where they are and you know to keep an eye on them.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Steve

[WreckitWhippet]

I agree with you 100% Steve.

[chriswiddler]

O.K. I agree But those things need to be addressed differently to a development application. And I also get the basic feeling that anything done to stop even one is a good thing but my point is that the current proposal from the RSPCA - which Vicdogs and animal lib have said they support calls [without exception] on mandatory laws- that would make puppy farmers - or all breeders do exactly what these people attempted to do.

So surely when they do what the proposal is asking them to do its up to the council to decide whether they have covered environmental issues and other considerations needed for all people who put in a DA. If they had of kept the proposal up they may have been knocked back or they may have been able to show they will do what ever the council feel is necessary to be able to operate.

Anyone watching what just happened will think twice about putting in a DA proposal for 50 dogs and that to me is exactly the opposite to what we are asking them to do.

This may be seen as a victory for a blow against puppy farmers but in reality its a hard hit against any idea that breeders whether they are puppy farmers or not will do anything to tell anyone where they are or what they are doing. Forget about any idea of licensing or putting their street addresses on a website. Do you really think that people who have decided to breed dogs for a living are going to simply not do it anymore ?

What figure is a good figure for a breeder to apply for? At what point do you have to worry about having all this attention focused on what you want to do ?

10,15,20,30,40?

Mita I agree with all you say but thats not something that needs to be considered - or could be considered in a Development application. These are things which have to be covered in codes and state laws, POCTAA etc. - and then how do you police them?

I just think you would be better off to let them go through the motions and apply and be considered under equitable standards for their approvals for their DA and then at least you know where they are and you know to keep an eye on them.

Well said. Opponents want to end all breeding, puppy farms is just the emotional shoe-in to anti-breeding legislation.

[mita]

Mita I agree with all you say but thats not something that needs to be considered - or could be considered in a Development application. These are things which have to be covered in codes and state laws, POCTAA etc. - and then how do you police them?

I just think you would be better off to let them go through the motions and apply and be considered under equitable standards for their approvals for their DA and then at least you know where they are and you know to keep an eye on them.

I get what you're saying, Steve. But it comes down to the definition of dog breeding which would be used to describe a Development application. A clear definition is needed re exactly what is to be developed. Because, on that, rests the nature of the facilities & activities to be approved or not.

I'd be arguing that a definition of dog breeding which reflects what we now know about best practice must also go into a breeder's permit system (something like what's in a pilot project on the Gold Coast). With the critical issue being socialisation.

Lack of adherence can result in loss of that permit.

I may be turning into a Pollyanna , but I've got high hopes in Qld, now that the U of Q which published the research on the critical importance of socialisation will be sharing a campus with RSPCA Qld which has always said that the bottom line that defines puppy farming is failure to socialise adult dogs or puppies. The Gold Coast venture may finish up being a starting point for the whole of the state (& Dogs Qld was one of the 'designers').

I don't detect any general anti-breeder sentiment in Qld. In fact, the research here & the field experience of the RSPCA is that the good breeders actually prevent welfare & dumping problems for dogs. So good breeders shouldn't be impeded from doing what they do well.

But I don't get those same vibes from Victoria. So I can understand Victorians feeling concerned.

Edited August 13, 2010 by mita

[Steve]

Again I ask - what is supposed to be the magic number? If I put a DA in to own 20 dogs would I still have to run the gauntlet - not just when the DA is being applied for but if I get approval?

Can you reasonably see why any potential or current puppy farmer would comply with any laws which gave their game away based on the fact that even applying gets you this kind of publicity and attention?

I personally know purebred breeders - not our members who own well over 20 dogs.I know one in particular who would own 100 plus chi's and she is well respected within the purebred dog community

and is a conformation judge.

One you know Mita owns 30 plus dogs and does it all by the book. Is 30 O.K. but 50 not O.K? Is purebred O.K. but not cross breds? Who should feel safe to put in a DA without getting the sort of things which have happened here? How do we encourage people who own more than 5 dogs to own up to owning them ?

[Nekhbet]

If people adequately care for that many dogs and can provide them and their puppies the right level of socialisation and stimulation then there is no problem. But like I said, registered or not, if you[re just going to have masses of dogs crammed in kennels for profit then you're a farmer. Some people with 50 dogs do a better job then some people do with one. It comes down to quality of life for the animals and that they are not being overbred or undersocialised, or that their pups are being unsocialised then released on the unsuspecting public.

The objections were, like I said, were because the facilities were going to be very poor and cause problems IE too many dogs on the property causing waste, water, noise problems. Thats what the objections were, and these then fed into the high chance of the owners not being able to provide the necessary standard of accomodation to their breeding animals.

Can you reasonably see why any potential or current puppy farmer would comply with any laws which gave their game away based on the fact that even applying gets you this kind of publicity and attention?

oh bulltish Steve. They dont bother with the law because theyre money hungry see their animals as cash machines. Their previous behaviour gets them in trouble not some premonition of evildoing. When you keep dogs like shit on one property, then want to go open another and you're NOT a registered breeder what do you think is going on? If a registered breeder wants to apply to create a 50+ dog property and abides by council regulations about kennel properties and waste/draininage then there will be no problem. Unless they too start keeping dogs in their own filth or chained to wrecked cars.

There seems to be a short sighted worry that registered breeders will suffer from this. If your animals are well socialised, well kept and healthy then what do you have to worry about? Dogs cost money, if you cannot or will not afford to give them decent living then you shouldnt have them. The issue never was the number, but simply the conditions they will be kept in and their treatment be it 5 or 500.

[Steve]

If people adequately care for that many dogs and can provide them and their puppies the right level of socialisation and stimulation then there is no problem. But like I said, registered or not, if you[re just going to have masses of dogs crammed in kennels for profit then you're a farmer. Some people with 50 dogs do a better job then some people do with one. It comes down to quality of life for the animals and that they are not being overbred or undersocialised, or that their pups are being unsocialised then released on the unsuspecting public.

The objections were, like I said, were because the facilities were going to be very poor and cause problems IE too many dogs on the property causing waste, water, noise problems. Thats what the objections were, and these then fed into the high chance of the owners not being able to provide the necessary standard of accomodation to their breeding animals.

Can you reasonably see why any potential or current puppy farmer would comply with any laws which gave their game away based on the fact that even applying gets you this kind of publicity and attention?

oh bulltish Steve. They dont bother with the law because theyre money hungry see their animals as cash machines. Their previous behaviour gets them in trouble not some premonition of evildoing. When you keep dogs like shit on one property, then want to go open another and you're NOT a registered breeder what do you think is going on? If a registered breeder wants to apply to create a 50+ dog property and abides by council regulations about kennel properties and waste/draininage then there will be no problem. Unless they too start keeping dogs in their own filth or chained to wrecked cars.

There seems to be a short sighted worry that registered breeders will suffer from this. If your animals are well socialised, well kept and healthy then what do you have to worry about? Dogs cost money, if you cannot or will not afford to give them decent living then you shouldnt have them. The issue never was the number, but simply the conditions they will be kept in and their treatment be it 5 or 500.

O.K. If what you say is true then they would never have gotten their development application approved anyway and the only letter I saw was one written by AL and that didn't discuss this specific DA .It looked to me to be about puppy farms in general. do you think them withdrawing this DA means they will stop breeding?

What you or I think is bullshit isn't really counted because anyone who is watching what has happened and who may have been considering the merits of the RSPCA wish to have all breeders licensed and out in the open, easy to find and nicely compliant is not going to be likely to want to take the risk.

[Souff]

Yes I agree... if the dogs in these people hands are not being bred to death every time they come into season and IF the council and the RSPCA would use their powers and put a stop to the cruelty BUT they do not... so if people have to over react and get emotional then so be it. BUT someone and somehow we have to protect these poor dogs, and if it takes people’s emotions taking over and if they can achieve something, anything then so be it, but at the moment it appears that no one with the authority and power is doing anything to stop it.

So the more pressure we can put towards putting a stop to this over breeding/overcrowding, lack of care and attention, and actual cruelty, then I say go for it.

No animal regardless of species deserves to be treated unkindly or cruelly for human gain, they were not put on this earth for humans to treat in a manner that is just so unacceptable in our society today. Everything regardless has a right to live their life without pain, fear or suffering.

Yes, dogs do need your protection .....

There are homes in every state of Australia where females are bred from - every season. Often there are more than one undesexed bitch at these properties. The bitches are often large and of mixed breed and they often deliver up to 10 pups at a time.

Their owners often find homes for 3 or 4 (if you are very lucky) and the rest find their way eventually to the dog shelters, often having first been given away to unsuitable owners.

20 pups a year from 1 bitch at one household.

These people fall right under the "puppy farmer" radar. They wont be putting in DAs to council. They wont be visited by the RSPCA unless somebody complains, and who would? They only have the dogs as pets ..... don't they? Their bitches are given food, shelter and water. The owners are not necessarily fond of dogs but the dogs are useful creatures and they can get a few bucks for the pups to help pay the power bill or whatever.

Oh, but this is not puppy farming, is it? It is just small time, everyone says, not a big problem like those breeders who have lots of dogs. Those people are just in it for profit.

Well yes, one could say that ..... until you multiply it by around 10 to 20 thousand "pet" owners, which would be a very, very conservative estimate when you start talking to vets in country towns.

All under the radar!

What the "pet" owners (who breed) make is also profit (read undeclared income) with almost no vet bills, and they dump their leftover unsold pups on to society and we all end up paying for their irresponsibility.

The number of these owners grows bigger every year. Some were formerly registered breeders, and their numbers keep on growing.

As I said before the RSPCA have all the laws they need to supervise known breeding places - and if they KNOW where the breeding establishments are located, they can use those powers.

Can they stop people breeding from a bitch every season? Probably not. But nature often takes care of that in any case.

Do you know what often happens when bitches are overbred?

They often slow down the production rate!

The breeders who look after their bitches have a much better chance of getting a good number of pups in a litter.

Breeders who overbreed and end up with something like 2 pups in a litter instead of 8 tend to be very unimpressed

For my money, 1 puppy farm with 50 breeding dogs (wth full details known to council) pales in comparison to the far greater problem that Australia has in regard to the welfare of dogs - unregistered backyard breeders of mutts.

When some of your people can find ways and means of delivering a better deal for the undesexed breeding bitches in backyards right across Australia, then I might start taking you all seriously.

"Stopped in their Tracks"?

I hardly think so. What you people in Victoria have most likely done is to push another insidious problem underground! That is hardly helping the dogs.

Souff

Edited August 13, 2010 by Souff

[WreckitWhippet]

" that is harldy helping the dogs "

sums it all up for me. I don't agree with puppy farms, how they currently operate, care for the animals and raise the puppies, but they aren't going to go away and the reality is , the best we can hope to achieve is to have them out in the open and have regular inspections carried out.

One farmer withdrawing one application is hardly a victory and it means nothing to the thousands of animals that recieve substandard treatment and have appauling living conditions. If DA's are too hard to obtain, they'll simply do what they do now and hide away and it's certainly not going to encourage others to apply.

Edited August 13, 2010 by ReadySetGo

[goldchow]

Exactly Souff. counted 14 litters of 'purebred. without papers' and crossbreed puppies, at the local markets last weekend, all backyarders, heartbreaking.