Broadford Puppy Farm Stopped In Their Tracks

[alpha bet]

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.

Surely we have to have some faith.... each puppy farm that is hindered is one puppy farm less.....

It might be one thing for puppy farms to be operating under the radar without a permit.... but if you know of one you are within your rights to complain to council.... If you write to complain to council they are required to follow this up. If found to be true they can fine/prosecute the individuals - if they continue to operate then you have to keep the pressure on councils - if they apply for permits it gives the local neighbours and other individuals a chance to let council know their feelings. It is up to the general public to some extent to assist/nag council to do their job.

Councils - especially the poorer country councils, do not have sufficient staff - Mitchell Shire for example is one of the biggest geographical shire and they currently have approx 3 or 4 by laws officers - their job is to sort out all the by-law problems, such as burning off on the wrong days, stock roaming on roads as well as the normal ranger duties.

We dont have to be eternally negative and believe the RSPCA, Dogs Vic, Local Councils etc are all just going to stuff up. Nothing to stop us as ratepayers from pushing them in the right direction.

[Souff]

It might be one thing for puppy farms to be operating under the radar without a permit.... but if you know of one you are within your rights to complain to council.... If you write to complain to council they are required to follow this up. If found to be true they can fine/prosecute the individuals - if they continue to operate then you have to keep the pressure on councils - if they apply for permits it gives the local neighbours and other individuals a chance to let council know their feelings. It is up to the general public to some extent to assist/nag council to do their job.

Dobbing in illegal activity is something that can always be done.

However, no army general worth his salt would scare the enemy underground, because you won't know where they are operating then.

Keeping the enemy in your sights is a far better tactic.

All I can say is that Victoria has some very poor strategists and tacticians. Let's hope we never have to rely on them to save us in a real war.

Souff

[Souff]

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

Yes, and that is just ONE market in ONE town on ONE weekend.

We have a country of 21 million people and many of them are dog owners.

[mita]

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 ?

Good point, Steve. An analogy would be like saying schools for children can only operate according to a magic number. When what counts is what's done, in a particular school, to get the best outcomes for the children.

This is why I think the definition of a puppy breeding establishment has to be based on what is done there, for the adult dogs & puppies. Actions that give the best care according to a set of criteria. Which would include socialisation & variety in experience.

I believe there are registered breeders who're already operating under such a model. They've already proven the point that it doesn't simply rest on a matter of numbers.

Like, look at Jed's dogs. Even in the face of that awful tragedy, the RSPCA Qld congratulated her on how beautifully socialised her dogs were. They took them into temporary care for vet checks until the 'minder' breeders came to get them. The RSPCA made a point of saying in their media release that Jed was a respected breeder. Very clearly pointing out, this was no puppy farmer. Numbers of dogs that Jed had? Not relevant at all. It was what she did with her dogs that mattered. Therein lies the difference between good registered breeders and puppy farmers.

Edited August 14, 2010 by mita

[Souff]

Well said Mita.

It should be about WHAT happens at kennels and yes, there are good breeders who have excellent kennels that pass inspection and their dogs are healthy and happy.

Scaring off DA applicants who are going to be visible is NOT the way to go. Crazy stuff.

Souff

[Nekhbet]

putting over the council limit number of dogs will always incur an application, you cant hide a lot of dogs easily especially in country areas where people know everyone and everything going on. The problem is officers enforcing laws we already HAVE. DPI requires all animals to be seen by a veterinarian if required, that the animal has the minimum provision of water, food, shelter, care and health. As I said if you were going to do things buy the books and were going to look after your dogs then why would your application be knocked back? People who are going to rort the system and simply plonk 50 dogs on your property without proving you can provide the proper infrastructure then you should be knocked back.

I suppose we should just let them set up shop everywhere and stretch councils even further trying to keep on top of people who had no intention of doing the right thing by the dogs anyway. You just open the door. It SHOULD be difficult to set up a dog property, not impossible but difficult and take into consideration if the applicant can actually provide a decent life to the dogs, no matter what your background. Saying that, considering the FCI encourages its associates to expell members breeding purely for profit, puppy farmers should never have ANKC papers. As I said, a more effective way would be to make it LESS of a business - mandatory health screening (which a good breeder would expect to do anyway) socialisation, nutrition, veterinary care etc - and put it into the hands of the people who want to do the right thing.

One puppy farm knocked back is a win to me. If they try again we'll find them and put in more complaints again until the law makes

provisions for large scale dog properties.

[Steve]

putting over the council limit number of dogs will always incur an application, you cant hide a lot of dogs easily especially in country areas where people know everyone and everything going on. The problem is officers enforcing laws we already HAVE. DPI requires all animals to be seen by a veterinarian if required, that the animal has the minimum provision of water, food, shelter, care and health. As I said if you were going to do things buy the books and were going to look after your dogs then why would your application be knocked back? People who are going to rort the system and simply plonk 50 dogs on your property without proving you can provide the proper infrastructure then you should be knocked back.

I suppose we should just let them set up shop everywhere and stretch councils even further trying to keep on top of people who had no intention of doing the right thing by the dogs anyway. You just open the door. It SHOULD be difficult to set up a dog property, not impossible but difficult and take into consideration if the applicant can actually provide a decent life to the dogs, no matter what your background. Saying that, considering the FCI encourages its associates to expell members breeding purely for profit, puppy farmers should never have ANKC papers. As I said, a more effective way would be to make it LESS of a business - mandatory health screening (which a good breeder would expect to do anyway) socialisation, nutrition, veterinary care etc - and put it into the hands of the people who want to do the right thing.

One puppy farm knocked back is a win to me. If they try again we'll find them and put in more complaints again until the law makes

provisions for large scale dog properties.

This puppy farm wasn't knocked back at all. Ive done considerable research into this case and nothing that any one other than their neighbours had to say could be taken into account.

Submissions which spoke of the impact of puppy farms in general were simply put under the table and nothing in them was or ever is taken into consideration.

The submission was removed voluntarily and may be back any time they tidy it up or they may simply do what ever it was they wanted to do and hope they dont get caught.

If you want them to apply and comply with regulations so they are easily seen and an eye can be kept on them to ensure they are following best practice etc then let them apply and allow the councils to do their job and ensure they will be following the rules as far as necessary infra structure is concerned.Its naive for anyone to consider that anything they have to say to a DA via people or groups who don't even live in the shire is going to be given any credence and every DA is taken on its own merits according to the law.

The neighbours in this case were concerned about noise and the submission didn't cover what they would do to ensure the noise issues for the neighbours was covered.They elected to pull it until they do.

Based on the fact that NOTHING AL, VIC DOGS or the RSPCA, Deathrow pets etc has to say can be taken into account and the adverse side affect is making anyone watching want to avoid getting this kind of attention and potentially deciding against applying for a DA rather than doing the right thing - Im sorry- I think you're fighting this with the wrong weapons and the negative consequences far out weigh the thrill of the delusion that anyone had any influence on whether someone gets approved or not.

You may see this as a victory for those who are against puppy farms but infact its a loss for anyone who is encouraging them to comply with laws and be easy to monitor and find.

I don't know what kind of country areas you are thinking of but around here and in every other country area Ive lived in hiding a couple of hundred dogs is dead easy if thats what s someone wants to do.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Steve

[Nekhbet]

OK then I will give you an example.

A man here has just gotten approval to keep 50 dogs on his property. He is already breeding, takes them off mum at 4 weeks, sells them at 6 the day after they've had a vaccination. His pups are unsocialised and feeding consists of throwing food in the middle of them and letting them fight over it or starve. So not surprisingly we have pups from him that are aggressive, confrontational, severe resource guarders, fearful etc and some are just plain dangerous. WIth all of this known the council and DPI see nothing wrong with him now having 50 dogs and pumping out litters.

He's UNDER noses and out in the open. He's well known about with the council, DPI etc and they see nothing wrong despite the fact of how many time bombs this idiot is selling to the general public and then who do you think has to try and solve the problems ... not him. So, now that he can increase from having 10 litters on the ground at once to god knows how many, what improvements are going to be made? None. He got his permit, he pays his fees, he's free to do whatever the hell he wants and breed his bitches as often as he can pull them back into season to make a buck. But i'm sure i'll sleep better at night now that he's going to be monitored by the magical fairies that make sure these people have animal welfare considered when they breed and keep their multitude of dogs.

So under the logic of people here because this man did everything through official sources he will be monitored. Well thats complete BS. THe relevant people took their fees and left. Other notorious puppy farmers are known about around here and still nothing is done, hell one has wildlife convictions coming out of his ear and he STILL collects them. Their dogs are registered with the council and still no one goes to make sure they reguarly comply to bare minimums or see nothing wrong with frightened dogs being kept in their own mess and small cages because for some reason it isnt an issue until, as I have said already, shocking photos hit the media. Information if given to the authorities and no action is taken or we are fobbed off. Too many people I have spoken to say 'oh we rang the council with a complaint' or 'we have made complaints to the RSCPA' and nothing more is done. I think some people on here have way too much faith in the system.

[Souff]

OK then I will give you an example.

A man here has just gotten approval to keep 50 dogs on his property. He is already breeding, takes them off mum at 4 weeks, sells them at 6 the day after they've had a vaccination. His pups are unsocialised and feeding consists of throwing food in the middle of them and letting them fight over it or starve. So not surprisingly we have pups from him that are aggressive, confrontational, severe resource guarders, fearful etc and some are just plain dangerous. WIth all of this known the council and DPI see nothing wrong with him now having 50 dogs and pumping out litters.

He's UNDER noses and out in the open. He's well known about with the council, DPI etc and they see nothing wrong despite the fact of how many time bombs this idiot is selling to the general public and then who do you think has to try and solve the problems ... not him. So, now that he can increase from having 10 litters on the ground at once to god knows how many, what improvements are going to be made? None. He got his permit, he pays his fees, he's free to do whatever the hell he wants and breed his bitches as often as he can pull them back into season to make a buck. But i'm sure i'll sleep better at night now that he's going to be monitored by the magical fairies that make sure these people have animal welfare considered when they breed and keep their multitude of dogs.

So under the logic of people here because this man did everything through official sources he will be monitored. Well thats complete BS. THe relevant people took their fees and left. Other notorious puppy farmers are known about around here and still nothing is done, hell one has wildlife convictions coming out of his ear and he STILL collects them. Their dogs are registered with the council and still no one goes to make sure they reguarly comply to bare minimums or see nothing wrong with frightened dogs being kept in their own mess and small cages because for some reason it isnt an issue until, as I have said already, shocking photos hit the media. Information if given to the authorities and no action is taken or we are fobbed off. Too many people I have spoken to say 'oh we rang the council with a complaint' or 'we have made complaints to the RSCPA' and nothing more is done. I think some people on here have way too much faith in the system.

Nekhbet, I dont know whether you realise it or not, but you and others are mixing up 2 completely separate issues.

Issue No.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WITH COUNCIL

Issue No.2 MONITORING OF ACTIVITIES

One has nothing to do with the other.

If the authorities are not currently flexing their muscle with the legislation that they have got, then they should be.

Nobody can have faith in any system if the authorities themselves are letting the side down.

Targetting state and local government to get them to do their job properly is the way to go if this is the case.

Souff

[Steve]

Nothing anyone does is going to stop development applications if they have what is necessary to get them through.There is nothing what ever anyone can do about that. No amount of letter writing or beating our chests to say stop them being able to get their approvals is going to make any difference except make you feel that you are doing something.The councils will smile and say thank you and throw them in the bin.

No development application is going to dictate when he can or cant feed , or water, wean, socialize or anything else because all of that is covered in the codes and POCTA and has nothing what ever to do with a development application.

If , when he gets the DA approved and is operating outside of the POCTA laws or codes for breeding dogs in that state then you can complain and they will be investigated.

In Victoria unless its POCTAA the RSPCA can not police or enforce breaches of codes for breeding dogs. These are state codes and laws and energy would be better placed in addressing this so when someone is operating so poorly something can be done about it. None of this however has anything to do with development applications.

Therefore if you cant do anything in the current framework to stop the DA's and all your protesting does is chase them underground - rather than launching attacks on puppy farmers who are applying for development applications petition the agencies who should enforce the laws when they break them.

I'm with you 100 percent - we don't want puppy farmers and in an ideal world they would go away and never come back but having good intentions doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the unintended consequences of what the game plan is and personally I think its time to sit back a minute and reconsider the strategy.

[Nekhbet]

I very much doubt you know what this man does or doesn't do, just interested in passing more legislation which will kill dogs to save them~!!! Current laws are fine, just enforce them. if you had evidence of cruelty report it which I doubt you have.

yeah thats me i'm totally against dogs I guess I must be some Peta nut who has infiltrated DOL I guess thats why I am toally against BSL, restriction of training equipment to train difficult dogs who have no option and helping dogs stay alive through rescue and retraining. I am against random over breeding an not health testing as a person who is now on their third HD/ED dog. Yes I do report cruelty and yes, I do indeed know what this man does along with many others. Don't point the finger at people you dont know thanks.

As for mixing up two issues, the DPI will go out to inspect properties as will the council. Council has a responsibility to ensure the applicant has adequate means to care for the prospective dogs on the application (which is the point of multi dog permits which you also need in most situations) as well as sorting out or reporting problems with the existing ones. As I said, it doesnt happen. My council has no issue how many dogs you have on your land if you have over a certain number of acres - so people register multitude of dogs, keep them poorly and nothing happens. Planning applications I understand are separate to animal welfare issues BUT when the person that goes out to inspect the property also has the power to say 'hey you're not looking after these dogs properly' and do something about it. The man I reffered to above has 5 acres and hence will need to have applied for a multi dog permit as well - and he got it. They may be separate but they do have an element of connection when someone applies to start a large scale dog business.