Puppy Farmers And Also Modification Of Rule 2.20.

[SwaY]

All members are invited to attend a discussion forum at 2:00pm on Sunday, 24 October at Bulla.

Topics for discussion include puppy farmers and also modification of rule 2.20.

http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/news...orum-24-oct.doc

Re: Members Forum

DOGS Victoria has been leading the way to stop those operating large scale, commercial puppy farms.

Whilst most commercial breeders are outside our organisation (and therefore exempt from VCA Rules, Regulations and Code of Practice) we can never be complacent that “rogue” breeders are not within our own membership. The value of a pedigree makes membership an attractive proposal to puppy farmers.

A special section has been set up on the DOGS Victoria website to keep members updated with our activities to identify and remove any such members from our association. A paper has been prepared for member comment on this issue and we have received excellent and considered comment from members.

To get further feedback from members, a special meeting has been arranged for Sunday, 24 October at Bulla Exhibition Centre at 2:00 pm.

At this meeting members will also be asked to consider a proposal to modify the current Rule 2.20. The proposed amendments will simplify the way members and clubs lodge a complaint and have it heard, and will simplify the way that members defend themselves against complaints. This would also bring us into line with current procedures of other associations.

A further benefit will be to reduce the risk to the association of the huge legal costs of defending its procedures in court when they are challenged. In a case heard earlier this year in the Magistrate’s Court, where the Magistrate found in favour of the VCA, the cost of our defence was $15,000 of members’ money.

If the members attending this meeting agree, then the proposed amendments will be put to the 2011 AGM.

Please set this afternoon aside to join other members and have your say on these two very important matters facing DOGS Victoria. We apologise that, for some exhibitors, there will be a clash with other events that weekend. It is always difficult to find a free weekend for a meeting of this importance.

To register for this meeting, please email the office at [email protected] or call 9788 2500.

[tarope]

For puppy farmers we should apply rule 303.

[Julie R]

All members are invited to attend a discussion forum at 2:00pm on Sunday, 24 October at Bulla.

Topics for discussion include puppy farmers and also modification of rule 2.20.

http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/news...orum-24-oct.doc

Re: Members Forum

DOGS Victoria has been leading the way to stop those operating large scale, commercial puppy farms.

Whilst most commercial breeders are outside our organisation (and therefore exempt from VCA Rules, Regulations and Code of Practice) we can never be complacent that “rogue” breeders are not within our own membership. The value of a pedigree makes membership an attractive proposal to puppy farmers.

A special section has been set up on the DOGS Victoria website to keep members updated with our activities to identify and remove any such members from our association. A paper has been prepared for member comment on this issue and we have received excellent and considered comment from members.

To get further feedback from members, a special meeting has been arranged for Sunday, 24 October at Bulla Exhibition Centre at 2:00 pm.

At this meeting members will also be asked to consider a proposal to modify the current Rule 2.20. The proposed amendments will simplify the way members and clubs lodge a complaint and have it heard, and will simplify the way that members defend themselves against complaints. This would also bring us into line with current procedures of other associations.

A further benefit will be to reduce the risk to the association of the huge legal costs of defending its procedures in court when they are challenged. In a case heard earlier this year in the Magistrate’s Court, where the Magistrate found in favour of the VCA, the cost of our defence was $15,000 of members’ money.

If the members attending this meeting agree, then the proposed amendments will be put to the 2011 AGM.

Please set this afternoon aside to join other members and have your say on these two very important matters facing DOGS Victoria. We apologise that, for some exhibitors, there will be a clash with other events that weekend. It is always difficult to find a free weekend for a meeting of this importance.

To register for this meeting, please email the office at [email protected] or call 9788 2500.

Hi Sway

I didn't realise a date, time and venue had been set for this meeting, thank you for posting this info. .

As for the Puppy Farmers within our organization and if Dog Vic was really fair dinkum and not just after the money generated from all the registrations I wonder why they keep registering all these litters from these well known puppy famers..... ???

OH heaven forbid !!!! please don't tell me it is a restriction of trade and our rules can't stop them......... and that money has nothing to do with the issue ????

Pam

[Steve]

From their website http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/pdf/...ssion-paper.pdf

Breeding for the improvement of the breed

Each member of the VCA is bound by the VCA Code of Practice. We are aware that some members

have adopted breeding practices that are contrary to the Code of Practice, and that are not in

accordance with the Objectives / Statement of Purposes of the VCA. Breeding practices that are ‘not

what we are about’.

If we continue to ignore these members and their objectionable breeding, can we continue to claim

to be a responsible organisation that should be accepted as an authority on dogs ?

Two practices that members find most objectionable are as follows:

1. A member who breeds on a scale that does not fit with “primarily for the purpose of

improving the quality and / or working ability”. We refer to this member as a puppy farmer.

2. A member who registers ‘phantom bitches’ to circumvent Clause 20.1.14 of the Code of

Practice. The third litter within 18 months from a bitch is registered against the phantom bitch so as

to avoid prosecution under that Clause.

Puppy farming

We cannot regulate to control puppy farming until we first establish the criteria for what we

consider to be acceptable breeding practices.

We agree that breeding should be planned, therefore can we document an example / guide? If so

we can then expect a breeder to document their plan, and produce it on demand ?

We are offended by large numbers of puppies – so should we set a limit on the number of litters per

year ? Would such a limit be fair across all breeds ? For example a limit of three litters could equate

to 30 puppies for a Boxer breeder, but only 9 puppies for a French Bulldog breeder. Also, would we

penalise 4 litters in one year if none had been produced in the previous year ? Or would we average

the number over a given period, for example any three year period ?

Should we limit the number of puppies ? Again fairness across all breeds has to be considered – a

limit of 20 puppies might equate to 1 ½ litters of Great Danes but 7 litters of Pugs.

We currently limit the number of litters a bitch can produce – should we limit the use of a stud dog ?

Should we limit the number of breeds any one member can breed with ? Puppy farmers often have

five or more breeds, and the breeds change with the market. How many breeds can a member

effectively manage under an acceptable breeding program ? Would the number depend upon such

factors as the size of the dog, or the size of the litters of that breed. What other factors would need

to be considered ?

Should a breeder be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of their program ? For example a

specific number of titles ?

How would we view a breeder who shows regularly and successfully, breeds excessively, and uses

the proceeds of their breeding to finance the importation of good specimens of the breed ?

How do we define the difference between commercial and hobby breeding ?

Phantom bitches

How do we address this problem ?

Should we require all breeding stock to be DNA profiled ?

Should we require all puppies to be microchipped prior to registration ?

If DNA profiling was required, when would it be done ? What form of positive identification would

be required ? How would the profiles be recorded and stored ?

Should the VCA conduct random inspections of members kennels and breeding ? Reg 3.7.7.

empowers to VCA to do so but what would the inspection be gauged against ?

The solution ?

Clearly the organisation has to establish criteria against which a member can be assessed to

determine whether their breeding practices are acceptable to the organisation. Part of such criteria

must clearly identify the difference between hobby and commercial breeding. If we try to purge the

organisation of puppy farmers without such measurable criteria we face a significant legal risk.

Establishing such a criteria will be difficult, but can we afford not to ?

Your thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated.

Lionel Bleakley

25 May 2010

[Julie R]

From their website http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/pdf/...ssion-paper.pdf

Breeding for the improvement of the breed

Each member of the VCA is bound by the VCA Code of Practice. We are aware that some members

have adopted breeding practices that are contrary to the Code of Practice, and that are not in

accordance with the Objectives / Statement of Purposes of the VCA. Breeding practices that are ‘not

what we are about’.

If we continue to ignore these members and their objectionable breeding, can we continue to claim

to be a responsible organisation that should be accepted as an authority on dogs ?

Two practices that members find most objectionable are as follows:

1. A member who breeds on a scale that does not fit with “primarily for the purpose of

improving the quality and / or working ability”. We refer to this member as a puppy farmer.

2. A member who registers ‘phantom bitches’ to circumvent Clause 20.1.14 of the Code of

Practice. The third litter within 18 months from a bitch is registered against the phantom bitch so as

to avoid prosecution under that Clause.

Puppy farming

We cannot regulate to control puppy farming until we first establish the criteria for what we

consider to be acceptable breeding practices.

We agree that breeding should be planned, therefore can we document an example / guide? If so

we can then expect a breeder to document their plan, and produce it on demand ?

We are offended by large numbers of puppies – so should we set a limit on the number of litters per

year ? Would such a limit be fair across all breeds ? For example a limit of three litters could equate

to 30 puppies for a Boxer breeder, but only 9 puppies for a French Bulldog breeder. Also, would we

penalise 4 litters in one year if none had been produced in the previous year ? Or would we average

the number over a given period, for example any three year period ?

Should we limit the number of puppies ? Again fairness across all breeds has to be considered – a

limit of 20 puppies might equate to 1 ½ litters of Great Danes but 7 litters of Pugs.

We currently limit the number of litters a bitch can produce – should we limit the use of a stud dog ?

Should we limit the number of breeds any one member can breed with ? Puppy farmers often have

five or more breeds, and the breeds change with the market. How many breeds can a member

effectively manage under an acceptable breeding program ? Would the number depend upon such

factors as the size of the dog, or the size of the litters of that breed. What other factors would need

to be considered ?

Should a breeder be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of their program ? For example a

specific number of titles ?

How would we view a breeder who shows regularly and successfully, breeds excessively, and uses

the proceeds of their breeding to finance the importation of good specimens of the breed ?

How do we define the difference between commercial and hobby breeding ?

Phantom bitches

How do we address this problem ?

Should we require all breeding stock to be DNA profiled ?

Should we require all puppies to be microchipped prior to registration ?

If DNA profiling was required, when would it be done ? What form of positive identification would

be required ? How would the profiles be recorded and stored ?

Should the VCA conduct random inspections of members kennels and breeding ? Reg 3.7.7.

empowers to VCA to do so but what would the inspection be gauged against ?

The solution ?

Clearly the organisation has to establish criteria against which a member can be assessed to

determine whether their breeding practices are acceptable to the organisation. Part of such criteria

must clearly identify the difference between hobby and commercial breeding. If we try to purge the

organisation of puppy farmers without such measurable criteria we face a significant legal risk.

Establishing such a criteria will be difficult, but can we afford not to ?

Your thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated.

Lionel Bleakley

25 May 2010

Yer thanks I had already read that, hence my questions.

[Steve]

So I guess the big question is - if Vicdogs felt it necessary to write a letter to try to prevent someone being able to keep 50 dogs who was not a CC member would they also do the same if it were one of their members who was applying for a DA for 50 dogs? Based on this article - it would appear that they would. What magical number does Vicdogs have in mind which would make them feel it wasn't necessary to try to prevent someone from applying for a DA to keep dogs? Is it O.K. to apply for a DA for 20 dogs? Or would they prefer their members and anyone else to keep their dogs hidden without approvals? At the end of the day its up to the council and whether or not the DA complies with their regs anyway and general submissions against DAs which are about puppy farms in general make no difference.