Victoria Proposes Tougher Pet Breeding Laws

[poodlefan]

FF:

No I don`t sell my pups in a pet store, But not everyone can afford to pay for a purebred dog & when I was young I would have probably bought one there.

DDs from petshops often cost MORE than purebred dogs from registered breeders.

[poodlefan]

Cant they see that how they want our dogs housesed is cruel...

We will look like the puppy farmers that they are not happy about and want to close down..

All cement yards and wire cages ,great life for a dog....not

Try getting council approval for those on your average urban block.

[RuralPug]

One law I would like to see put in place and enforced is HUGE fines for selling any dog or cat unmicrochipped, including the breeder's name and contact details on the chip. All advertised pets to have chip numbers included in ads, similar to including rego numbers or chassis/engine numbers on vehicle adverts.

You can give 'em away legally but no selling unchipped. Impulse buys are reduced, because you have to chip or transfer the existing chip into the purchasers name first.

And on every impound and surrender and every rehome and every complaint the breeder's name should be published right along with the owner's details on the chips.

So easy then for councils and other bylaw enforcers to see where the problem ones are coming from, and who should be allowed to keep their licence because they carefully suit pups/dogs to owners and take back any change-of-circumstance pets needing rehome.

Not a total solution, by any means, but I think a start to ensuring responsibility is taken by the (puts flame suit on) "manufacturers of the goods" for their initial placement.

[shortstep]

One law I would like to see put in place and enforced is HUGE fines for selling any dog or cat unmicrochipped, including the breeder's name and contact details on the chip. All advertised pets to have chip numbers included in ads, similar to including rego numbers or chassis/engine numbers on vehicle adverts.

You can give 'em away legally but no selling unchipped. Impulse buys are reduced, because you have to chip or transfer the existing chip into the purchasers name first.

And on every impound and surrender and every rehome and every complaint the breeder's name should be published right along with the owner's details on the chips.

So easy then for councils and other bylaw enforcers to see where the problem ones are coming from, and who should be allowed to keep their licence because they carefully suit pups/dogs to owners and take back any change-of-circumstance pets needing rehome.

Not a total solution, by any means, but I think a start to ensuring responsibility is taken by the (puts flame suit on) "manufacturers of the goods" for their initial placement.

This is great stuff.

So if you sell a pug to some one and they turn it into the RSPCA when it is 8 years old (RSPCA then sells said pug for more than you did as the breeder), you as the breeder would then have your name published (where local newspaper?) as selling a pup to a home that dumped it and you would be fined (how much maybe 5x times the sales price of the pup?).

If the shire thinks that you seem to stand out as not the best breeder by their standards or if 'people' complain about you, then they will pull your license to breed.

Would certainly take Shire control to a whole new level, maximizing policing of those nasty breeders. This is better than just making it illegal to sell dogs, as you could with this law get breeders for the life of the dog they sell, and for up 16 years after their last pup was bred due to the harassment they received for being a nasty dog breeder! Yes!!!!

I just love your plan. Ticks all the right boxes. The bit about making breeders responsible for what the owners of the dogs do is just fabulous. Something they will have no control over and this can be used against them for the total life of the pup. Wouldn't you just love to see their faces when they hear for the first time that a pup they sold 10 years ago was dumped at the shelter and they are in big trouble now!

This is just brilliant!

[whippets]

One law I would like to see put in place and enforced is HUGE fines for selling any dog or cat unmicrochipped, including the breeder's name and contact details on the chip. All advertised pets to have chip numbers included in ads, similar to including rego numbers or chassis/engine numbers on vehicle adverts.

You can give 'em away legally but no selling unchipped. Impulse buys are reduced, because you have to chip or transfer the existing chip into the purchasers name first.

And on every impound and surrender and every rehome and every complaint the breeder's name should be published right along with the owner's details on the chips.

So easy then for councils and other bylaw enforcers to see where the problem ones are coming from, and who should be allowed to keep their licence because they carefully suit pups/dogs to owners and take back any change-of-circumstance pets needing rehome.

Not a total solution, by any means, but I think a start to ensuring responsibility is taken by the (puts flame suit on) "manufacturers of the goods" for their initial placement.

Why should the breeders be at fault because some dickhead can't/won't look after their own pet and they then surrender it? Gee people don't like to take accountability for anything these days do they.

[Steve]

doesnt matter who gets in thier going to change legislations for dog breeders.goverments have to look like their doing some thing.we need to standup for our rights before changes are made and its to late..at the moment a person who is a member of applicable organisation(including dogs victoria,cat authority of victoria,feline control council,governing council of the cat fancy and waratah national cat alliance)that registers their puppysand /orkittens with that organisation and has less than 10 fertile females of either species is not required to be registered as a breeding establishment with their council...this is the way we should fight to keep it.. other wise wont be long till it spreads to other states..

This is the least of your problems.

They are about to hand over the policing of laws which to date have been in the hands of councils to the RSPCA and at the same time bring in the ability to have your stuff seized and for you to pay bonds even before you are found guilty. If there happens to be a ranger who doesnt like the colour of your hair and uses his power corruptly too bad - prove it. By the time you get close to having a go at defending yourself you're bankrupt or your dogs are dead and your whole life is destroyed.

[RuralPug]

One law I would like to see put in place and enforced is HUGE fines for selling any dog or cat unmicrochipped, including the breeder's name and contact details on the chip. All advertised pets to have chip numbers included in ads, similar to including rego numbers or chassis/engine numbers on vehicle adverts.

You can give 'em away legally but no selling unchipped. Impulse buys are reduced, because you have to chip or transfer the existing chip into the purchasers name first.

And on every impound and surrender and every rehome and every complaint the breeder's name should be published right along with the owner's details on the chips.

So easy then for councils and other bylaw enforcers to see where the problem ones are coming from, and who should be allowed to keep their licence because they carefully suit pups/dogs to owners and take back any change-of-circumstance pets needing rehome.

Not a total solution, by any means, but I think a start to ensuring responsibility is taken by the (puts flame suit on) "manufacturers of the goods" for their initial placement.

This is great stuff.

So if you sell a pug to some one and they turn it into the RSPCA when it is 8 years old (RSPCA then sells said pug for more than you did as the breeder), you as the breeder would then have your name published (where local newspaper?) as selling a pup to a home that dumped it and you would be fined (how much maybe 5x times the sales price of the pup?).

If the shire thinks that you seem to stand out as not the best breeder by their standards or if 'people' complain about you, then they will pull your license to breed.

Would certainly take Shire control to a whole new level, maximizing policing of those nasty breeders. This is better than just making it illegal to sell dogs, as you could with this law get breeders for the life of the dog they sell, and for up 16 years after their last pup was bred due to the harassment they received for being a nasty dog breeder! Yes!!!!

I just love your plan. Ticks all the right boxes. The bit about making breeders responsible for what the owners of the dogs do is just fabulous. Something they will have no control over and this can be used against them for the total life of the pup. Wouldn't you just love to see their faces when they hear for the first time that a pup they sold 10 years ago was dumped at the shelter and they are in big trouble now!

This is just brilliant!

Nope the fine is for selling without microchipping, any fines for abandonment etc would be directed to owners as per common law. Responsiblity remains as per the law now. The difference I am proposing would make it easily to detect exactly who is making the first sale, whether or not they are registered breeders, if they are selling they must put their names on the chip. The details of impounds etc could be published in goverment gazette for whoever is interested. Right now there is absolutely no solid data on the source of these unwanted dogs.

I expect that if Heaven Puppy Inc. large scale farm has 800 dogs which are chipped as its breeding dumped or impounded in the course of a year over various shires and I have a single one chipped as mine and that information is publicly available that people are going to be screaming blue murder about Heaven Puppy Inc. If the powers that be want to come after me for my one single one not having done anything about the breeder with 800 dogs dumped they are going to look pretty stupid, publicly.

They already have the power to grant and to take away licenses - I want something in place so that the great unwashed can see any abuses of that power clearly and easily. I am not suggesting new powers. I am simply suggesting an additional breeder ID recorded and making the breeder ID part of microchipping which is already a regulation in many states AND having that ID publicised for impounds, seizures, surrenders etc.

My secret agenda here is to make the councils and shires and especially the RSPCA open to public scrutiny in at least this one way so it will be glaringly obvious who is in bed with the puppy farmers and who is unfairly targeting ethical breeders. It is my attempt to shine a light into dark corners, by making the name and shame information publicly available. I want to say "look at the facts - here they are, see the records."

We don't need extra laws, om the whole. What we need is a way to put pressure on the enforcers so that they have to do right thing because the public can actually watch in this way.

[ncarter]

What shits me the most is I've always done what is in the best interests of my bitches and pups and have made informed and educated decisions. I chip and register, follow the leash laws etc and currently I am a criminal.

Earlier this year I said I wouldn't do it again, as I feel torn. I can't expect others to follow the laws if I won;t follow them myself, but I cannot and will never whelp and raise a litter away from the house.

This is what makes me a law breaker. And to think I could be charged, lose my home and be prevented from owning and showing/breeding a pedigree dog again.

Where are these laws that say you have to raise a litter in kennels away from your house?

[shortstep]

They already have the power to grant and to take away licenses - I want something in place so that the great unwashed can see any abuses of that power clearly and easily. I am not suggesting new powers. I am simply suggesting an additional breeder ID recorded and making the breeder ID part of microchipping which is already a regulation in many states AND having that ID publicised for impounds, seizures, surrenders etc.

Oh sure, of course only those 'Nasty dog breeders' need to worry about the BMTS Breeder Microchip Tracking System (wink wink nod nod).

The Uni folks are already pushing your idea, I am sure you will be pleased to know other ways the BMTS can be used against nasty dog breeders.

When your pug shows up at the vet for a vaccination and the vet thinks he must have a breathing problem and writes this in his record. Your name as his breeder will now show up in the data sent to the Uni to track inherited disease in purebred dogs.

This will not hurt breeders who never breed sick dogs, it will only hurt those who breed dogs with structure extremes or illness, they will be exposed (wink wink nod nod). I am sure this information can be sent to the breeder's shires so it can also be used to remove the license of any nasty breeders of sick dogs or dogs with structure extremes.

I bet you were pleased to see the work recently done at the Uni on short nosed breeds. Showing how their brains have been changed due to facial/head features selected for by nasty breeders. Not to worry, the abuse of these dogs by nasty breeders will not go on much longer. I am pretty sure in the next 5 years we will hear that there is a move being made to ban nasty pug breeders.

So do you have a petition I can sign or a rally I can attend to 'Stop Nasty Dog breeders' or call out for the 'Breeder Microchip Tracking System'?

Edited October 13, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

What shits me the most is I've always done what is in the best interests of my bitches and pups and have made informed and educated decisions. I chip and register, follow the leash laws etc and currently I am a criminal.

Earlier this year I said I wouldn't do it again, as I feel torn. I can't expect others to follow the laws if I won;t follow them myself, but I cannot and will never whelp and raise a litter away from the house.

This is what makes me a law breaker. And to think I could be charged, lose my home and be prevented from owning and showing/breeding a pedigree dog again.

Where are these laws that say you have to raise a litter in kennels away from your house?

This is the issue I feel like Im knocking myself out over.

No matter where you live the minute you are deemed to be running a business from home the laws you are looking at regarding dogs are out the window.

So when you see laws which relate to how many a person can have and there are no restrictions or conditions on how they are housed every one assumes its all O.K.

It isnt - breeders have to comply with environment and planning laws.

In NSW you can own as many as you want and you dont have to have a permit to breed according to state companion animals laws BUT the definition of a breeder is anyone who breeds a litter and once you are a breeder you are running a business from home no matter what you say and you therefore come under environment and planning laws. This is also true for anyone who ever rehomes one dog for a recue group from their home. In most shires there are restrictions on where you have to house more than 2 dogs and how. I can give you examples of breeders and rescue groups in NSW who have been placed in situations where they either have to have concrete pens blah blah blah or not be given approval to breed their dogs. They can own 50 - no problem but the minute they sell one, or breed one all bets are off.

In Victoria state laws say if you are a registered breeder you can have 10 fertile dogs but environment and planning define having 5 as ruinning a business and its then That their envorinmental and planning laws cut in. I can give you stack of examples in this state too.

In Queensland the dog laws sound pretty good too but a breeder is anyone who breeds a litter and that means that environment and planning say what can and cant be done.

I can give you examples of peopel who are now this minute being told they have to have concrete pens, quarantine areas and drainage into septic tanks to breed a litter of pups and they live on huge acres. I can give you examples of people who own 2 entire dogs who need a DA for running a business for breeding dogs from home.

If you breach council environment laws you are in a heap more problems than you are with any state companion law.

Council by laws for breeding dogs in Victoria say you have to keep your dogs just like the Banksia park people are and its why they can and will be able to operate no matter who is policing the laws.But even though they have no choice according to environment laws animal lib sneak in and take photos of them on concrete in pens purpose built to comply with the laws and use that to tell people they suck. They may suck but they have no choice on how they house those dogs.

The big whine is that councils havent policed these laws - and they havent because thats how - unless registered breeders have applied for a DA they have been able to do pretty much as they want and breed dogs in their homes without concrete floored pens etc .

The joke of it is those calling for new laws think its going to stop places like Banksia park but instead it will make us all look like Banksia park.

The new laws arent about how you do things they are about who will police the ones already there.

Guess who will be worse off than they are now? Not puppy farmers who have already been granted DAs and who comply already.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Steve

[WreckitWhippet]

doesnt matter who gets in thier going to change legislations for dog breeders.goverments have to look like their doing some thing.we need to standup for our rights before changes are made and its to late..at the moment a person who is a member of applicable organisation(including dogs victoria,cat authority of victoria,feline control council,governing council of the cat fancy and waratah national cat alliance)that registers their puppysand /orkittens with that organisation and has less than 10 fertile females of either species is not required to be registered as a breeding establishment with their council...this is the way we should fight to keep it.. other wise wont be long till it spreads to other states..

This is the least of your problems.

They are about to hand over the policing of laws which to date have been in the hands of councils to the RSPCA and at the same time bring in the ability to have your stuff seized and for you to pay bonds even before you are found guilty. If there happens to be a ranger who doesnt like the colour of your hair and uses his power corruptly too bad - prove it. By the time you get close to having a go at defending yourself you're bankrupt or your dogs are dead and your whole life is destroyed.

It stinks to high heaven doesn't it. The RSPCA will be able to walk in , take your healthy animals that are in no immediate danger and bankrupt you with bills for their care.

There's no better way to ensure that an owner can't fight you in court, than to cripple them emotionally and they do that by seizing your much loved pets and killing off a few along the way.

[dogbesotted]

What shits me the most is I've always done what is in the best interests of my bitches and pups and have made informed and educated decisions. I chip and register, follow the leash laws etc and currently I am a criminal.

Earlier this year I said I wouldn't do it again, as I feel torn. I can't expect others to follow the laws if I won;t follow them myself, but I cannot and will never whelp and raise a litter away from the house.

This is what makes me a law breaker. And to think I could be charged, lose my home and be prevented from owning and showing/breeding a pedigree dog again.

Where are these laws that say you have to raise a litter in kennels away from your house?

This is the issue I feel like Im knocking myself out over.

No matter where you live the minute you are deemed to be running a business from home the laws you are looking at regarding dogs are out the window.

So when you see laws which relate to how many a person can have and there are no restrictions or conditions on how they are housed every one assumes its all O.K.

It isnt - breeders have to comply with environment and planning laws.

In NSW you can own as many as you want and you dont have to have a permit to breed according to state companion animals laws BUT the definition of a breeder is anyone who breeds a litter and once you are a breeder you are running a business from home no matter what you say and you therefore come under environment and planning laws. This is also true for anyone who ever rehomes one dog for a recue group from their home. In most shires there are restrictions on where you have to house more than 2 dogs and how. I can give you examples of breeders and rescue groups in NSW who have been placed in situations where they either have to have concrete pens blah blah blah or not be given approval to breed their dogs. They can own 50 - no problem but the minute they sell one, or breed one all bets are off.

In Victoria state laws say if you are a registered breeder you can have 10 fertile dogs but environment and planning define having 5 as ruinning a business and its then That their envorinmental and planning laws cut in. I can give you stack of examples in this state too.

In Queensland the dog laws sound pretty good too but a breeder is anyone who breeds a litter and that means that environment and planning say what can and cant be done.

I can give you examples of peopel who are now this minute being told they have to have concrete pens, quarantine areas and drainage into septic tanks to breed a litter of pups and they live on huge acres. I can give you examples of people who own 2 entire dogs who need a DA for running a business for breeding dogs from home.

If you breach council environment laws you are in a heap more problems than you are with any state companion law.

Council by laws for breeding dogs in Victoria say you have to keep your dogs just like the Banksia park people are and its why they can and will be able to operate no matter who is policing the laws.But even though they have no choice according to environment laws animal lib sneak in and take photos of them on concrete in pens purpose built to comply with the laws and use that to tell people they suck. They may suck but they have no choice on how they house those dogs.

The big whine is that councils havent policed these laws - and they havent because thats how - unless registered breeders have applied for a DA they have been able to do pretty much as they want and breed dogs in their homes without concrete floored pens etc .

The joke of it is those calling for new laws think its going to stop places like Banksia park but instead it will make us all look like Banksia park.

The new laws arent about how you do things they are about who will police the ones already there.

Guess who will be worse off than they are now? Not puppy farmers who have already been granted DAs and who comply already.

bingo! correct.

h

[ohh la la]

steve ,

your correct it not going to effect puppy farmers their already approved.....

its the people with a few dogs trying to do the right thing by their dogs....

lve spoken to my shire.. thank god were out of town ,when law comes in and it will .

l can keep my dogs but will have to build yard with cement ect and septic system will have to be put in.

have to put in for a building permit more money for local council and get breeders permit $120 .permit will have to be approved each year and extra $120 a yr for my local council..councils are on to agood little money spinner..

people in my shire who live in town will have to get approved from council and people who live near them can put in complaint and they wont be able to have more than 2 dogs ...

not good for town people who show/bred...