Puppy Farm Awareness Rally

[pip1981]

pip 1981,

I hear and understand what you are saying.

Many registered breeders can run large kennels and still give their dogs all the necessary love and care needed.

Many also run smaller kennels and I wouldn't want to be owned by them if I was a dog.

Some people have have greater skills than others when it comes to managing dogs.

As you have said this comes down to individuals and should be judges on it's merits.

We must also allow for the dog owner that is just so over the top about their dogs they become ridiculous.

Again, must be judged on their merits.

We ALL must remember that it is NOT a crime to breed dogs in this country and sell them.

What we are really saying is that it SHOULD be a crime as to way some of them are treated, actually it is a crime,

but the authorities do nothing about it.

As I have said target where the Duty of Care should come in with the Local Shires and Councils.

Yes in closing down puppy farms Councils may lose a bit of money, but the local rates and taxes still apply.

Let's face it what the Councils lose on the swings they will make up on the merry go round in some way.

oakway- I would be interested to know your definition of 'large kennel', because I do think only very special people could give 'many dogs' everything they need, but I also agree that some pet owners would have extremely unrealistic requirements. Basically though, I agree with your points above, and that is exactly why I think ALL breeders, from the small scale family breeder, right through to large commercial operations, should be under the same scrutiny in terms of inspections. Some unethical small scale breeders would be wiped out, and ALL large scale commercial operations (or farms) would be GONE, because they cannot be realistically managed in an ethical manner!

[oakway]

Oakway- that IS part of Oscars Law. For goodness sake, go and read what was being protested!!

Have you read it fully.

Are we talking about the same document the 117 page document.

It has no bearing on the matter what what words were said by you or others we are perceived as the same.

The animal libbers don't give give a dam, we are all the same to them including you.

Are you a registered breeder with your local state body.

By the way you speak I doubt it. If you are I apologise. But most breeders would run a mile from what has been presented.

Most of us as registered breeders smell a rat. We have been caught before and do not wish to be caught again.

This has just given them, the animal libbers the opportunity they were looking for.

[mita]

At any rate, I remain optimistic. I am envisioning a future about 20 years from now. A secret underground network of (old fashion) dog breeders. They never sell their dogs. They breed very rarely, keeping the pup they want and place the others with trusted friends and other breed fanciers. Keeping a small gene pool going of selected lines of their breed going forward. When this happens, will you few remaining purebred dog owners let me know, I want in! LOL

Interesting you should post this, because I've noticed something that may be a bit of a pattern in some European countries. My particular breed has connections with especially northern Europe (one of my dogs was born there) So there's a bit of chat exchanged.

I've noticed that it's not uncommon, in northern Europe, for a breeder to have dogs that essentially live like pets with other people. But are still shown and may also have planned (of course!) litters...with the breeder. I can't quote numbers on how widespread it is. But I've noticed it, in passing. Seems to come from fact that population is more dense in those European areas & that can work against keeping numbers of dogs on the one location. Also seems to relate to preference for dogs to get more individual attention in a pet-like life.

So, why wait for the future? Would a variation of doing this, work here? No need for secret underground system needed.

In fact, the man next door keeps a lovely greyhound girl as his favourite pet (she's a sister to a champion runner). But when she was ready to have a litter, she went to a property set up for that and owned by the syndicate that owns her.

Edited September 20, 2010 by mita

[Souff]

oakway- I would be interested to know your definition of 'large kennel', because I do think only very special people could give 'many dogs' everything they need, but I also agree that some pet owners would have extremely unrealistic requirements. Basically though, I agree with your points above, and that is exactly why I think ALL breeders, from the small scale family breeder, right through to large commercial operations, should be under the same scrutiny in terms of inspections. Some unethical small scale breeders would be wiped out, and ALL large scale commercial operations (or farms) would be GONE, because they cannot be realistically managed in an ethical manner!

Pip, some people cannot properly look after 2 dogs. Others are excellent managers and carers of larger numbers of dogs, dependant on the time and money they have to lavish on their dogs.

It is extremely unwise to base arguments on quantity. The focus must always be on QUALITY, not quantity.

The NSW Govt got the mix pretty right with the Companion Animal Act. Numbers of dogs that you own are left up to the jurisdiction of councils and are dependant on how the owner behaves.

If the complaints roll in about the owner and it is found that they have too many dogs for their circs, then the council can step in and act ..... and they do.

A good animal person can keep larger numbers of dogs, IF THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING b the dogs and by their community.

It is what Australians used to call ... " A FAIR GO" and it has been working well since around 1995.

Souff

[mita]

You beat me to it asal. If the RSPCA are not out to get us...let them drop all charges against Judy Guard.

"If the RSPCA are not out to get us...let them drop all charges against Judy Guard."

Good call, Oakway!

It was the Victorian law that was acted on. As I've posted, that law is a minefield and very different from any other state's 'take' on debarking.

If this case occurred in Qld, it would not break any law. Here, debarking ops depend of the professional judgment of the treating vet.

The Victorian law needs to be reformed. Especially on the point re debarking ops done in another state & in accord to its laws (as JG's were), being illegal in Victoria.

Victorian law shouldn't dispute what is done in another state, legally according to that state's law.

It's as silly as saying you shouldn't have your car fixed by a qualified mechanic in another state. And, if you do, you've just broken the law in your own state.

Edited September 20, 2010 by mita

[Cosmolo]

Unbelievable. Tell me oakway- why weren't registered breeders represented then?? They had the perfect opportunity to come and make it known that registered breeders ARE different- and they blew it off and didn't come. Debra Tranter has been behind ethical registered breeders for years and against puppy farms- if you were there yesterday and spoke to some of the people involved, you would see that the point of difference was made. Shame other people have to defend registered breeders though when the registering bodies can't get off their backsides and do what you are paying them to do- represent you.

Which 117 page document are you referring to?

No i am not a registered breeder- i don't have the knowledge or expertise to be one AND i respect those who do. But my last dog was from an amazing breeder who we love and will get future dogs from so i have no desire to see registered breeders eliminated!

This is not about the RSPCA, this is not about eliminating breeding animals, this is not about going after registered breeders. This is about stopping factory farms, the selling of animals in pet shops etc. This is about raising awareness so that the public ASK questions about where their new puppy has come from- people don't know and again, where are the registering bodies of pedigree dogs??

On the one hand you say legislation not enforced etc etc- on the other you say if new legislation comes in, it will be enforced targetting the wrong people- you can't have it both ways.

Registered breeders should not be exempt from housing dogs in satisfactory conditions and if they do that, what Oscars law proposes will not effect them.

[Dame Aussie]

This is a completely innocent question for those breeders who are concerned about any change in legislation or tougher administration of the current legislation.

In all honesty, I am not well researched on the legislation, but I would like to know exactly which rules registered breeders would like to be 'exempt' from? In point form, black and white, brutally honest, what exactly scares you about it all? I mean specific points.

I for one and most of the breeders I know are people, just like you who love dogs. We are not in business. We have a home and family and live just like you do. We also happen to have spent many years learning about our breeds. We do other things with our dogs and that is what got us interested in the breed. We breed because we want to try to breed a better dog, and most of the time it is to breed a better dog for ourselves.

Now I ask you, to ask yourself, would you like to have the RSPCA doing inspections of your home? Would like your family to go through this? Looking in your back yard or at your bedroom where your dog sleeps? Inspecting your kitchen for hygine as this is where you dish up the dogs dinners? The neighbors are looking out the windows wondering what is going on. Maybe they bring the TV guys to see if they can get some prime time footage of a 'bad' breeder?

Would you like to have to produce on demand worming records for 3 years, the days you bred a bitch 2 years ago, complete records on weight of every pup in a litter 3 years ago? Would you like to have to prove everything you have done with your dogs to promote their health and safety?

Would you like to be liable for criminal prosecution, jail and or fines if they find something they do not like? In NSW if you do not have a bowl marked for each 3 week old pup you have broken the law. If you have your pups in your bedroom for the first 2 weeks and the whelping box is 1" too small, your guilty of breaking the state breeding act.

And then you go though all this and take such a big legal risk, knowing you will end up loosing money (because you always loose money breeding a litter).

Does this sound like something you would want to do?

If they bring in a law like this, then I will stop breeding. I can store some semen and maybe send a dog to NZ. Have it bred over there and get my pup from my own bloodlines from the litter. Why put myself through it, when all I really want is my next dog..eh?

BTW I have around a 2 year waiting list for my pups, they are very well thought of and all go to the very best of homes. These are the folks who will be really hurt by this, if all the small breeders like me just stop breeding.

But you will have what you want, you can all go get your pups from one of the big breeding establishment that is monitored closely by the RSPCA and government. My bedroom whelped litters will be a thing of the past. Just a memory of the good old days when people not businesses bred dogs.

I really don't care any more, I am tired of trying to make people understand.

To those who say if you are ethical then what do you have to worry about? The answer is nothing, as I would not put myself through it. Leave dog breeding to the big companies that are experts at passing inspections and meeting state laws and have lawyers and big bank accounts to deal with it. Wonder how much these professional puppy farm bred puppies will cost then?

BTW I had a look at someone's (a breeder) web site who is promoting this. They have puppies for sale on their web site, pictures and all. Which is one of things that 'ethical' breeders should not do and they need to make a law in Vic to stop it from happening. Where is their waiting list? Go figure.

I don't see what is so bad about anything you have mentioned. If I were a breeder I would be happy to let my premises be inspected as I would have nothing to hide.

What's so bad about having to show health records to prove the dogs are well looked after??

Yeah, sure, some of their requirements seem silly but isn't that the case with all laws/councils? We just have to deal with it.

[Souff]

You beat me to it asal. If the RSPCA are not out to get us...let them drop all charges against Judy Guard.

"If the RSPCA are not out to get us...let them drop all charges against Judy Guard."

Good call, Oakway!

It was the Victorian law that was acted on. As I've posted, that law is a minefield and very different from any other state's 'take' on debarking.

If this case occurred in Qld, it would not break any law. Here, debarking ops depend of the professional judgment of the treating vet.

The Victorian law needs to be reformed. Especially on the point re debarking ops done in another state & in accord to its laws (as JG's were), being illegal in Victoria.

Victorian law shouldn't dispute what is done in another state, legally according to that state's law.

It's as silly as saying you shouldn't have your car fixed by a qualified mechanic in another state. And, if you do, you've just broken the law in your own state.

Yes, and the RSPCA acted on that law. They surely knew that it was a minefield and has the potential to lead to a situation where a case could be thrown out by an intelligent judge, or don't they read about anything outside of Victoria?

I think Oakway's suggestion is an excellent one and could go a long way to restoring confidence and mending fences.

Souff

[Crisovar]

This is a completely innocent question for those breeders who are concerned about any change in legislation or tougher administration of the current legislation.

In all honesty, I am not well researched on the legislation, but I would like to know exactly which rules registered breeders would like to be 'exempt' from? In point form, black and white, brutally honest, what exactly scares you about it all? I mean specific points.

I for one and most of the breeders I know are people, just like you who love dogs. We are not in business. We have a home and family and live just like you do. We also happen to have spent many years learning about our breeds. We do other things with our dogs and that is what got us interested in the breed. We breed because we want to try to breed a better dog, and most of the time it is to breed a better dog for ourselves.

Now I ask you, to ask yourself, would you like to have the RSPCA doing inspections of your home? Would like your family to go through this? Looking in your back yard or at your bedroom where your dog sleeps? Inspecting your kitchen for hygine as this is where you dish up the dogs dinners? The neighbors are looking out the windows wondering what is going on. Maybe they bring the TV guys to see if they can get some prime time footage of a 'bad' breeder?

Would you like to have to produce on demand worming records for 3 years, the days you bred a bitch 2 years ago, complete records on weight of every pup in a litter 3 years ago? Would you like to have to prove everything you have done with your dogs to promote their health and safety?

Would you like to be liable for criminal prosecution, jail and or fines if they find something they do not like? In NSW if you do not have a bowl marked for each 3 week old pup you have broken the law. If you have your pups in your bedroom for the first 2 weeks and the whelping box is 1" too small, your guilty of breaking the state breeding act.

And then you go though all this and take such a big legal risk, knowing you will end up loosing money (because you always loose money breeding a litter).

Does this sound like something you would want to do?

If they bring in a law like this, then I will stop breeding. I can store some semen and maybe send a dog to NZ. Have it bred over there and get my pup from my own bloodlines from the litter. Why put myself through it, when all I really want is my next dog..eh?

BTW I have around a 2 year waiting list for my pups, they are very well thought of and all go to the very best of homes. These are the folks who will be really hurt by this, if all the small breeders like me just stop breeding.

But you will have what you want, you can all go get your pups from one of the big breeding establishment that is monitored closely by the RSPCA and government. My bedroom whelped litters will be a thing of the past. Just a memory of the good old days when people not businesses bred dogs.

I really don't care any more, I am tired of trying to make people understand.

To those who say if you are ethical then what do you have to worry about? The answer is nothing, as I would not put myself through it. Leave dog breeding to the big companies that are experts at passing inspections and meeting state laws and have lawyers and big bank accounts to deal with it. Wonder how much these professional puppy farm bred puppies will cost then?

BTW I had a look at someone's (a breeder) web site who is promoting this. They have puppies for sale on their web site, pictures and all. Which is one of things that 'ethical' breeders should not do and they need to make a law in Vic to stop it from happening. Where is their waiting list? Go figure.

I don't see what is so bad about anything you have mentioned. If I were a breeder I would be happy to let my premises be inspected as I would have nothing to hide.

What's so bad about having to show health records to prove the dogs are well looked after??

Yeah, sure, some of their requirements seem silly but isn't that the case with all laws/councils? We just have to deal with it.

You deal with it if you want, you live with it if you want, but responsible registered Breeders who have spent years doing the right thing and doing it all for the right reasons shouldn't have to be dictated to by a pack of shiny assed pen pushers who wouldn't have a clue how things are done or why. Breeders are being made out to be money hungry animal abusing scum in this country and as long as it keeps happening and people keep shrugging it off more and more good Breeders will walk away.

Breeders are not criminals but they sure as hell are being looked upon and treated as such by many.

[Souff]

Unbelievable. Tell me oakway- why weren't registered breeders represented then?? They had the perfect opportunity to come and make it known that registered breeders ARE different- and they blew it off and didn't come. Debra Tranter has been behind ethical registered breeders for years and against puppy farms- if you were there yesterday and spoke to some of the people involved, you would see that the point of difference was made. Shame other people have to defend registered breeders though when the registering bodies can't get off their backsides and do what you are paying them to do- represent you.

Which 117 page document are you referring to?

No i am not a registered breeder- i don't have the knowledge or expertise to be one AND i respect those who do. But my last dog was from an amazing breeder who we love and will get future dogs from so i have no desire to see registered breeders eliminated!

This is not about the RSPCA, this is not about eliminating breeding animals, this is not about going after registered breeders. This is about stopping factory farms, the selling of animals in pet shops etc. This is about raising awareness so that the public ASK questions about where their new puppy has come from- people don't know and again, where are the registering bodies of pedigree dogs??

On the one hand you say legislation not enforced etc etc- on the other you say if new legislation comes in, it will be enforced targetting the wrong people- you can't have it both ways.

Registered breeders should not be exempt from housing dogs in satisfactory conditions and if they do that, what Oscars law proposes will not effect them.

What you think it might be about now, and how the legislation might actually read, could well be poles apart.

And once legislation is in place and it has flaws, well too bad! You are stuck with it for years.

I said this in another thread about the rally ...... I dont want to see dogs becoming the PAWNS of POLITICIANS .... it would be criminal for politicians to now rush through laws based on what they believe is "popular opinion" and has come from the emotion espoused at this rally.

Put the numbers on the table, do the comparisons of puppies sold today to puppies sold say 15 years ago, show us the increase or the decrease, and you might get more thinking breeders on side.

Souff

[oakway]

People stayed away because we could see what was happening.

Unfortunately it's not going to end up the way you think it is and we the breeders will suffer as always.

edited to add

If you continue down this path you will not have a breeder to purchase off.

Edited September 20, 2010 by oakway

[mita]

You beat me to it asal. If the RSPCA are not out to get us...let them drop all charges against Judy Guard.

"If the RSPCA are not out to get us...let them drop all charges against Judy Guard."

Good call, Oakway!

It was the Victorian law that was acted on. As I've posted, that law is a minefield and very different from any other state's 'take' on debarking.

If this case occurred in Qld, it would not break any law. Here, debarking ops depend of the professional judgment of the treating vet.

The Victorian law needs to be reformed. Especially on the point re debarking ops done in another state & in accord to its laws (as JG's were), being illegal in Victoria.

Victorian law shouldn't dispute what is done in another state, legally according to that state's law.

It's as silly as saying you shouldn't have your car fixed by a qualified mechanic in another state. And, if you do, you've just broken the law in your own state.

Yes, and the RSPCA acted on that law. They surely knew that it was a minefield and has the potential to lead to a situation where a case could be thrown out by an intelligent judge, or don't they read about anything outside of Victoria?

I think Oakway's suggestion is an excellent one and could go a long way to restoring confidence and mending fences.

Souff

Which is what that RSPCA then becomes required to do. Once something is written into the law....whether it's bad or good....it becomes what the law enforcement services have to implement. Once it's been acted on, cases then become a matter for the courts to decide. And courts don't 'write' the law. They assess the extent to which what someone did, was in accordance with the law as it is written.

If a law is to be changed, it requires what got it passed in the first place. Parliamentary action. Which is why we have bodies like Law Reform Commissions, in each state. One of my suggestions when this case first came to light, was that reform be pursued.

Also, a person's ignorance of all the twists & turns in that minefield law, doesn't count for innocence under the law. Best hope is that a good case is presented for JG's competence & care, generally.

My other suggestion was that DOGS VIC take steps to educate breeders on the draconian & confusing nature of this law.

[pip1981]

Pip, some people cannot properly look after 2 dogs. Others are excellent managers and carers of larger numbers of dogs, dependant on the time and money they have to lavish on their dogs.

It is extremely unwise to base arguments on quantity. The focus must always be on QUALITY, not quantity.

The NSW Govt got the mix pretty right with the Companion Animal Act. Numbers of dogs that you own are left up to the jurisdiction of councils and are dependant on how the owner behaves.

If the complaints roll in about the owner and it is found that they have too many dogs for their circs, then the council can step in and act ..... and they do.

A good animal person can keep larger numbers of dogs, IF THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING b the dogs and by their community.

It is what Australians used to call ... " A FAIR GO" and it has been working well since around 1995.

Souff

Souff, that is why I mentioned in another post, that any definition of puppy farm would be difficult to create due to differing individual circumstances. I totally agree that 'quantity' cannot be the ONLY factor considered, but realistically there has to be an 'upper' limit doesn't there?? Even the most experienced breeder with unlimited funds, unlimited time and good management skills couldn't possibly provide 50 dogs on their own property with the required exercise, mental stimulation and affection they need on top of basic environmental needs. But, then I guess it comes down to what people believe a dog needs, I personally believe they all deserve to feel belonging and certainty.

And, I still want to know what 'larger numbers of dogs' are...whether or not it is the 'focus', I think it is an important factor.

Also, I too, like the idea of a 'fair go', but all too often this is taken advantage of. I'd rather focus on giving the dogs a fair go at a better life.

[Souff]

Which is what that RSPCA then becomes required to do. Once something is written into the law....whether it's bad or good....it becomes what the law enforcement services have to implement.

No Mita, they did have other options open to them - discussion, education and giving a warning. The RSPCA does not go for the throat on every case they are notified about, but they seemingly did with this one.

To the best of my knowledge none of the above 3 options were used with Judy Gard. They just rocked up with the warrant and the film crew!

If I am wrong on that approach, please correct me.

Souff

[mita]

People stayed away because we could see what was happening.

Taking action by avoidance?

This leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

" It's all going to be bad because the work of ethical registered breeders is not being taken into account by all these people.

So we won't tell them about it.

Then, when they don't take it into account, we'll be able to say "See? I told you so."'

[Souff]

Pip, some people cannot properly look after 2 dogs. Others are excellent managers and carers of larger numbers of dogs, dependant on the time and money they have to lavish on their dogs.

It is extremely unwise to base arguments on quantity. The focus must always be on QUALITY, not quantity.

The NSW Govt got the mix pretty right with the Companion Animal Act. Numbers of dogs that you own are left up to the jurisdiction of councils and are dependant on how the owner behaves.

If the complaints roll in about the owner and it is found that they have too many dogs for their circs, then the council can step in and act ..... and they do.

A good animal person can keep larger numbers of dogs, IF THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING b the dogs and by their community.

It is what Australians used to call ... " A FAIR GO" and it has been working well since around 1995.

Souff

Souff, that is why I mentioned in another post, that any definition of puppy farm would be difficult to create due to differing individual circumstances. I totally agree that 'quantity' cannot be the ONLY factor considered, but realistically there has to be an 'upper' limit doesn't there?? Even the most experienced breeder with unlimited funds, unlimited time and good management skills couldn't possibly provide 50 dogs on their own property with the required exercise, mental stimulation and affection they need on top of basic environmental needs. But, then I guess it comes down to what people believe a dog needs, I personally believe they all deserve to feel belonging and certainty.

And, I still want to know what 'larger numbers of dogs' are...whether or not it is the 'focus', I think it is an important factor.

Also, I too, like the idea of a 'fair go', but all too often this is taken advantage of. I'd rather focus on giving the dogs a fair go at a better life.

It was your question to Oakway about large numbers of dogs that worries me. A ratio of dogs to carer is probably a better way to go. I saw a council giving approval to a kennel for (I think) 10 dogs. They did not factor in puppies. They did not factor in any dogs that were there during the day for training, but home at night. No variables!

Just hard and fast FIXED NUMBERS! Wrong on so many counts!

I can take you to a state-of-the-art kennel that can easily accommodate 40 dogs. They rarely have that many. There are separate puppy areas, a kitchen for the dogs, a clinic area, and shower/toilets area for the staff. They have staff and family members who take many of the dogs on runs to the dam, out for drives in the car, and all of the dogs are socialised. They have exercise areas that would be the envy of some sporting facilities.

Some of the dogs alternate their time in the kennels and down at the main house, or go home with staff. Puppies of various ages are run on, for various reasons, and are well socialised from an early age.

Some of the dogs go overseas and live with different people on a lease basis, and then return! How many dogs can you do that with? Only those that are loved and confident and well cared for. You can see these dogs at shows as confident, well adjusted and loving animals.

This is not a puppy farm. It is a specialist animal establishment and a very valuable one at that. Yet on paper you would view it as a puppy farm.

The laws that Victorian politicians could bring in as a result of the emotive rally in Melbourne at the weekend put all this at risk.

There would be no benefit for dogs with the loss of an establishment such as this one. No benefit at all. Just a huge loss for this breed of dog and for Australia generally.

Souff

[mita]

Which is what that RSPCA then becomes required to do. Once something is written into the law....whether it's bad or good....it becomes what the law enforcement services have to implement.

No Mita, they did have other options open to them - discussion, education and giving a warning. The RSPCA does not go for the throat on every case they are notified about, but they seemingly did with this one.

To the best of my knowledge none of the above 3 options were used with Judy Gard. They just rocked up with the warrant and the film crew!

If I am wrong on that approach, please correct me.

Souff

]

That's a fair comment, Souff, about earlier steps re educating, before the option of prosecuting. The much later Qld law on cruelty actually has that written into it.

But I honestly don't remember seeing that written anywhere, in the Victorian law. I did notice, tho', how strong the Victorian law was on debarking. They actually bundled it along with tail docking. My own reading was that the Victorian law reflected a 'take no prisoners' approach to

debarking. To the extent to which that law even discounts what's been done, legally, in another state. It seems debarking (even if legally done in another state) is up there with major crimes in Victoria... Frankly, makes me think that my own suggestion of seeking Law Reform on that issue, wouldn't get too far, down there.

[shortstep]

At any rate, I remain optimistic. I am envisioning a future about 20 years from now. A secret underground network of (old fashion) dog breeders. They never sell their dogs. They breed very rarely, keeping the pup they want and place the others with trusted friends and other breed fanciers. Keeping a small gene pool going of selected lines of their breed going forward. When this happens, will you few remaining purebred dog owners let me know, I want in! LOL

Interesting you should post this, because I've noticed something that may be a bit of a pattern in some European countries. My particular breed has connections with especially northern Europe (one of my dogs was born there) So there's a bit of chat exchanged.

I've noticed that it's not uncommon, in northern Europe, for a breeder to have dogs that essentially live like pets with other people. But are still shown and may also have planned (of course!) litters...with the breeder. I can't quote numbers on how widespread it is. But I've noticed it, in passing. Seems to come from fact that population is more dense in those European areas & that can work against keeping numbers of dogs on the one location. Also seems to relate to preference for dogs to get more individual attention in a pet-like life.

So, why wait for the future? Would a variation of doing this, work here? No need for secret underground system needed.

In fact, the man next door keeps a lovely greyhound girl as his favourite pet (she's a sister to a champion runner). But when she was ready to have a litter, she went to the property set up for that.

No, the point was that any quality (shall we call it old fashion) dog breeding in such a regulated future will have to go underground (another words a hidden world), just to keep our breeds alive...get it???

And no I would never own dogs sent out to others to avoid the laws on breeders. See, some of us (maybe most of us) are just going to stop breeding if it gets that bad. We will leave breeding to the new folks who know how to do it the new way.

BTW the reason people in Europe have dogs spread all over town is they have so many strict laws about keeing dogs and being licensed to breed (pretty much like you are trying to pull off down here). So to have any chance to breed good dogs and have a selection of dogs to raise up, evaluate and consider for breeding you have to get very creative in your method of having dogs but not havbing them around your home. Translation, pawn your dogs off all over town so it looks like you do not own them.

But it is a great idea that bring up and I am sure people will be pushed to the point of doing this in Australia very soon.

[Souff]

That's a fair comment, Souff, about earlier steps re educating, before the option of prosecuting. The much later Qld law on cruelty actually has that written into it.

But I honestly don't remember seeing that written anywhere, in the Victorian law. I did notice, tho', how strong the Victorian law was on debarking. They actually bundled it along with tail docking. My own reading was that the Victorian law reflected a 'take no prisoners' approach to

debarking. To the extent to which that law even discounts what's been done, legally, in another state. It seems debarking (even if legally done in another state) is up there with major crimes in Victoria... Frankly, makes me think that my own suggestion of seeking Law Reform on that issue, wouldn't get too far, down there.

This section of Victorian law needs to be repealed and replaced with something workable and in step with the rest of Australia, and also written in such a way that gives some credit to the professional opinion of veterinarians. I think they still take an oath to do the best for the animal's welfare, don't they?

The professional opinion of a human doctor is taken into account by those who apply the law re humans. Same is needed for animals.

Politicans are not experts on animal matters. Far from it. They should be taking their cue from veterinarians and registered breeders, not from political activists.

jmho as always.

Souff

[Souff]

BTW the reason people in Europe have dogs spread all over town is they have so many strict laws about keeing dogs and being licensed to breed (pretty much like you are trying to pull off down here). So to have any chance to breed good dogs and have a selection of dogs to raise up, evaluate and consider for breeding you have to get very creative in your method of having dogs but not havbing them around your home. Translation, pawn your dogs off all over town so it looks like you do not own them.

But it is a great idea that bring up and I am sure people will be pushed to the point of doing this in Australia very soon.

It is a huge mistake to compare Australia with Europe.

The shortage of available land and the climate in northern Europe is extremely restrictive for many things.

Souff