Puppy Farm Awareness Rally

[Nekhbet]

LOBBY TO STOP THE SALE of PUPS IN PET SHOPS, NOT FOR MORE AND MORE UNWORKABLE LEGISLATION. THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO DO

Thats what this rally was about. Oscars law wants pups to be banned from pet shops, to stop websites like petlink etc, to make the councils put their animal reg fees into proper dog education initiatives and to stop the wholesale factory farming of dogs. They rather people go to a shelter or to an ANKC registered breeder for a pup. Oscars law is not about the victimisation of registered breeders at all.

If the RSPCA wish to float their own agendas (not surprising really after their previous behaviours) then they're riding on the skirt tails of this for their own ideals. They didnt organise the rally at all. It wasnt about better puppy farms, it was about no pups in pet stores and having NO puppy farms at all.

[Dame Aussie]

LOBBY TO STOP THE SALE of PUPS IN PET SHOPS, NOT FOR MORE AND MORE UNWORKABLE LEGISLATION. THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO DO

Thats what this rally was about. Oscars law wants pups to be banned from pet shops, to stop websites like petlink etc, to make the councils put their animal reg fees into proper dog education initiatives and to stop the wholesale factory farming of dogs. They rather people go to a shelter or to an ANKC registered breeder for a pup. Oscars law is not about the victimisation of registered breeders at all.

If the RSPCA wish to float their own agendas (not surprising really after their previous behaviours) then they're riding on the skirt tails of this for their own ideals. They didnt organise the rally at all. It wasnt about better puppy farms, it was about no pups in pet stores and having NO puppy farms at all.

Exactly. I think it's really nasty to condemn people for attending this rally when it's something they believe in just because people don't like the way the RSPCA works.

[asal]

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.

ok shortstep. i'm officially confused. what is the 117 page document you're talking about? because a lot of what you think should be is actually included in the proposed oscar's law. we were asking for legislation to be drawn up, unless you are privvy to information that the rest of us don't know i think you may be confusing what we are proposing in victoria with what is in place in other states.

seriously oakway. i'm happy to discuss these issues because they are important. but i can't do that unless i actually know what you're trying to say.

and generally, yes. every time anything to do with legislation gets pulled into dol, we have the same argument. the RSPCA is evil, power hungry maniacs. i am getting a bit sick of it, but i will continue to say, i don't agree with the fact that they have a serious conflict of interest but someone needs to act, the state government has decided to give them that job, and they do it. are they perfect, no. do i believe they can fight dirty? yes if they think it is needed, as politicians can too. it is because they can be like a jrt after a rat that i think giving them the opportunity to go after puppy farmers is a good idea-they are waiting to be able to do it. (i'm not persoanlly 'up' on the debarking case you guys have mentioned, so there is no way i could ever make an educated comment on that)

BUT if that conflict of interest is your main bugbear then why not prepare a nicely worded and well researched document stating why this is the case and send it to honchos in police, and members of the upper and lower houses, even the mayor's office. nothing gets changed if you don't try, but if you come angry and full of hatred you won't be listened to. we know it is easier to get things done rather than undone, especially in victoria-which is the state we are talking about here, not nsw, qld, tasmania.

honestly, a lot of what you guys seem to be arguing about doesn't make sense when we are talking about the rally yesterday. no-one was trying to shut down breeding dogs, just trying to ensure that it occurs in an ethical way. nothing is set in stone and i'm sure that the organisers of the rally would have loved to have practical imput from registered ethical breeders to help define what constitutes unethical and how to shut it down. yes, there is the issue that all breeders may be targeted if the legislation is not drawn up carefully, a point i expressed to ted baillieu and he agreed. but the only way to ensure that the only 'breeders' we catch under the net of any new legislation is by talking and developing it so that it won't, that process should include registered breeders and their governing bodies, if they want to come to the party they are most welcome, even needed.

seriously, i've never heard people bashing regsitered breeders. i've only ever heard the fear from registered breeders that this is the case. perhaps i move in very educated circles? though i admit, i am frustrated that some people on dol get so angry and irritated about people buying from oet shops and don't seem to want to change that, in education or in legislation. it baffles me...

steve, i'm sorry, but if it takes your sense of justice to be offended to shut down these kinds of operations, then yes. i think a lot of people will have that be the cost. privacy is all very well but we can't fight secrecy and cruelty without dotting 'i's and crossing 't's. would you rather have your privacy and know that the ability to shut down those people in 'the back of boonies' are churning our poorly bred pups, with no thought for the bitch's and dog's welfare? i'm not sure, privacy is valued differently to everyone, but i reckon that having someone come and tick off your dogs conditions (which i don't doubt are fantastic, i'm not saying you don't care seriously for you animals and future homes) is a small price to ensure that sentient animals don't live in cages and unhealthy conditions (mental and physcial). though i'm sure we could have legislation that doesn't include someone ticking you off, as long as you abide by council and state laws, unless you are breeding more than a certain number of bitches/ or have a certain number of entire females-and in that case, a tick would be all that's needed...?

phew! sorry it is an essay!

I agree. I would be happy to be inspected if it meant places that weren't up to standard were being shut down.

I know that breeders feel strongly about their rights, but this isn't about the breeders rights, it's about the dogs rights.

are u really thinking this through? what was my dogs rights? to be punched full of holes, trachea torn and nearly die of pnemonia? because some little shit couldnt avail itself of the opportunity to actually dial or punch in the phone number of my vet to ascertain there was nothing wrong with him? let alone believe a fully qualified vet, not unless he had already written in writing first before the conversation finally did take place????????

and that do i have to constantly remind you took place after the dog was taken, despite what the minister for agriculture was told, after the fact.

that dog had no rights, he came back such a mess my vet wanted me to sue them for aggravated cruelty..........

these special constables have one and one only qualification..... ex police with prosecution experience.. willing to undergo animal care course, which they dont even have to pass.. just attend

no places for anyone with animal care experience willing to undergo prosecution course?????

n once siezed the machine rolls on no avenue of appeal to save them from happened to mine.

ruths dogs spent how many days in their infection ridden kennels?

for what? they took the lot not just the debarked ones.

do you really want to see the day when your into one of the cracks to discover i am telling the truth?

its a awful place to be

and they number hundreds, if only these peole would all turn up at a rally, the stories would curl your hair

i didnt ask for the impossible, i asked then and now.. these special constables must have to have PASSED a recognised animal care course.

there MUST be a place of appeal.

along with oscars law. dont put the above two in and your one day going to risk being in a crack, n then its too late

Edited September 21, 2010 by asal

[oakway]

I have not gone through the post on this matter since yesterday.

I apologise if this has already been posted.

I agree with what you wrote.

And from today's Herald Sun a quote from the Shadow Treasurer in Victoria

"Shadow Treasurer Kim Wells joined the protesters and said a coalition government would give the RSPCA the power to inspect breeding establishments."

That means you and me as well - more regulation for those who comply with current legislation and more power to the RSPCA

All of people that were at the rally should hang your heads in shame.

We at Oakway are still in ecstatic mode as our Ch Oakway Centre stage was the dam of the Best of Breed winner at Melbourne Royal Yesterday also to top it off a repeat mating brother was reserve challenge dog. This is also what breeding dogs is all about. I sit and wonder how long I will have left breeding my beautiful Whippets thanks to your so called efforts of last Saturday. Am I angry....too right I am.

[Natsu chan]

I think breeders have every right to feel anxious and worried. The RSPCA and the government in Victoria tend to just bully things through to suit themselves. The bill that has affected Judy Gard is a case in point, everyone in the ANKC was told if you it won't affect you it's to control puppy farmers. It hasn't affected puppy farmers one jot, they don't show after all. The latest Dangerous dog bill is another case in point, how many of us wrote letters and made phone calls to point out the flaws? I know I did, and I didn't even get a response.

The document I think everyone is referring to is the one Steve went to talks about. Good registered breeders are worried about it as there are many things in it that will not only negatively impact them but will probably impact on people who just want to show or leave a performance dog entire until it reaches maturity.

It is already getting harder and harder to buy a nice pedigreed puppy. I've had Collies since 1980 and over the last decade the difficulty in getting a good pup has increased beyond belief. I have a prefix and I would one day like to have the option to use it, but I don't think that should come at the cost of having random snap inspections from the RSPCA, particularly in Victoria where there is a well known anti Kennel club sentiment in the upper ranks. My dogs are house dogs, and their kennels are my home. Puppy farmers don't tend to keep their dogs in their bedrooms so it's not really fair to say ANKC breeders are supporting puppy farmer just because they don't want random inspections of their bedrooms.

My personal view is that until a body is put in place to over see the RSPCA they should not be given any more powers. The power they have now only encourages corruption and bullying tactics as they are completely insulated from any responsibility.

Of course puppy farms are horrible things and you won't hear most ANKC breeders disputing that, but I really think that one has to be very, very careful about what any law we put in place says and how it is worded lest we cut off our noses to spite our faces. There are plenty of laws in Australia that have been made as a cure for various things that haven't changed anything, we really don't need more of those.

[Pippa]

.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Pippa

[siks3]

Happening in the USA already.

LINK,clicky

[shortstep]

And from today's Herald Sun a quote from the Shadow Treasurer in Victoria

"Shadow Treasurer Kim Wells joined the protesters and said a coalition government would give the RSPCA the power to inspect breeding establishments."

That means you and me as well - more regulation for those who comply with current legislation and more power to the RSPCA

Am I angry....too right I am.

What a surpise..NOT!

[Souff]

I know that breeders feel strongly about their rights, but this isn't about the breeders rights, it's about the dogs rights.

:D

While ever people like yourself have this attitude the great divide between animal activists and good dog breeders will continue to widen.

The dogs rights are paramount in the minds of good breeders.

And good breeders also have rights and these rights need to be respected otherwise you will find yourself living in a world of crook breeders and the dogs will be worse off.

The good breeders will be gone - in part because their rights were trashed by over enthusiastic people who have not looked at the bigger picture.

A bit of balance and respect please.

Souff

Edited September 21, 2010 by Souff

[Jed]

Stopping sales of puppies in pet stores doesn't address direct-to-public sales, exports or internet sales. Puppy farms will still continue to thrive and prosper.

Yes.

No, costs are high, there is a sales budget, without pet shops, the budget would not be met. Does anyone have any idea how many pups are sold in pet shops during a week?

Puppy farms only sell at the farm gate and via the net for "cream" sales - they might sell the litter for $300 each, but ask $1000 over the net. But they cannot move that number of pups over the net.

They rely on the pups being visible in major shoppng centres with foot traffic of 50,000 or so

Really? (Genuine question)

Where does your knowledge come from?

I've always been of the opinion that they can and do move hundreds over a period of time. I would guesstimate that a high profile puppy farm would sell a minimum of 150 dogs a month through the net on a good month.

I think stopping the sale of puppies in pet shops would dampen the sales of some, but increase others.

They rely on the pups being visible in major shoppng centres with foot traffic of 50,000 or so

Absolutely

Where does your knowledge come from?

Trust me, it's true. When I am interested in things, I find out. :D

I have no idea how many pf move via the net, but ALL the puppy farmers I know (and I know a few) rely on bulk sales to pet shops to make the budget balance. If 20 shops take 10 pups each, they only have to deal with 20 people, not 200, and the orders are regular and reliable, which "off farm" sales are not.

Try stopping sales in pet shops - if the puppy farms don't go down, then bring in legislation.

[shortstep]

I think breeders have every right to feel anxious and worried. The RSPCA and the government in Victoria tend to just bully things through to suit themselves. The bill that has affected Judy Gard is a case in point, everyone in the ANKC was told if you it won't affect you it's to control puppy farmers. It hasn't affected puppy farmers one jot, they don't show after all. The latest Dangerous dog bill is another case in point, how many of us wrote letters and made phone calls to point out the flaws? I know I did, and I didn't even get a response.

The document I think everyone is referring to is the one Steve went to talks about. Good registered breeders are worried about it as there are many things in it that will not only negatively impact them but will probably impact on people who just want to show or leave a performance dog entire until it reaches maturity.

It is already getting harder and harder to buy a nice pedigreed puppy. I've had Collies since 1980 and over the last decade the difficulty in getting a good pup has increased beyond belief. I have a prefix and I would one day like to have the option to use it, but I don't think that should come at the cost of having random snap inspections from the RSPCA, particularly in Victoria where there is a well known anti Kennel club sentiment in the upper ranks. My dogs are house dogs, and their kennels are my home. Puppy farmers don't tend to keep their dogs in their bedrooms so it's not really fair to say ANKC breeders are supporting puppy farmer just because they don't want random inspections of their bedrooms.

My personal view is that until a body is put in place to over see the RSPCA they should not be given any more powers. The power they have now only encourages corruption and bullying tactics as they are completely insulated from any responsibility.

Of course puppy farms are horrible things and you won't hear most ANKC breeders disputing that, but I really think that one has to be very, very careful about what any law we put in place says and how it is worded lest we cut off our noses to spite our faces. There are plenty of laws in Australia that have been made as a cure for various things that haven't changed anything, we really don't need more of those.

You write very well thought out posts!

ANKC breeders need to oganized right now.

I think what we need to do (and do it very soon) is to call our state register (ANKC) and demand a process bne put in place (at once) where we can put our prefix on inactive, but not loose them. Then if and when we decide to breed (and offically join the ranks of puppy mill abusers) we can activate our prefix and breed, then put it back on inactive as soon as the pups leave and we stay inactive for the several years inbetween litters (I figure breeders will really cut back only breed about once every 3-5 years to keep their line going).

Any other ideas?

[Souff]

Try stopping sales in pet shops - if the puppy farms don't go down, then bring in legislation.

The petshop chains, and the people who transport the dogs from the puppy farms to the pet shops, know that such legislation will harm their business big-time.

And any local council in Australia would be able to enforce it if it was written into their local ordinances that live cats and dogs could not be sold at pet shops.

Souff

[megan_]

Question: What is the ANKC doing to ensure that good breeders rights are protected but puppy farmers are stopped? Are they advising the relevant minister? Drafting policy position statements?

Just ignoring the issue will only give more power to the RSPCA.

Change is going to happen. It is in the public eye now. The only decision now is how to influence the legislation.

The whole puppy farming thing was a good way for the ANKC to stend apart from bad breeders. Sadly, I think that opportunity has been missed.

Jed - Freedom Kennels was one of the biggest puppy farms in Australia. They changed tack when the owner died. To my knowledge, all sales were via the internet. I am all for good legislation. When you write legislation without clear intent (eg I want to dogs living in awful conditions so I'll outlaw pet shop sales) you don't really address the problem and the enteprising puppy farmers will find a new outlet (be they markets, internet sales, party plan etc).

[asal]

I know that breeders feel strongly about their rights, but this isn't about the breeders rights, it's about the dogs rights.

:D

While ever people like yourself have this attitude the great divide between animal activists and good dog breeders will continue to widen.

The dogs rights are paramount in the minds of good breeders.

And good breeders also have rights and these rights need to be respected otherwise you will find yourself living in a world of crook breeders and the dogs will be worse off.

The good breeders will be gone - in part because their rights were trashed by over enthusiastic people who have not looked at the bigger picture.

A bit of balance and respect please.

Souff

so aussie3

where was stringy's rights??????

dissappeared a happy healthy little dog. reclaimed 13 days later stuck full of holes and two punched out n stitched back up?, torn trachea n pnemonia?????

welllllll

where were his rights?

his vet said he was nothing wrong with him, return him......... why was a fully qualified vet ignored....why was him writing down his opinion before the dog was seized more important than his opinion the day he rang them?

even more chilling, the vet was head of vic rscpa before hughly worthlesss.....so if he cant get a dog out of an rspca jail..... who can?

[asal]

and the minister for agricultures response?

"Stringy has now been returned and has now undergone a proper diagnostic work up, you have not been charged with any offences, and as a gesture of good will the RSPCA has removed kennel charges from your bill.

I do not feel that the RSPCA has acted outside the law or unreasonably in this matter. If you conduct your business as outlined in the Cod of Practice for dog breeding establishments you will have nothing to fear from further visits from RSPCA inspectors.

thank your for expressing your concerns."

if seized for a normal appearance of blue gene alopecia, ignoring the dogs vet and not having even bent any of the said Code of Practice let alone broken any gets a perfectly healthy animal seized i for one will have every cause to "fear from further visits"

[asal]

footnote to the ruth downey case.

last week both she and the writer of the Ruth Downey inquisition, were served with a defamation by the firm of solitors representing the rspca.

what next?

this is the document i think is what the defamation is about in naming the solicitor firm and questioning isnt there a conflict of interest?

http://sosnews.org/pdf/The-Ruth-Downey-Inquisition.pdf

[asal]

Mal Davis believes it is this that started the machine rolling

There are no words of faith that can be

associated with this NSW-RSPCA inspectorate

only despicable.

From the President of the NSW RSPCA Andrew

Wozniak’s control of that organisation, to his

multi-million dollar legal feed from that

organisation, by assignment of prosecution briefs

(only his firms is on the preferred list) the coffers

of his legal firm have swelled for over a decade,

making “Smythe Wozniak Solicitors” an

unaccountable money tree.

A public funded organisation, this NSW-RSPCA is

involved with legal hijacking of fees and expenses

that include a flying Vet who charges for a private

aircraft to and from court appearances. Not to

mention the massive fees the legal eagles are

charging.

The “TRUTH RIDER” returns for the cattle

Consideration must also be given to the NSW RSPCA footing the bill if, after they have

bankrupted a farmer seeking legal costs is still below the memorandum of fees for Smythe

Wozniak Solicitors.

Without prejudice we considered a scenario based on facts. We discovered hundreds of

thousands of dollars being paid from the NSW-RSPCA account in legal fees, nothing to do

with the Smythe Wozniak Solicitors submitted court fees to a magistrate. Not wishing to

depart from their out of pocket expenses, lavish costs, could we be seeing this original

account passing to the NSW-RSPCA boardroom for payment, then the underpayment fall

retrieved as original cost is taken by the NSW-RSPCA. Then “All The Presidents Men” get

their money every time they strike. Maybe Mr Andrew Wozniak can backtrack 10 years of

accounts paid documentation to disprove this theory.

Why did the government, back in 2004, not look into the concerns of Green’s Senator Lee

RHIANNON who brought to the attention of NSW state parliament, her concerns that were

prevalent then as they are now, still with most of the same players?

During the Downey court case there was a publication that shows court room juggling by the

$4,000 a day (over 4 weeks) RSPCA Senior Council choosing to attack Ruth’s vet, suggesting

she lacked experience and this was obtained in court from RSPCA Director and Vet Wright

who claimed $4,500 fees and was never called.

[toy dog]

Stopping sales of puppies in pet stores doesn't address direct-to-public sales, exports or internet sales. Puppy farms will still continue to thrive and prosper.

Yes.

No, costs are high, there is a sales budget, without pet shops, the budget would not be met. Does anyone have any idea how many pups are sold in pet shops during a week?

Puppy farms only sell at the farm gate and via the net for "cream" sales - they might sell the litter for $300 each, but ask $1000 over the net. But they cannot move that number of pups over the net.

They rely on the pups being visible in major shoppng centres with foot traffic of 50,000 or so

Really? (Genuine question)

Where does your knowledge come from?

I've always been of the opinion that they can and do move hundreds over a period of time. I would guesstimate that a high profile puppy farm would sell a minimum of 150 dogs a month through the net on a good month.

I think stopping the sale of puppies in pet shops would dampen the sales of some, but increase others.

They rely on the pups being visible in major shoppng centres with foot traffic of 50,000 or so

Absolutely

Where does your knowledge come from?

Trust me, it's true. When I am interested in things, I find out. :D

I have no idea how many pf move via the net, but ALL the puppy farmers I know (and I know a few) rely on bulk sales to pet shops to make the budget balance. If 20 shops take 10 pups each, they only have to deal with 20 people, not 200, and the orders are regular and reliable, which "off farm" sales are not.

Try stopping sales in pet shops - if the puppy farms don't go down, then bring in legislation.

i second that, i live in the same area as the major PF in Victoria and i heard from a friend of a friend that their major outlet is selling to shops. i also heard that the sales on the actual property were down because of the bad publicity generated from ALV. i also heard many years ago before they had their glossy website that they also sold out of a boot of a car and also saw they sold through the local paper but sales were down there, BTW they can put anything on their websites to make themselves look good so can anyone else, i wouldn't believe what they put on them.....

they have on their website about shelters and their dogs don't end up there as they stated at the open day, but how can they monitor pups sold to petshops when anyone buys them, they will personally get them out of the shelters they said. how will they know which dogs are theirs if they don't get owners names and addresses with the 2000 pups they sell a year?

we have to start somewhere in curbing this cruel trade and absolutely dominating by banning sales in shops.

RSPCA are trying to target not only puppy farms but also backyard breeders with this legislation. but i think what they are proposing looks to me like it will not target puppy farms but breeders and they are including registered breeders in the equation as well.

the opposition are proposing to stop farms by bringing in more legislation, councils will still enforce it the same council who don't give two hoots about failing codes of practice. the same council who believe the dogs are cattle and should be treated as such.

the reason why the dogs are only checked on at 6am in the morning because they are livestock and thats what some farmers do with their sheep and cattle. left to die a ex-worker said, if they are useless at breeding then they are shot or put down and no one cares about these dogs.

everyone down there from the council to the farm itself are covering their butts. so we don't need more legislation we need to shut the farms down we need to have laws to prevent these farms from going on and shutting down their avenues of disposal i.e. petshops.

[Gayle.]

Who is Stringy?

[oakway]

I know that breeders feel strongly about their rights, but this isn't about the breeders rights, it's about the dogs rights.

:D

While ever people like yourself have this attitude the great divide between animal activists and good dog breeders will continue to widen.

The dogs rights are paramount in the minds of good breeders.

And good breeders also have rights and these rights need to be respected otherwise you will find yourself living in a world of crook breeders and the dogs will be worse off.

The good breeders will be gone - in part because their rights were trashed by over enthusiastic people who have not looked at the bigger picture.

A bit of balance and respect please.

Souff

Exactly Souff.

When will these owners learn that Ethical Registered Breeder only have the dogs best interest at heart.