Puppy Farm Awareness Rally

[toy dog]

In all honesty I can't see the councils giving up the money they make from these sort of places and judging by the results of the talks Steve went to I really can't see the proposed bill affecting anyone other than registered breeders of one sort or another. Just the way that it is proposed that puppy farms should be defined and what powers the RSPCA want are enough to show that. Other wise I too would be all for this.

Toy dog the area you're talking about has been there along time and my understanding was it was put in place initially to provide an area for Greyhound trainers and breeders and boarding kennels away from the residential areas. From what I know of the people who live there most of them are either boarding kennels, involved in greyhounds or are kennel club breeders/owners. I've gone up there regularly and I'm always stunned by how quiet it is!

oh ok thats alright then yes it was very quiet you could almost hear a pin drop! the way the sign was worded "intensive dog breeding" i honestly thought that could mean only one group of dog breeding people i.e. puppy farms. thats a sigh of relief thanks for clearing that up.

Edited September 14, 2010 by toy dog

[toy dog]

From what i've read, if this bill passes and you are a registered breed doing the right thing then you won't be affected, so why worry?

However if you are a puppy farm or a registered breeder doing the wrong thing, then there will be trouble.

I heard the same thing, it only affects those in the wrong doing and if you are an ethical responsible registered breeder they make provisions? thats my understanding anyway.

I think the RSPCA may be going to lengths to stop the breeding of all dogs, purebred or not, i can't see this happening, nor it working. This is where the registered breeders who are concerned about being able to continue breeding need to work together with Oscars law and the RSPCA to come to a comprimise.

it just sounds like no one from the RSPCA has gone into the dogworld with eyes open, it looks like they have gleaned all information from the UK doco when it has been stated many times that here in this country we do things alot differently to UK. i just think it is incredibly uneducated of them to state about inbreeding and exagerated breed standards when RSPCA people aren't in that area of expertise at all.

Edited September 14, 2010 by toy dog

[Steve]

From the RSPCA website- Join the RSPCA on the steps of parliament house to advocate for tougher laws and regulations to be put in place.

I think you're wrong Pam. If it were to enforce laws already in place Id be there with you.

If it was to enforce the laws already in place I'd be there too.

Yep I'd be all for enforcing what currently exists...

But I know that's not the case and supporting such events is just helping to bang the nail in my own breeder coffin. When the RSPCA and the likes can come up with something that is not to my detriment, or anyone who breeds dogs with due care and consideration, then please let me know about it.

Re the quote in red above, to put it in context you need the rest of the quote....

It actually says

"Now is your chance to be a voice for the dogs living a life of misery in Victoria's puppy factories.

Join the RSPCA along with many animal welfare organisations on the steps of Parliament House to advocate for tougher laws and regulations to be put in place. Help us send a strong message to the State's political leaders that factory farming should not be tolerated."

Not once anywhere have I seen any intent of changing laws on how dogs are currently kept by breeders or establishments just the intent to change legislation to outlaw large scale/mass production of puppies. But if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected.

From Oscars Law

"Now is your chance to be a voice for the dogs imprisoned in Victoria's puppy factories. Help send a strong message to the State's political leaders that we will not tolerate the factory farming of our companion animals.

Join us on the steps of Parliament House and stand up for all the dogs on puppy factories and support Oscars Law"

The only legislation Oscars Law itself talks about changing is Quote:

"•Abolish the mass production of dogs. Make factory farming of dogs illegal

•Ban the sale of animals from pet shops, online and in print media"

Each of these campaigns describe puppy factories as mass producing facilities.

People are even saying they don't want regulations changed... From Debra Tranter herself on Prisoners for Profit website:

"How is increasing the fine going to help the dogs Joe Helper? $2400 the cost of one litter of puppies-so what!

Mr Helper, we do not want more regulations that the local Council ranger simply refuses to enforce or doesn't have time to enforce. We want puppy factories abolished. Stop telling us how our pets can be kept, bred and sold."

From what I've read throughout these campaigns "ethical" breeders have been supported and even promoted..... people are being told to go to shelters, rescue or ethical registered breeders to purchase their dogs.

I'll be at the rally with my ex puppy farm breeding girl and hope to see as many likeminded people there as possible

I want to say this - and please - this is important. The proposals being tendered do not - I repeat - do not specifically target large scale commercial breeders.

The definition of a puppy farmer for the purposes of proposed changes is

and I quote from the RSPCA roundtable conference.

Recommended way forward:

1.1 A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ psychological, behavioural, social and/or physiological needs. Puppy farms are usually large-scale commercial operations, but inadequate conditions may also exist in small volume breeding establishments which may or may not be run for profit.

[Guardienne]

From the RSPCA website- Join the RSPCA on the steps of parliament house to advocate for tougher laws and regulations to be put in place.

I think you're wrong Pam. If it were to enforce laws already in place Id be there with you.

If it was to enforce the laws already in place I'd be there too.

Yep I'd be all for enforcing what currently exists...

But I know that's not the case and supporting such events is just helping to bang the nail in my own breeder coffin. When the RSPCA and the likes can come up with something that is not to my detriment, or anyone who breeds dogs with due care and consideration, then please let me know about it.

Re the quote in red above, to put it in context you need the rest of the quote....

It actually says

"Now is your chance to be a voice for the dogs living a life of misery in Victoria's puppy factories.

Join the RSPCA along with many animal welfare organisations on the steps of Parliament House to advocate for tougher laws and regulations to be put in place. Help us send a strong message to the State's political leaders that factory farming should not be tolerated."

Not once anywhere have I seen any intent of changing laws on how dogs are currently kept by breeders or establishments just the intent to change legislation to outlaw large scale/mass production of puppies. But if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected.

From Oscars Law

"Now is your chance to be a voice for the dogs imprisoned in Victoria's puppy factories. Help send a strong message to the State's political leaders that we will not tolerate the factory farming of our companion animals.

Join us on the steps of Parliament House and stand up for all the dogs on puppy factories and support Oscars Law"

The only legislation Oscars Law itself talks about changing is Quote:

"•Abolish the mass production of dogs. Make factory farming of dogs illegal

•Ban the sale of animals from pet shops, online and in print media"

Each of these campaigns describe puppy factories as mass producing facilities.

People are even saying they don't want regulations changed... From Debra Tranter herself on Prisoners for Profit website:

"How is increasing the fine going to help the dogs Joe Helper? $2400 the cost of one litter of puppies-so what!

Mr Helper, we do not want more regulations that the local Council ranger simply refuses to enforce or doesn't have time to enforce. We want puppy factories abolished. Stop telling us how our pets can be kept, bred and sold."

From what I've read throughout these campaigns "ethical" breeders have been supported and even promoted..... people are being told to go to shelters, rescue or ethical registered breeders to purchase their dogs.

I'll be at the rally with my ex puppy farm breeding girl and hope to see as many likeminded people there as possible

I want to say this - and please - this is important. The proposals being tendered do not - I repeat - do not specifically target large scale commercial breeders.

The definition of a puppy farmer for the purposes of proposed changes is

and I quote from the RSPCA roundtable conference.

Recommended way forward:

1.1 A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ psychological, behavioural, social and/or physiological needs. Puppy farms are usually large-scale commercial operations, but inadequate conditions may also exist in small volume breeding establishments which may or may not be run for profit.

OK now I see where you are coming from as far as breeders, not looking after their dogs could also be affected as far as the RSPCA are concerned, but help me out here..... What's the issue if they are are trying to stop anyone that isn't providing adequate conditions? Not sure that I can see this as a negative thing regardless of who isn't providing adequate conditions.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Guardienne

[Shmurps]

Same.

[Natsu chan]

For me the issue is that the RSPCA and the government want to decide what is adequate care and their current idea of what is adequate and what they want legislated are in some respects in complete opposition with what is considered good animal husbandry. As I said earlier part of these laws and the code of practise (which is what would be considered a baseline of adequate care) would see breeders who whelp and raise litters inside their homes as criminals under the animal cruelty act.

The kennel clubs and the MDBA went to talks about this proposed legislation but the message coming back is that they will not listen, and this isn't the first time. I detest the idea of people breeding and raising animals in poor conditions but the heavy weights in these things are clearly not interested in best practise other wise they'd be more willing to take on board the science behind what they are being told.

My personal opinion is that we can not just keep banning things left right and centre. It doesn't work and there always seems to be a unexpected fall out. People need to be educated and current laws need to be enforced and there needs to be a lot more commonsense and a lot less politics involved in making and framing any new laws we do add. At the moment that just isn't happening.

[Steve]

For me the issue is that the RSPCA and the government want to decide what is adequate care and their current idea of what is adequate and what they want legislated are in some respects in complete opposition with what is considered good animal husbandry. As I said earlier part of these laws and the code of practise (which is what would be considered a baseline of adequate care) would see breeders who whelp and raise litters inside their homes as criminals under the animal cruelty act.

The kennel clubs and the MDBA went to talks about this proposed legislation but the message coming back is that they will not listen, and this isn't the first time. I detest the idea of people breeding and raising animals in poor conditions but the heavy weights in these things are clearly not interested in best practise other wise they'd be more willing to take on board the science behind what they are being told.

My personal opinion is that we can not just keep banning things left right and centre. It doesn't work and there always seems to be a unexpected fall out. People need to be educated and current laws need to be enforced and there needs to be a lot more commonsense and a lot less politics involved in making and framing any new laws we do add. At the moment that just isn't happening.

Hang on - I wouldnt say they wont listen.

My biggest issue is that if someone is going to protest something and call on people to join in and protest with them then we all should know and agree on the definition of what it is we are protesting.

My educated guess is that almost 100 % of people who are rallying think that what they are protesting about is people who breed lots of dogs for money. The assumption is that if they are breeding lots of dogs for money they are therefore doing the wrong thing and its not possible for them to be doing it with any concerns for the welfare of the dogs and should be stopped. But when it comes time to trying to bring in new laws thats not who the target is - because to try to ensure no one is breeding dogs in poor conditions you have to bring in laws which will impact on every one who breeds a dog - if they follow the law.

People who breed dogs well, worry that potential solutions to stopping dogs suffering as much at the hands of a puppy farmers would, in effect, make their dogs suffer more. Why do they think that ? Take the time to read mandatory codes of practice already in place in NSW and the gold coast as if you only own 2 entire bitches.

[toy dog]

My personal opinion is that we can not just keep banning things left right and centre. It doesn't work and there always seems to be a unexpected fall out.

it sure did work when they banned live pet sales in shops in europe many years ago. had a friend tell me that as a consequence there were no shelters as the only way you could buy a dog was from a registered breeder of purebred dogs in the KC. shelters and dogs in need were not heard of over there in that country. so banning certainly did work. some people just don't want to be educated no matter how much information you tell them either, some people think they know better.

Edited September 14, 2010 by toy dog

[Guardienne]

People who breed dogs well, worry that potential solutions to stopping dogs suffering as much at the hands of a puppy farmers would, in effect, make their dogs suffer more. Why do they think that ? Take the time to read mandatory codes of practice already in place in NSW and the gold coast as if you only own 2 entire bitches.

I am interested...

Exactly what in the mandatory codes of practice would make your dogs suffer more?

[Nekhbet]

Under the provisions of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 any person who runs an enterprise (being a business) for profit (whether the business makes a profit is irrelevant) that breeds dogs and/or cats, that person must register their premises as a domestic animal business with their local council before they can operate. While this type of business is known as a breeding and/or rearing establishment, some members of the public call these businesses “puppy farms” or “puppy mills”. Council domestic animal business registration is an annual process and Councils are required to report the number of domestic animal businesses registered with them to the State Government annually.

Dog and/or cat breeding establishment proprietors must operate in accord with the mandatory Code of Practice established by the State Government for the purpose of providing minimum standards of accommodation, management and care which are considered appropriate to the welfare, physical and behavioural needs of the animals housed at these establishments. In the case of a breeding establishment the mandatory Code is known as the ‘Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments’.

A person who is a member of an 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 puppies and/or kittens 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. The reason for this is that these groups have been approved as Applicable Organisations due to their members being required to operate in accord with a Code of Ethics established by their Organisation. The Code of Ethics established by these organisations mandate responsible breeding and responsible pet ownership principles which are similar to the aims of the mandatory Code of Practice.

But this is what the state government calls a puppy farm - and they are the ones who matter in all this.http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/LinkView/C757A284948AA4A4CA257601001B6D6818CDE14E012AB3A0CA2573FA000E

0AC8/$file/01229%20COP%20Breeding%20%26%20Rearing%20V2.pdf

this is current COP

and from the Domestic Animals Act 1994

domestic animal business means—

(a) an animal shelter, Council pound or pet

shop; or

(b) an enterprise that is run for profit which

carries out all or any of the following

activities—

(i) the breeding of dogs or cats,

where—

(A) the enterprise has more than

10 fertile female animals of

either or both species; or

(B) the enterprise has less than

10 fertile female animals but

the owner is not a member of

an applicable organisation;

or

(ii) the rearing, training or boarding of

dogs or cats;

12A Dogs and cats must be permanently identified

before sale or being given away

The proprietor of a domestic animal business must

not sell, or give away, a dog or cat unless the dog

or cat has been implanted with a prescribed

permanent identification device.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

13 Notification of sale by domestic animal business

If the proprietor of a domestic animal business

sells, or gives away, a dog or cat which is not

registered, he or she must notify the Council with

which the animal should be registered, within

7 days after the sale or the giving away of the

animal, of—

(a) the sale, or the giving away of the animal;

and (b) a description of the animal; and

© the name and address of the new owner of

the animal; and

(d) the unique number of the microchip

contained in the prescribed permanent

identification device implanted in the animal.

Penalty: 3 penalty units.

45 Offence to conduct domestic animal business on

unregistered premises

A person must not conduct a domestic animal

business on a premises which is not registered for

that purpose with the Council of the municipal

district in which the business is conducted.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

46 Application for registration

(1) A person may apply to a Council to register a

premises as a premises on which a domestic

animal business is conducted.

(2) The application must be made in the form

approved by the Council.

47 Registration of premises

(1) If a person has applied to have a premises

registered with the Council as a premises on

which a domestic animal business may be

conducted, the Council may register that premises

for that purpose.

(2) The Council may impose any terms, conditions,

limitations or restrictions on that registration.

Councils seem to be able to make their own minds up on how to enforce these legislations. I do find it a bit sad the RSPCA is hopping on this for publicity sake - the fact that the photos on their facebook where provided by animal liberation ... the RSPCA can prosecute people for not providing veterinary attention to an animal and they dont. Go for Oscars Law, not RSPCA. They want pet stores to stop selling animals, newspaper advertisements and websites like petlink. They want to stop the mass factory farming of dogs and having them treated like livestock and make the governement actually implement a worthwhile animal care campaign from all the registration fees they collect.

[Steve]

People who breed dogs well, worry that potential solutions to stopping dogs suffering as much at the hands of a puppy farmers would, in effect, make their dogs suffer more. Why do they think that ? Take the time to read mandatory codes of practice already in place in NSW and the gold coast as if you only own 2 entire bitches.

I am interested...

Exactly what in the mandatory codes of practice would make your dogs suffer more?

Well for a start My dogs would suffer more if I had to house them down the back in a shed with whirly birds and concrete floors.

[Nekhbet]

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd...of-practice.pdf

this is the NSW code of practice ... where does it say you cannot keep your dog in the house? It has space provisions for backyard/house dogs?

[TonyCal]

People who breed dogs well, worry that potential solutions to stopping dogs suffering as much at the hands of a puppy farmers would, in effect, make their dogs suffer more. Why do they think that ? Take the time to read mandatory codes of practice already in place in NSW and the gold coast as if you only own 2 entire bitches.

I am interested...

Exactly what in the mandatory codes of practice would make your dogs suffer more?

Well for a start My dogs would suffer more if I had to house them down the back in a shed with whirly birds and concrete floors.

Steve,

What you have stated is not correct. As you well know, a code of practice only sets the minimum requirements to be met. In the NSW Code of Practice case I have copied he definition of dog housing below

Dog housing includes a kennel, cage, module, colony pen or other enclosure used to contain dogs within a facility; or garages, carports, sheds, commercially sold dog kennels of any material, and any room forming part of a house, flat, apartment or town house used for human habitation.

Nowehere does it state what you have said, or in any way preclude breeding dogs living inside. Perhaps you might want to clarify your statement

[shel]

it sure did work when they banned live pet sales in shops in europe many years ago. had a friend tell me that as a consequence there were no shelters as the only way you could buy a dog was from a registered breeder of purebred dogs in the KC. shelters and dogs in need were not heard of over there in that country. so banning certainly did work. some people just don't want to be educated no matter how much information you tell them either, some people think they know better.

Hmm... I'm not so sure this is accurate.

I can only speak for the UK, but shops weren't 'banned' from selling puppies & kittens, it was just that the public backlash was such that it was never fashionable to sell them:

This place is in outer London... www.coulsdonpets.co.uk and Harrods is famous for its live animals sales...

Because of this cultural difference, they don't have less puppy farms, they simply have a bigger 'direct-to-consumer' market. Google uk puppy farms, and I think you'll find references to huge problems with imported puppies coming from overseas, brokering and Internet sales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_wo...000/7500521.stm

Why do they kill less? I'd suspect there's much fewer pets generally (I don't have the figures, but Australians keep a LOT of pets) and more people probably keep 'apartment friendly' pets, like cats. Also, if you've ever watched 'it's me or the dog' - dogs live inside, in terraced houses & flats with little or no backyard. Having to 'walk' the dog without fail, leads to better socialised dogs, who are more included in daily life, more acceptance of dogs in public places and a strengthened bond between pet and owner.

Here's one I saw in a pub!

http://yfrog.com/n872gzj

Finally, the big orgs - Dogs Trust and the RSPCA have no kill policies. Some BSL and the like, but an overall commitment that healthy pets get homes.

Edited September 15, 2010 by shel

[toy dog]

it sure did work when they banned live pet sales in shops in europe many years ago. had a friend tell me that as a consequence there were no shelters as the only way you could buy a dog was from a registered breeder of purebred dogs in the KC. shelters and dogs in need were not heard of over there in that country. so banning certainly did work. some people just don't want to be educated no matter how much information you tell them either, some people think they know better.

Hmm... I'm not so sure this is accurate.

I can only speak for the UK, but shops weren't 'banned' from selling puppies & kittens, it was just that the public backlash was such that it was never fashionable to sell them:

This place is in outer London... www.coulsdonpets.co.uk and Harrods is famous for its live animals sales...

Because of this cultural difference, they don't have less puppy farms, they simply have a bigger 'direct-to-consumer' market. Google uk puppy farms, and I think you'll find references to huge problems with imported puppies coming from overseas, brokering and Internet sales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_wo...000/7500521.stm

Why do they kill less? I'd suspect there's much fewer pets generally (I don't have the figures, but Australians keep a LOT of pets) and more people probably keep 'apartment friendly' pets, like cats. Also, if you've ever watched 'it's me or the dog' - dogs live inside, in terraced houses & flats with little or no backyard. Having to 'walk' the dog without fail, leads to better socialised dogs, who are more included in daily life, more acceptance of dogs in public places and a strengthened bond between pet and owner.

Here's one I saw in a pub!

http://yfrog.com/n872gzj

Finally, the big orgs - Dogs Trust and the RSPCA have no kill policies. Some BSL and the like, but an overall commitment that healthy pets get homes.

wasn't talking about the UK was talking about norway, my friend was a well known judge in that country many years back, haven't spoken to her for about 12/13 years now, this was when i first went online back in 1997.

Edited September 15, 2010 by toy dog

[toy dog]

this is just what i got sent to my private email address just a few minutes ago about the rally, i think it clarifies alot ?

we have some exciting updates for you on our close puppy factories campaign, including we now have almost 30,000 signatures! But that's not all... Melbourne has a rally this weekend and your support will help us put an end to

puppy factories.

Puppy Factory Awareness Day Rally - this weekend!

This weekend on the steps of Parliament House, the RSPCA will be joining other animal welfare organisations at a public community rally to show our government

that Victorians will not allow puppy farming to continue.

PLEASE JOIN US and thousands of other like minded people, so we can be a collective voice for the dogs and puppies in these mass-producing factories.

Edited September 15, 2010 by toy dog

[toy dog]

Because of this cultural difference, they don't have less puppy farms, they simply have a bigger 'direct-to-consumer' market. Google uk puppy farms, and I think you'll find references to huge problems with imported puppies coming from overseas, brokering and Internet sales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_wo...000/7500521.stm

poor little dog! they are the innocents in all this....

[Steve]

People who breed dogs well, worry that potential solutions to stopping dogs suffering as much at the hands of a puppy farmers would, in effect, make their dogs suffer more. Why do they think that ? Take the time to read mandatory codes of practice already in place in NSW and the gold coast as if you only own 2 entire bitches.

I am interested...

Exactly what in the mandatory codes of practice would make your dogs suffer more?

Well for a start My dogs would suffer more if I had to house them down the back in a shed with whirly birds and concrete floors.

Steve,

What you have stated is not correct. As you well know, a code of practice only sets the minimum requirements to be met. In the NSW Code of Practice case I have copied he definition of dog housing below

Dog housing includes a kennel, cage, module, colony pen or other enclosure used to contain dogs within a facility; or garages, carports, sheds, commercially sold dog kennels of any material, and any room forming part of a house, flat, apartment or town house used for human habitation.

Nowehere does it state what you have said, or in any way preclude breeding dogs living inside. Perhaps you might want to clarify your statement

Couple of issues here - The first is that this rally is to petition to introduce NEW laws and the fear that many have is that new laws would create a problem for small breeders .This isnt based on what is in the mandatory code in NSW now but much of it fear level was what was presented as the mandatory code discussions prior to the round table conference.

Laws and codes we have to comply with in NSW are not just those which come from the DPI - If you want to talk NSW - First the definition of a breeder is any one who breeds a dog - therefore anyone who breeds a dog comes under that definition as the local councils have to take the lead from the DPI in that regard. In most shires in NSW if you breed dogs the mandatory code put out by the DPI at this time is the least of the issues someone who wants to breed has to consider as far as housing and compliances are concerned.

Because a breeder is anyone who breeds a dog you have to have approval from council to operate a business from your home even though none of us consider we are in business. That then brings in minimums - such as where the dogs will be whelped, and where they sleep etc . In most shires If you are a breeder you have to house any more than 2 dogs at least 15 metres from a dwelling for a start. So before you can say what the laws are which affect us as breeders now you have to look at POCTAA, state companion animals laws, mandatory codes fro breeding dogs and requirements to operate a breeding establishment via environment health and planning. These are things which affect me no matter how many dogs I have already and Id rather not have any more if I can avoid it.

But thats not even the issue here for me.

Im anti puppy farmer as much as or more so than most I just want to be sure we all agree on what that is. Id rather see a push for enforcement of laws we already have.

[Nekhbet]

In most shires If you are a breeder you have to house any more than 2 dogs at least 15 metres from a dwelling for a start. So before you can say what the laws are which affect us as breeders now you have to look at POCTAA, state companion animals laws, mandatory codes fro breeding dogs and requirements to operate a breeding establishment via environment health and planning. These are things which affect me no matter how many dogs I have already and Id rather not have any more if I can avoid it.

so you're talking about council bylaws which differ from council to council and not state legislation is it? Do you have links?

Because a breeder is anyone who breeds a dog you have to have approval from council to operate a business from your home even though none of us consider we are in business.

problem is you produce a product and you sell it for money. Profit or not this is considered a business unfortunately.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Nekhbet

[Steve]

No I dont have links Im too flat out to even get near trying for them but I spoke with some people from several shires around a fortnight ago, as well as from the DPI in 3 states because I needed the info for one of our members. Some of it comes under state building codes.

If they continue to make laws which impact on breeding dogs no matter how many come under one legislation it has to impact differently on someone who breeds one litter to someone who breeds 100 litters. Every council can say what buildings can go in depending on what they are going to be used for and where and what the land is going to be used for and how that will impact on the neighbours and the environment already.

I do have to say that most times the people who are responsible for mandatory codes for breeding dogs and POCTAA dont seem to know anything about state and council requirements for health and planning and building regs and how some of them impact.