Breeders Permit Meeting

[MissMonaro]

So I ask again are working sheepdogs or kelpies that are not registered in the kennel club allowed to be bred in this shire?

Firstly just to clarify - at the meeting they did mention dogs on other registeries and not ANKC registered dogs - but please remember that this meeting was for ANKC registered dogs, so we wanted to know how it would affect us registered breeders.

Apparently they are going to have another meeting like that for ppl that belong to other societies/clubs etc - like cats, budgies, working dogs I guess. Maybe ring them up and ask them yourself.

Do you really think that when this is all done and dusted that a council is going to be able to indefinitely give advantage to one resident over another especially when they are a group representing a vast minority based on whether or not they breed ANKC registered dogs? Do you really think that one person is going to be able to own and breed 8 dogs but their neighbour wont be able to own and breed 2 if they are not ANKC registered? Where is the equity? Where is the ability to trade?

Well.....its the same as back in the olden days of Caboolture Shire Council when you were allowed one dog on a house block. You applied for a permit for a 2nd dog and they said yes or no. NO amount of kicking and screaming cos the neighbour has 2 dogs made a jack of difference. So where is the equality in that ? Thats how it was.

And quite honestly I'd rather not go down to my local shopping centre and see notes up on the community board for litter after litter of crossbred dogs.

I'd like to see people take responsibility for desexing their pets and not letting them breed with the dog down the road.

They shouldnt be doing it if they dont know what they are doing.

Recently (long story) but my daughter helped deliver some pups for some ppl that had no idea at all (not the dogs fault). They assumed the same breed dog they also owned was the father, but were shocked when I said the small fluffy thing (that was entire) could of been the father. They had no idea at all. The best part about the whole process was they got an eye opening look about what breeding was about and at least have decided to desex - but the problem is are these the sorts of people that we want breeding pups anyway ?? (dont get me wrong, lovely ppl, but clearly not a clue)

[shortstep]

So I ask again are working sheepdogs or kelpies that are not registered in the kennel club allowed to be bred in this shire?

Firstly just to clarify - at the meeting they did mention dogs on other registeries and not ANKC registered dogs - but please remember that this meeting was for ANKC registered dogs, so we wanted to know how it would affect us registered breeders.

Apparently they are going to have another meeting like that for ppl that belong to other societies/clubs etc - like cats, budgies, working dogs I guess.

Since farm dogs are usually not registered anywhere, not in any societies, they would then be illegal to breed. I don't think for a second the real meaning of what I am asking or the real ramifications that you are supporting in this law is escaping you.

I also think it is my duty as a dog owner to care about and be very informed about, all aspects of how any dog law works.

Lets just suppose the working dog breeders and unregistered dog breeders got together with the Uni of Sydney and several other Unis around the world, the animal rights folks who are so opposed to purebred dog breeders and throw in some film makers to help out. They could make a very strong and powerful attempt to really go after and shut down purebred dog breeders.

They could even get parliamentary inquiries to seek laws and severe restrictions on purebred dog breeders. Like legislation that all purebred pups have to come with genetic health insurance, that purebred dog litters will have to be planned using EBV done through the Uni, that all vets have to send to the uni all purebred dog illness and that breed standards must be changed to remove all structural extremes. Some breeds may be indentified as 'too late to save' and laws passed banning these breeds. The list of things they could want to legislated and control in purebred dog breeding is really very scary. Purebred dogs and their breeders could be changed forever and may not survive it.

Just dramatics I am sure, this could never happen.

But if it did happen, if you started to see it coming, would you ever want the non ANKC breeders to come to your aid and support?

Edited October 3, 2010 by shortstep

[MissMonaro]

Since farm dogs are usually not registered anywhere, not in any societies, they would then be illegal to breed. I don't think for a second the real meaning of what I am asking or the real ramifications that you are supporting in this law is escaping you.

I also think it is my duty as a dog owner to care about and be very informed about, all aspects of how any dog law works.

Lets just suppose the working dog breeders and unregistered dog breeders got together with the Uni of Sydney and several other Unis around the world, the animal rights folks who are so opposed to purebred dog breeders and throw in some film makers to help out. They could make a very strong and powerful attempt to really go after and shut down purebred dog breeders.

They could even get parliamentary inquiries to seek laws and severe restrictions on purebred dog breeders. Like legislation that all purebred pups have to come with genetic health insurance, that purebred dog litters will have to be planned using EBV done through the Uni, that all vets have to send to the uni all purebred dog illness and that breed standards must be changed to remove all structural extremes. Some breeds may be indentified as 'too late to save' and laws passed banning these breeds. The list of things they could want to legislated and control in purebred dog breeding is really very scary. Purebred dogs and their breeders could be changed forever and may not survive it.

Just dramatics I am sure, this could never happen.

But if it did happen, if you started to see it coming, would you ever want the non ANKC breeders to come to your aid and support?

The animal rights folks, eg. PETA, dont want anyone to breed animals full stop or have them as pets - so I have no time for them at all.

And the BBC documentary has already made a very strong attempt at the whole purebred dog world etc. Someone needs to show the other side of puppy farms and health issues with designer dogs and crossbred dogs.

Anyway......anything can happen - we all know that. But you have 2 choices in this matter - you conform or you don't - thats it. If you don't and you breed and sell puppies, then you will be fined.

Working farm dogs are a little bit different in that those dogs are working, bred for a purpose etc....but they still need to find out how they fit in to the new breeding laws just like everyone else.

But I dont support puppy farmers and unregistered breeders and I wouldn't offer my aid and support to help them keep doing what they are doing, so I wouldnt expect them coming to battle for me. We share different ethics / morals and ideals on how things should be done.

[Fit for a King]

Ah Steve - can you not have a discussion without resorting to sarcasm? It appears not - I am not in a fan club of any kind but can see results on the ground for Mark whereas the MDBA in this regard has a lot to say but seemingly little result.........

Hogz - you are quite right - at the meeting it specified breeders outside of the ANKC - mini foxies were mentioned but it seemed each case would again be taken on merit. For instance I would imagine someone who has invested 15 years developing a line of Koolies for instance - who has kept all the records etc etc would have a better shot than mum and dad next door putting their GSD with the maltese X down the road so that their kids can enjoy the "wonders of childbirth".

Shortstep - it would be up to the farmers of these working dogs to make a case for themselves - if they keep records as registered breeders are required to do and keep their dogs in an acceptable standard then IMO they MAY have a chance.....to try and hide what they are doing and not register their animals would be a mistake....and a potential monetary one at that....I have to say though I don't believe that is the council's intent - the people they are seeking to expose are the ones that are forever sticking bitches with dogs and sending the resulting crossbred or unregistered puppies to pet stores or advertising them on road signs - they don't give a fig about the animals - they are simply a way to supplement their unemployment benefits.....and yes yes I am generalising.....

[shortstep]

Ah Steve - can you not have a discussion without resorting to sarcasm? It appears not - I am not in a fan club of any kind but can see results on the ground for Mark whereas the MDBA in this regard has a lot to say but seemingly little result.........

Shortstep - it would be up to the farmers of these working dogs to make a case for themselves - if they keep records as registered breeders are required to do and keep their dogs in an acceptable standard then IMO they MAY have a chance.....to try and hide what they are doing and not register their animals would be a mistake....and a potential monetary one at that....I have to say though I don't believe that is the council's intent - the people they are seeking to expose are the ones that are forever sticking bitches with dogs and sending the resulting crossbred or unregistered puppies to pet stores or advertising them on road signs - they don't give a fig about the animals - they are simply a way to supplement their unemployment benefits.....and yes yes I am generalising.....

Not a problem Fit for a King, generalising is not a problem as long as it does not effect KC dogs badly eh?

It really is time the farmers and graziers of this country to live up to kennel club standards and record keeping methods. If they are not able to produce these pedigrees or registration and can not meet those high standards of the KC breeders, then the shire should stop them from breeding their line of dogs. Just because some of these lines go back to the early 1800's and are still in the same families, does not mean that they know how to breed to the standards required in this shire. I think we should follow your expert lead on all areas of dog breeding and will just let the working dog breeders fend for themselves and we should allow the Australian working sheepdogs go the way of the dodo bird. For the greater good!! If that means taking out 200 years of Australian dog history then so be it.

Moving on, did you know there is a new idea going around the animal rights circles in the UK and USA, Canada and already happening in some European countries (and actually at least one Uni in Australia really wants this put into place)? It is part of the plan to address the pedigree dog welfare issues. Instead of making working dog breeders follow the Pedigree dog model of how to breed dogs, they want to make Pedigree dog breeders follow the working dog model. It is called "Fit to Breed" legislation, you know COI below 1% in 6 generations, controlled cross breeding where needed, Breeding under EBV programs only, parents have to work to the stated standard or otherwise prove excellent health, fitness and trainability with other activities and tests, all regulated and controlled by panels of animal rights folks, genetic experts, population breeding experts, legislators and so on. Exciting times are ahead and I fully support this level of concern for the welfare of dogs.

Yes Steve stop being sarcastic!

Edited October 4, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

Fit For a King the MDBA has not had anything to do with this so why would anyone expect to see results? I think perhaps you are a little confused about who the MDBA are and what we do. We are not now nor will we ever be in any type of competition with the state's canine associations or the ANKC . If QCCC have had any kind of win for registered breeders we are just as much cheering as anyone.

I entered this conversation to simply warn people that there may be things other than those which are obvious to consider.

[Waldem]

Could the person on this forum who keeps bleating about “results achieved by Mark Shepherd” please enunciate EXACTLY what those results are in relation specifically to the Gold Coast City Council because I’m on the Gold Coast, have just read through all the Breeder Permit information, the GCCC By-Laws (specifically Subordinate Local Law No. 12 Keeping and Control of Animals 2007), the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 that GCCC and Mark Shepherd claims is the cause of the decision to create a Breeder Permit system and I can see nothing, not one new advantage that has been achieved for DogsQld breeders.

I also spoke to Mark Shepherd a couple of weeks ago (DogsQld). I’ve just emailed him again with many more questions.

It’s easy for Council or DogsQld Representatives to make soothing verbal statements to us but if you’d all care to google the above By-Laws and read through them, I myself have been thoroughly frightened.

If you do agree to pay $369.00 for a Breeder Permit and get issued with same, make sure you read through all the conditions as you may find yourself agreeing to things that as an experienced dog owner you don’t actually wish to do.

For example in the GCCC Code of Practice For the Keeping and Breeding of Entire Cats and Dogs (note: this is for “keeping”, not just “breeding” entire dogs – more on that later) under Section S30 “A permit condition may require the holder of the permit to desex an entire female animal which the holder of the animal has retired from breeding”. The wording is vague – “may”. The following Guidelines are also a little hazy “The permit holder should desex each animal retired from breeding (retirement age is now compulsory at 6) or provide a written statement from a registered veterinarian as to why it cannot be desexed.”

Four years (from age 2 to 6) is not enough time for a breeder to breed his dream litter because as we all know there are so many variables. Our personal circumstances may not be good, the ideal stud has not shown himself, a large breed bitch may cycle 18 months apart, finances not available for a couple of years for import semen, failure of AI, messed up seasons, etc. Four years goes fast. If I finally am able to obtain the perfect import semen to match my particular bitch and she so happens to be 9 years old, then why should some other authority arbitrarily declare I can’t use her? The old DogsQld system of a vet check over 8 years of age or over 4 litters was completely reasonable and fair but an arbitrary age is not.

Mark Shepherd verbally assured me that the fact that I may wish to show my 8 year old bitch and she needs to be entire for showing is enough. However, there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing anywhere in the GCCC bylaws that I can find that will allow me this.

Mr Shepherd assured me that in my particular case, since I have no plans to breed in the foreseeable future there is no need to apply for a Breeder Permit. However I now read at Section 19(a)(i) of the GCCC Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 2007 that it specifically states that if you wish to keep one or more entire animals you must get a breeder permit. This is completely regardless of whether the dog is a pet or for breeding – the wording implies that any entire animal is a breeding animal.

If you don’t apply for and are successful in obtaining a breeder permit and your dog is entire, whether you an ANKC registered breeder or an average pet owner, you are immediately in breach of the by-laws.

Once again verbal assurances from DogsQld are not matching up with written By Laws.

Obviously they are not yet pouncing on the thousands of registered entire dogs living on the Gold Coast but the By-Laws are already in place to the effect that we have near enough to Mandatory Desexing. Perhaps they plan to run this “pilot scheme” for two years, claim it highly successful and then enforce these 2007 by-laws?

I’ve seen discussion on the forum that ANKC breeders are the only ones likely to receive a Breeder’s Permit but with GCCC, once again, there is NOTHING in writing to suggest that an ANKC breeder has more right to breed their dog than any other dog owner.

The only thing I can see that a DogsQld member has an advantage in is cheap registration and the ability to not have to wear a registration tag if the collar damages the coat for showing. That’s it. There is no other extra special deal guaranteed in writing for registered ANKC breeders. The above two benefits have been in place for years – right back in 1980 when I first joined CCCQ in fact.

There is nothing in the Breeders Permit conditions to state that your dog must be purebred or that you be part of an Association. Only that you take reasonable care to not pass on hereditary defects.

We are not getting any special treatment at all. That was my original complaint to Mark Shepherd and after reading the relevant Acts, my complaint stands. I agree though with “Steve” that it would be impossible to legislate to only breed purebred dogs and there is a huge anti purebred dog sentiment out there.

Also ultimately a dog is simply an item of property and is it possible for our Councils to control such things as feeding, vaccinations, desexing etc., when ultimately no one can stop us from humanely killing our “property” for any reason or no reason? I’m not a legal person at all, but this does not make sense to me. They can’t stop me killing my dog but they can force me to desex it??

Also the GCCC Permit system states that this is being put in place as a result of the Qld State Law that has been enacted, namely, Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. This is an easy document to read through and you will not even find the word “Breeder” in this Act. Nor is it mentioned or implied in Section 3 Purposes of the Act.

This State Law is in relation to registration and identification (microchipping) of cats and dogs and management of restricted dogs. Nothing at all to do with breeders.

So why are we being told that the State Government is behind the Breeder Permit system when it’s not? Does anyone know any different to this or can enlighten me please?

To the contrary Section 6(3) of the Act states in part, “…if this Act and a local law are inconsistent about a requirement, the local law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency”

So are the Council By Laws and Breeder Permit system invalid?

Additionally Section 7(1) states in part "... this Act does not limit a civil right or remedy that exists apart from this Act, whether at common law or otherwise" - therefore, surely the GCCC by forcing me to desex my dogs and/or cost me a fortune building pens and paying their $369 permit fee every 3 years, or simply not allowing me to keep more than 2 dogs or keep them entire or breed them as a hobby - surely this is limiting my civil right to enjoy my property (dog) and also to not be disadvantaged in my hobby of showing my dogs and offsetting my hobby costs in selling puppies occasionally as a breed fancier (not a kennel) against other breed fancier's in other parts of Australia?

I personally loathe the Designer Dog fad or the stupidity of crosses advertised such as Border Collie x Great Dane, Kelpie x Staffie, etc., however I THINK these owners have a civil right to enjoy their property and even commercially benefit from it and the legislation I’m facing is not only unworkable, it’s quite possibly unlawful.

Education would probably be far more beneficial that almost impossible legislation.

Additionally Mr Shepherd told me that it’s approximated that only 9% of puppies produced in Australia each year are from ANKC breeders. Additionally that a walk down the aisles of the Gold Coast Animal Welfare League will show maybe only one or two dogs that appear to be purebred (purebred not necessarily meaning papered) – so are purebred ANKC breeders the main problem as to why so many dogs are being euthanized? Obviously not and yet we’re the ones being targeted as we are openly registered dog breeders.

On the Gold Coast too, for many years we have only been allowed one dog on land under 600 m2 and two dogs on land over 600 m2. You can apply for a third dog (non refundable approx $300 fee) but one of the conditions of the application is that all 3 dogs must be desexed.

Once again now that I’ve actually sat down and read the State Law, there is nothing in there that allows any Council to limit the number of dogs we can register with them arbitrarily.

So now we have limited numbers of dogs allowed, something near enough to mandatory desexing, compulsory breeder permits – all of which it is claimed is required by Qld Law but absolutely none of which is stated in Qld Law.

Does anyone out there know if this is lawful or unlawful and what can be done about it?

Remember that the GCCC scheme is a two year “pilot scheme” so if we don’t squeal now and stop this, it will be hailed a marvelous success and rolled out straight through all of Qld.

Interestingly Greyhound breeders are free to do as they please on the Gold Coast by comparison to ANKC breeders and the Greyhound Racing Authority receives a number of mentions in the Council by-laws. They can have as many dogs as they please provided (according to Section 37) they are not a nuisance to neighbors. Incredibly, they don’t even have to council register them!!!!!! As long as they are all registered with the Greyhound racing association. That seems to be the only association that has truly moved to provide real benefits for its members and yet I would guess that the mortality rate in their offspring would be immeasurably higher than those of an ANKC or even a Designer Dog breeder! We all know what happens to greyhounds that aren’t fast. An ANKC breeder is obliged to take back and rehome any pup they breed.

Why has DogsQld not been able to get a similar deal for its registered breeders? We have an extremely strict Code of Ethics but at least it makes sense and if we want to do something like line breed a generation we can talk to people at DogsQld that are also experienced breeders and deal with knowledgeable people – not someone like that goose at GCCC that thinks a dog will mate when struck down with Parvovirus (page 20 Code of Practice) – they probably think it’s an inheritable disease, but I digress.

It makes far more sense for DogsQld to have a Code of Ethics that we all agree to and designed by people who do actually breed dogs, then if we break that Code of Ethics, we get thrown out of DogsQld and tossed to GCCC which we would then deserve.

Designer dog breeders as they like to call themselves can form an organization too with a Code of Ethics!

Mr Shepherd also stated to me that it was all in place under the Companion Animal Act but (a) this is a NSW Act and has nothing to do with Qld so I have just asked him next if there is a Companion Animal Act in Qld that I have not been able to discover, and (b) it also states under Frequently Asked Questions Part 2, question 17 that "Councils do not have powers under either the Local Government Act or the Companion Animals Act to generally enforce a limit on the number of animals kept as pets by all residents. Nor do councils have powers to require a person to apply for approval to keep more than the number of animals specified in a local Orders Policy". Granted that is NSW not Qld but since none of the Qld Act make any mention of number of animals to be kept, does our GCCC have the power to do this? How have they got away with it for 10 years with no one saying anything?

I do hope someone on this forum has a legal mind and is able to enlighten me on all of the above!

I agree with a previous post that we should all be sticking together and it’s not enough to simply find a way round the laws temporarily for yourself and not care about the group or the future.

Myself I only have two female dogs right now, one too old and one too young to breed and no plans whatsoever to breed in the foreseeable future anyway. So I could ignore all this. However, 2-3 years from now I will probably want a third young dog to start up and right now I can’t have that and I may want to breed a litter if my girl grows up as planned and if I can find a stud – by then it might be too late and I have no interest in breeding “illegally” as such. Right now, if my Council decided to enforce its By-Laws today I would have to either desex both dogs or pay $369 and HOPE to get a breeders permit even though I have no desire to breed.

For those of you who are content with this status quo, I’m sorry but something is very wrong with this new system.

For the person or people telling me what a great job DogsQld have done, you need to come up with some facts.

[shortstep]

Excellent post and thanks so much for opening into real discussion about theses laws.

.....Mr Shepherd assured me that in my particular case, since I have no plans to breed in the foreseeable future there is no need to apply for a Breeder Permit. However I now read at Section 19(a)(i) of the GCCC Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 2007 that it specifically states that if you wish to keep one or more entire animals you must get a breeder permit. This is completely regardless of whether the dog is a pet or for breeding – the wording implies that any entire animal is a breeding animal.

If you don’t apply for and are successful in obtaining a breeder permit and your dog is entire, whether you an ANKC registered breeder or an average pet owner, you are immediately in breach of the by-laws.

Yes, as I thought it was. The original draft of this law passed around some years ago made it mandatory that only dogs owned by 'breeders' could be intact. So the answer I have been given on this thread was incorrect. The mandatory desexing of all dogs not owned by a permitted breeder is a very serious matter.

....I’ve seen discussion on the forum that ANKC breeders are the only ones likely to receive a Breeder’s Permit but with GCCC, once again, there is NOTHING in writing to suggest that an ANKC breeder has more right to breed their dog than any other dog owner.

There is nothing in the Breeders Permit conditions to state that your dog must be purebred or that you be part of an Association. Only that you take reasonable care to not pass on hereditary defects.

This is a very important. The whole bases given by some people in this thread that are supporting this law is to shut down all breeders that are not 'registered' "pedigreed' 'purebred'. this law fails to do that. Oodles and mix breeds or god forbid even an unregistered unassociated undocumented working sheepdogs can be bred.

.... Could the person on this forum who keeps bleating about “results achieved by Mark Shepherd” please enunciate EXACTLY what those results are in relation specifically

Maybe the 'results' are being treated the same as all other breeders? Not being singled out as 'pedigreed dog' breeders with laws to specifically address pedigree dog welfare issue that only they have to meet? A reprieve from beginning of Fit to Breed legislation, at least for the moment.

....I agree with a previous post that we should all be sticking together and it’s not enough to simply find a way round the laws temporarily for yourself and not care about the group or the future.....

I am glad to hear you say that and hope others think more about changing their views on this topic.

Again, excellent post with many important topics brought out into the light.

Edited October 4, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

Designer Dog Breeders already have their own organisation. AAPDB and I am aware of the fact that they are involved in discussion with Morton Bay Shire now.

You cant just say "we have new laws" which will decide whether one person has the same rights as another without covering many bases. One is that you cant just say we will take it all on a case by case basis - because that leaves the whole thing open to corruption and inequality and its against the law. people who want the same rights will be constantly yelling about them for anti competitive policies If a council is going to decide who gets a breeders permit and who doesn't they have to publish what will make a person eligible and being a member of a non profit group which has a code of ethics may get you a discount but you cant force people in this country to be members of a group.

You cant allow one person to do something that you prohibit another from doing. A government cant decide a purebred dog is more worthy of being bred and if you are going to allow one breeder with 8 dogs to keep them and allow them to have them sleeping in their house without kennels then you cant say their neighbour cant do the same.Before you blink there has to be a mandatory code of conduct for breeders regardless of whether they belong to a non profit group or not and town planning laws are going to HAVE to be specific about how many , how they have to be housed and whole bunch of other things.

Surely to God purebred breeders are able to see this coming! How can any of you really think that because you breed purebred dogs and agree to a code of conduct which doesnt restrict how many you own, where you sell them, how many puppies each year you produce or whether you breed cross bred dogs as well as purebred dogs that a council is going to give you what you think you are getting?

The outcome - has to be that a group which is set up to represent commercial dog breeders with a high emphasis on first cross designer dogs is going to have more members and more acedemics and media and more power to back up that THEY are the superior breeders. The AAPDB registers dogs and their code of conduct is more strict in some areas than the ANKC ones.I was there in the room involved in a conversation where AWL who were instrumental in the Gold Coast pilot scheme and AAPDB were discussing exactly this. Any minute now any deal Mark Shepherd strikes for the ANKC the AAPDB will have too because the only thing thats different is the requirement to breed purebred dogs and all thats happened here is that people have more reason to join AAPDB and give them more numbers and more power. The aim is that every breeder regardless or what they breed or how many will be known to council and that will go hand in hand with the push at federal level for the RSPCA to police council regs as well as POCTAA.

Im having a difficult time trying to understand how a registered purebred breeder can seriously think that they are so superior,that their dogs are so special because they choose to register their pedigrees,attend dog shows and agree to a code which is less prohibitive than mandatory laws will be able to be treated differently at law than any other person who breeds a litter!

Didnt anyone see pedigreed Dogs exposed? Didn't anyone read the Bateman report ? Haven't you seen the push in the media and the public for designer dogs? Don't you see that NSW RSPCA have powers over council laws and that politicians from both sides have said they will give them the same powers in Victoria? Haven't you heard the RSPCA pushing for these powers Australia wide?

Cant you hear that its not just dog laws that are going to squash you? You're not only telling them who you are and where to find you but you're giving them money via permit fees to do it!

Perhaps reps of QC might be better employed to work out what is and isnt enforceable and notifying their members rather than meekly asking for some perceived exemptions.

[Waldem]

Yes, Steve, I agree, we are not perceived as being any better than any other type of dog breeder nor can we expect any discriminatory special treatment from any other dog would-be breeder.

However, here on the Gold Coast we already have a group (Greyhound breeders - most of whom would be recreational) who do have special rights – no registration required and no limit on the number of dogs.

Do we have a precedent? If they are allowed, why can’t every other recreational dog owner/breeder/exhibitor have the same privileges?

My other point is that we can all sit back and assume that DogsQld is in there fighting for breeder’s rights as I was naively doing but the fact of the matter is that here on the Gold Coast DogsQld has achieved absolutely totally nothing for their members, not one tiny new advantage. (I am still waiting to be corrected on this by the Poster constantly telling everyone about Mark’s “results” – section and subsections need to be quoted please).

Mr Shepherd also told me verbally that he has to wear an RSPCA “cap” too. I have thought about this and emailed him about this too. RSPCA is completely and totally opposed to dog breeders, especially purebred dog breeders. If Mr Shepherd feels he needs to wear an RSPCA cap, then he has no right to wear a DogsQld Cap. If he did this in my workplace here, he would be sacked immediately. You wear the cap of the organization that is paying you to wear their cap.

As an aside, I exhibited at two dog shows this month and have spoken to as many people as were unlucky enough to be standing near me at any point in time – unanimously they all were only interested in looking after themselves and were either moving to another Council, not keeping their dogs registered, dogs in the house, dogs registered to other people and properties, etc. So no breeder I spoke to was planning further than the ends of their own noses and also the current legislation is already forcing law abiding people into being non law abiding.

I am not a political scaremonger by the way, I’ve never even read the Local Laws until now and until this month didn’t know what an LGA even was – I’m a law abiding little dog owner/exhibitor who has read what my Council has publicly published on their website and have scared myself.

We are all in big trouble and more importantly so are our dogs and the breeds we are passionate about.

Oh and another thing – in regard to farm bred dogs – you are of course in exactly the same boat as every other owner of an entire dog in Australia. The fact that there is no other way to muster vast tracts of Australian high country than with well bred dogs is of no interest to PETA and Co – they don’t want you having cattle and sheep either or having them stomp all over potential pristine wilderness. And the fact that your method of breeding dogs for a job, rather than for a look won’t help you much when the PETA type groups catch onto the culling rate of farm bred dogs.

Everyone animal on an income producing property either does a job or provides an income or they are culled – most of us completely understand this realty. You will have no chance of getting an Animal Liberationist to understand that. Remember we have one well known Aussie Actress currently fighting for the rights of Wild Pigs

[Steve]

MBSC via DQ website - quote.

2. So, there’s a difference between a Kennel License and a Breeder’s permit?

Yes, definitely. The new Breeder’s Permit concept has been specifically designed to cater for the requirements of the vast majority of Dogs Qld members who live in the MBRC area - e.g. those members that wish to keep, usually up to 6 entire dogs for showing / obedience etc. and who also wish to breed a litter every 12 - 18 months, should apply for a Breeder's permit. Dogs Queensland members who have a need to keep more dogs and to breed more frequently may need to apply for a Kennel License through the Town Planning Dept of MBRC. This will depend on the zoning and planning requirements for your area.

5. So, why do I have to pay an initial Breeder's Permit Initial Application fee?

This fee has been structured simply to cover the cost of a MBRC field officer conducting an onsite property inspection and processing the necessary paperwork.

6. What if I decide not to apply for a Breeder's Permit or a Kennel License?

Our Dogs Queensland Code of Ethics clearly states: I shall comply with any and all valid legal provisions of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld) and with the local laws and subordinate local laws relating to the keeping of dogs promulgated by my local authority. I accept that it is my responsibility to keep abreast of any changes to the local Laws. Any decision that you make regarding whether you, as a Dogs Queensland member, will or won’t comply with a Local Government Law is yours alone to make. But if you choose not to comply, you risk severe penalties being imposed by MBRC and you will be in breach of a Dogs Queensland rule.

7. So, how do I know if my application for a Breeder’s permit will be approved?

There is no simple answer to this question, but common sense should prevail. All permits are considered on an individual basis and require minimum standards to be met and maintained. If your application is for a 6 dog Breeder’s Permit and you live in a rural / residential area on 2 acres and your facilities for keeping and managing your dogs is satisfactory, then it is very likely that your application will be approved. If, on the other hand, you live on a 600 sq mtr suburban block and you apply for a 20 dog Breeder permit, it is very unlikely that you will receive approval.

[shortstep]

MBSC via DQ website - quote.

2. So, there’s a difference between a Kennel License and a Breeder’s permit?

Yes, definitely. The new Breeder’s Permit concept has been specifically designed to cater for the requirements of the vast majority of Dogs Qld members who live in the MBRC area - e.g. those members that wish to keep, usually up to 6 entire dogs for showing / obedience etc. and who also wish to breed a litter every 12 - 18 months, should apply for a Breeder's permit. Dogs Queensland members who have a need to keep more dogs and to breed more frequently may need to apply for a Kennel License through the Town Planning Dept of MBRC. This will depend on the zoning and planning requirements for your area.

So is a max of one litter every 12 months written as part of the conduct allowed by a breeder by permit?

Or is this the each group of breeder will be treated differently and ANKC breeders can only have one litter a year, where as oddles breeders may well be allowed 5 litters a year?

[shortstep]

MBSC via DQ website - quote.

2. So, there’s a difference between a Kennel License and a Breeder’s permit?

Yes, definitely. The new Breeder’s Permit concept has been specifically designed to cater for the requirements of the vast majority of Dogs Qld members who live in the MBRC area - e.g. those members that wish to keep, usually up to 6 entire dogs for showing / obedience etc. and who also wish to breed a litter every 12 - 18 months, should apply for a Breeder's permit. Dogs Queensland members who have a need to keep more dogs and to breed more frequently may need to apply for a Kennel License through the Town Planning Dept of MBRC. This will depend on the zoning and planning requirements for your area.

Just one more question, when did it become politically correct to breed only one litter every 12-18 months.

So if a breeder has 2 litters in one year, then they are now should be labled in the classification of a kennel breeder which is also where the puppy mills belong? Hum.

Edited October 5, 2010 by shortstep

[shortstep]

Waldem says

.....We are all in big trouble and more importantly so are our dogs and the breeds we are passionate about.

.... in regard to farm bred dogs – you are of course in exactly the same boat as every other owner of an entire dog in Australia. The fact that there is no other way to muster vast tracts of Australian high country than with well bred dogs is of no interest to PETA and Co –

....Everyone animal on an income producing property either does a job or provides an income or they are culled – most of us completely understand this realty. You will have no chance of getting an Animal Liberationist ....

Just to be clear I do not breed Australian working farm dogs, I however admire them as one Australia's greatest efforts.

The working folks often react the same way to the impending assault on their dogs as do the show folks. They feel that they can hind on their properties and that is too difficult to fight this battle when they have so many other problems to worry about.

We have to remember that they are being hit from all sides. Many are at risk of loosing their properties, years of drought have demoralized many, labor government push to get them to sell their land or water rights to the government, new land laws now preventing them from using their land, ETS on the planner again, stereotyping as criminal abusers of their own land, not to mention animal rights pressures.

We really should be rallying behind our people who put the local grown and quality assured food on our tables. But I digress.

I agree completely, there is no group of dog owners or breeders that are safe.

They are all targets, supported by constant left leaning media influencing the language and changing how people think about dogs. Pitted against each other, willingly they go as good little Oysters being lead to the big feed on the beach!

Edited October 5, 2010 by shortstep

[Waldem]

Waldem says

[iJust to be clear I do not breed Australian working farm dogs, I however admire them as one Australia's greatest efforts.

The working folks often react the same way to the impending assault on their dogs as do the show folks. They feel that they can hind on their properties and that is too difficult to fight this battle when they have so many other problems to worry about.

We have to remember that they are being hit from all sides. Many are at risk of loosing their properties, years of drought have demoralized many, labor government push to get them to sell their land or water rights to the government, new land laws now preventing them from using their land, ETS on the planner again, stereotyping as criminal abusers of their own land, not to mention animal rights pressures.

We really should be rallying behind our people who put the local grown and quality assured food on our tables. But I digress.

I've just spent 9 days on a 33,000 acre cattle property as a guest. The dogs there are all farm bred for many generations and LOOK like they could have come out a Mexican back alley! However, they are incredible and it would be completely impossible to muster without them.

I agree that farmers do not need this extra concern but that is what they will be facing.

[Waldem]

Definition of a kennel for Gold Coast City Council is:

“kennel” means any place used or intended for use for the keeping, boarding, breeding or training of more than three (3) dogs;

GCCC is giving themselves accolades for hosting the only Pilot Scheme but they have done this without any public meetings - certainly none that I've heard of and I belong to two of the Clubs they've quoted as being part of the creation of the scheme - DogsQld and Gold Coast Dog Obedience.

[Waldem]

Ah Steve - can you not have a discussion without resorting to sarcasm? It appears not - I am not in a fan club of any kind but can see results on the ground for Mark whereas the MDBA in this regard has a lot to say but seemingly little result.........

Fit for A King - I'm still waiting to find out exactly what those "results on the ground" are that Mark Shepherd has achieved for Gold Coast residents - specific results please. Not waffle - Sections, sub-sections, Codes - written "on the ground" real results. I say he has achieved absolutely NOTHING, not one single advantage for DogsQld members.

[Jed]

shortstep

Just one more question, when did it become politically correct to breed only one litter every 12-18 months.

When PETA said.

As the untruths put about on PDE have now become proven scientific truth.

Such are urban myths, and this is how they are disseminated.

[shortstep]

As the untruths put about on PDE have now become proven scientific truth.

Such are urban myths, and this is how they are disseminated.

I would love to know how many active ANKC breeders there are. There were 60,000 ANKC pups last year (out of 1 million pups in Australia). You have to believe that some breeders had several more than one litter in the year. Even if you believe that each breeder only had one litter and there were on average of 5 pups per litter, that is only 12000 active breeders. I will guess that there has to be less than 10,000 active breeders in ANKC. Anyone know? (active meaning to me they have bred a litter in the last few years and intend to breed another soon).

I was accused in this thread of being disloyal to the purebred dogs and only interested in breeding for money. I was accused of this because I said that reducing the number ANKC breeders would only lead to a bigger market and increased business at puppy farms. Which (stopping puppy farms) we are lead to believe is why we needed to go after every dog breeder in the country with massive regulations.

At the risk of being accused again, I think it is very counter productive to

1. Support restrictive and intrusive laws on ANKC breeders that will by their very nature repel many breeders who will leave.

and even more counter productive to support

2. Limiting ANKC breeders to one litter every 12-18 months....or they are (and lets call it what it is) stigmatized and labeled as the same class of breeder as puppy farmers.

So here is the plan to end puppy farms. Lets scare away as many ANKC breeders with hard new laws and then for those that still remian limit them to one litter every 12-18 months or they will be classed as a puppy farmer. Really?

Real puppy farmers must feel they are entering a new golden era of rapid growth and increased profits.

Edited October 5, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

MBSC via DQ website - quote.

2. So, there’s a difference between a Kennel License and a Breeder’s permit?

Yes, definitely. The new Breeder’s Permit concept has been specifically designed to cater for the requirements of the vast majority of Dogs Qld members who live in the MBRC area - e.g. those members that wish to keep, usually up to 6 entire dogs for showing / obedience etc. and who also wish to breed a litter every 12 - 18 months, should apply for a Breeder's permit. Dogs Queensland members who have a need to keep more dogs and to breed more frequently may need to apply for a Kennel License through the Town Planning Dept of MBRC. This will depend on the zoning and planning requirements for your area.

Just one more question, when did it become politically correct to breed only one litter every 12-18 months.

So if a breeder has 2 litters in one year, then they are now should be labled in the classification of a kennel breeder which is also where the puppy mills belong? Hum.

The same time it became politically correct to have to have council approvals to debark a dog but no council approvals to kill it.

The same time it became politically correct to decide when is the most appropriate time to mate a bitch and how often based on anything other than what is most suited to the species.

Im interested in the check list that someone must have somewhere to decide who can and who cant qualify for a breeders permit.

Considering you have to apply for this permit if you own an entire dog before you mate her, before she is pregnant and by the time you get to that you may have changed your mind

then what is it exactly they are looking at to be able to decide that one person in a street is able to have this permit over any other?

How can one person know what the criteria is for them to address before they buy their dog which they don't want to desex?

What happens if you have one of these permits and when you go to re apply the rules have changed and you cant get it re issued?