Judy Gard - All Done

[Erny]

Why is it that if a dog is debarked because it is a proven nuisance barker then it is okay but if it is debarked without proof it is a cruelty crime especially if the dog is then shown?

Isn't the operation the same in both cases? Why is it then also cruel to show said dog?

Why is it cruel to use a collar that "might cause harm" (even though there is no recorded evidence of harm - but plenty of attestation to its benefits) and therefore worthy of its use being banned, yet NOT cruel to use a collar/s that HAVE caused harm (and where there IS recorded evidence of harm) and which seem to deserve support from a certain number of *cough* well known orgs?

This is the State we are in. Laws that don't make sense; don't make any difference to animal welfare (and can infact work against the very essence of the Act they are listed under); and which the Government cannot (evidenced by the fact they will not) answer to or explain.

There is no figuring it. Many of these laws were bullied through and IMO the reason for this is politically based - nothing to do with wisdom or the "we care for dogs" factor.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Erny

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Why is it that if a dog is debarked because it is a proven nuisance barker then it is okay but if it is debarked without proof it is a cruelty crime especially if the dog is then shown?

Isn't the operation the same in both cases? Why is it then also cruel to show said dog?

Why is it cruel to use a collar that "might cause harm" (even though there is no recorded evidence of harm - but plenty of attestation to its benefits) and therefore worthy of its use being banned, yet NOT cruel to use a collar/s that HAVE caused harm (and where there IS recorded evidence of harm) and which seem to deserve support from a certain number of *cough* well known orgs?

This is the State we are in. Laws that don't make sense; don't make any difference to animal welfare (and can infact work against the very essence of the Act they are listed under); and which the Government cannot (evidenced by the fact they will not) answer to or explain.

There is no figuring it. Many of these laws were bullied through and IMO the reason for this is politically based - nothing to do with wisdom or the "we care for dogs" factor.

totally agree with you erny the law is an ass

[SpikesPuppy]

Since when can we not remove dewclaws from pups???? I thought we were still allowed to..... Have I missed something?

[noisymina]

Not sure if its true or not but I was told yesterday 3 directors of Dogs NSW had dun a bunk plus Ms Davies.

Last time I looked one was under the microscope by Asic too.

Don't hold your breath. ASIC are pretty useless.

I will be writing a message or two to both the Liberal and Labor Parties on the back of my ballot paper at the State Elections next Saturday. It won't be rude, but it will indicate how disillusioned I am and how futile they are.

I have it on good authority that this will NOT render my vote invalid/informal.

Perhaps there's an idea there - if all of us could indicate that we own dogs and we vote (or something along those lines) ???

Steve - any suggestions for a good message?

ETA: lol, or perhaps you can't put it up on a public forum

Your message on the back - or event the front - of a ballot papare will go nowhere. Apart from the possibility of entertaining Electoral Office staff and scrutineers as the votes are counted.

Getting ANY laws changed is a mugs game.

Getting MORE laws in is easy. More laws will solve everything and make people feel good.

The fact that merely enforcing existing laws would actually solve most problems seem to be conveniently ignored - or put in the "too hard" basket.

There is a big gap between pollies and control of the enforcement agencies, me thinks. Pollies are wusses when it comes to demanding accountability. So all they do is talk more and make more laws instead.

Edited November 22, 2010 by noisymina

[Steve]

Why is it that if a dog is debarked because it is a proven nuisance barker then it is okay but if it is debarked without proof it is a cruelty crime especially if the dog is then shown?

Isn't the operation the same in both cases? Why is it then also cruel to show said dog?

Why is it cruel to use a collar that "might cause harm" (even though there is no recorded evidence of harm - but plenty of attestation to its benefits) and therefore worthy of its use being banned, yet NOT cruel to use a collar/s that HAVE caused harm (and where there IS recorded evidence of harm) and which seem to deserve support from a certain number of *cough* well known orgs?

This is the State we are in. Laws that don't make sense; don't make any difference to animal welfare (and can infact work against the very essence of the Act they are listed under); and which the Government cannot (evidenced by the fact they will not) answer to or explain.

There is no figuring it. Many of these laws were bullied through and IMO the reason for this is politically based - nothing to do with wisdom or the "we care for dogs" factor.

Its not just your state. We have Stud Dorper rams here Big boys who like to break through fences - Its a pain and costs a fortune to constantly ensure they are kept in the paddock. In NSW Im able to have an electric fence to keep the Ram in but I cant because my Maremmas are in the same Paddock. Rozzie was charged with cruelty because she had an electric fence to keep the pigs out of her garden because the dogs were on the other side and Might get near the fence!

Its illegal to have an electric fence near dogs in this state. Better for them to jump the fence and get run over of course and O.K. for my kids to laugh about their friends getting a ping on a neighbours property. O.K. for every other species including humans to get near it but not dogs! They are a bunch of nutters and the fact that government has gone with it is incredible. We need a good constitutional and property lawyer.

[Aussienot]

The RSPCA have full access to the CAR, so that information is readily available for them to troll and use as they see fit. No asking necessary. And even if they did see a large number of microchips identified to one person or business, so what? Nothing enforceable, (yet) about producing thousands of pups for sale.

Reeks of white anting to me.

[Steve]

If in fact that the RSPCA did go to CAR to get numbers thats not part of their brief for access to that information and you should be more worried about that than whether or not she was breeding more than SOMEONE says she should!

Those dogs were passed with a bloody clean bill of health and for the record the RSPCA went after the show catelouges not pedigrees .

If ANYONE is able to just dig into the microchip registry - get numbers and decide its too many and make them a bloody target then I have just entered my detals as breeder on the data base for the last time. In future my puppies will go out in the new owners name and I encourage all breeders to do the same.

[Erny]

The ballot counters see so many notes, abuses, threats, insane rantings, even messages of support on the back of the papers that they don't pay any attention to them. Good idea but dunno if it's worth wasting your time?

Your message on the back - or event the front - of a ballot papare will go nowhere. Apart from the possibility of entertaining Electoral Office staff and scrutineers as the votes are counted.

Yeah - I guess you're right .

Edited November 22, 2010 by Erny

[Are You Serious Jo]

Of course it was more than a debark issue, it was yet another attack on a registered breeder who was also a soft target and a PR opportunity. There was a vendetta by a vet, they used their influence to harass and intimidate via the rspca.

[Erny]

Of course it was more than a debark issue, it was yet another attack on a registered breeder who was also a soft target and a PR opportunity. There was a vendetta by a vet, they used their influence to harass and intimidate via the rspca.

Unless the RSPCA front up to every dog owner they believe are breaching animal welfare laws, with TV Crew on tow, one can ONLY think you're right, RJ - it would have had to have been a PR opportunity, one that was intended to go to air as one of their many TV shows but maybe which is now quashed as a result of the Court outcome ???

[SpikesPuppy]

It would be good to have the exact wording as it's a confusing case. People who aren't familiar with it probably can't believe there isn't more to it as it is just ridiculous. Doesn't help when the rumour mill gets going.

Exactly!

Quiet at work so doing a quick search but it doesn't appear to be listed on the Magistrates court list. Steve said it wasn't listed beforehand so maybe it won't get put up?

Which courthouse was it, anyone know?

[Mollie10]

It would be good to have the exact wording as it's a confusing case. People who aren't familiar with it probably can't believe there isn't more to it as it is just ridiculous. Doesn't help when the rumour mill gets going.

Exactly!

Quiet at work so doing a quick search but it doesn't appear to be listed on the Magistrates court list. Steve said it wasn't listed beforehand so maybe it won't get put up?

Which courthouse was it, anyone know?

In Tassie, a Magistrates Court decision/sentence wouldn't be published or even transcribed unless it were appealled. Not sure if it's the same in Victoria.

[SpikesPuppy]

It would be good to have the exact wording as it's a confusing case. People who aren't familiar with it probably can't believe there isn't more to it as it is just ridiculous. Doesn't help when the rumour mill gets going.

Exactly!

Quiet at work so doing a quick search but it doesn't appear to be listed on the Magistrates court list. Steve said it wasn't listed beforehand so maybe it won't get put up?

Which courthouse was it, anyone know?

In Tassie, a Magistrates Court decision/sentence wouldn't be published or even transcribed unless it were appealled. Not sure if it's the same in Victoria.

At the very least, the charges should be available somewhere I would think.

Unfortunately I know more about QLD law than Vic lol (thanks, Distance education ).

[WreckitWhippet]

If in fact that the RSPCA did go to CAR to get numbers thats not part of their brief for access to that information and you should be more worried about that than whether or not she was breeding more than SOMEONE says she should!

Those dogs were passed with a bloody clean bill of health and for the record the RSPCA went after the show catelouges not pedigrees .

If ANYONE is able to just dig into the microchip registry - get numbers and decide its too many and make them a bloody target then I have just entered my detals as breeder on the data base for the last time. In future my puppies will go out in the new owners name and I encourage all breeders to do the same.

I've been doing that from the first litter I've bred. Every pup that is sold before chipping at eight weeks or whenever I do it, is chipped in the new owners names. All they need do is sign the form for me and it's done.

Only those that are staying are chipped in my name.

Naturally to become one of the new breed of certified breeders according to dogs nsw, you will have to chip before rego and include the number on the application to register. That puts an end to the above

[Sheridan]

If in fact that the RSPCA did go to CAR to get numbers thats not part of their brief for access to that information and you should be more worried about that than whether or not she was breeding more than SOMEONE says she should!

Those dogs were passed with a bloody clean bill of health and for the record the RSPCA went after the show catelouges not pedigrees .

If ANYONE is able to just dig into the microchip registry - get numbers and decide its too many and make them a bloody target then I have just entered my detals as breeder on the data base for the last time. In future my puppies will go out in the new owners name and I encourage all breeders to do the same.

I've been doing that from the first litter I've bred. Every pup that is sold before chipping at eight weeks or whenever I do it, is chipped in the new owners names. All they need do is sign the form for me and it's done.

Only those that are staying are chipped in my name.

Naturally to become one of the new breed of certified breeders according to dogs nsw, you will have to chip before rego and include the number on the application to register. That puts an end to the above

You could do the above, do the transfer form for the chip, and get them to sign the form and send it in yourself.

[Bilbo Baggins]

It would be good to have the exact wording as it's a confusing case. People who aren't familiar with it probably can't believe there isn't more to it as it is just ridiculous. Doesn't help when the rumour mill gets going.

Exactly!

Quiet at work so doing a quick search but it doesn't appear to be listed on the Magistrates court list. Steve said it wasn't listed beforehand so maybe it won't get put up?

Which courthouse was it, anyone know?

Seymour

[Bilbo Baggins]

Originally there was some mention of a large number of dogs in Judy's name and she was questioned on this as to their whereabouts. I have discussed this with Judy.

But like a lot of people, including myself,she would have sold them as pets but the new owners would not have transferred the registrations as you have to become a member of VCA at a large cost for a pet.

Only this year has transferring the registration become possible cheaply.

[raz]

its weird, once you have attracted the attentions of the rspca its as if every tom dick and harriet has to add a bit of ash to the smoke affected

Once you attract the attention of some bloody insane dog person, that's where the problems began. Judy Gard attracted the attention of some nutcase in the dog world. The same thing happened in this thread with someone wanting to spread malicious carry on. Nice move.

[SpikesPuppy]

It would be good to have the exact wording as it's a confusing case. People who aren't familiar with it probably can't believe there isn't more to it as it is just ridiculous. Doesn't help when the rumour mill gets going.

Exactly!

Quiet at work so doing a quick search but it doesn't appear to be listed on the Magistrates court list. Steve said it wasn't listed beforehand so maybe it won't get put up?

Which courthouse was it, anyone know?

Seymour

thanks. It's not up there. Bugger.

I thought you could always transfer a LR pet without being a DOgsVic member?

In case anyone is interested, it was $28 early this year to transfer an LR puppy however if you joined the COmpanion Dog Club it included one free LR transfer into your name. The cost of this membership was $30. I included it with all my puppies and sent off the application forms and signed rego papers myself. Not sure if they will keep going with this offer or not though.

Dont see how that matters though- lots of breeders keep their show or breeding dogs in pet homes still registered in their name.

I don't think that you can register microchips in Victoria in buyer names can you?

[Bartok]

This isnt a dig at Judy and I am glad everything is now sorted.

Long haul for someone. Hope all her furkids are ok

I am not a breeder or a show person, but it is just my thoughts of someone

on the outside looking in. I may be way off base.

This is just a general statement to everyone. Not to Judy

If there is rules and regulations then shouldnt those who know the show and breeding world lead by example?

What i mean is. We get annoyed at BYB and puppy farms etc and if they see that a "registered breeder" got away

with an illegal procedure then no reason why they can't. Regardless of how small it may have been or even if was

done with the best intentions. All they would see is that someone else got away with it so why can't they.

There is enough BYB and puppy farms out there with enough bad procedures as it is

So poor Judy just may have been the poor person in the right place at the wrong time.

Again, i am not having a go, just trying to understand is all