Next Question

[raz]

Have to agree with RSG though, probably do nothing. Which begs the question, why bother with the rule if it's not going to be enforced??

Because they think it makes them look good.

I dont know why they cant say in the code of ethics, no sales to pet shops or to wholesalers. How much weight does a code of ethics have in a legal sense in that they're not actually restricting trade because if the breeder doesnt agree with it, they just let their membership to the CC lapse and sell to whoever they want anyway.

[Souff]

Have to agree with RSG though, probably do nothing. Which begs the question, why bother with the rule if it's not going to be enforced??

Because they think it makes them look good.

I dont know why they cant say in the code of ethics, no sales to pet shops or to wholesalers. How much weight does a code of ethics have in a legal sense in that they're not actually restricting trade because if the breeder doesnt agree with it, they just let their membership to the CC lapse and sell to whoever they want anyway.

A Code of Ethics is little more than a list of good intentions. Weight? Butterflies are heavier. Both can look very pretty.

[Steve]

Shortstep. This has all already been tested in court and legal advice has told them it cant be done . Allowing them to restrict to a PIAA members is supposed to limit the ability to do that - back when it first came in in NSW there were only 2 in the state.Since then Transpet has become a PIAA member and numbers of PIAA pet shops has obviously risen. It was the best compromise they had because they couldnt stop them selling to a pet shop or an agent across the board.

What is the point in continuing to call to stop things which they cant stop. They cant stop an owner exporting their puppies and by the time the pup is exported the breeder is no longer the owner. When they start looking at stopping selling to someone like transpet its not just the members they have to answer to - its the agents and pet shops because they are restricting their trade too. Its cant be done under current federal law - they know this because its been tested .

I wrote this way back in the thread: http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4975666

They don't have to grant the export licence. MacDougal hides behind the veneer of respectability and advertises that he gets his dogs from registered breeders. The CCs can stop that. It's not a restriction of trade, they're simply not granting the licence. After all, it's not needed to export.

The export certificate isnt a licence - all it gives is a registration paper for change of owner or chage of residence to one in another country just exactly as it does when an owner changes address or changes ownership within Australia.

In NSW we register the pup into the breeders name and then the owner changes it into their name when they get the papers .The only difference is that in this case the owner lives over seas. The NSW Cc doesnt know we are getting the rego papers to export the pup - they tell us we have to register all pups so we do.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

So it's sounding like there is little the ANKC or state CCs can do regarding restriction of trade but surely they can introduce monetary penalties for those doing the wrong thing? On that note, do they have a process for members found selling to pet stores?

As long as they are PIAA accredited, breeders can sell to pet shops and wholesalers. Code of Ethics for dogsnsw

A Member shall not:

(a) sell any dog to commercial dog wholesalers or retail pet dealers, who are not accredited

by the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA).

I dont know what their process is if a breeder is caught selling to non PIAA members

Sorry meant to say other than PIAA stores, was about to head in the tunnel on the train and typing in a rush lol.

Have to agree with RSG though, probably do nothing. Which begs the question, why bother with the rule if it's not going to be enforced??

because everyone screams for more rules so in order to be seen as doing something crappy rules and laws are made then we suffer the consequences.

thats why i dont want any more rules because we will just get a lot of nonsense ones. we really need the current rules fixed before new ones are made

[raz]

A Code of Ethics is little more than a list of good intentions. Weight? Butterflies are heavier. Both can look very pretty.

Only you, Souffle!

[Steve]

Have to agree with RSG though, probably do nothing. Which begs the question, why bother with the rule if it's not going to be enforced??

Because they think it makes them look good.

I dont know why they cant say in the code of ethics, no sales to pet shops or to wholesalers. How much weight does a code of ethics have in a legal sense in that they're not actually restricting trade because if the breeder doesnt agree with it, they just let their membership to the CC lapse and sell to whoever they want anyway.

They cant because its already been tested and they have recieved legal advice telling them they shouldnt do it. there isnt any point in it constantly being discussed .Its the main reason the MDBA set up with the business entity we did.

Its the same as Vic Govt saying if someone is a Vic dogs member they get exemptions - because its assumed that the org they give exemptions to have certain standards.

[shortstep]

So it's sounding like there is little the ANKC or state CCs can do regarding restriction of trade but surely they can introduce monetary penalties for those doing the wrong thing? On that note, do they have a process for members found selling to pet stores?

As long as they are PIAA accredited, breeders can sell to pet shops and wholesalers. Code of Ethics for dogsnsw

A Member shall not:

(a) sell any dog to commercial dog wholesalers or retail pet dealers, who are not accredited

by the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA).

I dont know what their process is if a breeder is caught selling to non PIAA members

Well that very rule blows the restraint of trade idea right out the window. Why can they restrain them to only selling PIAA shops, it still is restraining. This rule is here because they think it sounds more ethical then saying yes our breeder supply the pet shops, so have made a rule about it to soften the sound of it. No one is fooled.

And if they want to take a real stand on this issue not just give it lip service, they could also make a rule that said ANKC members can not sell any dog to any commercial dog wholesaler or retail pet dealers. End of blaming ANKC breeders for this welfare issue and we can proudly make a clear statement that we do not particiapte in that industry.

Shortstep. This has all already been tested in court and legal advice has told them it cant be done . Allowing them to restrict to a PIAA members is supposed to limit the ability to do that - back when it first came in in NSW there were only 2 in the state.Since then Transpet has become a PIAA member and numbers of PIAA pet shops has obviously risen. It was the best compromise they had because they couldnt stop them selling to a pet shop or an agent across the board.

What is the point in continuing to call to stop things which they cant stop. They cant stop an owner exporting their puppies and by the time the pup is exported the breeder is no longer the owner. When they start looking at stopping selling to someone like transpet its not just the members they have to answer to - its the agents and pet shops because they are restricting their trade too. Its cant be done under current federal law - they know this because its been tested .

BTW I did not sugest the ANKC limit their breeders on exporting, however I think we are very close to haveing the govenment ban all live exports and maybe all live imports. Different subject.

Back on topic

I disagree, I think clubs can and do set limits on their members all the time. It is already happening in other countires, they do not have that different of a legal system. Restraining our breeders from being puppy farms is perfectly acceptable to do and is in fact being called for by all parts of society.

Maybe it is time for ANKC to take a stand and clarify for their members exactly what they will accpet and not accept as far as the behaviour of their members on these social issues. Then all members and the public can decide if being an ANKC member and breeder best represents their beliefs, ethics and their breeding programs.

We need to rise up to the highest standards, or someone else will make us using their rules.

Edited November 23, 2010 by shortstep

[Souff]

A Code of Ethics is little more than a list of good intentions. Weight? Butterflies are heavier. Both can look very pretty.

Only you, Souffle!

It's time you changed your avatar - that bird is looking poorly. Was listening to an old John Williams (Emu) song on a long boring drive yesterday and the song was about him taking the family's sick budgerigar to the vet .... outrageously funny. Had to take it to the vet .... vet cost $35, bird only cost $5 ..... "antibiotics for its colour, 2 drops on its beak, clean out the cage twice a week". There was a lot more to it ... probably best not to mention here. Emu needs to update that song, the vet visit will now set him back a lot more than $35.

[raz]

It's time you changed your avatar - that bird is looking poorly.

He was actually a very healthy bird - it's just that I'm super crappy at resizing photos.

Resume normal programming.

[Sheridan]

I wrote this way back in the thread: http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4975666

They don't have to grant the export licence. MacDougal hides behind the veneer of respectability and advertises that he gets his dogs from registered breeders. The CCs can stop that. It's not a restriction of trade, they're simply not granting the licence. After all, it's not needed to export.

The export certificate isnt a licence - all it gives is a registration paper for change of owner or chage of residence to one in another country just exactly as it does when an owner changes address or changes ownership within Australia.

In NSW we register the pup into the breeders name and then the owner changes it into their name when they get the papers .The only difference is that in this case the owner lives over seas. The NSW Cc doesnt know we are getting the rego papers to export the pup - they tell us we have to register all pups so we do.

You miss the point. MacDougal does this for the respectability. It doesn't matter what it actually does, it's the appearance of it. If he doesn't get the papers, he doesn't get the veneer of respectability that he obviously wants.

[SpikesPuppy]

So it's sounding like there is little the ANKC or state CCs can do regarding restriction of trade but surely they can introduce monetary penalties for those doing the wrong thing? On that note, do they have a process for members found selling to pet stores?

As long as they are PIAA accredited, breeders can sell to pet shops and wholesalers. Code of Ethics for dogsnsw

A Member shall not:

(a) sell any dog to commercial dog wholesalers or retail pet dealers, who are not accredited

by the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA).

I dont know what their process is if a breeder is caught selling to non PIAA members

Sorry meant to say other than PIAA stores, was about to head in the tunnel on the train and typing in a rush lol.

Have to agree with RSG though, probably do nothing. Which begs the question, why bother with the rule if it's not going to be enforced??

because everyone screams for more rules so in order to be seen as doing something crappy rules and laws are made then we suffer the consequences.

thats why i dont want any more rules because we will just get a lot of nonsense ones. we really need the current rules fixed before new ones are made

I don't want more rules, either. Honestly, the exportation of puppies doesnt bother me so (I have no proof that they are going to poor homes etc), but I am bothered by the fact that these rules and regulations mean nothing.

CAN the CC suspend a person's membership (legally) if they are found to be doing the wrong thing (in relation to the Code of Ethics) Ie selling to non-PIAA pet stores or exporting via an agent?

Maybe what we need is a mass exodus from the state CCs. Everyone who wants to see the CCs step up and enforce the rules currently in place drop their membership for one year..... See who remains on the books then.

Okay so it wouldn't happen and I would absolutely die without shows for 12 months but it would be an interesting experiment!

[shortstep]

Canada CKC breeder members are not allowed to sell pups to pet shops. No quaifications, no lip service, just one clear sentence.

No breeder shall sell or donate dogs for the purpose of their being auctioned, raffled, or to pet stores.

[Sheridan]

Canada CKC breeder members are not allowed to sell pups to pet shops. No quaifications, no lip service, just one clear sentence.

No breeder shall sell or donate dogs for the purpose of their being auctioned, raffled, or to pet stores.

Does Canada have the restriction of trade thing hanging over their heads?

[asal]

A Code of Ethics is little more than a list of good intentions. Weight? Butterflies are heavier. Both can look very pretty.

Only you, Souffle!

It's time you changed your avatar - that bird is looking poorly. Was listening to an old John Williams (Emu) song on a long boring drive yesterday and the song was about him taking the family's sick budgerigar to the vet .... outrageously funny. Had to take it to the vet .... vet cost $35, bird only cost $5 ..... "antibiotics for its colour, 2 drops on its beak, clean out the cage twice a week". There was a lot more to it ... probably best not to mention here. Emu needs to update that song, the vet visit will now set him back a lot more than $35.

yep $120 , just ask my bird, ive the invoice to prove it.

Edited November 23, 2010 by asal

[shortstep]

Canada CKC breeder members are not allowed to sell pups to pet shops. No quaifications, no lip service, just one clear sentence.

No breeder shall sell or donate dogs for the purpose of their being auctioned, raffled, or to pet stores.

Does Canada have the restriction of trade thing hanging over their heads?

Look Steve and I disagree, but having gone through this type of issue in other countries ona several topics, I think I have a pretty good grasp of it.

Clubs can not discriminate, they can not mandate illegal activies, things like that. Otherwise it is up to the club what their rules are, and it is up to the members to obey or not obey the rules.

For example I know of a dog club that made a rule if you dual registered and got a show championship in naother venue, they would pull the dogs reigstriaton papers.

It was challenged and the club won, the owner tried to prove restraint of trade. The court said the breeders was free to bred his dog, so there was no restraint of trade. They said the court cannot make a club register dogs that do not qualify under the rules of the club for registration (rule is no show champions can hold registration nor will their offspring be registered). So either dog qualified for registration or it did not. The rule was clear as well as the reason for the rule, when you join the club you agree to uphold the rules. Another words nobody is stoping him from doing his trade of dog breeding, but the court can not force a club to register his dogs if it does not meet their rules.

Does that make sence?

[t-time]

Clubs can not discriminate, they can not mandate illegal activies, things like that. Otherwise it is up to the club what their rules are, and it is up to the members to obey or not obey the rules.

For example I know of a dog club that made a rule if you dual registered and got a show championship in naother venue, they would pull the dogs reigstriaton papers.

It was challenged and the club won, the owner tried to prove restraint of trade. The court said the breeders was free to bred his dog, so there was no restraint of trade. They said the court cannot make a club register dogs that do not qualify under the rules of the club for registration (rule is no show champions can hold registration nor will their offspring be registered). So either dog qualified for registration or it did not. The rule was clear as well as the reason for the rule, when you join the club you agree to uphold the rules. Another words nobody is stoping him from doing his trade of dog breeding, but the court can not force a club to register his dogs if it does not meet their rules.

So why can't state CCs or ANKC do exactly the same?? (which is what I was suggesting in an earlier post.)

If you don't want to follow the rules, don't join the club!!

The CCs/ANKC won't register certain colours in an otherwise perfectly healthy specimen of a breed - why doesn't that come under "fair trading" why can't I export that animal? I CAN'T because being the incorrect colour by the rules and regs of the CCs/ANKC, the animal must go onto the Limited Register and you are not allowed to export Limited Register puppies. Well, you can export the actual animal, but it won't have ANKC pedigree papers in the new owners' name.

[SpikesPuppy]

Why can't you export Limited Register puppies? And how does this impact on pet owners emigrating or breeders who have both limited and main dogs?

Is that not a restriction of trade??

[shortstep]

I just wanted to add there is a difference between what the government can do and what a club can do as far as restratint of trade.

For example

It is possible that the government (as things stand now) can not punish breeders for selling to pet shops. It is not agasint the law.

But a club can say, 'not in our club!'.

Now the government can and often do make laws that restrict behaviour, and they can make a law that selling puppies in pet shops is not allowed. Yes it will restrain both the opet shop and the pet breeder, but if that felt to be in the best interst of society then it can be done. And this is happening all over the world right now, so it certainaly can and does happen. So far Asutralian has not done this, but they will it is only a matter of time.

[Sheridan]

I just wanted to add there is a difference between what the government can do and what a club can do as far as restratint of trade.

For example

It is possible that the government (as things stand now) can not punish breeders for selling to pet shops. It is not agasint the law.

But a club can say, 'not in our club!'.

Now the government can and often do make laws that restrict behaviour, and they can make a law that selling puppies in pet shops is not allowed. Yes it will restrain both the opet shop and the pet breeder, but if that felt to be in the best interst of society then it can be done. And this is happening all over the world right now, so it certainaly can and does happen. So far Asutralian has not done this, but they will it is only a matter of time.

Yes, otherwise how do other clubs get away with it? Women's only gyms. Men's only clubs, that sort of thing.

[shortstep]

Why can't you export Limited Register puppies? And how does this impact on pet owners emigrating or breeders who have both limited and main dogs?

Is that not a restriction of trade??

Because the ANKC says so. Yes it restricts an ANKC breeder for selling a dog they want to place on limited to an overseas home if they want to provide transferable limited papers. But the law will not see it as restraint of trade, you can still sell your puppy, you just won't do it with ANKC limited transferable papers. Your choice is yours to belong to the club and follow their rules or not.

BTW almost all countires now have limited rego, so this could be done if the clubs wanted to do it. I think dogs back and forth from AKC to CKC on limited. Not sure about the UK. And there are several other registeres outside kennel club that have international recognition of other clubs limited rego for transfers. Why not, let people join the club and do activies, the dog is purebred, it is just not for breeding or show ring.

Edited November 24, 2010 by shortstep