Here We Go Mandatory Desexing For All Pet Puppies.

[Annie99]

Yep Steve and Souff that is unlawful. That TV show is ridiculous. And I do agree that there is no ombudsman etc to oversee professional behaviour. They don't have more powers than police, but may lack the legal grounding or knowledge in some cases to utilise their powers lawfully and effectively. Anyone recall the koala fiasco?

The problem is, it's up to the victim of such behaviour to kick up about it. If people don't complain about things like that, they will continue. The only recourse people have is lodging a criminal or civil complaint against the individual inspector. Civil action can be limited by financial constraints as well.

There won't be any further scrutiny placed upong the laws that they operate under unless people publicly question them.

I did not see the show but it is a very unprofessional show in my opinion. Right up there with Bondi Vet. Urgh!

What annoys me is the stories of cats/kittens being rescued from the tops of trees/telegraph poles etc.

Oh joy oh joy. Fluffy is now safe and is no longer trapped up the tree - too frightened to come down.

Not once have I seen anything at the end which states that cats should be CONTAINED and not left to roam all over the place or suitable ways to keep cats in. GRRRRRR

[yarracully]

I watched an RSPCA Rescue episode a couple of months ago which had been filmed in Liverpool western Sydney.

The inspector thought there was a dog on the premises which may have had its tail docked. She knocked on the door and there was no answer . Clearly there could not have been an act of cruelty in progress if no one was home.There was no screaming of a dog in agony coming from inside the home etc.

On camera she carried a ladder and set it up beside the house and on camera looked in the window and saw the dog.the dog did not show any signs of being injured or in distress in any way. Yet on she climbed into the home through a second floor window and entered the property when the owner was not at home - without a warrant.

She removed a dog which was around 8 months old with a shortened tail. If her assumption that it had been illegally docked was correct then clearly it had been docked months and months earlier. She wasnt sure how old the dog was and for all she knew the dog may have been over 1 year old [statute of limitations on animal cruelty cases] or had been born with a bob tail or it had been imported.

There was not one single solitary clue or explaination to show why she should have the ability to enter someone's home and remove their property without being invited in or without permission. She had the option of doing what the police can do if they suspect crimminal activity which is not endangering life - to apply for a warrant or she could have simply either returned when the owners were home or left a note for the owners to contact her to investigate the situation.

After she removed the dog she left a note for the owner to contact her when they returned home and took the dog to the shelter where it was X rayed and examined by the RSPCA vet.It was determined the dog had been docked.The dog was in excellent health and condition.

The owner contacted the RSPCA on her return home that evening. She told the inspector that the dog had been given to her as a gift by her Ex boyfriend at 8 weeks of age and it had already had its tail docked. As she no longer had any contact with the ex and he was travelling around Europe and she didnt know where he got it from she could not provide information on who had docked the dog.

The dog was returned to the owner the next day.

Now you dont have to be a genius to work out that if she did this on camera and didnt get the sack and that the RSPCA gave approval for the show to go to air that this is seen to be an acceptable practice.

Is this acceptable practice? If a police officer did this the owner could lodge a complaint and if they felt they were not being treated as they should be and the cops were covering each other to prevent further action being taken against an illegal entry and seizure without due process they can go to the ombudsman.

If a child may have been injured some month's previously by persons unknown could a cop or FACS officer climb in through a window without warrant and remove the child while the parents werent watching and take it off for an examination? Surely cops should have more not less powers to prevent and punish child abuse than an RSPCA officer should have.

There is something very radically wrong with this picture and yet everyone who watched that show saw it as no big deal. Must be just me because I would think if that happened to people I know that the owner would be on the 6 o clock news yelling about it. Society sees it as "good job RSPCA" - These are very strange times we live in.

Given the amount of false and vexatious complaints which are made is it posible that you can dob in your neighbour and tell them there is a docked dog or a debarked dog on the premises and have them illegally enter your home and remove it while you are out shopping before they ask any questions to see if the dog has been docked or debarked ,whether the correct procedure was completed and whether they may need to further investigate without a warrant?

Obviously they think they can and they think its something to brag about and strutt their stuff on TV.

This is power being abused. Blatantly.

All based on ALLEGATIONS and not a sniff of cruelty or pain in sight of the cameras.

The dog with the short tail might have been docked legally overseas ..... or it could have been born here with a natural bobtail .... or it could have already damaged the tail and had an amputation done (which has happened with a quite a few of the docked breed puppies).

Why not call the owner and ask first?

Written proof for both of the above short tail scenarios can be provided easily enough in most cases.

I didn't see the show mentioned but I hope some of the docked breed owners out there have taken up the matter with their local Member of Parliament.

Nobody's home should be broken into like that.

Souff

Un believeable really isnt it? Considering we havent heard anyone in the poo over it and it was there for everyone to see I think perhaps anyone who owns an animal should take serious steps to secure and protect their property.Though I dont have an idea of how if locking you dog inside your home when you go shopping isnt enough todo that. We should all be aware of the fact that as this can happen this org has more power over anyone who happens to own an animal or be in control of an animal than any other agency in this country.

I also saw this show and really the Inspector wasn't acting within the law. The act only allows them to enter if an act of cruelty is occuring (at that particular moment) or is about to occur. In this case the alleged act had already occured sometime earlier. But in reality what can be done?

Could the dogs owner take the RSPCA to court for illegal entry? Perhaps but how many individuals could afford to fight an organisation which receives donations to the extent the RSPCA does. In order to take action the owner of the dog would either a) report it to the RSPCA inspectors supervisor (Doubt you would get much satisfaction there) or B) need to report the intrusion to Police, and I very much doubt they would do much with it.

So although nothing was done about the matter that we know of doesn't mean it should have occured.

Alternatively I doubt very much that the RSPCA would come out later and admit "We should not have done what we did". firstly because it shows a weak side to the organisation and also it could have an impact on their donations they receive.

[yarracully]

Yep Steve and Souff that is unlawful. That TV show is ridiculous. And I do agree that there is no ombudsman etc to oversee professional behaviour. They don't have more powers than police, but may lack the legal grounding or knowledge in some cases to utilise their powers lawfully and effectively. Anyone recall the koala fiasco?

The problem is, it's up to the victim of such behaviour to kick up about it. If people don't complain about things like that, they will continue. The only recourse people have is lodging a criminal or civil complaint against the individual inspector. Civil action can be limited by financial constraints as well.

There won't be any further scrutiny placed upong the laws that they operate under unless people publicly question them.

When an RSPCA inspector can enter your home if you are there or not without a warrant simply because he "believes" something is happening or is "about to" happen.

Yet a police officer must have reasonable suspicion and further has to convince a court magistrate to issue a warrant to allow entry.

That alone is enough to tell me that the RSPCA inspectors have more power than the Police and yet still no accountability.

Even police can not arrest you until you have committed a crime. RSPCA can enter your home and sieze your property simply because they think you might be about to do something in the near future.

In regards to who to "kick up about it" that is half of the problem. Who do you kick up to if an inspector enters your home.

Regarding lodging a criminal or civil claim against the inspector, how can you if the law under which they enter your premises allows them to do it. They have not broken a law. They actually have permission to enter your home if they believe something is being done or is about to be.

How can you prove that what someone believes is wrong? I may believe in Santa Claus. How can you rule that I may be wrong because I choose to believe something.

I may beleive that my neighbours are a family of potential homicidal maniacs. I may be right or I may be wrong. But if thats my belief, thats my belief. I can't call the police and have him arrested because of what I beleive.

But an RSPCA inspector can believe that you are guilty of an act of cruelty you are going to commit tomorrow and so can enter your house tonight and seize property (Animals and equipment) based on that belief.

[Steve]

You cant just keep making more and more laws without any regard for science.You cant just keep making laws which completely ignore property rights.

You cant just keep making laws which are detrimental to the health and longevity and welfare of our animals.

You cant debark a dog via your vet to stop it from being a pain to society without approval and jumping through hoops. We are told we have to try training and various other management issues to try to shut the dog up and get a tick from the council that you have tried and that there are complaints.No one stopped to consider its a whole lot easier to simply move the dog out or put the dog down. Someone somewhere decided for every dog owner that having your dogs voice lowered was cruel and un necessary, that you had no right to discuss this with your vet listen to the pros and cons and make the best decision you can for your own dog and your own circumstances - and just to be sure you had no right to make this decision if you show your dogs that you dont go doing what you have a right to do and have a vet out of state do it they tied that one up too.

Yet you are ordered to yank out its reproductive organs.There is no talk of having to try management issues first or having to jump through hoops to get approval to do that and show you have done all you can to live with the dog and keep it from having puppies. Voice lowering is cruel but we just wont talk about the adverse side affects of desexing. But wait even better when they are desexed early there is a higher incidence of HD and joint problems - bad breeder. There is less longevity - bad breeder.

Yet after you have done this you are able to toddle off to the vet and ask them to install fake testicles under a GA ! Bloody hell there is even a brochure to help you choose the size you want!

You can decide the dog doesnt match the couch and dump it or order your vet to kill it.

Just because you think its better for you and your dog to have your dog's desexed and it will prevent someone somewhere from having an accidental litter doesnt mean its better for me and my dogs and a government shouldnt have the ability to take that right from me.

Good heavens in most states you still have dogs being sold off from pounds entire - the world truly has gone mad and we seem to clapping and cheering while we bang a drum for more laws and more regulations for ordinary everyday dog owners.

The commercial breeders are in heaven donchya think that should tell someone somewhere something?

[Souff]

Yep Steve and Souff that is unlawful. That TV show is ridiculous. And I do agree that there is no ombudsman etc to oversee professional behaviour. They don't have more powers than police, but may lack the legal grounding or knowledge in some cases to utilise their powers lawfully and effectively. Anyone recall the koala fiasco?

The problem is, it's up to the victim of such behaviour to kick up about it. If people don't complain about things like that, they will continue. The only recourse people have is lodging a criminal or civil complaint against the individual inspector. Civil action can be limited by financial constraints as well.

There won't be any further scrutiny placed upong the laws that they operate under unless people publicly question them.

When an RSPCA inspector can enter your home if you are there or not without a warrant simply because he "believes" something is happening or is "about to" happen.

Yet a police officer must have reasonable suspicion and further has to convince a court magistrate to issue a warrant to allow entry.

That alone is enough to tell me that the RSPCA inspectors have more power than the Police and yet still no accountability.

Even police can not arrest you until you have committed a crime. RSPCA can enter your home and sieze your property simply because they think you might be about to do something in the near future.

In regards to who to "kick up about it" that is half of the problem. Who do you kick up to if an inspector enters your home.

Regarding lodging a criminal or civil claim against the inspector, how can you if the law under which they enter your premises allows them to do it. They have not broken a law. They actually have permission to enter your home if they believe something is being done or is about to be.

How can you prove that what someone believes is wrong? I may believe in Santa Claus. How can you rule that I may be wrong because I choose to believe something.

I may beleive that my neighbours are a family of potential homicidal maniacs. I may be right or I may be wrong. But if thats my belief, thats my belief. I can't call the police and have him arrested because of what I beleive.

But an RSPCA inspector can believe that you are guilty of an act of cruelty you are going to commit tomorrow and so can enter your house tonight and seize property (Animals and equipment) based on that belief.

Thanks Yarracully, you have put it very well.

Should a police officer behave like what was seen on that show, you know that you can go somewhere and take action. That they are answerable to a proper process.

Souff

[Souff]

You cant just keep making more and more laws without any regard for science.You cant just keep making laws which completely ignore property rights.

You cant just keep making laws which are detrimental to the health and longevity and welfare of our animals.

You cant debark a dog via your vet to stop it from being a pain to society without approval and jumping through hoops. We are told we have to try training and various other management issues to try to shut the dog up and get a tick from the council that you have tried and that there are complaints.No one stopped to consider its a whole lot easier to simply move the dog out or put the dog down. Someone somewhere decided for every dog owner that having your dogs voice lowered was cruel and un necessary, that you had no right to discuss this with your vet listen to the pros and cons and make the best decision you can for your own dog and your own circumstances - and just to be sure you had no right to make this decision if you show your dogs that you dont go doing what you have a right to do and have a vet out of state do it they tied that one up too.

Yet you are ordered to yank out its reproductive organs.There is no talk of having to try management issues first or having to jump through hoops to get approval to do that and show you have done all you can to live with the dog and keep it from having puppies. Voice lowering is cruel but we just wont talk about the adverse side affects of desexing. But wait even better when they are desexed early there is a higher incidence of HD and joint problems - bad breeder. There is less longevity - bad breeder.

Yet after you have done this you are able to toddle off to the vet and ask them to install fake testicles under a GA ! Bloody hell there is even a brochure to help you choose the size you want!

And, unless the law has changed in the ACT, after you have de-sexed and ordered custom made fake balls (if that is what your heart desires), should you decide you want cho on the menu, you are still legally able to kill the dog and eat it.

Makes it hard to take this Greens politician seriously.

Souff

[asal]

Yep Steve and Souff that is unlawful. That TV show is ridiculous. And I do agree that there is no ombudsman etc to oversee professional behaviour. They don't have more powers than police, but may lack the legal grounding or knowledge in some cases to utilise their powers lawfully and effectively. Anyone recall the koala fiasco?

The problem is, it's up to the victim of such behaviour to kick up about it. If people don't complain about things like that, they will continue. The only recourse people have is lodging a criminal or civil complaint against the individual inspector. Civil action can be limited by financial constraints as well.

There won't be any further scrutiny placed upong the laws that they operate under unless people publicly question them.

When an RSPCA inspector can enter your home if you are there or not without a warrant simply because he "believes" something is happening or is "about to" happen.

Yet a police officer must have reasonable suspicion and further has to convince a court magistrate to issue a warrant to allow entry.

That alone is enough to tell me that the RSPCA inspectors have more power than the Police and yet still no accountability.

Even police can not arrest you until you have committed a crime. RSPCA can enter your home and sieze your property simply because they think you might be about to do something in the near future.

In regards to who to "kick up about it" that is half of the problem. Who do you kick up to if an inspector enters your home.

Regarding lodging a criminal or civil claim against the inspector, how can you if the law under which they enter your premises allows them to do it. They have not broken a law. They actually have permission to enter your home if they believe something is being done or is about to be.

How can you prove that what someone believes is wrong? I may believe in Santa Claus. How can you rule that I may be wrong because I choose to believe something.

I may beleive that my neighbours are a family of potential homicidal maniacs. I may be right or I may be wrong. But if thats my belief, thats my belief. I can't call the police and have him arrested because of what I beleive.

But an RSPCA inspector can believe that you are guilty of an act of cruelty you are going to commit tomorrow and so can enter your house tonight and seize property (Animals and equipment) based on that belief.

Thanks Yarracully, you have put it very well.

Should a police officer behave like what was seen on that show, you know that you can go somewhere and take action. That they are answerable to a proper process.

Souff

EXACTLY

as well, those of you who sooo eroniously believe they do not have more power than the police what happened to Sam and Rose D'Agostino in Gunnedah PROVES THAT BEYOND DOUBT, the Tamworth or was it Armidale? RSPCA inspector never left her office (i forget which branch but either way thats a awful long way from Gunnedah) she PHONED THE GUNNEDAH POLICE and told them to arrest these people if they had not turned their bull loose from the tether it was on. she refused to listen to the two police officers she ordered to arrest them that the bull could die if turned loose into knee high clover.

as they told my friends, THEY HAD TO FOLLOW HER ORDERS. rose and sam had to release the bull or they HAD TO ARREST THEM.

their advice was turn the bull loose and sam finish the bull yard and rose walk behind him so he couldnt eat enough to bloat.

IF THAT DOESNST TELL THE DOUBTERS THAT THE RSPCA CAN AND WILL ORDER THE POLICE TO DO THEIR BIDDING WHAT ELSE DOES????

the two police officer were raised on the land, they knew the bull would die if they arrested sam and rose and he was left in all the clover to munch while they were locked up under RSPCA orders.

you can look the lady up in the phone book, she will verify what is here i have her permission she lives in port macquarie.

put that in your holes in the sand and smoke it

so some are asking maybe, how could someone so far away know the bull was tethered? because a tennant on their property wanted to cause trouble after a argument and used the rspca to cause trouble, did so pretty successfully too dont you think?

the bull was being tethered on a 15 foot chain with access to a large shed with is feed and water while his bull yard was being built. why? because it wasnt finished yet, and he had arrived while their property was chockers with clover so it wasnt safe to let him out onto it because he wasnt used to that level of feed. he was a show bull and taught to lead and used to being tied so where on earth was the issue anyway?

but the inspector "formed the opinion" from a nusiance call and made her oders without ever bothering to see for herself, and so his ass was grass.

the true cruelty of this incident was my friend was over 65 yet had to walk behind that baby bull all night while her cancer ridden husband had to work all that night by lights to get the yard finished. if that is not cruelty what is? but the cruelty to the owners doesnt cross any radars does it.

the yard was almost finished anyway, the inspector was told that, she didnt care a fig. there was no reason for that power struggle.

Edited December 27, 2010 by asal

[asal]

I wasted years of writing to the minister for agriculture for at least he make it that instead of "being willing to undergo and animal care course" that they actually had to have proven passes so they at least had like the two police offices sufficient knowledge to base their so powerful opinion on.

but no joy there. all they have to do is attend, they dont even have to listen or pass

they are still only recruiting "ex police with prosection experience, willing to undergo animal care course". notice no mention of needing to have passed one?

the suggestion of actually employing someone with animal care knowledge willing to undergo prosecution training, didnt get a look in. so surely that proves where the real interest lies. income. not the welfare of the critters great or small.

as for can an animal die after being subjected to unnecessary op?

it cost over 600 for my vet to save that dog after he was returned by the rspca, from the damge caused by the operation the rscpa vet did without my knowledge or consent.

Edited December 26, 2010 by asal

[Mystiqview]

Qld a few years back tried the same.. Compulsory desexing along with microchip..

The microchip made it in.. But the desexing didn't..

I don't and won't desex my animals at 8 weeks. Too many studies have shown the negatives of early desexing. Poor growth and all that. My belief and I will stick to it. There are some BC breeders who do desex their pups early and it is their choice.

I am just stringent on who gets my pups.

There are some large pet shops here who sell puppies.. They are not in the front window.. yet they have no problems selling their puppies.. They have a large sign out the front that says which designer mongrel they have in stock. And with the places like "puppy shack", "Puppy Palace" and other shops targeting the mongrel crossbreds, that do not have puppies in their front windows.. well..

Legislation while designed to control the majority, only really controls the minority. First of all the others have to be CAUGHT!!. The registered breeders can be traced through their registrations, puppy farms and pet stores can also be traced through their registrations to government and council.

What legislation does a poor job in controlling is the small back yard breeders who supply a lot of these pet stores. They have one or two small dogs that are being bred and bred, fly under the radar of local councils and continue to pump out horrible inferior puppies. The only way this group is regulated is through someone complaining and it listened to by the proper authorities.

One just needs to look in the local paper or the various free classified pet trading websites around to see this. 6 week old puppies who are not wormed, vaccinated or microchipped being sold for hundreds of dollars. If the current legislation was working, you would expect to see a reduction in these numbers.. But has there been???

[Linda K]

Save the planet, by ending pet slavery and domestic animal slavery!

Be Green Vote Green!!! Maditory desexing of all dogs and cats to help end pet owenrship and save the planet!

If you want a pet get a stuffed animal.

So I guess then that anyone who supports this line does not have any animals themselves, since surely that them makes them just as bad as those they are protesting against. What a load of cow ........ A world without my cats or dogs is not one I would wish to live in, and such a stance as mandatory desexing being advocated by the Greens surely shows their take on this agenda too.

[Mystiqview]

I watched an RSPCA Rescue episode a couple of months ago which had been filmed in Liverpool western Sydney.

The inspector thought there was a dog on the premises which may have had its tail docked. She knocked on the door and there was no answer . Clearly there could not have been an act of cruelty in progress if no one was home.There was no screaming of a dog in agony coming from inside the home etc.

On camera she carried a ladder and set it up beside the house and on camera looked in the window and saw the dog.the dog did not show any signs of being injured or in distress in any way. Yet on she climbed into the home through a second floor window and entered the property when the owner was not at home - without a warrant.

She removed a dog which was around 8 months old with a shortened tail. If her assumption that it had been illegally docked was correct then clearly it had been docked months and months earlier. She wasnt sure how old the dog was and for all she knew the dog may have been over 1 year old [statute of limitations on animal cruelty cases] or had been born with a bob tail or it had been imported.

There was not one single solitary clue or explaination to show why she should have the ability to enter someone's home and remove their property without being invited in or without permission. She had the option of doing what the police can do if they suspect crimminal activity which is not endangering life - to apply for a warrant or she could have simply either returned when the owners were home or left a note for the owners to contact her to investigate the situation.

After she removed the dog she left a note for the owner to contact her when they returned home and took the dog to the shelter where it was X rayed and examined by the RSPCA vet.It was determined the dog had been docked.The dog was in excellent health and condition.

The owner contacted the RSPCA on her return home that evening. She told the inspector that the dog had been given to her as a gift by her Ex boyfriend at 8 weeks of age and it had already had its tail docked. As she no longer had any contact with the ex and he was travelling around Europe and she didnt know where he got it from she could not provide information on who had docked the dog.

The dog was returned to the owner the next day.

Now you dont have to be a genius to work out that if she did this on camera and didnt get the sack and that the RSPCA gave approval for the show to go to air that this is seen to be an acceptable practice.

Is this acceptable practice? If a police officer did this the owner could lodge a complaint and if they felt they were not being treated as they should be and the cops were covering each other to prevent further action being taken against an illegal entry and seizure without due process they can go to the ombudsman.

If a child may have been injured some month's previously by persons unknown could a cop or FACS officer climb in through a window without warrant and remove the child while the parents werent watching and take it off for an examination? Surely cops should have more not less powers to prevent and punish child abuse than an RSPCA officer should have.

There is something very radically wrong with this picture and yet everyone who watched that show saw it as no big deal. Must be just me because I would think if that happened to people I know that the owner would be on the 6 o clock news yelling about it. Society sees it as "good job RSPCA" - These are very strange times we live in.

Given the amount of false and vexatious complaints which are made is it posible that you can dob in your neighbour and tell them there is a docked dog or a debarked dog on the premises and have them illegally enter your home and remove it while you are out shopping before they ask any questions to see if the dog has been docked or debarked ,whether the correct procedure was completed and whether they may need to further investigate without a warrant?

Obviously they think they can and they think its something to brag about and strutt their stuff on TV.

This is an invasion of privacy in the least!!! To be aired on national TV.

A bit like haning out the dirty laundry isn't it!

I don't watch these shows. Nor do I necessarily condone the actions and opinions of those on the show.

But before making sweeping allegations, I think it needs to be considered on this forum, that a warrant may have been acquired previously. There may have been police in attendance, or the law itself gives officers power to enter the property if there is a genuine suspicion of cruelty.

To put the boot on the other foot. I am sure if people on this forum thought their neighbour's place had a cruelty case to answer and did not have concrete absolute proof at the time, would like the authorities to do something about an animal who cruelty is being dealt to.

[Souff]

To put the boot on the other foot. I am sure if people on this forum thought their neighbour's place had a cruelty case to answer and did not have concrete absolute proof at the time, would like the authorities to do something about an animal who cruelty is being dealt to.

Indeed, Mystiqview

I understand that police officers around here, if they need to make inquiries about such allegations, would probably park the marked patrol car outside, would knock on the front door and say something like "Good morning, this is Det Sgt ----------- and I am Constable ------- and we understand that you own a dog. We have a couple of questions. May we come in please?"

If you weren't home, they would note this fact and the date of the visit. They would make a return visit at a different time and usually would find you at home. They wouldn't normally bring a ladder to climb into an upstairs window and proceed to take your dog anywhere simply because it had a short tail. They wouldn't normally have a camera crew with them although the video camera in the patrol car can be left running I understand. If an animal was in pain or in danger they would take steps to remove a window pane of glass (and probably decorate it with that nice blue/white checkered tape before they left) or they might break down a door in a bid to rescue the injured or threatened animal.

Do you notice any difference between the two approaches?

Souff

Edited December 27, 2010 by Souff

[Mystiqview]

Souff,

I am not condoning the actions as explained in that post. However what I am saying is there is more than likely a lot more the general public does NOT see happening on the short aired version.

There are privacy laws that still need to be observed for that to be aired in the first place. Whose to say it was not all contrived for good TV viewing.

The same goes for any of the reality shows.. Vet Bondi, Surf Lifesavers, the cop shows... all those...

I have also signed enough search warrants in my time as well to know the police way of things.

[Souff]

Souff,

There are privacy laws that still need to be observed for that to be aired in the first place. Whose to say it was not all contrived for good TV viewing.

The same goes for any of the reality shows.. Vet Bondi, Surf Lifesavers, the cop shows... all those...

Yes, contrivation is often in the mix but you would think that getting the facts straight should come before the entertainment value is considered. jmho

Souff

Edited December 29, 2010 by Souff

[Mystiqview]

Souff..

That is what makes those shows SOOOOOOOOO entertaining... *Roll eyes*. (note dripping sarcasm)

Cannot stand any of them personally, and prefer to find something half decent on DVD...

[asal]

without going back through all 16 pages, wasnt it this thread that mentioned its now banned to breed from any dog tested as a pra carrier?

was told recently that in victoria it is or will be a 2 yr jail sentance for knowlingly breeding from a carrier.

this week received a newsletter from the arabin horse society how its recommending all registrations include testing for SCIDS, LFS, forget the other one. all non affecting carrier genes but unlike PRA fatal to any homozoygous born. yet unlike the dog world the idea to to prevent any homozygotes being bred. not totaly eliminat every carrier from the gene pool. odd they realise the dangers of wholesale shedding of a significant proportion of the gene pool.

odd, a group of breeders who realise this?

and dont want to go galloping to the governement to regulate them and instead are educating their members, pity our canine councils cant be as smart

[Souff]

was told recently that in victoria it is or will be a 2 yr jail sentance for knowlingly breeding from a carrier.

There was Vic legislation that had a schedule of diseases attached, about 2 years ago.

Perhaps Victorian dog breeders might like to now ask their new government to repeal that piece of legislation?

It is a dangerous piece of legislation that is capable of wiping out some breeds.

Breeding carrier to clear (and desexing any affected progeny) should never be legislated against. It can be the only way out of a worst case scenario.

SOuff