Greens' Pet Crackdown- Media Release 20/12/10

[Steve]

It becomes frustrating when ever we start talking about legislation to curtail how many puppies someone can breed.

Dog breeding,whether for hobby or commercially is not illegal.

No law can interfer with one person's right to engage in the activity of dog breeding as long as they comply with planning laws and animal welfare codes of practice.

People in this country have a right to free trade and equitability in all laws.

Who is to decide what is too many puppies.

The push for breeder licences came from the RSPCA.It was discussed at the round table meeting and the ONLY breeder group who wanted to see this happen was the commercial breeders group and that in itself should be screaming a warning. People who are breeding in less numbers ethically and being responsible for the dogs they breed way into the future are walking away because its all become too hard and way way over regulated.The current laws are not being enforced and surely that should be the first thing to address.

The gold coast program which is supposedly being used as a pilot program has been running since April and yet still people are advertising puppies for sale without their breeder numbers.

When the council was asked why - the answer is that they cant make the newspapers do anything and they have no way of enforcing it anyway.The only people following the law are the people who are least likely to be doing the wrong thing - in the mean time the more of us they chase off the bigger the market is for the commercial breeders.

Just because you want to breed your dog doesnt mean to say you have to loose your right to privacy and right to free use of your own property even if some of us think you should.

Obviously mandatory desexing hasnt worked and animals are still being dumped,bred in mass numbers in poor conditions and pet shops still have dogs to sell and people are still buying puppies.

The UK people are telling us the licensing of breeders which has been in for 10 years hasnt done much to help anyway and people have found simple ways around it.

When will they stop making more laws which have consequences which create a BETTER environment for the very people they are trying to curtail and make those who could make a difference walk away.

[moosmum]

Ms Le Couteur,

I hope you are still following this thread,if so the thread"Saving Pets" further down in this news section,posted by Steve should be of geat interest.

It seems that only 5% of dogs actualy ever need the services of a pound at any time in their lives.

I would not be suprised if the owners of that 5% are not repeat offenders,based on experience.

If exsisting laws were policed effectively with harsh penalties restricting ownership for repeat offenders,along with greater education of the general public on responsible dog ownership and choices I believe outcomes would be far more effective in the long term.

Ausatralia is rapidly becoming one of the most "Dog Unfriendly "nations of the world,with pet ownership becoming increasingly difficult and costly.

Fewer families are choosing to own dogs because of this.

Further legislation will result in even fewer owning pets,and fewer exposed to them.This in turn leads to less knowledge and experience and more mistakes by new owners through ignorance...leading to more legislation.

I will be submitting a detailed response to your draft.

[sandgrubber]

Paul . . .

could you please note where this was extracted from and provide contacts for Caroline Le Couteur. I think this discussion would be more productive if there were more dialog between the sides and less preaching to the choir.

From

Caroline Le Couteur, ACT Greens MLA

"Hi everyone.

. . .

For those who have not seen the bill or the accompanying material, the bill can be found here: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ed/db_40359/current/pdf/db_40359.pdf

And the consultation material on the bill can be found here: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/es/db_40363/current/pdf/db_40363.pdf

Best regards,[/font]

Caroline Le Couteur, ACT Greens MLA"

Edited January 15, 2011 by sandgrubber

[WreckitWhippet]

The push for breeder licences came from the RSPCA.It was discussed at the round table meeting and the ONLY breeder group who wanted to see this happen was the commercial breeders group and that in itself should be screaming a warning.

Scream warning is right. It should be in BIG BOLD and RED.

Of course the commercial breeders group would be happy with that. Their big sheds and kennel set up exist in many cases with their local councils blessing and they aren't about to be shut down any time soon, based on non compliance of planning.

[Raelene]

I don't disagree with you that ACTCA should have been included on discussions. And I completely agree as I put in my post that enforcement of current legislation needs to be enforced first (have believed that since it was introduced several years ago). I believe that that would in a lot of cases be enough to curtail a lot of the indiscriminate breeding. Unfortunately there are not enough resources directed towards it and that does need to change.

So how many puppies is too many for a breeder to have turned out? What exactly do you want done to the breeder where the microchips showed they have turned out too many pups?

In my opinion, puppies should be bred for betterment of the breed, this should include temperament as well as quality rather than for just financial gain. I think that you believe I am talking about registered breeders only. I am not. I do think that a record that could show those that are turning out litter after litter would give authorities an ability to have a pointer to direct them to ensure that they are compliant with legislation etc, may indicate a puppy farm, but also that due to the larger number of puppies turned out, the facility would need to be appropriate for such. I personally believe that BYB are the most indiscriminate breeders who generally have little experience with breeding and do it for the wrong reasons - ie. financial gain from not necessarily "healthy" adults or for such reasons as the dog should have a litter before desexing or it would be good for the kids to see. A good proportion of these, often crossbreeds, end up in pound system.

Have you ever met a breeder you respected? If so can you discribe them?

Yes, several. I have dogs of my own from respected breeders and just lost my nearly 16yo girl who is also from a respected kennel (all desexed). The dogs that are bred are tested for known genetic issues, are bred in accordance with the code of ethics, are bred in healthy conditions, given plenty of appropriate enrichment and socialisation during their growth period, are sold to new homes with information on feeding, training etc and the new home is carefully chosen. Although I respect these breeders some do and some don't desex PET pups prior to sale, some have desexing contracts. I would prefer to see all PET puppies either desexed or under desexing contracts. Desexing a PET puppy is the only way you can ensure that your puppy isn't going to be contributing to the pet population in an inappropriate manner.

Again unfortunately, I think there are way more irresponsible breeders than responsible ones, which is a shame. What are you basing that view on?

Where I referred to a registered breeder, I wrote it in full. I am specifically referring to all people that breed puppies in the ACT (which happens in other states too).

Infringement notices and prosecutions are not the only ways to improve compliance.

Sometimes you feel like you are beating your head up against a brick wall and nothing changes.... What other things would you suggest (this is said in the nicest possible way as there might be answers in your contribution)?

I must point out that I have absolutely no beefs with registered breeders at all, nor responsible people and breeders having entire stock, though note that there is also still a lot of non-compliance from within. It is the PET puppies that are produced that need to be rehomed appropriately and should be desexed. I can't really understand why a breeder wouldn't want to make sure that their offspring didn't fall into the hands of the backyard breeders? It has happened over many, many years, the shepherds, rottis, staffords, etc. (I love the breeds, especially staffords but there are BUCKETLOADS of them in the pounds these days and if you look online at the breeder ads, way too many are being bred everywhere - with registered breeders, backyard breeders, etc. This is evidenced by the over-representation in the pounds with many being euthanased).

I would like to say I think it is WONDERFUL that there is an effort (again) to introduce desexed showing classes. I do hope that they are well supported and take off this time. It may help with decisions by people to desex their puppies that go to pet homes but that they can still support the breeder's stock in showing the quality produced (as we all know that sometimes you can't be sure how they'll turn out).

Edited January 15, 2011 by Raelene

[shortstep]

It is the PET puppies that are produced that need to be rehomed appropriately and should be desexed. I can't really understand why a breeder wouldn't want to make sure that their offspring didn't fall into the hands of the backyard breeders? It has happened over many, many years, the shepherds, rottis, staffords, etc. (I love the breeds, especially staffords but there are BUCKETLOADS of them in the pounds these days and if you look online at the breeder ads, way too many are being bred everywhere - with registered breeders, backyard breeders, etc. This is evidenced by the over-representation in the pounds with many being euthanased).

I would like to say I think it is WONDERFUL that there is an effort (again) to introduce desexed showing classes. I do hope that they are well supported and take off this time. It may help with decisions by people to desex their puppies that go to pet homes but that they can still support the breeder's stock in showing the quality produced (as we all know that sometimes you can't be sure how they'll turn out).

So how many puppies is too many for a breeder to have turned out? What exactly do you want done to the breeder where the microchips showed they have turned out too many pups?

In my opinion, puppies should be bred for betterment of the breed, this should include temperament as well as quality rather than for just financial gain. I think that you believe I am talking about registered breeders only. I am not. I do think that a record that could show those that are turning out litter after litter would give authorities an ability to have a pointer to direct them to ensure that they are compliant with legislation etc, may indicate a puppy farm, but also that due to the larger number of puppies turned out, the facility would need to be appropriate for such. I personally believe that BYB are the most indiscriminate breeders who generally have little experience with breeding and do it for the wrong reasons - ie. financial gain from not necessarily "healthy" adults or for such reasons as the dog should have a litter before desexing or it would be good for the kids to see. A good proportion of these, often crossbreeds, end up in pound system.

Well you talked a lot and never answered the question, how many 6 20 100 how many is too many?

do you really believe that BYB will be applying for a license? We all know they will not. We also all know that your laws will only harass the small breeders who will try to follow the licensing laws. We all know that they will give up and just stop breeding. We also know that any breeder knocked out of breeding is a job well done eh.

Have you ever met a breeder you respected? If so can you discribe them?

Yes, several. I have dogs of my own from respected breeders and just lost my nearly 16yo girl who is also from a respected kennel (all desexed). The dogs that are bred are tested for known genetic issues, are bred in accordance with the code of ethics, are bred in healthy conditions, given plenty of appropriate enrichment and socialisation during their growth period, are sold to new homes with information on feeding, training etc and the new home is carefully chosen. Although I respect these breeders some do and some don't desex PET pups prior to sale, some have desexing contracts. I would prefer to see all PET puppies either desexed or under desexing contracts. Desexing a PET puppy is the only way you can ensure that your puppy isn't going to be contributing to the pet population in an inappropriate manner.

A lot of what you wants going on. What lengths will you go to to make sure that everyone has to live by the rules you want?

OK, I do every single thing you say and even more, so I hope you listen to me...if this law comes in where I live, I will stop breeding. Everyone I personally know know who does breed to the standards you have described and also have a long history in breeding will quite too. All that will be left in the wake of your push to make everyone live to your wants, will be puppy farms and BYB. You know that too and think that is just fine.

I must point out that I have absolutely no beefs with registered breeders at all, nor responsible people and breeders having entire stock, though note that there is also still a lot of non-compliance from within.

LOL Can't even finish a sentence that is ment to show how you do not hate breeders without qualifiying that idea...LOL You are too funny.

BTW can you tell me how many rescue dogs you have personally brought into your home, rehabbed and rehomed? I have a long history in rescue, I can usually tell those who have taken in hundreds of dogs into the homes over many years.

[Curlybert]

Your post is all over the place Shortstep but I assume the last two paras as are your actual contributions and the rest is Raelene's.

You are unbelievably rude and your post contributes nothing to the dialogue. Raelene has been a respected rescuer in the Canberra/Queanbeyan region for many many years through ARF - ACT Rescue and Foster, and has fostered countless pound dogs. You owe her an apology.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Curlybert

[shortstep]

Your post is all over the place Shortstep but I assume the last two paras as are your actual contributions and the rest is Raelene's.

You are unbelievably rude and your post contributes nothing to the dialogue. Raelene has been a respected rescuer in the Canberra/Queanbeyan region for many many years through ARF - ACT Rescue and Foster, and has fostered countless pound dogs. You owe her an apology.

You are being rude to me. I do not know her and only asked what her personal at home rescue experience was. That is not rude.

The posts in ittalics indicated they referred to her post above. As she had referred to several people in her post with otu indicating who they were, I only took out the what was realted to me. I am sorry you could not figure out what she said and what I said, except of course the parts where you thought I was being rude.

Edited January 16, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

http://goldcoast.locanto.com.au/dogs/803/

Can someone who is promoting the licensing of all dog breeders, show me how this is working on the Gold Coast in the internet adds above, this is now under the law and the program is up and functioning.

I see lots of puppies for sale but no license numbers?

Is this the type of improvement in dog breeding you expect to see in ACT?

How will violaters of the law be found out on line and at all other locations that less than wonderful breeders flogg off their pups?

Edited to ad, just called one on the cell numbers on their ad, after chatting for a few moments, I asked if they had a Gold Coast breeder license with the council, they hung up on me.

BTW is using cell phone numbers how they avoid exposing themselves, as the ones I looked at all at had cell phone numbers.

Edited January 16, 2011 by shortstep

[Raelene]

Thanks for your kind words Curlybert. I would like to point out that these are my opinions only and has no relationship to ARF.

Shortstep, I am not trying to sound personal and I think you are missing some of the major things I have said. Firstly, that I feel that enforcement of the legislation currently in place is the most important thing. ACT's laws already cover a lot in regard to breeders. Up to now you do need to keep an entire dog licenced, to breed or have more than three dogs at a premises you need a keepers/multi-dog licence and have suitable facilities for breeding/keeping which can be/are inspected by the rangers. Dogs over the age of 6 months have to be desexed (and microchipped) at point of sale. This is what all people passing on their dogs in ACT to a new home need to adhere to NOW.

There is no reason to increase legislation if what is already in place is not going to be enforced. Unless more resources are directed to enforcement, this is a fruitless exercise.

Please, I don't have a problem with registered breeders, as much as you'd like to throw it up in such an unfriendly fashion - though there are those that aren't adhering to code of ethics and/or govt legislation. This does not equate to me having a problem with registered breeders. This is me being HONEST. I haven't said it is everyone. I have outlined one just this past week in an earlier post located in ACT. The other person I mentioned in that post still breeds/shows, etc - NSW based is another example. I could give their details but I'm not about to do so as that is not fair or right to anyone involved - this is the wrong place for it to be. Equally I have not given details of the respected breeders that I have for the same reason.

When you work at the coal-face of the other end of a dog's chance at life over a period of many years, you see the output of indiscriminate breeding and irresponsible dog ownership. When dogs that we can identify to a registered-breeder comes up, it is pretty 50/50 as to whether they will come and help the puppy that they created. Some are IMMEDIATELY onto the case, others "just can't take them back" and leave them there for euthanasia. It is great to see over time, more of the specific breed clubs/groups helping these dogs though. But you see, I can't say that all registered breeders are doing the right thing. I'm not saying that most aren't either and I'm not saying that you or your direct colleagues that you mentioned aren't.

By the way, just to clarify, these aren't my laws, I am not bound by them unless I am adopting a dog into a new home in ACT where I make sure the new home is compliant before allowing the adoption.

Sorry I realise I haven't answered your question about the number of puppies. I can't give you a defined number but if a person had a licence say for 5 dogs (in ACT you are only allowed 3 without a licence and that is not to breed) and all of them were bitches of breeding age, you wouldn't want to see more than one litter per year from each of these.

By enforcing legislation that is already in place is a start to making a difference to the BYBs.

Not selling puppies and kittens in pet shops and markets will make a difference for puppy mills. I think this is a good idea.

A lot of what you wants going on. What lengths will you go to to make sure that everyone has to live by the rules you want?

OK, I do every single thing you say and even more, so I hope you listen to me...if this law comes in where I live, I will stop breeding. Everyone I personally know know who does breed to the standards you have described and also have a long history in breeding will quite too. All that will be left in the wake of your push to make everyone live to your wants, will be puppy farms and BYB. You know that too and think that is just fine.

Shortstep, I have no control over the legislation apart from if I put in a submission. From what I have seen, the only additional thing above what is the norm for now that I have suggested is having an arrangement in place for pet puppies to be desexed either before rehoming or on contract (and in ACT they need to do so by 6mths any way)? I don't understand why you and everyone else would stop breeding if they health tested their breeding stock for common abnormalities before breeding, that they took interest in ensuring the emotional development of their puppies was strong in preparation for the rest of their life, choose homes carefully - all of these are part of the code of ethics I'm sure - and ensure pets puppies were desexed (which could be built into sale fee) so that they didn't add to the population in an indiscriminate fashion?

I think that there is confusion about what is current legislation and what are new things that are being looked at. The only new thing on here that I have mentioned is the not selling puppies/kittens, etc from petshops and markets.

R

Edited January 16, 2011 by Raelene

[shortstep]

Shortstep, I have no control over the legislation apart from if I put in a submission. From what I have seen, the only additional thing above what is the norm for now that I have suggested is having an arrangement in place for pet puppies to be desexed either before rehoming or on contract (and in ACT they need to do so by 6mths any way)? I don't understand why you and everyone else would stop breeding if they health tested their breeding stock for common abnormalities before breeding, that they took interest in ensuring the emotional development of their puppies was strong in preparation for the rest of their life, choose homes carefully - all of these are part of the code of ethics I'm sure - and ensure pets puppies were desexed (which could be built into sale fee) so that they didn't add to the population in an indiscriminate fashion?

I think that there is confusion about what is current legislation and what are new things that are being looked at. The only new thing on here that I have mentioned is the not selling puppies/kittens, etc from petshops and markets.

R

Try to understand this.

I have bred dogs for about 20 years or so, and in all the time only one dog against my will was bred, all the rest had no zero puppies. That was my choice and not for every breeder. If every one did what I did there would not be any dogs to breed, so I do not think it makes me better than anyone else, just more paranoid if the truth be known.

Now you want me to be happy to have someone like you, who does not breed at all, tell me that I need to desex my pups before they leave, that what I do is not good enough. You want to tell me what is physically best for my babies, which I feel will affect the rest of their lives and when research tells us that early desexing is bad for the pups. Even if you do not believe it, all I can say to you is too bad. They are my pups and I will only do what I think is best for them. If you make a law to taek away my right to decide, that will make me do something I think will cause my pups to have a lower quality of life or even illness, then my only course of action left is, I will not do it. You can not make me. Rather than break the law I will just not breed. So there you go, one more good breeder, who always does the right thing for her pups and her owners is gone. Replace me along with the hundreds of other like me who have already left with yet another BYB.

If the government wants to breed dogs, place them, do what health testing they think is needed (which BTW is less than I do), write the contract or desex their 8 week old pups, work with the owners for up to 15 years, study the lines in the breed, track down just the right dogs for the next generation even if that means spending thousands to import, face it all the good and bad, then let them do it. I'll sign up to buy a dog but it better be as good as mine are...eh. If not they should stay out of my affairs. As hard as it might be to believe, I really do not bred any pup for money.

From a rescuers point a view, (of which I rehomed around 200 dogs) and in my rescuers opinion, this law will not do anything to stop uncaring breeders. Even more important and I say it again, even more important, nothing in this law will do anything about uncaring owners buying pups for the wrong reasons and dumping dogs when it suits them. Nothing has changed in the 30 years I have been active in or watching rescue. You can not legislate morals, caring or love, nor can you make people act in an intelligent way. For me it all comes down to the owners. They are the ones that buy the puppy farm or BYB pups. The information about puppy farms and BYB is all over the web if they wanted to spend the time to read it. The only thing that will stop BYB or puppy farmers is when no one buys their pups. It is the buyers that drive those breeders. These are also the same people who dump their dogs at the pound.

The facts prove that all that has happened in the last 20 years is more and more good breeders have left breeding and have been replaced by more and more BYB and puppy farms.

It is time to stop doing what is not working.

Now before someone tells me again I have noting to add to this conversation again, I beg to disagree. I have plenty of history and background both as a breeder and in doing rescue to make my opinion as valid as anyone else's.

Edited January 16, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

Sorry I realise I haven't answered your question about the number of puppies. I can't give you a defined number but if a person had a licence say for 5 dogs (in ACT you are only allowed 3 without a licence and that is not to breed) and all of them were bitches of breeding age, you wouldn't want to see more than one litter per year from each of these.

Using your 5 max dog parameter and running it out over the life of the dogs lets say 16 years.

1. Most caring breeders will keep their old dogs till they die. So if you can only have 5 dogs and each one stays with you for 15 years, and lets say you keep only one female from each new generation.

Ok you start with 2 dogs one male and one female. Opps the males does not have very good hips, so you desex him and get a another male. Now you have three dogs and no litter yet. So being very ethical you decide that the max number of litters from any bitch should be no more than 2 and you will keep one pup from the last litter. So now you are year 3 and the first litter is born, then year 5 and second litter is born and you keep a pup.

You now have 1 male desexed, 1 male intact, one female desexed and one female pup to breed from in the future.

Now you have to get another male, and you desex the older male, so you now have 5 dogs. You can breed 2 more litters over the next 5-6 years.

Your oldest dogs are now about 12 years, however you could not keep a pup from the bitches second litter as you would go over the 5 dog limit. So you have no bitch to breed forward with. Ina few more years one of the older dogs dies, but you are too weary to start all over again, tired of trying to breed under dog limits and so pack it in. Another breeder gone.

5 dog limit will cause most people to have a very short time of breeding dogs, usually no more than 2 generations. This is sad as you always want to keep good breeders around for as many years as possible, so they can learn and pass on what they learn not only to other breeders but also for the benefit of their owners. With the 5 dog limit law, you will have a never ending group of beginner breeders. If they also sold all the pups desexed, this would also not allow for anyone to try to pick up when they left off with their dogs when they hit limit and were unwiling to rehome their older dogs, so had to stop breeding.

There is lots more to worry about in this type of government controlled dog breeding. But we can let the Uni of Sydney sort out the distruction this would have on the population in the breeds in the future if anyone still wants a dog.

Now BYB and smaller puppy farms have no problems with dog limits, once they get as many litters as possible out off the dogs in the shortest period of time allowed, they just have them put down or even shoot them. They move on to the next producing dogs with out a second thought about the ones that had reached their use by date and were then tossed aside.

Dog limit laws do nothing to stop bad breeders from breeding lots of puppies, but they do severely limit and usually drive off all good breeders. They will not give up their old dogs, even if they have to stop breeding. Being good people they will obey the law.

Edited January 16, 2011 by shortstep

[moosmum]

Excellent post shortstep!

Legislation such as this has far reaching consequences that are rarely clear at the time...very few people seem to have tha ability to look at a problem from all angles and from the view point of various groups,of which there are so many.Fewer have the ability to see consequences of legislation long down the track with various scenarios.

These laws WILL severely restrict law abiding and responsible people and no one else.If these laws were brought in Australia wide,they could see the end of dog onership eventualy,with gene pools so severely compromised there is little use even trying.

If all dogs sold were microchipped before leaving the breeders premises,transfered into the new owners name BY the breeder with both details permanantly recorded on that dogs records,these details would aid greatly in discovering whats realy going on with whom.If anyone is serious about getting to the bottom of the problem,this would be an invaluable tool for research all on its own.

I personaly know of 1 young mother who has had 10 dogs pass through her hands in the last 3 years.She currently has the 11th,a chihuahua pup "for her daughter 'cos its cute watching her carry it around" (and stomp on it,squeeze it,pick it up by the legs and swing its head into the ground.)All have been bought/given away un- chipped.

When they are a hassle or no good anymore she hands them into the pound or gets a relative to take then to the vets as strays.

The 1st I knew of was a kelpie pup kept till her daughter was born,then handed in the pound along with its 4 pups.There was a 5 week old ACD kept for 1 day till it bit the baby.A staffy X sharpei lasted a little longer.

How are these laws going to stop this repeat offender who has been responsible for so many of the dogs ending up in pounds,all on her own!?!

If current laws re- chipping were enforced and utilised,it would soon come to the attention of authorities what this stupid girl is doing and it could be acted on.

Enforce the exsisting laws!!! AND educate the general public as to their responsibilities.You can not constantly blame breeders for poor choices,ethics and lack of responsibility on the part of every day dog owners who incidentaly,are the ones most likely to become those new and inexerienced breeders shortstep has mentioned.Educate them.

PUBLIC awareness needs to be addressed.The average person who choses to "get a dog" has no idea and the problem will get worse while responsible breeders are forced ever more behind the scenes.

Where a person advertises pups is not the problem either,its what happens after they have a response.

What are the costs for lisences,inspections and policing to the law abiding person who breeds only 1 litter every few years before they can even contemplate it doing that?

Why would the person breeding the occasional litter only because they believe in their dogs and what they have to offer and contribute, want to jump through all these hoops?

Will the same sort of legislation be brought in to controll bad parents in the future? Legislation is not the answer.

Can we please get back to idea of personal responsibility in society?

Pups sold at markets etc,sure,a big problem.But why is a farmers B.C or kelpie any less likely to end up in the wrong home at a market?

Edited January 16, 2011 by moosmum

[Raelene]

I just want to point out that that legislation on numbers you can own, licencing requirements for people wanting to keep entire dogs/people wanting to keep more than 3 dogs/dogs over 6 months must be desexed unless they have a permit/breeders - have been in place for many years in the ACT. This is NOT new legislation but enforcement of these has been an issue. These are the areas that are making all the fuss over the past few posts here but they have been in place already for years and years, so though being updated, it is certainly not a new concept to ACT people.

There are other new areas of the proposed legislation in particular around the sale of puppies and kittens, point of sale desexing via voucher if younger than 6mths, etc. Caroline Le Couteur, ACT Greens MLA has made it clear on here earlier on the thread that she is happy to hear from people via submission in order to find ways to make it work. If people have constructive information to provide, it is important to make sure you get your submissions to her.

Signing off here as I think this is heading in a non-constructive direction.

R

Edited January 16, 2011 by Raelene

[shortstep]

a new concept to ACT people.

There are other new areas of the proposed legislation in particular around the sale of puppies and kittens, point of sale desexing via voucher if younger than 6mths, etc. Caroline Le Couteur, ACT Greens MLA has made it clear on here earlier on the thread that she is happy to hear from people via submission in order to find ways to make it work. If people have constructive information to provide, it is important to make sure you get your submissions to her.

Signing off here as I think this is heading in a non-constructive direction.

R

Please folks, do not shut down public discussion of this bill. We certainly should talk about this topic here.

Fine to write submissions, but the whole world needs to be reading and learning about this bill and it's implications.

If people have concerns or questions or points of view, they should talk about them HERE so the whole world can read it.

I already stated some comments about desexing vouchers and the rights of dog owners that are being strip away.

But glad to discuss it again.

Vouchers

Why do breeders have to pay for pups to be potentially be desexed?

Anyone who wants to breed the pup will not get it desexed, even if they have a voucher.

However paying vets $300-500 for every pup sold in ACT is wonderful for them eh?

Bet the AVA supports this bill. LOL

Do the breeders get a statement from the vet that the dog never showed up with a thank you note for the money for nothing?

Will the government pay back the breeder if the voucher is not used?

Will the government chase around these owners with the vouchers to make sure they desex their dog?

Who will be doing the monitoring of voucher compliance both by the breeders (unlicensed breeders too) and the owners who fail to use them?

This will drive the cost of licensed ANKC pups up by about $400 per dog, this will make most people look to unlicensed BYB to buy a pup. Yet another reasons why this bill will drive off the good breeders and support the growth of BYB and puppy farms.

Will something be done to stop puppy farms from getting bulk buy discounted voucher deals from vets? The vets will know that most people will not show up and use it so it is a win win, vet make money on unused vouchers, puppy farmers saves money on discounted vouchers...and the government pats themselves on the back for another job well done.

I can see it now, Large commercial puppy farm breeders will get a discount on bulk purchase vouchers, 40% off on lots of 2000 vouchers, additional 20% off for oddles or small white fluffys (have very low rate of desexing and high chance of making more puppies for more voucher sales for the vet).

More rights taken away? Someone wants to own a dog that is not desexed or even potentially breed their dog, this bill says they do not have that right. The government will however allow them that choice ONLY if they race dogs, show dogs or are already licensed as a breeder.???

So why are people who show dogs that are not licensed to breed more trustworthy with a dog that has not been surgically altered by removal of it's sex organs then say a person who does sled dog racing, or maybe a fireman or a taxi driver? Please show me the evidence that fireman can not be trusted with desexed dogs? There is no evidence that says that people who show dogs are more responsible with a desexed dogs than anyone else. Nor is there any evidence that they would make better breeders than anyone else and might even be a little suspect according to some (remember PDE). This is all just more rubbish, certainly discriminatory never mind just being a stupid idea.

So when do we stop doing things that promote BYB and puppy farms?

When do we stop doing things that don't work and there is no reason to believe they will work?

Edited January 16, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

How can someone get licensed to breed with out owning any dogs?

For example,

I own no dogs but I want to buy a very nice pup from a breeder, but do not want the government mandated desexing nor the breeder supplied voucher.

Instead I want the right to own an intact dog.

Is there any way I can get a license as a breeder now prior to owning a dog?

Or is this whole idea that owning intact dogs is just a no go zone for those not already involved.

Only people already showing dogs, racing dogs or already breeding dogs can have a intact dog in ACT under this law?

So is no new dog breeders coming along the desired and end result? If not then can you show me in this law how potential new 'good' breeders are being encouraged and assisted?

Now I would guess if you are buying a puppy farm business that includes the purchase of all the puppy farm dogs for 1 million, that the government will not apply this rule to them? That the buyer can get a license to be a breeder with out showing dog, racing dogs or already being a dog breeder, and prior to buying the puppy farm business? That the seller of the puppy farm does not have to suppy vouchers for desexing on each dog in the sale of the farm to the new buyer?

Edited January 16, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

Its a bit of a joke really, people who breed cross bred dogs have no desire to breed the second generation. They promote what they do because there is less chance of recessive disorders showing up. They want to mass produce them send them home as pets and forget about them. They have no interest in strategies to ensure the next generation is healthier or predictible, no reason to keep records on genetic or health or temperament issues which may show up which may need attention for decisions on whcih dogs should be bred and no need to be concerned about whether someone may strike problems later on because the dog was desexed early.Their interest in and obligation to the dog or the buyer ends 7 days at most after the sale. Many of what they breed go out interstate to individual pet buyers agents and dealers. Pet shops in the ACT and puppy buyers in the ACT dont just buy puppies bred in the ACT.

We are not able to take our dog to the vet and have them lower its voice which has no impact on the health of the dog for the rest of its life without jumping through hoops but if we dont take our dog to the vet and have its reproductive organs removed which is a much more radical surgery with more pain and more risks where there is conclusive evidence that this causes health issues we break the law. We can even take it to our vet and have them kill it without permission because its our property.

Then we look at how this impacts on purebred breeders.

You limit the numbers a breeder can own or breed,then carry on about limited gene pools and advocate for laws to limit how closely they are related when your laws

limit the dogs available for use more than ever before.

You ensure that we have no choice in desexing them which again limits the possibility that if the dog we keep for breeding is not the perfect choice for breeding that we have less options available to us.

You shout about how breeders should be responsible for the dog into the future, take responsibility for things such as HD when the science says a dog desexed earlier has a far greater chance of being affected by that.

You want us to be wealthy enough to pay for testing, licences, registrations, desexing vouchers and all the numerous other things which cost money in order to breed healthy dogs for consecutive generations ,not to mention the refunds and replacements we may need to cover and you expect us to pay money when we participate in our dog related activities yet you limit our ability to recoup any to put back into our hobby.

You want us to comply with laws and regulations which have no regard for the health or the uniqueness of the species we are working with and even though you push and advocate for better education and greater knowledge of the science of breeding dogs and the things which are unique to the species you listen to people who have no knowledge on these things,completely over look our experience and knowledge and listen to people who have no understanding of what it takes to breed a great predictible pet puppy consistently with no other agenda than to stop us doing what we do.

You push us to treat what we do as a hobby yet you want to take away our rights to privacy and property rights as if we are running a business.

You push to introduce laws which you already know are virtually un enforceable to the very people you say you are trying to regulate and which have proven to be ineffective world wide.

You push for laws which will make more of the small breeders walk away - including me and fewer to have any inclination to give the hobby a go and therefore increase the demand for puppies bred by people who are happy to do as you want because it gives them a growth industry.

You either cant, dont or wont enforce the laws which are already in place but rather than seeing this as a problem you want to introduce more laws which you cant dont or wont enforce creating more scoff laws, over regulating and effectively being a major part of the reason puppy farmers began and thrive because you made it so hard for ordinary every day breeders to paritcipate in hobby.

Its time you stop taking notice of bleeding heart rescuers and radical animal rights who have little or no knowledge of the culture and showed some objectively rather than seeing any thing we say as self serving as if we dont care as much if not more for the welfare of dogs as anyone else.

The arrogance which is displayed by those advising you who have never been involved in breeding dogs who think they know it all is amazing but the fact that you overlook those who have been involved in the hobby is incredible.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Steve

[poodlefan]

I just want to point out that that legislation on numbers you can own, licencing requirements for people wanting to keep entire dogs/people wanting to keep more than 3 dogs/dogs over 6 months must be desexed unless they have a permit/breeders - have been in place for many years in the ACT. This is NOT new legislation but enforcement of these has been an issue. These are the areas that are making all the fuss over the past few posts here but they have been in place already for years and years, so though being updated, it is certainly not a new concept to ACT people.

The hoops you'll have to jump through to get a breeder's license are new though.

And lets face it, the kinds of people this legislation is aimed to control will pay as much attention to it as they currently do. None whatsoever. Perhaps if we'd had decent enforcement of existing laws we wouldn't need new ones.

The only impact these laws will have is to place further restrictions on those responsible enough to obey them.

The local puppy farms are in NSW, not the ACT. These laws won't affect them at all.

What I don't understand is why the ACT, which has a very low number of dogs PTS every year needs such draconian legislation. It will make it more difficult and more expensive to buy a pup from a responsible breeder. I hardly think that's an ideal result.

ACTCA is not government.

Neither is the RSPCA. Didn't seem to impact on the Green's ability to consult with them though.

Edited January 16, 2011 by poodlefan

[moosmum]

Orwelian and draconian.

A criminal offence to breed a dog or sell it without being speyed.(with out relevent permmitts all 'round)

So much for breeding as hobby.So much for a pensioners interest in retirement.So much for health testing at appropriate age for breeding or the ability to allow a dog to grow out before decisions are made as to its future.

And all totaly un-needed or useless if microchipping and current cruelty laws were properly utilised.

[poodlefan]

Orwelian and draconian.

A criminal offence to breed a dog or sell it without being speyed.(with out relevent permmitts all 'round)

So much for breeding as hobby.So much for a pensioners interest in retirement.So much for health testing at appropriate age for breeding or the ability to allow a dog to grow out before decisions are made as to its future.

And all totaly un-needed or useless if microchipping and current cruelty laws were properly utilised.

And all utterly pointless when you can travel 10 minutes over the border and buy a dog without any of these restrictions.. and my guess is puppy owners will vote with their wallets and do just that.

Its the dogs that will pay the price for early desexing when the existing restrictions on owners are more than adequate but unenforced.