Piaa Press Release On Puppy Farms

[john.davey.1960]

Action against Pet Shops is simply a front by animal activists to end pet ownership starting with the the easiest target, like BSL. Banning doesn't work, better to regulate and ensure safe practices.

[Aphra]

Their statistics are meaningless anyway. All dogs are bred somewhere by someone, even if by accident or ignorance. 100% of dogs come from "breeders". The issue is not only where the dogs come from but where they end up, and there's no reliable statistics about how many dogs bought at pet shops end up in pounds. So it's quite possible that while they represent only 15% of dogs purchased they could could represent a much larger percentage of unwanted dogs, but until we can track the origin of dogs back to someone, we won't know.

And their statement, "We [dont't] buy dogs from puppy farms that are cruel and unregulated." is disingenous anyway ... they aren't denying they buy from puppy farms just that they don't buy from "cruel and unregulated" puppy farms. Since puppy farms are pretty much unregulated anyway that statement is a lovely example of weasel words.

I'd love to see this bit of research, "We have Australia Veterinary Association data that shows a pet selected following good advice from a pet shop is less likely to end up in a pound than an animal sourced elsewhere." I've had a look and can't find it, but I'd love to read how they got their evidence.

"Registered Breeders" are not responsible for the remaining 85% -------registered are lumped in with all those wonderful BYB we come accross week after week.....sigh:(

It doesn't say registered breeders........ it says 'breeders'.

Hence the inverted commas.....:p

[Sheridan]

Action against Pet Shops is simply a front by animal activists to end pet ownership starting with the the easiest target, like BSL. Banning doesn't work, better to regulate and ensure safe practices.

I am not an animal activist and I am against the sale of animals in pet shops.

[Curlybert]

Action against Pet Shops is simply a front by animal activists to end pet ownership starting with the the easiest target, like BSL. Banning doesn't work, better to regulate and ensure safe practices.

What a preposterous thing to say. How on earth did you come up with this?!

[Steve]

Even if someone could - and they can if they take a minute to do some research - prove that some registered breeders are BYB or puppy farmers that still doesnt say that they are the main players in the unwanted dog problem. Statistically purebred registered breeders only breed about 9% of dogs sold throughout Australia - that in itself is evidence enough for me to suggest as a group they can hardly be held accountable for the other couple of hundred thousand that end up unwanted. even if every single one of the 30,000 odd they breed each year ended up as unwanted they still could not be held out to dry as a primary causal factor.

The problem now, always has been and always will be is that there is not enough data to prove or disprove any defence or theory other than the numbers we actually breed and sell. Based on current figures both registered breeders and pet shops are in the clear because what they sell is only a drop in the ocean to numbers cited for unwanted dogs.

Until such time as they are able to gather accurate statistics no one can say where the unwanted masses originate from.

Yes agree but the battle cry is often, as it was in this thread that the real problem is BYB and Puppy farmers, not 'registered" which I guess means only ANKC breeders.

I am simply pointing out that as far as I know there are no rules in the ANKC that stop BYB (what ever they are) from being members of ANKC and so forth.

I really believe the only way to stop the dumping of pets is through education.

Education will prevent people from buying a pet they will not keep.

Education will prevent people from not desexing their pets if they know they cannot meet the needs of an intact pet.

Education will prevent people from shoping in stores that sell cats and dogs, this will educate the stor owner if he wants to sell pet products he better stop selling pets.

If one wants to stop set shop sales, then there are proven methods to make this happen.

I believe, if ANKC, MDBA, WKC and other registries, ADAA, Flyball, Trial , the AVA and so forth (after they each write a policy nationwide that no member may sell to pet shops if they do not already have this) in partnership with RSPCA and other rescue orgnaizations called on all members and owners and the public at large to refuse to shop at all pet shops that sell cats and dogs. Send letters to all pet shops explaining what ia required to get on the list of approved pet supply shops. Get the news papers and TV to cover the calling by dog owners, breeders and concerned associations across Asutralia for the request that all person not shop at pet stores that sell cats and dogs.

If every dog owner would take just a few min everytime the pass a pet shop that sells pets to speak to the owner manger or even the clerk to tell them you will never shop or recommend their shop to anyone you know with dogs because they sell cats and dogs.

Then make an online list of Approved pets shops who have pledged to not sell cats or dogs.

In short, notify by public action, that all pet shops need to stop selling pets. Always pollite but gets the point across. You want our buinsess stop selling cats and dogs.

This has worked.

Do I think preventing pet shops from selling cats and dogs will stop unwanted pets at shelters? Not a chance.

But I still think that pet shop sales of cats and dogs is not the right way to get a pet for the owners but more importantly it is not in the best interest of the pets being sold.

Shortstep

Dogs NSW backed PIAA against moves to ban sales of live animals in pet shops and they actively advertise and promote the ability for their members to sell to PIAA recognised pet shops and agents.

The ACCC will not allow the ANKC to prevent their members form selling to a pet shop - this has been tested in a major court case and it is seen as a restriction of trade which is against federal law.

This is the main reason the MDBA set up under the business entity we did in the first place.

In some states such as SA the clause remains that they are not to sell to retail outlets however it is a proven fact that this is against this federal law and cannot stick.

Then how come MDBA can restrict their members trade and ANKC can not. Is only ANKC bond by the federal law you speak of. I do not understand how it would apply to one and not the other?

It is my understanding that ANKC is a club, and they can can restrict the conduct of their members as they see fit, as the member represents ANKC.

This is why they can say you can only do certain types of TV work.

This is why they say you cannot use your stud for over dogs not registered in ANKC or for cross bred litter service, that is restricting your trade too?

On this case, was there actually a court trail and verdict, if so you do have any records of the judgement? Dates and so forth.

The MDBA is a different type of service and a different business entity our members are more like clients.

From memory when it was all going through the legals around 18 years ago it has something to do with the ANKC monopoly on certain things in this country. Started off with a blue about a member who had purchased puppies for an overseas puppy farmer - I know this because I was one of the breeders who he scammed.

No idea about court trials and verdicts which doesnt count anyway because at the end of the day they have to take direction from the ACCC.

How do they get away with restricting which pet shop ? - the talk back when they were promoting the hell out of them and telling their members what a great thing it would be to sell their puppies to PIAA pet shops and PIAA agnets is about how PIAA have certain codes and regs which others dont have and they have agreements with the ANKC to keep certain records etc. Whether that would stick if someone wanted to yell about it - no idea.

If you use a registered dog over a non registered dog and you are no longer a member you can still sell your non registered puppies anywhere you want to whom ever you want for the same price - because you couldnt have sold them to an FCI member in another country, you couldnt have sold them as registered purebred pedigreed puppies suitable for show or breeding etc Not being a member of the ANKC if you choose to do that doesnt restrict your ability to sell your puppies without restriction in comparison of anyone else who is breeding non registered puppies.There fore its not a restriction of trade.

If I want to breed registered purebred puppies and sell some to pet shops and some to Germany to compete in FCI events by taking away my membership for selling to pet shops you prevent me from being able to sell the same product to the same market for the same price as someone who produces the same product and does everything exactly the same except sell puppies to a pet shop - restriction of trade.

[john.davey.1960]

Action against Pet Shops is simply a front by animal activists to end pet ownership starting with the the easiest target, like BSL. Banning doesn't work, better to regulate and ensure safe practices.

I am not an animal activist and I am against the sale of animals in pet shops.

Step 2 is classifying rescuers as hoarders. Does anyone really believe we are immune from the US PETA types?

[Curlybert]

Am really scratching my head, JD. And no, I don't have nits. How are PETA relevant to the PIAA press release exactly?

[shortstep]

Even if someone could - and they can if they take a minute to do some research - prove that some registered breeders are BYB or puppy farmers that still doesnt say that they are the main players in the unwanted dog problem. Statistically purebred registered breeders only breed about 9% of dogs sold throughout Australia - that in itself is evidence enough for me to suggest as a group they can hardly be held accountable for the other couple of hundred thousand that end up unwanted. even if every single one of the 30,000 odd they breed each year ended up as unwanted they still could not be held out to dry as a primary causal factor.

The problem now, always has been and always will be is that there is not enough data to prove or disprove any defence or theory other than the numbers we actually breed and sell. Based on current figures both registered breeders and pet shops are in the clear because what they sell is only a drop in the ocean to numbers cited for unwanted dogs.

Until such time as they are able to gather accurate statistics no one can say where the unwanted masses originate from.

Yes agree but the battle cry is often, as it was in this thread that the real problem is BYB and Puppy farmers, not 'registered" which I guess means only ANKC breeders.

I am simply pointing out that as far as I know there are no rules in the ANKC that stop BYB (what ever they are) from being members of ANKC and so forth.

I really believe the only way to stop the dumping of pets is through education.

Education will prevent people from buying a pet they will not keep.

Education will prevent people from not desexing their pets if they know they cannot meet the needs of an intact pet.

Education will prevent people from shoping in stores that sell cats and dogs, this will educate the stor owner if he wants to sell pet products he better stop selling pets.

If one wants to stop set shop sales, then there are proven methods to make this happen.

I believe, if ANKC, MDBA, WKC and other registries, ADAA, Flyball, Trial , the AVA and so forth (after they each write a policy nationwide that no member may sell to pet shops if they do not already have this) in partnership with RSPCA and other rescue orgnaizations called on all members and owners and the public at large to refuse to shop at all pet shops that sell cats and dogs. Send letters to all pet shops explaining what ia required to get on the list of approved pet supply shops. Get the news papers and TV to cover the calling by dog owners, breeders and concerned associations across Asutralia for the request that all person not shop at pet stores that sell cats and dogs.

If every dog owner would take just a few min everytime the pass a pet shop that sells pets to speak to the owner manger or even the clerk to tell them you will never shop or recommend their shop to anyone you know with dogs because they sell cats and dogs.

Then make an online list of Approved pets shops who have pledged to not sell cats or dogs.

In short, notify by public action, that all pet shops need to stop selling pets. Always pollite but gets the point across. You want our buinsess stop selling cats and dogs.

This has worked.

Do I think preventing pet shops from selling cats and dogs will stop unwanted pets at shelters? Not a chance.

But I still think that pet shop sales of cats and dogs is not the right way to get a pet for the owners but more importantly it is not in the best interest of the pets being sold.

Shortstep

Dogs NSW backed PIAA against moves to ban sales of live animals in pet shops and they actively advertise and promote the ability for their members to sell to PIAA recognised pet shops and agents.

The ACCC will not allow the ANKC to prevent their members form selling to a pet shop - this has been tested in a major court case and it is seen as a restriction of trade which is against federal law.

This is the main reason the MDBA set up under the business entity we did in the first place.

In some states such as SA the clause remains that they are not to sell to retail outlets however it is a proven fact that this is against this federal law and cannot stick.

Then how come MDBA can restrict their members trade and ANKC can not. Is only ANKC bond by the federal law you speak of. I do not understand how it would apply to one and not the other?

It is my understanding that ANKC is a club, and they can can restrict the conduct of their members as they see fit, as the member represents ANKC.

This is why they can say you can only do certain types of TV work.

This is why they say you cannot use your stud for over dogs not registered in ANKC or for cross bred litter service, that is restricting your trade too?

On this case, was there actually a court trail and verdict, if so you do have any records of the judgement? Dates and so forth.

The MDBA is a different type of service and a different business entity our members are more like clients.

From memory when it was all going through the legals around 18 years ago it has something to do with the ANKC monopoly on certain things in this country. Started off with a blue about a member who had purchased puppies for an overseas puppy farmer - I know this because I was one of the breeders who he scammed.

No idea about court trials and verdicts which doesnt count anyway because at the end of the day they have to take direction from the ACCC.

How do they get away with restricting which pet shop ? - the talk back when they were promoting the hell out of them and telling their members what a great thing it would be to sell their puppies to PIAA pet shops and PIAA agnets is about how PIAA have certain codes and regs which others dont have and they have agreements with the ANKC to keep certain records etc. Whether that would stick if someone wanted to yell about it - no idea.

If you use a registered dog over a non registered dog and you are no longer a member you can still sell your non registered puppies anywhere you want to whom ever you want for the same price - because you couldnt have sold them to an FCI member in another country, you couldnt have sold them as registered purebred pedigreed puppies suitable for show or breeding etc Not being a member of the ANKC if you choose to do that doesnt restrict your ability to sell your puppies without restriction in comparison of anyone else who is breeding non registered puppies.There fore its not a restriction of trade.

If I want to breed registered purebred puppies and sell some to pet shops and some to Germany to compete in FCI events by taking away my membership for selling to pet shops you prevent me from being able to sell the same product to the same market for the same price as someone who produces the same product and does everything exactly the same except sell puppies to a pet shop - restriction of trade.

Well without a court case then it is all ANKC's idea (or the people at that time) of what they can or should do and not do. I would say they could more likely get in trouble for restraint of trade with the current rule by limited members to only one organization of pet shops. They are making an ANKC dog monoply for the owners of these certain pet shops.

I am pretty sure clubs can have restrictions of trade of their members. The government will only get involved if there is a law that you must work through the club. For example if only ANKC breeders can breed dogs in Australia and then ANKC makes a rule that they want to force their member into a monoply with only certain pets shops, that would certainly not be suported by the government.

However being a member of ANKC is not the only way you can breed dogs. So therefor they can not make a rule like the one they have now (remember they are also restricting their dogs to only those pet shops so they are attempting to prevent other pet shops from access to ANKC pups which would also be illegal if ANKC was the only place pet shops can get a pup). But if the ANKC members did not want to be restrained to only those pets shops, or if the members voted to allow no ANKC members to sell dogs to be sold in pet shops, then there is no reason that can not be the way it is. Same as it for your registry, with the exception that in ANKC the member should have the power to decide.

Who knows how this got started and really I don't care, what is important now is that we as member od ANKC realize that we are members of an orgnaization that not only supports the selling of pups in pet shops but also has an agreement with these certain shops to place ANKC pups only into their pet shops, which as far as I can see on the surface appears to be creating a monpoly of ANKC pups available only in these certain pet shops.

I do not believe the majority of members want to support a monopoly of ANKC pups to this one group of pet shops. I also think the majority of members would also say no ANKC breeders should sell to ANY pet shops as it tarnishes the reputation of all ANKC breeders and (should be) in direct conflict with the code of ethics.

But I am glad to now know that ANKC has taken a stand on the selling of ANKC puppies to pet shops. That ANKC supports the sales of ANKC puppies in pet shops provided it is one of the 300 or so pet shops they have decided to directe their members to.

Doesn't this make me (and everyone else who is a member of ANKC) in effect in support of pet shop puppies? Oh dear.

Edited April 8, 2011 by shortstep