Legal Safeguards Hit Backyard Dog Breeder Fay Armstrong

[pie]

A BACKYARD dog breeder in Spearwood has signed an undertaking not to sell diseased animals or any animal which has not been vet-checked after landmark legal action was taken out against her.

The legal action against Fay Marie Armstrong, 57, by WA’s Commissioner for Consumer Protection, was the first of its kind under new Australian Consumer Laws which came into effect at the start of this year.

Ms Armstrong, who operates out of her home in Spearwood, signed an enforceable undertaking last week, which means she can only sell animals which have been certified as healthy by a vet, are vaccinated and free from illnesses such as parvovirus, hepatitis, distemper, parainfluenza and bordatellabronciosepta.

Consumer Protection Commissioner Anne Driscoll said the consequences of breaching these Supreme Court undertakings would be serious.

“We felt this action against Ms Armstrong was necessary after numerous reports from consumers who had bought animals from her, only to find their new pets were dying, or very ill, with contagious diseases,” Ms Driscoll said.

“Some had to have their pets put down, while others paid for expensive vet treatment.”

Ms Driscoll said consumers who plan to purchase animals should have them examined or certified by a vet to help ensure they are healthy at the time of sale.

“Animals with diseases and health problems should not be sold to unsuspecting buyers and pets which have been given proper care should not die only a few weeks after purchase,” she said.

“Traders can argue that the animal may have contracted the condition after purchase so a pre-purchase health check is strongly recommended.”

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/legal-safeguards-hit-backyard-dog-breeder-fay-armstrong/story-e6frg13u-1226089858416

[Steve]

A BACKYARD dog breeder in Spearwood has signed an undertaking not to sell diseased animals or any animal which has not been vet-checked after landmark legal action was taken out against her.

The legal action against Fay Marie Armstrong, 57, by WA's Commissioner for Consumer Protection, was the first of its kind under new Australian Consumer Laws which came into effect at the start of this year.

Ms Armstrong, who operates out of her home in Spearwood, signed an enforceable undertaking last week, which means she can only sell animals which have been certified as healthy by a vet, are vaccinated and free from illnesses such as parvovirus, hepatitis, distemper, parainfluenza and bordatellabronciosepta.

Consumer Protection Commissioner Anne Driscoll said the consequences of breaching these Supreme Court undertakings would be serious.

"We felt this action against Ms Armstrong was necessary after numerous reports from consumers who had bought animals from her, only to find their new pets were dying, or very ill, with contagious diseases," Ms Driscoll said.

"Some had to have their pets put down, while others paid for expensive vet treatment."

Ms Driscoll said consumers who plan to purchase animals should have them examined or certified by a vet to help ensure they are healthy at the time of sale.

"Animals with diseases and health problems should not be sold to unsuspecting buyers and pets which have been given proper care should not die only a few weeks after purchase," she said.

"Traders can argue that the animal may have contracted the condition after purchase so a pre-purchase health check is strongly recommended."

http://www.perthnow....u-1226089858416

Surely anyone who sells a dog whether they breed it or not and regardless of whether they are a BYB or commercial breeder etc would need to sell healthy animals or face laws which are already in place.

The fact that they have placed extra on this one seems to say that everyone isnt required to do so in WA and only this one has had to agree due to her history.

Im not sure this is a good thing.

Need to think on it.

[Panto]

I think it's a good thing - it is a landmark ruling, which is showing a precedence now for consequences for not adhering to consumer laws.

I think it should make those that aren't sit up and think a bit more on the consequences, because although the laws were already existing, they weren't really being enforced until this case. The reality of whether this brings about positive change in others behaving the same way Ms Armstrong was might just be a different matter.

[Steve]

I think it's a good thing - it is a landmark ruling, which is showing a precedence now for consequences for not adhering to consumer laws.

I think it should make those that aren't sit up and think a bit more on the consequences, because although the laws were already existing, they weren't really being enforced until this case. The reality of whether this brings about positive change in others behaving the same way Ms Armstrong was might just be a different matter.

What consequences ? Having to agree in writing via a court to do what you should do anyway ? What happens to her if she does it again? Why do we need to wait until they do it and have to go through this process to be able to protect the dogs and the consumer?

[JoeK]

If they having insighting to complain on backyard breeder, why not they having insighting not to buy from these people in the first place and buy from proper breeder. Should be education on the people if you buying from people who breed with the flees, you catching flees is what happens and ruling on the court doesnt stop the backyard breeder, is saying is ok if you check them with the vet is not fixing much problem for my opinion?

[Steve]

To me its saying - if you find one thats bad enough we will make them sign off via the court that they wont do it again.

What are we doing to stop it happening in the first place?

[Panto]

Not enough.

and the 'consequences' (fines/court orders) just aren't harsh enough nor are they enforced enough.

[Alkhe]

It's a step in the right direction. It shows that these laws will be applied to people selling dogs, which sets a precedent. Once you have a precedent, it's less trouble to actually enforce these laws.

[Steve]

It's a step in the right direction. It shows that these laws will be applied to people selling dogs, which sets a precedent. Once you have a precedent, it's less trouble to actually enforce these laws.

Basic consumer law says they cant sell sick animals - if they do they can be fined and consequences can apply via consumer law .

What good does a precedent do us which says if you muck it up you will have to sign an agree with the court ? So everyone gets to muck it up and because there is now a precedent you get out of jail free and have to sign a piece of paper !

A better precedent is to do what they can do make em pay money.

[trinabean]

It's a step in the right direction. It shows that these laws will be applied to people selling dogs, which sets a precedent. Once you have a precedent, it's less trouble to actually enforce these laws.

Basic consumer law says they cant sell sick animals - if they do they can be fined and consequences can apply via consumer law .

What good does a precedent do us which says if you muck it up you will have to sign an agree with the court ? So everyone gets to muck it up and because there is now a precedent you get out of jail free and have to sign a piece of paper !

A better precedent is to do what they can do make em pay money.

I agree Alkhe that it's a step in the right direction.

I also get what you're saying Steve, however basic consumer law has done nothing to stop this woman previously. She has been knowingly selling sick pups from her parvo-infested property for years. People have been assured that their vaccination paperwork is in the mail (strangely it never arrives).

I agree with you that more needs to be done to stop people like this woman and yes, hitting their hip pocket is a good idea. Heaven knows, she has made a good profit from her poor dogs over the years (without the pesky expenses of vet fees or good food that real breeders spend so many $$ on!)

A friend of a friend bought a puppy through the newspaper from this woman. Within days it was at deaths door, struck down with Parvo. A lot of money and veterinary treatment helped save their puppy but it's probably more heartache than they expected.

Yes Joe K, they weren't well informed of the risks of buying from someone who wasn't a registered breeder. Unfortunately a lot of people still think that buying a pedigree dog is more for people who want to show their dog. Rightly or wrongly, they think a 'pet' quality dog is fine bought from an ad in the paper, from someone whose 'pet has had puppies.' I guess it's up to well-informed people like DOL members to share our knowledge.

[Loopy Lola]

I wonder if anyone has reported her to centrelink or the tax office for undeclared income . Think there are also laws about running that type of " business " from a residential address without a licence That would probably hit her harder .

[sandgrubber]

Spearwood WA? There is a two dog limit in Spearwood, and no kennel zones. How does someone run enough of a dog (or puppy) selling business to end out with multiple infringments? Is it just litter after litter from a bitch or two on the same premises?

[john.davey.1960]

Buying animals is like buying a lottery, no guarantee of anything. Does anyone really believe people who can't get dog control right will give a toss about the dogs. Their victims will simply be the poor. Where will it end when some one realises that the bitch they bought needs a C-section or the face that can't breathe is summer is actually a misformed dog irrespective of breed standsrds. It seems like the dog community is continuing to stick it's head in the sand while their rights are whittled away.

[Steve]

Spearwood WA? There is a two dog limit in Spearwood, and no kennel zones. How does someone run enough of a dog (or puppy) selling business to end out with multiple infringments? Is it just litter after litter from a bitch or two on the same premises?

it appears to be a couple of litters from a couple of dogs - one whole litter which went home was sick and developed Parvo a few days later and were not vaccinated.

Nothing saying she owns more than two or how often she breed only those two or that she makes a profit from it.

She sent home sick puppies and her punishment is a signed statement via the court - its a joke and if thats all that happens to someone who sends home non vaccinated sick puppies then until they get busted and have to sign an agreement via the court what is it in that which will prevent everyone following suit until the court issues a warning?

[Panto]

It also says that this legal action was taken " under new Australian Consumer Laws ", which says to me, if reported correctly, that previous laws did not allow for such legal action to be taken (successfully?).

I do agree with Steve that this does seem like a joke, the punishment does not fit the crime, enforceable consumer law (in such a circumstance as this) still has a ways to go. Alas it is a consumer law rather which takes into account buyer/purchaser rights rather than a consideration for the product in question (as much as I hate to put it that way) which is a living breathing animal.

[Steve]

The bloody joke of it is that if she doesnt do the right thing by the dogs she owns the RSPCA will come in and take them off her but she has been able to do what she did and get nothing more than a slap with a piece of paper. Makes me sick.

[Loopy Lola]

The bloody joke of it is that if she doesnt do the right thing by the dogs she owns the RSPCA will come in and take them off her but she has been able to do what she did and get nothing more than a slap with a piece of paper. Makes me sick.

Yep ......she has been puppy peddling for years apparently .....selling dogs from her car meeting people in car parks etc . Today Tonight did a segment on her but she is still going

[trinabean]

The bloody joke of it is that if she doesnt do the right thing by the dogs she owns the RSPCA will come in and take them off her but she has been able to do what she did and get nothing more than a slap with a piece of paper. Makes me sick.

This may have already happened. According to a thread titled "Puppy parvo" a couple of months ago (will try to post links later when I get enough time).

The OP was told that the RSPCA had removed up to 30 dogs from her, in poor health and kept in terrible conditions (ie. crated in their own filth). I'm off to Google some newspapers to see if I can find out a bit more....

[Steve]

The bloody joke of it is that if she doesnt do the right thing by the dogs she owns the RSPCA will come in and take them off her but she has been able to do what she did and get nothing more than a slap with a piece of paper. Makes me sick.

This may have already happened. According to a thread titled "Puppy parvo" a couple of months ago (will try to post links later when I get enough time).

The OP was told that the RSPCA had removed up to 30 dogs from her, in poor health and kept in terrible conditions (ie. crated in their own filth). I'm off to Google some newspapers to see if I can find out a bit more....

If taht is true and all she got was a bit of paper to sign Im disgusted.

[sandgrubber]

On the plus side, though, repeat performance will put her in deep yoghurt and can carry a jail term.

It would be interesting to see a followup on this one. Pretty hard to get rid of parvo in a hurry.

Cockburn Shire is not the best run place. I seem to remember a couple councils . . . or was it a mayor? . . . getting sacked by the state. The poor rangers are saddled with everything from enforcing fire regulations, to looking into verge use issues, to running the pound and they've had high turnover. Not surprising that this escalated to state level.