Interesting Read..

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

I agree its not OK to break the law Steve by the way, there are laws against animal cruelty and they are not being used to stop these people.

I say more power to Deborah Tranter - she's a woman with tremendous guts. Far too many people are just happy to stick their head in the sand and keep spouting crap when asked. It's time that decent human beings stood up and spoke up for those who cannot.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

At the Sydney Rally today, there were plenty of truths being shared, including a very interesting and knowledgeable speech by Anne, who has set up a legal firm that does pro bono work for Animal Welfare:

www.lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au

Animal Welfare Issues

Specific issues that we may be able to provide general information and/or advice include:

Bullying and harassment (including termination of employment) from employers to those employees who have raised concerns about the welfare of companion animals (in pounds, shelters or pet shops)

Letters threatening defamation (including “whistleblowers“)

Poor regulation of the welfare of companion animals

Lack of proper transparent record keeping relating to companion animals, including births, sales, deaths and includes traceable transfer of ownership

Lack of transparency regarding sale of pets in pet shops including the sale of sick puppies and puppies who have not been properly socialised

Failure of pet shops to provide details of the breeder of the puppies and kittens as well as the parents of the puppies/kittens

Failure of the pet industry to acknowledge that there are different markets for puppies/kittens as opposed to full grown dogs/cats

Lack of regulation of back yard breeders and puppy farms

Issues surrounding cruelty to greyhounds

Alerting authorities to illegal dog fighting operations

How to making submissions to government agencies on issues relating to companion animal welfare

Possible reasons for the high numbers of healthy cats and dogs killed in Australia every year (estimated to be in the range of 250,000)

A good many issues to look at. Instead of complaining about "Oscars Law", suggesting it is all lies, smoke and mirrors, how about you go on the internet and read all about it? How about having a look at some videos of puppy farms on UTube - it's all there for anyone to see, unless they'd like to stick their head up their .... and pretend it's all being made up. If you think those things can be staged simply to annoy you, those dogs and puppies are bloody good method actors. Some people will no doubt choose to think that there's no harm in any of it because that's what suits them.

Edited September 18, 2011 by dogmad

[Steve]

Steve, who is making up fibs? I say again, I have seen the evidence with my own eyes.

You say there is no problem with back yard breeding and breeding back to back litters? You say that "if the insides were really a mess it wasn't due to the breeding?".

Are you a fully qualified vet? It was a fully qualified vet that determined that years of "back to back" breeding had wrecked these animals uteruses.

The rally today was against all cruelty to animals being used in breeding.

What do you do with your dogs when they are no longer able to breed? Do you get them euthanased or do you rehome them? Are all the dogs in your care free from health issues?

What do you think puppy farmers and bybs do when a dog needs a caesarean? Do they even know when it is giving birth? Is there anything wrong with not really giving a crap about whether the bitch dies with a puppy in utero?

Is it OK to courier puppies of 5 weeks of age to new owners, before they are even weaned? Then to tell new owners, when they enquired, to feed the puppy on "whatever you eat"?? I wonder how many of these tiny puppies actually survive? Bought on the Trading Post and other similar sites - sent off to God knows who ... perhaps for more breeding?

Dogmad Im not a qualified vet Im a breeder and the vets I take my advice from are qualified in canine reproduction and I have seen the science backed up by studies and data and again I say if those dog's insides were a mess then it wasnt because they were being over bred or because they had back to back litters .

It may have been any number of complications or problems but insides do not become messy just because they are being bred every season - that is a fact . In fact it is more likely that if their insides were messy that it was caused because they were not bred often enough. When people say that a dog's insides were messy due to back to back breeding that impacts on everything and it takes away the ability for good breeders who do care about what is best for the species to be able to make decisions which are best for their dogs. Laws, mandatory codes and regs are there now preventing a breeder to make their own decision on when and how often they can breed their bitches and no one knows why because the truth is that there is no science to back that up but loads of science to prove its wrong. Everyone is too frightened to say so because when they do they get accused of not caring - Its bad enough we have no choices other than to do as we are told and breed dogs the way animal rights have dictated but even worse that when we dare to say what the science is we are bullied into shutting up.

What I do with my dogs when they no longer breed isnt the issue but since you asked they stay here - rarely they go to new homes. However, if a breeder decides it is best for their dogs to have the vet bump them off whether anyone thinks thats a good thing or not its not cruel and its not illegal. Its certainly not something which should be used as some sort of sign that they are treating their dogs cruelly or that they are living in sub standard conditions. You dont have to agree with it but its not anyone else's business and it never will be. Its also not something a breeder should have to disclose. Some breeders,rescue, owners, shelters decide to PTS every day of the week for a variety of reasons and one of them is that they are no longer productive . I dont like it but I dont like dogs being killed because they are the wrong colour, breed , too old ,because they jump fences etc either.

You dont need to lecture me on what a puppy farmer does or doesnt do as far as ensuring their dogs are healthy and receive proper vet treatment etc - that is treating them cruelly and keeping them in substandard conditions. I too have done more than my fair share of seeing what they do in real life - that is what we are supposed to be fighting against full stop.

If they stick to that and discuss the evidence resist the urge to tell me about the assumptions and crap which undo any good that may be done and which have the potential to impact on good breeders and their dogs all is good.

Maternal cannabilism can and does happen in any whelping environment regardless of how the bitch is treated - it is not evidence of dogs being treated badly.It losses credibility when it is said.

Vaginal and uterine prolapses happen to any bitch for a variety of reasons and is not a symptom of bitches being over bred or dogs being treated badly. it looses credibility when it is said

Back to back breeding is not bad for the general health of the bitch.It looses credibility when it is said.

Commercial dog breeders can and do treat their animals well and breeding for profit is not evidence that the dogs are being treated badly. It looses credibility when it is said.

It is not O.K. to break the law whether you think you have a good reason or not . It is something used world wide by extremists - It looses credibility when this happens.

Breeders and dog owners have the right to decide if they want to have a vet kill their dogs and that will never change - when it is introduced as an argument against breeders it looses credibility - dead is not suffering.

[Steve]

I agree its not OK to break the law Steve by the way, there are laws against animal cruelty and they are not being used to stop these people.

I say more power to Deborah Tranter - she's a woman with tremendous guts. Far too many people are just happy to stick their head in the sand and keep spouting crap when asked. It's time that decent human beings stood up and spoke up for those who cannot.

Bit of a contradiction isnt it? Its not O.K. to break the law but if you do break the law you are seen as someone with tremendous guts .Standing up and speaking for those who cannot doesnt equal breaking into someone's property and stealing their dogs. It doesnt equal running breeders over either .

[Steve]

At the Sydney Rally today, there were plenty of truths being shared, including a very interesting and knowledgeable speech by Anne, who has set up a legal firm that does pro bono work for Animal Welfare:

www.lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au

Animal Welfare Issues

Specific issues that we may be able to provide general information and/or advice include:

Bullying and harassment (including termination of employment) from employers to those employees who have raised concerns about the welfare of companion animals (in pounds, shelters or pet shops)

Letters threatening defamation (including "whistleblowers")

Poor regulation of the welfare of companion animals

Lack of proper transparent record keeping relating to companion animals, including births, sales, deaths and includes traceable transfer of ownership

Lack of transparency regarding sale of pets in pet shops including the sale of sick puppies and puppies who have not been properly socialised

Failure of pet shops to provide details of the breeder of the puppies and kittens as well as the parents of the puppies/kittens

Failure of the pet industry to acknowledge that there are different markets for puppies/kittens as opposed to full grown dogs/cats

Lack of regulation of back yard breeders and puppy farms

Issues surrounding cruelty to greyhounds

Alerting authorities to illegal dog fighting operations

How to making submissions to government agencies on issues relating to companion animal welfare

Possible reasons for the high numbers of healthy cats and dogs killed in Australia every year (estimated to be in the range of 250,000)

A good many issues to look at. Instead of complaining about "Oscars Law", suggesting it is all lies, smoke and mirrors, how about you go on the internet and read all about it? How about having a look at some videos of puppy farms on UTube - it's all there for anyone to see, unless they'd like to stick their head up their .... and pretend it's all being made up. If you think those things can be staged simply to annoy you, those dogs and puppies are bloody good method actors. Some people will no doubt choose to think that there's no harm in any of it because that's what suits them.

Are you fair dinkum? I have some of my own photos taken in the last few months of puppy farms which would put most of what is on the internet to shame and no one is denying it exists or that its a problem. To suggest that I think they are staged just to annoy me is a pretty silly comment and its doubful anyone reading this is going to believe that is what I think.

I do believe that its being sensationalised and that it is classic animal rights signature and has the potential to do more harm than good.

[toy*dog]

i was having a good think about all this on the weekend, what steve has said for many years about all this and others.

I think that overall its a good thing to raise awareness in the community about puppy farms and the message is getting out there and more and more people in the public are learning its not good. puppy farms/puppy farmers are people who breed their dogs for profit. a farmer. this is what everyone is against.

good breeders we have said so and defined it on this forum for years, are breeders who breed for a purpose and show that by what they do. i.e. spend thousands of dollars on testing, keep their elderly dogs, treat their show dogs as pets, try to breed for health and research for that.

however i do get what steve is saying here, the people who are heading this, do not understand fully about breeders who are doing the right thing and we are being bunged in with the farmers who are out there to make a profit on dogs and don't really care about breeding for quality and health.

i've come up against this myself with these very same people who are leading the way, i got told that i was not to promote pedigree dogs but what i was promoting was what i knew about breeding and how cross breeds are not health tested and no bloodlines are researched yadda yadda yadda. in the same sentence i got told that a few reg breeders had been caught out and were ALSO breeding designer dogs along with their pedigrees. So in essence what it said to me was that 1. how can we be sure that these people are against ALL BREEDING of dogs and not interested if the breeder is doing everything right by some sort of a standard that these people set. yes steve, it bothers me that there are some people who have no idea what reg breeders who are ethical do that they have no idea why we breed for show all they see is the program Pedigree Dogs Exposed and think we are all like that and we all breed unhealthy exagerated pedigree breeds without actually talking to clubs and the breeders who are working to do things right. i also observed a little dog with its tongue sticking out and this couple went up to the animal people in front of me i hung back to listen to what was being said, the couple said this dog had a "long Tongue" and it had been rescued from a breeder! Good on you was the answer and why is the tongue hanging out like that?

I have a vet that writes articles in the dogsvictoria magazine each month so he is well respected in Victoria he knows his stuff has been a vet for over 35 years, he is a damn good vet. so i already knew the answer but i asked him is there such a thing as "long tongue"? that is not possible, what is possible is the jaw was overshot and the dog was missing alot of front teeth ALLOWING the dogs tongue to protrude. so this excuse was used as an example of a bad breeder which really bothered me. i went up to this organiser and told her the truth.

i have ever only told pet owners the truth about why its not a good idea to farm animals, different angle but not all accept it. my angle is: cross breeds bred by farmers are not health checked, are not health tested, no one knows the bloodlines, no grooming advise for mixtures of breeds with non-shedding coats and shedding coats mixed in because no one really knows how to look after that type of coat really unpredicable. the list goes on. rather than focusing on the way the farmers treat the dogs and they justify it by saying they have a state of the art premises, the dogs are in a clean environment they get exercised and they have staff looking after the dogs. they preach this to the council who fall for it all. they also say how all their dogs are very friendly when breeding dogs for over 30 years i know that breeding for temperament isn't that easy!

the animal people did not like me going on about these other aspects and gaining attention so they told me to be quiet. so i did. LOL all i was trying to do was educate about why its not a good idea to farm these animals rather than looking like extremists because i think thats how the councils see them and also the government. In all of these emails to council from public who approve the most permits for puppy farms in Victoria, council was saying "crazy animal people" an email got leaked from the then mayor that i happened to know off. so i wrote to him and told him a few home truths about breeding and why and how and gave him a real run down of why its not a good idea, i didn't go down the avenue of dogs being treated like crap not denying that but i wanted to make the former mayor think and spread it to the other councillors so i told him about breeding and genetics and why the crosses are not bred for health and no history is available and the other side of the coin that no one mentions. i also mentioned the thousands of dogs being PTS every year and why we don't need to be adding to that by factory farming our domesticated animals. So it got brought up how we farm livestock so why not dogs? so i had to launch into the whole thing again why cows, sheep and goats etc. don't sleep in our beds and are not required to spend their lives with us humans in our houses so different kettle of fish.

we reg ethical breeders who do the right thing have no voice, we have no one to speak up for us at all. it all gets drowned out by all this going on which im not saying is not good, its good but reg breeders like me are just wary of whats really going on here especially when i got told to shut up and i got told that i think that pedigree dogs are superior and also reg breeders meanwhile i've written on my website about farmers coming in all shapes reg or not and i've rescued shelters dogs and have a rescue dog (cross bred) at the moment so i don't think i think pedigrees are superior somehow, my message was about farmers and about dogs in general! we don't know for sure whether these people are against breeding of all dogs their message isn't clear. DogsVictoria had a seminar on puppy farming and made a committee and now what do they do, we haven't heard what they do they seem to have disappeared, DogsVictoria should be giving us a report on what this committee is doing? some say VCA did that to save face a toothless tiger.

I see from my suggestions they've changed the wording on oscar law./prisoners for profit site to say that they aren't against reg breeders just backyard breeders and puppy farms. so they have listened to a certain extent because they probably realise its not good to have ANKC and reg breeders against their message i suppose.

i guess when you look at it, face value, oscar law is about creating awareness to shut down factory farming of our dogs, to stop petshops selling live animals to stop people farming animals. i don't think its about creating a law to take to parliment its only about creating awareness to stop something and as they said, its in the publics hands to stop all this no law will stop it the people will by learning.

*edited for typos

Edited September 18, 2011 by toy*dog

[Steve]

i was having a good think about all this on the weekend, what steve has said for many years about all this and others.

I think that overall its a good thing to raise awareness in the community about puppy farms and the message is getting out there and more and more people in the public are learning its not good. puppy farms/puppy farmers are people who breed their dogs for profit. a farmer. this is what everyone is against.

good breeders we have said so and defined it on this forum for years, are breeders who breed for a purpose and show that by what they do. i.e. spend thousands of dollars on testing, keep their elderly dogs, treat their show dogs as pets, try to breed for health and research for that.

however i do get what steve is saying here, the people who are heading this, do not understand fully about breeders who are doing the right thing and we are being bunged in with the farmers who are out there to make a profit on dogs and don't really care about breeding for quality and health.

i've come up against this myself with these very same people who are leading the way, i got told that i was not to promote pedigree dogs but what i was promoting was what i knew about breeding and how cross breeds are not health tested and no bloodlines are researched yadda yadda yadda. in the same sentence i got told that a few reg breeders had been caught out and were ALSO breeding designer dogs along with their pedigrees. So in essence what it said to me was that 1. how can we be sure that these people are against ALL BREEDING of dogs and not interested if the breeder is doing everything right by some sort of a standard that these people set. yes steve, it bothers me that there are some people who have no idea what reg breeders who are ethical do that they have no idea why we breed for show all they see is the program Pedigree Dogs Exposed and think we are all like that and we all breed unhealthy exagerated pedigree breeds without actually talking to clubs and the breeders who are working to do things right. i also observed a little dog with its tongue sticking out and this couple went up to the animal people in front of me i hung back to listen to what was being said, the couple said this dog had a "long Tongue" and it had been rescued from a breeder! Good on you was the answer and why is the tongue hanging out like that?

I have a vet that writes articles in the dogsvictoria magazine each month so he is well respected in Victoria he knows his stuff has been a vet for over 35 years, he is a damn good vet. so i already knew the answer but i asked him is there such a thing as "long tongue"? that is not possible, what is possible is the jaw was overshot and the dog was missing alot of front teeth ALLOWING the dogs tongue to protrude. so this excuse was used as an example of a bad breeder which really bothered me. i went up to this organiser and told her the truth.

i have ever only told pet owners the truth about why its not a good idea to farm animals, different angle but not all accept it. my angle is: cross breeds bred by farmers are not health checked, are not health tested, no one knows the bloodlines, no grooming advise for mixtures of breeds with non-shedding coats and shedding coats mixed in because no one really knows how to look after that type of coat really unpredicable. the list goes on. rather than focusing on the way the farmers treat the dogs and they justify it by saying they have a start of the art premises, the dogs are in a clean environment they get exercised and they have staff looking after the dogs. they preach this to the council who fall for it all. they also say how all their dogs are very friendly when breeding dogs for over 30 years i know that breeding for temperament isn't that easy!

the animal people did not like me going on about these other aspects and gaining attention so they told me to be quiet. so i did. LOL all i was trying to do was educate about why its not a good idea to farm these animals rather than looking like extremists because i think thats how the councils see them and also the government. In all of these emails to council from public who approve the most permits for puppy farms in Victoria, council was saying "crazy animal people" an email got leaked from the then mayor that i happened to know off. so i wrote to him and told him a few home truths about breeding and why and how and gave him a real run down of why its not a good idea, i didn't go down the avenue of dogs being treated like crap not denying that but i wanted to make the former mayor think and spread it to the other councillors so i told him about breeding and genetics and why the crosses are not bred for health and no history is available and the other side of the coin that no one mentions. i also mentioned the thousands of dogs being PTS every year and why we don't need to be adding to that by factory farming our domesticated animals. So it got brought up how we farm livestock so why not dogs? so i had to launch into the whole thing again why cows, sheep and goats etc. don't sleep in our beds and are not required to spend their lives with us humans in our houses so different kettle of fish.

we reg ethical breeders who do the right thing have no voice, we have no one to speak up for us at all. it all gets drowned out by all this going on which im not saying is not good, its good but reg breeders like me are just wary of whats really going on here especially when i got told to shut up and i got told that i think that pedigree dogs are superior and also reg breeders meanwhile i've written on my website about farmers coming in all shapes reg or not and i've rescued shelters dogs and have a rescue dog (cross bred) at the moment so i don't think i think pedigrees are superior somehow, my message was about farmers and about dogs in general! we don't know for sure whether these people are against breeding of all dogs their message isn't clear. DogsVictoria had a seminar on puppy farming and made a committee and now what do they do, we haven't heard what they do they seem to have disappeared, DogsVictoria should be giving us a report on what this committee is doing? some say VCA did that to save face a toothless tiger.

I see from my suggestions they've changed the wording on oscar law./prisoners for profit site to say that they aren't against reg breeders just backyard breeders and puppy farms. so they have listened to a certain extent because they probably realise its not good to have ANKC and reg breeders against their message i suppose.

i guess when you look at it, face value, oscar law is about creating awareness to shut down factory farming of our dogs, to stop petshops selling live animals to stop people farming animals. i don't think its about creating a law to take to parliment its only about creating awareness to stop something and as they said, its in the publics hands to stop all this no law will stop it the people will by learning.

This is not true and it is the crux of the whole bloody issue.

RSPCA Australia and every other group which attended a round table meeting and drew up plans to do something about puppy farming all agreed that this is NOT what puppy farming is .It is not what I am against. I dont care if someone breeds for money, for the show ring or for any other reason . I care about how they treat their dogs.

its only when everyone agrees with what the hell it is we are rallying against or for will any one be able to do anything.

[toy*dog]

Steve, who is making up fibs? I say again, I have seen the evidence with my own eyes.

You say there is no problem with back yard breeding and breeding back to back litters? You say that "if the insides were really a mess it wasn't due to the breeding?".

Are you a fully qualified vet? It was a fully qualified vet that determined that years of "back to back" breeding had wrecked these animals uteruses.

The rally today was against all cruelty to animals being used in breeding.

What do you do with your dogs when they are no longer able to breed? Do you get them euthanased or do you rehome them? Are all the dogs in your care free from health issues?

What do you think puppy farmers and bybs do when a dog needs a caesarean? Do they even know when it is giving birth? Is there anything wrong with not really giving a crap about whether the bitch dies with a puppy in utero?

Is it OK to courier puppies of 5 weeks of age to new owners, before they are even weaned? Then to tell new owners, when they enquired, to feed the puppy on "whatever you eat"?? I wonder how many of these tiny puppies actually survive? Bought on the Trading Post and other similar sites - sent off to God knows who ... perhaps for more breeding?

sorry i just have to say, that i've been breeding toy dogs for about 30 years my small toy dogs do not like to eat dry food and are not crash hot on commercial food either, so we cook for them and also they eat what we eat??????? our dogs are family members and pets first before being a show dog. so does this make us cruel? also sometimes we do rehome a dog otherwise if we didn't we'd be overrun with dogs and not able to give them individual care. so does this make us cruel? also my dogs are inside dogs and alot of toy dog owners and breeders have their dogs inside and the animal people say this is wrong to "lock' dogs inside/ my own boss told me he was going to report us and every toy owner to the RSPCA becuase he has the belief that dogs should be outside all day every day they are outside animals. so does this make us cruel by whose standards? different strokes for different breeds, some thrive on being in constant company of their humans hence why they are inside dogs some thrive on being in a backyard or farm being exercised where they can run free with their owners. so without understand what needs a breed thrives on people are making judgement.

also nature being what it is, sometimes even if you plan a litter for many years and research bloodlines sometimes nature doesn't go quite how you planned and you might end up with a dog that is sick just like the puppy farmers, genetics being what they are sometimes you get recessive genes come through and all the planning in the world cannot stop it. for instance we have had grade 3 patella luxation from 2 zero grade parents also grand parents were zero but still the dog i produced ended up with grade 3. also we've had hydrocephalus and its genetic eventhough as far as i can see in the pedigrees 5 gens back none of the dogs have had this, but its come from somewhere else so recessive again. hidden. these are the things that i explained to people who don't breed and i got not a very good response.

and anne i know her very well....and she was off the same opinion until i started talking to her and she changed her mind because she never knew there were breeders like us she had the opinion like everyone else if you bred dogs and showed dogs you were in it for yourself bugger the dogs and also profit.

so does this make us cruel? there's a fine line here, its made me think, at least!

*edited for spelling

Edited September 19, 2011 by toy*dog

[toy*dog]

This is not true and it is the crux of the whole bloody issue.

RSPCA Australia and every other group which attended a round table meeting and drew up plans to do something about puppy farming all agreed that this is NOT what puppy farming is .It is not what I am against. I dont care if someone breeds for money, for the show ring or for any other reason . I care about how they treat their dogs.

its only when everyone agrees with what the hell it is we are rallying against or for will any one be able to do anything.

what is the definition of the word farming? everyone is always saying she's/he's a puppy farmer, meaning, she/he breeds her dogs for money - a farmer. LOL if its not that, then we need to change the word, i mean why are they farming if its not for cash? this is what most pet people are against. i see what the trouble is, everyone has a different definition but if we go down the avenue of its how the dogs are treated then as you say, how are we going to define that and by whose standards, in 20 years time i can see that owning dogs and breeding them will be the thing of the past - i think that that is going down the road of dictatorship.

so why is breeding for a "purpose" showring, working or for a purpose mixed up with breeding for profit? i don't think thats thats the same thing and i don't believe its fair on the ethical breeders either who are doing the right thing. it just blankets all of us the same no distinction what-so-ever.

Edited September 19, 2011 by toy*dog

[toy*dog]

I dont care if someone breeds for money, for the show ring or for any other reason . I care about how they treat their dogs.

for me, and some might agree with me and some might not, but for me, someone who breeds for profit and usually its a person with cross bred designer dogs but not always, is someone who will cut corners not breed their dogs for health in mind, not get their dogs tested to make sure those resulting puppies are the healthiest, not spend the big bucks to ensure everything is right is the difinition of a farmer so in essence the care or lack of it is directly related to how much profit they can get without spending on those essential things. = farmer.

on the other side of the coin, i know of a breeder who has imports, always for about 30 years bred a large number of dogs, showed those dogs, as far as i could see bred the dogs healthy but others are saying is a hoarder. kept those dogs inside and outside in runs. RSPCA definition puppy farmer. a few others difinition = puppy farmer. yet others difinition is reg breeder large volume. so whose right whose wrong?

[Rusky]

I dont care if someone breeds for money, for the show ring or for any other reason . I care about how they treat their dogs.

its only when everyone agrees with what the hell it is we are rallying against or for will any one be able to do anything

and get rid of animals in pet shops ;)

[Steve]

This is not true and it is the crux of the whole bloody issue.

RSPCA Australia and every other group which attended a round table meeting and drew up plans to do something about puppy farming all agreed that this is NOT what puppy farming is .It is not what I am against. I dont care if someone breeds for money, for the show ring or for any other reason . I care about how they treat their dogs.

its only when everyone agrees with what the hell it is we are rallying against or for will any one be able to do anything.

what is the definition of the word farming? everyone is always saying she's/he's a puppy farmer, meaning, she/he breeds her dogs for money - a farmer. LOL if its not that, then we need to change the word, i mean why are they farming if its not for cash? this is what most pet people are against. i see what the trouble is, everyone has a different definition but if we go down the avenue of its how the dogs are treated then as you say, how are we going to define that and by whose standards, in 20 years time i can see that owning dogs and breeding them will be the thing of the past - i think that that is going down the road of dictatorship.

so why is breeding for a "purpose" showring, working or for a purpose mixed up with breeding for profit? i don't think thats thats the same thing and i don't believe its fair on the ethical breeders either who are doing the right thing. it just blankets all of us the same no distinction what-so-ever.

Toy dog Sooner or later we have to agree with the definition because if we dont no one knows what it is we are for or against. You are still not getting it . If you say its bad for people to breed for profit because they usually do XYZ then what stops people saying its bad for people to breed for the show ring because that usually means they do XYZ ?

You can just as easily farm dogs as in sheep farming etc and not be primarily motivated by profit. Some would say if someone owned 20 plus dogs and they live in their home they are farming and whether they are primarily motivated by trying to produce a champion or not . You cant expect that any law or reg will only affect someone who says they breed for profit and not all breeders.

There are laws in place to deal with this and you cant take their word on what is and is not cruel because their ideas on how dogs should be kept and what is supposedly evidence of neglect or abuse isnt always correct.

[toy*dog]

yes thats what im saying really. Im open to learning others views and thinking some more about it.

in a way on one hand im saying about the way these dogs are bred in these situations, being farmed and to me it all ties in with the obvious motivation which is money. but on the other hand i am going on about the care of these dogs and the way they're being bred without health at the forefront and research to plan for the health of the coming litter and testing parents etc. etc. mainly i do see more designer dog facilities with these key elements rather than a reg breeder with a pedigree dog. but a farmer can also jump to pedigrees as we've found out many times. my first pedigree dog i know now was from a farmer who got closed down from the council. i was only a young kid and these dogs were on dirt floors in sheds and not in the best condition and i went with my mum to save a puppy. no one mentioned puppy farms in those days that term was unheard of.

and about this breeder whose been dubbed a "farmer"; it is really unclear as to their motivation - lots still say its all for money but usually i've found over many years its cloak and dagger whether a breeder is motivated by money or not, not very often do you hear "oh i breed for a profit for myself to make some extra cash" i've never ever heard of anyone coming out and saying that point blank - why is that. people are even at odds with the care of the animals as well with this breeder, some say that they've been on the premises and the dogs are clean, healthy and fed, yet RSPCA got called in via animal libs and person buying a puppy. others say they've been there and there was wall to wall dogs in cramped cages more than whats recommended in a cage.

[sandgrubber]

Btw, what is considered profit? Is someone 'breeding for profit' because the puppy revenue is more than the immediate costs of putting out a litter? Is the breeder allowed to earn a living wage from breeding, training, and showing dogs . . . and maybe even break even on the many investments required to do a good job breeding dogs?

I don't think 'profit' is any better criteria for determining animal wellbeing than the Vic 'standard' is for deciding what dog is likely to be vicious. There people who plow money from their breeding programs back into building up their kennels. Does it make them 'evil' that they eventually build up quality facilities, quality stock, and good reputations and their investments pay off? Conversely, there are plenty of people who would show only red if you put an accountant to their books, but who treat their dogs poorly and don't invest the revenue they take in from puppy sales in upgrading their kennels.

I doubt anyone in DOL would stand up for the breeders who breed for profit alone and treat their bitches like caged hens or sows in a factory farm. There are breeders who care little for health testing, who feed low grade food, who don't socialise pups, who have filthy premises, and on and on. Few if any would condone selling through pet shops and a vast majority would favor laws banning petshops.

But I think some excellent breeders have good reason to fear attempts to outlaw 'puppy farms' . . . cause many of the campaigners for such laws know nothing about dog breeding, and we all know, politicians go along with some pretty stupid things when it comes to dogs.

[Rescue List]

Confused. The pictures in the article show Oscar well groomed and looking superficially healthy. The story says Trantor was arrested the day after he was rescued. The event must have happened more than a year ago, cause there were Oscar's Law rallies in October last year. If Deborah Trantor has been working for two decades, she has done so without getting much press. Google shows she has achieved almost no mainstream media coverage and I can find no indication that she has been arrested, other than one 2008 incident reported by the Herald Sun.

No dog lover can support low-grade puppy farms, and only a tiny minority would support sale of puppies in pet shops. But I think we have to be skeptical of Animal Lib people.

Top animal lib activist charged

• From: Herald Sun
• June 16, 2008 12:00AM

A LEADING Victorian animal liberationist has been charged over an incident in which a man was injured when hit by a car and his dog breeder father suffered a heart attack.

Debra Tranter has been charged with assault with a weapon, reckless conduct endangering life and reckless conduct causing injury after a clash at the ACA Breeders Kennels farm, near Sale.

Matthew Hams suffered rib and back injuries when allegedly hit by a car at the farm.

His father Colin, the farm's operator, had a minor heart attack during the drama.

Ms Tranter will appear in Sale Magistrates' Court on June 24.

These charges were actally dropped and Debra was found not guilty. I am not very good with computers, though hope this link works

http://deathrowpets.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/puppy-farmers-have-to-ham-it-up-themselves-our-puppy-mill-warrior-debra-tranter-wins-court-case-with-aca-kennels/

Whoops, sorry. Nic.B wrongly logged in as Poundlist

Edited September 19, 2011 by Pound List

[toy*dog]

I dont care if someone breeds for money, for the show ring or for any other reason . I care about how they treat their dogs.

its only when everyone agrees with what the hell it is we are rallying against or for will any one be able to do anything

and get rid of animals in pet shops ;)

and reading up on clovers moores bill, this is the reason why her bill got turfed out. they said that there was not enough evidence to suggest that puppies sold in petshops was directly related to dumpage in shelters. i believe they added on that argument and then they came up against a brick wall when they were winning but for that.

[toy*dog]

But I think some excellent breeders have good reason to fear attempts to outlaw 'puppy farms' . . . cause many of the campaigners for such laws know nothing about dog breeding, and we all know, politicians go along with some pretty stupid things when it comes to dogs.

yes most politicians are ignorant and don't want to know. and these are the same people making our laws based on media hype which is very scary. Bill shorten i've made coffees for him as he is my ex-boss very good friend. LOL so i gave him a few home truths about BSL i can tell you. politely ofcourse. also told my ex-boss who i am still very good friends with and he said, "well its the owners who need to be prosecuted not banning a whole breed" well thank you at least someone has got some sense.

[toy*dog]

Confused. The pictures in the article show Oscar well groomed and looking superficially healthy. The story says Trantor was arrested the day after he was rescued. The event must have happened more than a year ago, cause there were Oscar's Law rallies in October last year. If Deborah Trantor has been working for two decades, she has done so without getting much press. Google shows she has achieved almost no mainstream media coverage and I can find no indication that she has been arrested, other than one 2008 incident reported by the Herald Sun.

No dog lover can support low-grade puppy farms, and only a tiny minority would support sale of puppies in pet shops. But I think we have to be skeptical of Animal Lib people.

Top animal lib activist charged

• From: Herald Sun
• June 16, 2008 12:00AM

A LEADING Victorian animal liberationist has been charged over an incident in which a man was injured when hit by a car and his dog breeder father suffered a heart attack.

Debra Tranter has been charged with assault with a weapon, reckless conduct endangering life and reckless conduct causing injury after a clash at the ACA Breeders Kennels farm, near Sale.

Matthew Hams suffered rib and back injuries when allegedly hit by a car at the farm.

His father Colin, the farm's operator, had a minor heart attack during the drama.

Ms Tranter will appear in Sale Magistrates' Court on June 24.

These charges were actally dropped and Debra was found not guilty. I am not very good with computers, though hope this link works

http://deathrowpets.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/puppy-farmers-have-to-ham-it-up-themselves-our-puppy-mill-warrior-debra-tranter-wins-court-case-with-aca-kennels/

Whoops, sorry. Nic.B wrongly logged in as Poundlist

are you Nic B?

[toy*dog]

Btw, what is considered profit? Is someone 'breeding for profit' because the puppy revenue is more than the immediate costs of putting out a litter? Is the breeder allowed to earn a living wage from breeding, training, and showing dogs . . . and maybe even break even on the many investments required to do a good job breeding dogs?

I don't think 'profit' is any better criteria for determining animal wellbeing than the Vic 'standard' is for deciding what dog is likely to be vicious. There people who plow money from their breeding programs back into building up their kennels. Does it make them 'evil' that they eventually build up quality facilities, quality stock, and good reputations and their investments pay off? Conversely, there are plenty of people who would show only red if you put an accountant to their books, but who treat their dogs poorly and don't invest the revenue they take in from puppy sales in upgrading their kennels.

I doubt anyone in DOL would stand up for the breeders who breed for profit alone and treat their bitches like caged hens or sows in a factory farm. There are breeders who care little for health testing, who feed low grade food, who don't socialise pups, who have filthy premises, and on and on. Few if any would condone selling through pet shops and a vast majority would favor laws banning petshops.

But I think some excellent breeders have good reason to fear attempts to outlaw 'puppy farms' . . . cause many of the campaigners for such laws know nothing about dog breeding, and we all know, politicians go along with some pretty stupid things when it comes to dogs.

we'd be way in the red, way way in the red, like thousands of dollars over in the red, i don't even want to look at what we've spent because that would just squash any enjoyment out of the whole thing. im not interested in how much money we spend. the money is not important to us.

and yes seen this many times, breeders saying they want to break even and get some money back on what they've spent usually thousands upon thousands of dollars over many years. so no one argues about that or looks down on that. not tha ti can see anyway.

[Steve]

I dont care if someone breeds for money, for the show ring or for any other reason . I care about how they treat their dogs.

its only when everyone agrees with what the hell it is we are rallying against or for will any one be able to do anything

and get rid of animals in pet shops ;)

and reading up on clovers moores bill, this is the reason why her bill got turfed out. they said that there was not enough evidence to suggest that puppies sold in petshops was directly related to dumpage in shelters. i believe they added on that argument and then they came up against a brick wall when they were winning but for that.

Its the same thing - assumptions, and some of what they say is easily discredited and it was fed by animal lib.

The activist tendency to paint the entire industry with the same brush has slowed animal welfare improvements by blurring the issues.

The public and politicians can clearly see that not all commercial breeders are guilty of breeding dogs in filthy conditions with little regard for the dog’s health and that puppies on death row dont come from pet shops. The amazing thing is that rather than check first to see that since 1997 microchipping of puppies sold in pet shops has been mandatory so therefore if they did really come from pet shops most puppies would be chipped when they were dumped to see what they were saying could so easily be thrown out they made up their minds and went ahead with it.