Ballan Puppy Farm Protest

[Steve]

Groundhog day Sheridan . The definition I use is the one which was decided upon at the round table conference by all the groups who attended.

A puppy farm is an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

[Sheridan]

Groundhog day Sheridan . The definition I use is the one which was decided upon at the round table conference by all the groups who attended.

A puppy farm is an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

I asked because you seem to be defending commercial dog farms lately.

[moosmum]

Groundhog day Sheridan . The definition I use is the one which was decided upon at the round table conference by all the groups who attended.

A puppy farm is an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

I asked because you seem to be defending commercial dog farms lately.

So its the idea someone is making money you find offensive?

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

I can see what you are saying Steve where if DA's aren't being given out, it will force these types of operations underground, and yes it does make sense that they are licensed and monitored. But I would still not support a commercial breeding operation that houses dogs in cages all their lives, does not breed to improve the breed, and will sell to anybody with the money to buy - weather or not they were licensed to keep that many dogs. I don't personally believe the laws we have, nor those who enforce said laws, are sufficient as they are to prevent this sort of thing happening in commercial (or any other) type of breeding operation. That's why it bothers me when I see these things start up.

And Lilli I know you are not a puppy farm; you have your breeds best interests at heart from the get go. I think a responsible number of dogs to own is determined by a number of things - the amount of time, property and money one has, which is going to vary from person to person.

Raz I did notice that balloon release; while it wasn't the issue foremost in my mind I certainly agree it's not exactly environmentally friendly.

I am not meaning to upset anyone with my opinions, I know I can get passionate in topics I care about, I apologise if I am treading on anybody's toes.

[Steve]

Groundhog day Sheridan . The definition I use is the one which was decided upon at the round table conference by all the groups who attended.

A puppy farm is an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs' behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

I asked because you seem to be defending commercial dog farms lately.

Im against any breeder who keeps dogs in sub standard conditions and the reason I appear to be defending commercial breeders or any breeder is because I want to know who they are and where they are and I want them judged on their actions rather than their motivations. Not because I think commercial breeders are O.K. but because there is no real way to determine what one person's real motivation is for breeding dogs - and if we agree its O.K. to break into people's homes and steal their property and behave illegally based on assumed motivation or any old body's idea of cruelty rather than their actions and the law, If we agree it is O.K. to prevent someone breeding dogs in case they muck it up - then how will anyone be left to breed dogs ? How can you stop someone who says they want to breed dogs for profit but let someone who says they want to breed a champion off the hook in case they muck it up too? What point is a breeder judged breeding commercially - is it a numbers game, is it a puppy count ,is it where they sell them or is it when someone says so or they say so? We work our clackers out trying to educate people and have them follow laws and regs - even if we dont agree with some of them and encourage them to apply for DA's and be more easily able to be monitored so their dogs are at less risk of suffering but the methodology used by animal rights ensure less people not more will apply for a DA.

So Im not defending commercial dog breeders Im hoping we can work toward stopping all dogs from suffering regardless of what group their breeders belong to or what motivation they may have.Reagrdless of whether they breed 1 or 50 .

Im asking that before people dive in and follow animal rights they think it through,look for data , research, evidence and make an effort to see the propoganda and the information objectively to be sure they know what it is they are protesting about and how this may have a negative impact rather than a positive one on the stated desired outcome - to understand the term puppy farmer has 200 different definitions and that they are sure of what the definition is of the group they are protesting with.

If someone wants to protest against commercial breeders thats fine by me and every one has the right to do that - I may even join them as long as they dont ask that people join them in the belief they are protesting against people who keep their dogs in rotten conditions and as long as the information provided to help people to see the problem is true and not simply sensationalism and prooganda. Why? because not all commercial breeders do keep their dogs in rotten conditions and not all breeders of any group can guarantee they dont have some who should be locked up too. The worst Ive ever seen was not a commercial breeder so what are we to do about that - this person was a registered breeder who had around a dozxen dogs so should we perhaps agree that in case some registered breeders might muck it up we should belt the hell out of them for applying for a prefix ? Perhaps we should just decide any one who breeds a certain breed or cross bred dogs or purebred dogs might muck it up so protest and break the law to make em look bad.

[Steve]

I can see what you are saying Steve where if DA's aren't being given out, it will force these types of operations underground, and yes it does make sense that they are licensed and monitored. But I would still not support a commercial breeding operation that houses dogs in cages all their lives, does not breed to improve the breed, and will sell to anybody with the money to buy - weather or not they were licensed to keep that many dogs. I don't personally believe the laws we have, nor those who enforce said laws, are sufficient as they are to prevent this sort of thing happening in commercial (or any other) type of breeding operation. That's why it bothers me when I see these things start up.

And Lilli I know you are not a puppy farm; you have your breeds best interests at heart from the get go. I think a responsible number of dogs to own is determined by a number of things - the amount of time, property and money one has, which is going to vary from person to person.

Raz I did notice that balloon release; while it wasn't the issue foremost in my mind I certainly agree it's not exactly environmentally friendly.

I am not meaning to upset anyone with my opinions, I know I can get passionate in topics I care about, I apologise if I am treading on anybody's toes.

You dont need to apologise any one who loves dogs and cares about even one having to suffer has every right to an opinion and disagree with someone else.

I dont think anyone involved in the conversation is meaning to uopset any one Im certainly not.

There are just so many sub issues here which are difficult to cover but its simply not as easy or a simple as it sounds. No breeder regardless of their motivation wants to have their dogs in cages but before you judge them go and take a look at the mandatory codes they have to comply with - and the requirements which are put on them in order to be able to gain a DA and apart from that - sure Ive no doubt that some breeders do keep their dogs in these cages all the time but most dont or would prefer not to. These codes are put together by people who havent understood that keeping breeding dogs is different to keeping dogs in a boarding kennel or shelter .

A breeder cant even make a decision on whether they should have their dogs vaccinated with live or killed vaccine, or when they should or shouldnt vaccinate. they are enforced to do as they are told even though that is in complete contradiction to that which we know is best for our dogs. Everyone who ever considered breeding an animal knows they produce more and better if they are healthy and happy and its in a breeders best interest to keep their dogs in a more species specific environment and introduce a species specific management plan to ensure they do what they can to increase their quality of life but more and more laws ensure that no breeder is able to do that.

Animal rights have seen what they think the problem is and assumed what it is that has caused it and decided what is needed to fix it .They miss about 90% of it.

[Steve]

I can see what you are saying Steve where if DA's aren't being given out, it will force these types of operations underground, and yes it does make sense that they are licensed and monitored. But I would still not support a commercial breeding operation that houses dogs in cages all their lives, does not breed to improve the breed, and will sell to anybody with the money to buy - weather or not they were licensed to keep that many dogs. I don't personally believe the laws we have, nor those who enforce said laws, are sufficient as they are to prevent this sort of thing happening in commercial (or any other) type of breeding operation. That's why it bothers me when I see these things start up.

And Lilli I know you are not a puppy farm; you have your breeds best interests at heart from the get go. I think a responsible number of dogs to own is determined by a number of things - the amount of time, property and money one has, which is going to vary from person to person.

Raz I did notice that balloon release; while it wasn't the issue foremost in my mind I certainly agree it's not exactly environmentally friendly.

I am not meaning to upset anyone with my opinions, I know I can get passionate in topics I care about, I apologise if I am treading on anybody's toes.

By the way - Im O.K.if the Da's are not being given out because that means they shouldnt be but when a breeder asks for a DA or is granted a DA and they are flogged before they even get a chance at mucking it up that will stop others from asking - that has stopped others from asking . Can you blame them?

[RuralPug]

I really shouldn't bother knocking my head against a brick wall. No doubt you will just repeat your statement that because ethical standards aren't being enforced in this country that we should assume that every breeder is evil and shut them all down. I feel sorry for those who have fallen for the hype and want the baby tossed out with the bathwater...

I haven't stated anywhere: "...that because ethical standards aren't being enforced in this country that we should assume that every breeder is evil and shut them all down."

Ok (sigh) I will spell out for you why I interpreted your statements that way.

First you said that you defined a puppy farm as a "substandard breeding operation" right? Regardless of the fact that this person has agreed to all the standards as set by VCAT (with RSPCA input) you still maintain that they are substandard? Despite the fact that construction has not even begun yet, you are claiming substandard conditions? You stated that you would be joining the protest except for your distate of camping!

When Julie pointed this out, you replied:

So what is the point in everyone joining forces against puppy farmers if none of us can agree on what is a puppy farmer.

If a puppy farmer is what you have defined it as then why are you protesting this one- they havent even started yet - so how are they breeding dogs in rotten conditions?

To me, that is exactly why puppy farms should be made illegal.

Because there is a lack of domestic companion animal legislation and enforcement in Australia.

So, even though you are not sure of the definition of a puppy farm, you still want this operation shut down because it is substandard, even though construction has not yet begun and it has so far met the legal standards. All breeders adhering to the legal standards in your book are therefore substandard.

I would not dream of assuming that you would prefer illegal, unmonitored, unsupervised dog breeding so therefore it is obvious that you want dog breeding " made illegal because there is a lack of domestic companion animal legistlation and enforcement in Australia". Which is an AL goal. Whether or not you support the AL goals, if you assume that any operation that they label "puppy farm" is a substandard breeding operation whether or not there is a shred of proof then you appear to want them to police dog breeding establishments. Considering their stated goals regarding domestic companion animals I do not think that is a wise attitude.

This brick wall is hard.....

[Simply Grand]

Steve, you are doing an amazing job of continuously presenting a rational and law-based argument on this emotive topic! I so admire your persistence and patience! And I think (hope) your point will get across in the end...

Actually I suspect there are many many people out there who totally agree with you but don't have the knowledge or eloquence to say it. I'm one of them!

Erny, what you said was just was I was thinking, if I'm going to rescue a dog I'm willing to take on whatever medical or any other conditions they might bring, I wouldn't need or want them to be health tested. Nor to be put down if there was a potential problem without the chance if rescue being offered.

[Steve]

If in fact anyone from the ANKC is calling for rescue dogs to be tested they make fools of themeselves - Rescue does need to be pulled into line but they are in the same spot we are .More laws are not the answer.

[Steve]

Steve, you are doing an amazing job of continuously presenting a rational and law-based argument on this emotive topic! I so admire your persistence and patience! And I think (hope) your point will get across in the end...

Actually I suspect there are many many people out there who totally agree with you but don't have the knowledge or eloquence to say it. I'm one of them!

Erny, what you said was just was I was thinking, if I'm going to rescue a dog I'm willing to take on whatever medical or any other conditions they might bring, I wouldn't need or want them to be health tested. Nor to be put down if there was a potential problem without the chance if rescue being offered.

Whew - thank you but I also know that some people are not going to ever understand that we have nothing but the best interests at heart for all dogs. I also understand that some have focused on stopping dogs being killed in pounds and our focus is on stopping live dogs suffering - dead is not suffering. I think the cause of that is different to what they think and while their methods may save a dog or two it wont solve the problem - too bad we couldnt work together rather than being seen as the cause.

If we are to be able to go in and advocate for the best possible outcomes for dogs - BSL, breeding , ownership etc ,offer science based education and advice and ensure less dogs suffer we cannot be seen to be

advocating illegal activity or condoning the spread of information which is untrue or biased against one group or another .We have to ensure we are seen to be moderate and credible.

We only have breeder members who breed registered purebred dogs or those working on breed recognition but we also have rescue members who rescue all dogs regardless of their heritage and ordinary dog owners many of which who own dogs which are not pure bred .These are collectively people who want to be able to have the right to own the dog or breed of their choice ,people who want to be able to walk their dogs without fear of being attacked , people who want to be able to take their dogs places they go,people who want to be able to make decsions on how often to vaccinate ,people who want the right to choose whether they want to desex their pets, whether they own a rescue dog, purebred dog or cross bred dog , people who want to be able to choose what is best for their dogs based on a huge amount of variables. They dont want more laws which further restrict them which the people most likely to do the wrong thing will not follow anyway

Every day we have more restrictions on dog ownership because the whole plan of attack has been "what if" or "just in case" .

In the case of breeders we all have to keep our breeding dogs the way we are told in order to be able to keep them .Once you accept a permit or licence situation you no longer have the same ownership rights. You have to agree to do exactly as you are told or loose the right to own a particular breed or to breed dogs.

I am a breeder I own 8 beagles - I love them - they are my life. Ive devoted a huge part of my life to learning all about dogs to be sure that Im doing the best I can to ensure they are healthy and will live long and happy lives.

My dogs live until their late teens and early 20's but just in case some other idiot may do the wrong thing I have no choice but to vaccinate my dogs with live vaccine every year which is exactly the opposite advice we have received by some of the worlds leading canine immunologists . I have to whelp them and house them based on what someone has dictated who has no idea of my breed or my situation in case some hoarder or crimminal treats their dogs badly .

If people really do love dogs and truly do want what is best for them camping on someone's footpath and calling on people to make their lives hell because they asked for a DA - or worse they got one is not the answer .

the only thing that can come from it is more dogs suffering and more donations for animal rights.

[Guest Black Obsession]

I really shouldn't bother knocking my head against a brick wall. No doubt you will just repeat your statement that because ethical standards aren't being enforced in this country that we should assume that every breeder is evil and shut them all down. I feel sorry for those who have fallen for the hype and want the baby tossed out with the bathwater...

I haven't stated anywhere: "...that because ethical standards aren't being enforced in this country that we should assume that every breeder is evil and shut them all down."

Ok (sigh) I will spell out for you why I interpreted your statements that way.

First you said that you defined a puppy farm as a "substandard breeding operation" right? Regardless of the fact that this person has agreed to all the standards as set by VCAT (with RSPCA input) you still maintain that they are substandard? Despite the fact that construction has not even begun yet, you are claiming substandard conditions? You stated that you would be joining the protest except for your distate of camping!

When Julie pointed this out, you replied:

So what is the point in everyone joining forces against puppy farmers if none of us can agree on what is a puppy farmer.

If a puppy farmer is what you have defined it as then why are you protesting this one- they havent even started yet - so how are they breeding dogs in rotten conditions?

To me, that is exactly why puppy farms should be made illegal.

Because there is a lack of domestic companion animal legislation and enforcement in Australia.

So, even though you are not sure of the definition of a puppy farm, you still want this operation shut down because it is substandard, even though construction has not yet begun and it has so far met the legal standards. All breeders adhering to the legal standards in your book are therefore substandard.

I would not dream of assuming that you would prefer illegal, unmonitored, unsupervised dog breeding so therefore it is obvious that you want dog breeding " made illegal because there is a lack of domestic companion animal legistlation and enforcement in Australia". Which is an AL goal. Whether or not you support the AL goals, if you assume that any operation that they label "puppy farm" is a substandard breeding operation whether or not there is a shred of proof then you appear to want them to police dog breeding establishments. Considering their stated goals regarding domestic companion animals I do not think that is a wise attitude.

This brick wall is hard.....

Why are you (mis)interpreting my posts this way?

Are you concerned about me being an undercover Animal Rights "vigilante"? Well, I can assure you that I'm not one, and I think it's possible to support pure breed dogs and Animal Rights at the same time.

Not every person who believes in Animal Rights is a "loonie", just like not every breeder is "evil" (your words, not mine). And there are different factions in Animal Rights groups; some of them are extreme and want all breeding made illegal.

Your posts seem so reactive, and because of that they don't make sense...which is ironic, considering that you had a go at me earlier for a similiar thing

Edited October 5, 2011 by Black Obsession

[raz]

[quote name='Black Obsession' timestamp='1317782650'

Not every person who believes in Animal Rights is a "loonie",

Yes they are. Sorry lovey - animals dont have Rights.

[mita]

I also understand that some have focused on stopping dogs being killed in pounds and our focus is on stopping live dogs suffering - dead is not suffering.

Interesting quote.

[mita]

'Black Obsession'

Not every person who believes in Animal Rights is a "loonie",

Yes they are. Sorry lovey - animals dont have Rights.

No one has rights. Rights are agreed upon & then given. Which is why they are continuously evolving, via discussion and debate. And find their way into community standards or into a legal framework.

Edited October 5, 2011 by mita

[dog_fan]

'Black Obsession'

Not every person who believes in Animal Rights is a "loonie",

Yes they are. Sorry lovey - animals dont have Rights.

No one has rights. Rights are agreed upon & then given. Which is why they are continuously evolving, via discussion and debate. And find their way into community standards or into a legal framework.

Every person who has rights also has responsibilities.

An animal cannot have rights because they cannot agree to the resultant responsibilities.

It is our job as the people with the rights to have the responsibility for an animals welfare and animal welfare is very very different from animal rights.

[schnauzer]

[quote name='Black Obsession' timestamp='1317782650'

Not every person who believes in Animal Rights is a "loonie"

Yes they are. Sorry lovey - animals dont have Rights.

Hi Raz

We will have to agree to disagree with this one.

I do believe that dogs as companion animals have the right to a good home, a warm bed, and a loving owner.

I do not believe that they should be bred in cages for their entire lives, without exercise, proper nutrition, social interaction, vet treatment and enrichment.

[dog_fan]

[quote name='Black Obsession' timestamp='1317782650'

Not every person who believes in Animal Rights is a "loonie"

Yes they are. Sorry lovey - animals dont have Rights.

Hi Raz

We will have to agree to disagree with this one.

I do believe that dogs as companion animals have the right to a good home, a warm bed, and a loving owner.

I do not believe that they should be bred in cages for their entire lives, without exercise, proper nutrition, social interaction, vet treatment and enrichment.

In my opinion, what you have outlined is animal welfare issues not animal rights and I am sure no one here would have any issues with what you have outlined.

[Steve]

'Black Obsession'

Not every person who believes in Animal Rights is a "loonie",

Yes they are. Sorry lovey - animals dont have Rights.

No one has rights. Rights are agreed upon & then given. Which is why they are continuously evolving, via discussion and debate. And find their way into community standards or into a legal framework.

You lost me.

If I give someone rights doesnt that mean they have them ? So far thank heavens animals dont have rights because they havent been given any . They havent been given any because they cannot be accountable and responsible Because whether or not the animal rights loonies want to admit it or not they really are a different species.

Shall we give them the right not to be eaten? how do we tell that to other species who want to eat them? Or do we only give them the right not to be eaten by humans - isnt that treating humans as a different species - dont the rat bags want - an end to specieism.

[mita]

'Black Obsession'

Not every person who believes in Animal Rights is a "loonie",

Yes they are. Sorry lovey - animals dont have Rights.

No one has rights. Rights are agreed upon & then given. Which is why they are continuously evolving, via discussion and debate. And find their way into community standards or into a legal framework.

Every person who has rights also has responsibilities.

An animal cannot have rights because they cannot agree to the resultant responsibilities.

It is our job as the people with the rights to have the responsibility for an animals welfare and animal welfare is very very different from animal rights.

By your own personal definition, a baby or a mentally retarded person cannot be given rights under the law. Neither could a person in a coma.

The question of rights is an ongoing debate because it's something that the community decides if it will agree to give....&, if so, is then formulated under the law, or under an agreed upon charter.

Which is why I have no worries about community discussion & debate on the matter.

Edited October 5, 2011 by mita