Puppy Farm Legislation Victoria

[Are You Serious Jo]

It's very clear once it has been explained, so I can only guess that they don't care what happens to registered breeders, in which case why are they here?

[WreckitWhippet]

Thats it in a nutshell Pav Lova and it amazes me that there are those who can't see this

They just don't get.

DA approval for kennels is not a simple task, depending on where you live, there are requirements to be so many metres off boundary fences, there's drainage, waste dispoal, slab depth, kennel height, impact on neighbours, noise abatement and the list goes on.

It might costs you $10 000 or more for something simple that meets council approval, providing you can even meet the criteria at all.

Then there's the issue of where the smaller breeders choose to house their animals and for many, kennels simply won't cut it and they will be building and paying out for something they may not even use.

[Linda K]

exactly, and all those heralding how wonderful this is, and how fantastically progressive Victoria is (OMFG are they serious ) this is the start of the end of the dog and cat breeding hobby farmers, you will only get the designer breeds now foisted on you by the mills. And don't think because you are in another state you are immune, wait to see the other states fall in line with Vic once they too become Lib states again

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

If the stance is on cruelty to animals, even a legal puppy farm could be affected by the new legislation, and hopefully the more puppy farms - illegal or legal - who are caught doing the wrong thing, the more public pressure to get rid of them altogether there will be. I certainly hope no breeder doing the right thing by their dogs will be affected by this.

[dog_fan]

If the stance is on cruelty to animals, even a legal puppy farm could be affected by the new legislation, and hopefully the more puppy farms - illegal or legal - who are caught doing the wrong thing, the more public pressure to get rid of them altogether there will be. I certainly hope no breeder doing the right thing by their dogs will be affected by this.

Seriously, pay heed to your statement "Look twice. See more than the obvious." because you are missing the implications.

[toy*dog]

Individual breeders will also face penalties of up to $30,000 and 12 months' prison and fines of up to $60,000 and two years' jail for aggravated cruelty.

this. so what constitutes cruelty i wonder. i spose we won't know anything until the actual legislation comes out. i wouldn't like to rely on the media when they are known to stretch the truth a bit.

[Souff]

Individual breeders will also face penalties of up to $30,000 and 12 months' prison and fines of up to $60,000 and two years' jail for aggravated cruelty.

ANYONE who is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals can face these fines and sentences as far as I am concerned.

Souff would make a horrid magistrate - I would throw the book (and more) at people for aggravated cruelty to animals.

BUT .... does anyone know what penalties currently apply (to anyone) in Victoria for aggravated cruelty to animals?

Souff

[Souff]

Individual breeders will also face penalties of up to $30,000 and 12 months' prison and fines of up to $60,000 and two years' jail for aggravated cruelty.

ANYONE who is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals can face these fines and sentences as far as I am concerned.

Souff would make a horrid magistrate - I would throw the book (and more) at people for aggravated cruelty to animals.

BUT .... does anyone know what penalties currently apply (to anyone) in Victoria for aggravated cruelty to animals?

Souff

Thanks Google. According to the article below, in 2009 the penalties for aggravated cruelty in Victoria were:

"The maximum penalty for animal cruelty in Victoria is 12 months in jail or a $13,600 fine.

In aggravated cruelty incidents, leading to the death or serious disablement of an animal, the penalties are doubled to $27,200 or 24 months in jail."

Methinks the Victorian Government should make the fines the same for ALL offenders, breeders or non-breeders.

Kirby speaks out against animal cruelty

Amanda Woods

May 10, 2009

FORMER High Court judge Michael Kirby has called for tougher sentencing for cruelty to animals and greater public awareness of intensive farming practices.

Mr Kirby said Australians needed to be made aware of the conditions animals were kept in and to understand that animal welfare legislation did not offer any protection to agricultural stock.

"I don't believe the people of Australia know the facts that are revealed in this book, and they should know them," Mr Kirby said at the launch of a book on animal law this week.

Advertisement: Story continues below

"If only the people knew the pain the animals go through, the cruelty that is inflicted on sentient animals, they would take action."

Mr Kirby said many would be shocked to learn that intensively farmed chickens are kept in a space equivalent to the size of a piece of A4 paper and that most sows spend their lives in metal stalls that are so small they can't take a step forward or backwards.

He said the book, Animal Law in Australasia, highlighted the need for tougher sentencing for animal cruelty, and that the examples used were astonishing.

The maximum penalty for animal cruelty in Victoria is 12 months in jail or a $13,600 fine.

In aggravated cruelty incidents, leading to the death or serious disablement of an animal, the penalties are doubled to $27,200 or 24 months in jail.

But the acting inspectorate services manager for RSPCA Victoria, Allie Jalbert, said those penalties were not being reflected in sentencing. "In the five years I've been here, I haven't seen the maximum penalties applied to any case, even the most serious cases of beating and killing animals," she said. "Even when we do end up with a good penalty, in most cases it is appealed and they often end up with a lesser sentence.

"Going through the court process can also be very expensive for the agencies that are prosecuting it, which are charities."

Mr Kirby's comments came as debate raged over the future of jumps racing in Australia, after the death of five horses in Victoria this racing season, including three last week. Animal rights advocates condemn the sport as cruel.

Mr Kirby said that while some believed cruelty to animals should not be compared to the suffering of human beings, the parallels between animal rights and important social justice movements of the past could not be denied.

"We should all be upset, because it was when we got upset about slaves that something happened about slaves. It was when we got upset about Aboriginal rights that something happened about Aboriginal rights. Being upset is the beginning of the journey to solutions, " he said.

"Advocates of change should address the fact that our species seems to have developed in part because of our dependence on meat. We need to address what we need to change and the challenge is to work out where to go from here."

Mr Kirby said agricultural stock had been excluded from animal welfare legislation because of a choice made under the law to treat them differently.

The launch of the book, edited by Peter Sankoff and Steven White, was part of the Voiceless Animal Law lecture series, which will be held at the University of Melbourne on Thursday.

The guest lecturer at the series of free public talks is lawyer Bruce Wagman, who is at the forefront of animal law in the US.

While animal law is still emerging as a discipline in Australia, Mr Wagman said Australia was set to follow in America's footsteps. In the US, more than 100 universities including Harvard and Columbia, have offered animal law courses since 1977.

The first animal law course in Australia was taught in 2005, and this year the subject will be taught at six law schools throughout the country. Four of these universities will offer the course for the first time.

With cases of animals being mistreated in agriculture, entertainment, biomedical research and domestic situations, Mr Wagman said lawyers focusing on animal law had tough decisions to make on which battles to fight.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/kirby-speaks-out-against-animal-cruelty-20090509-ayp7.html#ixzz1blcJw8OC

[mortonplace]

"In another major shake-up, it will become compulsory for every dog and cat sold in Victoria to be implanted with a unique microchip number that must be quoted in advertisements and at points of sale."

This is very worrying. What is to stop someone stealing your dog, they know the microchip number, just have to forge a signature to change the details, very much a privacy concern

Yes this true and a huge concern.

Also very cruel on smallier breeds to get such a huge neddle so young.

Unfair and a very un thought laws.its not going to help at all.

lt hasnt been passed yet. So maybe letters to Ted telling him OF the concerns

EXAMPLE {age being quite young as most pups leave at 8 weeks old}

Also dog and owners ID been exposed and the risks it could have.

Maybe he may reconsider some facts?

Anythings worth a try or we may not even own dogs in the very near future

[Shazzapug]

I have been microchipping my puppies at 6 weeks for years...Dogs Vic came out a few mths ago in the gazette to remind breeders that it was not required for them to microchip before the sale of the puppy...so I guess it is now anyway. Until all states of australia are alined with their respecrive canine council rules we will get no where...for eg. in Qld to get a puppy put on LImited reg on a litter registeration it is required by the Qld dogs to get the new puppy owner to sign an agreement saying they are happy for that puppy to go on limited reg and that they were aware of it going on limited reg...HELLO the breeder decides this not the puppy owner. This then goes in the too hard basket for breeders and this is why most puppies one sees advertised from Qld are on main register which in turn adds to the BYBer population and so the cycle continues.

[sandgrubber]

eg. in Qld to get a puppy put on LImited reg on a litter registeration it is required by the Qld dogs to get the new puppy owner to sign an agreement saying they are happy for that puppy to go on limited reg and that they were aware of it going on limited reg...HELLO the breeder decides this not the puppy owner. This then goes in the too hard basket for breeders and this is why most puppies one sees advertised from Qld are on main register which in turn adds to the BYBer population and so the cycle continues.

WA does the same thing. I was told it's a safeguard against lawsuits. Some people either aren't told or don't listen to breeders re Limited. Then the CA gets dragged into disputes because they wanted a pup they could breed or show. I agree that the safeguard is usually unnecessary. But it probably prevents many disputes.

[Steve]

eg. in Qld to get a puppy put on LImited reg on a litter registeration it is required by the Qld dogs to get the new puppy owner to sign an agreement saying they are happy for that puppy to go on limited reg and that they were aware of it going on limited reg...HELLO the breeder decides this not the puppy owner. This then goes in the too hard basket for breeders and this is why most puppies one sees advertised from Qld are on main register which in turn adds to the BYBer population and so the cycle continues.

WA does the same thing. I was told it's a safeguard against lawsuits. Some people either aren't told or don't listen to breeders re Limited. Then the CA gets dragged into disputes because they wanted a pup they could breed or show. I agree that the safeguard is usually unnecessary. But it probably prevents many disputes.

Much easier to simply say so onthe receipt and/ or the contract .

[Steve]

"In another major shake-up, it will become compulsory for every dog and cat sold in Victoria to be implanted with a unique microchip number that must be quoted in advertisements and at points of sale."

This is very worrying. What is to stop someone stealing your dog, they know the microchip number, just have to forge a signature to change the details, very much a privacy concern

Yes this true and a huge concern.

Also very cruel on smallier breeds to get such a huge neddle so young.

Unfair and a very un thought laws.its not going to help at all.

lt hasnt been passed yet. So maybe letters to Ted telling him OF the concerns

EXAMPLE {age being quite young as most pups leave at 8 weeks old}

Also dog and owners ID been exposed and the risks it could have.

Maybe he may reconsider some facts?

Anythings worth a try or we may not even own dogs in the very near future

That argument will take you no where they put microchips in tiny little lizards etc It hurts a bit but if they let puppies and kitten have their organs yanked out to stop them being able to be used for breeding we are hardly going to have a case against a chip needle.

however, it appears there is loads of science to prove microchips cause cancer and because dogs are our property

and we are being told at law that we have no choice some who have animals which have developed cancer which science says is caused by the chips are mounting a class action against councils.

I love the way "should animals have rights " is chopped and changed to suit the moment. One minute we compare them to children and we want them to be treated accordingly until it doesnt suit some management plan.

Then regardless of whether its best for the dog to be vaccinated, or desexed or microchipped those rights go right out the window. So do human property rights for that matter.

Sometmes someone needs to consider how these things affect living animals and their longevity and quality of life rather than focusing on what they can do to prevent them being dumped.

Seriously do they really think anyone other than legal breeders are going to chip their puppies anyway.Do they honestly think that when a breeder drives a couple of hundred kilometres to sell their litters to a dealer in another state that they wont do it now ? Do they think people wont buy their puppies from breeders all over the country?

Mandatory chipping came in for NSW in 1997 and still majority of dogs coming into pounds are not chipped and its impossible to police.

Do they have any idea how difficult it is in that state to do the right thing and apply for a DA and become legal ?

Where is the reward for people who are wanting to do the right thing ?

Time will tell but if youthink you can be exempted in some way because you are registered with a state CC better rethink that.

[mortonplace]

"In another major shake-up, it will become compulsory for every dog and cat sold in Victoria to be implanted with a unique microchip number that must be quoted in advertisements and at points of sale."

This is very worrying. What is to stop someone stealing your dog, they know the microchip number, just have to forge a signature to change the details, very much a privacy concern

Yes this true and a huge concern.

Also very cruel on smallier breeds to get such a huge neddle so young.

Unfair and a very un thought laws.its not going to help at all.

lt hasnt been passed yet. So maybe letters to Ted telling him OF the concerns

EXAMPLE {age being quite young as most pups leave at 8 weeks old}

Also dog and owners ID been exposed and the risks it could have.

Maybe he may reconsider some facts?

Anythings worth a try or we may not even own dogs in the very near future

That argument will take you no where they put microchips in tiny little lizards etc It hurts a bit but if they let puppies and kitten have their organs yanked out to stop them being able to be used for breeding we are hardly going to have a case against a chip needle.

however, it appears there is loads of science to prove microchips cause cancer and because dogs are our property

and we are being told at law that we have no choice some who have animals which have developed cancer which science says is caused by the chips are mounting a class action against councils.

I love the way "should animals have rights " is chopped and changed to suit the moment. One minute we compare them to children and we want them to be treated accordingly until it doesnt suit some management plan.

Then regardless of whether its best for the dog to be vaccinated, or desexed or microchipped those rights go right out the window. So do human property rights for that matter.

Sometmes someone needs to consider how these things affect living animals and their longevity and quality of life rather than focusing on what they can do to prevent them being dumped.

Seriously do they really think anyone other than legal breeders are going to chip their puppies anyway.Do they honestly think that when a breeder drives a couple of hundred kilometres to sell their litters to a dealer in another state that they wont do it now ? Do they think people wont buy their puppies from breeders all over the country?

Mandatory chipping came in for NSW in 1997 and still majority of dogs coming into pounds are not chipped and its impossible to police.

Do they have any idea how difficult it is in that state to do the right thing and apply for a DA and become legal ?

Where is the reward for people who are wanting to do the right thing ?

Time will tell but if youthink you can be exempted in some way because you are registered with a state CC better rethink that.

Tred to send you a PM but l think your inbox is full Steve

[Steve]

Try PM now

[Souff]

I love the way "should animals have rights " is chopped and changed to suit the moment. One minute we compare them to children and we want them to be treated accordingly until it doesnt suit some management plan.

Then regardless of whether its best for the dog to be vaccinated, or desexed or microchipped those rights go right out the window. So do human property rights for that matter.

Sometimes someone needs to consider how these things affect living animals and their longevity and quality of life rather than focusing on what they can do to prevent them being dumped.

Egos and "the cause" are put first; the wellbeing of the individual animal is not the primary consideration.

Souff

[Souff]

This then goes in the too hard basket for breeders and this is why most puppies one sees advertised from Qld are on main register which in turn adds to the BYBer population and so the cycle continues.

Shazzapug, there are plenty of owners out there who are not registered breeders and they own Limited Register dogs which are not-desexed. Which register the dog is on often has little to do if the dog is used by unregistered breeders.

Souff

[sandgrubber]

it appears there is loads of science to prove microchips cause cancer

-steve

????

references, please, or was this sarcasm? (no comment on the grammar or the concept of 'proof' in science)

[Steve]

it appears there is loads of science to prove microchips cause cancer

-steve

????

references, please, or was this sarcasm? (no comment on the grammar or the concept of 'proof' in science)

No it wasnt sarcasm - its true

Edited October 26, 2011 by Steve

[Steve]

This one will start you off.http://www.rense.com/general79/micro.htm

Microchip Cancer Report

From Katherine Albrecht

[email protected]

11-20-7

CASPIAN Sets record straight after misleading claims by HomeAgain and VeriChip implant manufacturers. A new paper titled "Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990­2006" has been released today by CASPIAN. The full, 48-page paper provides a definitive review of the academic literature showing a causal link between implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip transponders and cancer in laboratory rodents and dogs. In addition, a brief, four-page synopsis of the full report is being made available. Eleven articles previously published in toxicology and pathology journals are evaluated in the report. In six of the articles, between 0.8% and 10.2% of laboratory mice and rats developed malignant tumors around or adjacent to the microchips, and several researchers suggested the actual tumor rate may have been higher. Two additional articles reported microchip-related cancer in dogs. In almost all cases, the malignant tumors, typically sarcomas, arose at the site of the implants and grew to surround and fully encase the devices. In several cases the tumors also metastasized or spread to other parts of the animals. Public revelation of a casual link between microchipping and cancer in animals has prompted widespread public concern over the safety of implantable microchips. The story was first broken to the public in September through an article written by Associated Press Reporter Todd Lewan. Prior to the AP story, the journal articles were completely unknown outside of small academic circles. "The AP did a superb job informing the public of the existence of these journal articles," said Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a leading privacy expert and long-time VeriChip opponent who authored the new paper. "Unfortunately," Dr. Albrecht added, "a lot of misinformation about the cancer research has circulated since Mr. Lewan's article was published. I wrote the report to set the record straight." The animal-microchip study findings were so compelling that one of Mr. Lewan's sources, Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, was quoted as saying, "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members." Nevertheless, representatives of the chipping industry have made inaccurate public statements about the research findings in an effort to confuse the public. Scott Silverman, CEO of the VeriChip Corporation which makes the controversial VeriChip human implant, recently provided inaccurate information to Time Magazine. Mr. Silverman is quoted as saying that none of the tumors found in mice in a 2006 French study were malignant. In fact, not only were the tumors malignant sarcomas, but most of the afflicted animals died prematurely as a result of the microchip-associated tumors. In addition, Destron Fearing, makers of the HomeAgain pet implant, dismissed a finding of fibrosarcoma--a highly lethal cancer--as 'benign' in a recent report. A fibrosarcoma is a type of sarcoma, a malignant tumor of soft tissue that connects, supports or surrounds other structures and organs of the body. Dr. Timothy Jennings, an expert on implant-induced cancers in humans, said he was "not aware of any nosology incorporating an entity of 'benign fibrosarcoma'" and agreed that "any tumor classified as sarcoma should be viewed as malignant." "Either VeriChip and the makers of HomeAgain actually don't understand the difference between a benign fibroma and a malignant fibrosarcoma," noted Dr. Albrecht, "or they're deliberately lying to the public. Either way, it's clear they can't be trusted. We hope our new report will set the record straight." The report includes a one- to three-page writeup on each of the original studies. In addition to a detailed review of the academic literature, the report contains recommendations for patients, pet owners, veterinarians, and policy makers, including the following: (1) Further microchipping of humans should be immediately discontinued; (2) Implanted patients should be informed in writing of the research findings and offered a procedure for microchip removal; and (3) Policy makers should reverse all animal microchipping mandates. As part of its public awareness campaign, CASPIAN will be issuing copies of the new report to leading policy and decision makers. The full 48-page report and four-page synopsis are also immediately available for public download at http://www.antichips.com/cancer/ =======================================