Email From Tom Couchman

[Tralee]

It will be necessary to start interpreting the document in a more abstract manner by which I mean imagining the situation in the guide dog and greyhound industries.

There the animals may be, for all intents and puposes, permanently housed and therefore permanently regulated.

But again, I am going to sit with the interpretation of the document as 'the breeding' of cats and dogs and not extract the meaning from it to be 'a breeding' cat or dog.

Px

When this was first published I rang and spoke with the person in charge of this with the DPI and I was told that in the activity of breeding dogs meant anyone who breeds a litter.

I can give you examples of people who have been advised of what they have had to do to comply with this after visits from the RSPCA who have less than 6 dogs.

One had a call from the RSPCA ... the breeder had dogs in a large fenced area - no puppies and was told that it did not fit the code and was given 4 weeks to comply. ... When the ranger returned again she was told she couldn't breed dogs on her premises as it did not comply with the code.

steve

Well Yes.

Anyone who breeds a litter is involved in the activity of breeding, and they would need to demonstrate that they have the facilities required whether they are permanent or temporary and that they can be brought into service as needed.

It means somewhere that can be set aside.

Without such evidence, decisions might have to be made.

Now just indulge me a minute here.

For the purposes of comparison, let's compare hospitals(veterinary clinics if you like) with kennels.

Maternity is a special facility but it is only needed during birth.

It is simply absurd to suggest that dogs need to be permanently housed in kennels akin to a maternity ward.

Therefore, owners are no more required to maintain permanent whelping facilities than they are to permanently house their dogs in runs away from the house.

On the other hand, if you want to be extremist, this could all be leading to the situation where whelps need to be overseen by a Vet and the dogs have to kept at a clinic for, and from, mating through to whelping and homing of the pups.

That is just plainly unrealistic, impractical and too costly.

During the time frame of mating dogs, caring for a pregnant bitch, whelping, weaning and homing of the pups extraordinary considerations do have to be made.

But I expect that the document is an adjunct to existing documents and applies to the specific and particular time of mating, whelping etc.

Other wise it would make the other documents redundant and it is clearly stated that it does not.

I understand that some people ruin things for the rest of us, but that's what we all have to contend with in all avenues of life.

Px

Edited December 28, 2011 by Tralee

[espinay2]

But I expect that the document is an adjunct to existing documents and applies to the specific and particular time of mating, whelping etc.

Let me explain it in simple terms..........

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1979 applies to everyone who has anything to do with dogs (and other animals)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 2006 is additional to the above Act (made under the provisions of the Act) and provides further guidance on specific circumstances. In this case Part 3 sets out specific ADDITIONAL regulation for those involved in breeding). It applies NOT just when a person is undertaking the act of breeding a dog but THE WHOLE TIME A DOG IS KEPT WITH THE INTENT OF THAT PURPOSE

The Code of Practice EXPANDS on the individual requirements set out in the above Regulations. It contains both Standards (which are legal requirements and shown in the shaded sections - these are the really important bits to take note of) and 'Guidelines' (which are policy, or things that are highly recommended but not enforced under law)

The law is a TIERED SYSTEM with each additional document expanding on the specific requirements of the one above it.

The code does NOT apply ONLY to the specific time of mating and whelping. What you expect, and what is fact in the legislation are two totally different things.

Edited December 28, 2011 by espinay2

[Alyosha]

Yet everyone seems to think that the entirety of this document provides for mandatory conditions?

The only enforceable ones are the "standards" which are clearly defined in shaded boxes. Read it again. Carefully, and only the shaded boxes. The cause for alarm bells should ring much, much more softly.

Anyone?

Edited December 28, 2011 by Alyosha

[Tralee]

But I expect that the document is an adjunct to existing documents and applies to the specific and particular time of mating, whelping etc.

Let me explain it in simple terms..........

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1979 applies to everyone who has anything to do with dogs (and other animals)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 2006 is additional to the above Act (made under the provisions of the Act) and provides further guidance on specific circumstances. In this case Part 3 sets out specific ADDITIONAL regulation for those involved in breeding). It applies NOT just when a person is undertaking the act of breeding a dog but THE WHOLE TIME A DOG IS KEPT WITH THE INTENT OF THAT PURPOSE

The Code of Practice EXPANDS on the individual requirements set out in the above Regulations.

The law is a TIERED SYSTEM with each additional document expanding on the specific requirements of the one above it.

The code does NOT apply ONLY to the specific time of mating and whelping. What you expect, and what is fact in the legislation are two totally different things.

I can comply but that I expect may be the exception.

I think it would be errant to interpret the law outside of the spirit in which it was written.

Aftererall, we live in a compassionate society.

And the reading being made I think lacks compassion.

From this point of view I suggest:

Some of the standards will clearly not apply if I am not; mating two dogs; have a pregnant bitch or a bitch in whelp, or weaning puppies.

Therefore it follows that the code is specific and particular and not universal.

Although, it applies universally at those to times to everyone involved in the activity of breeding.

It is absurd to link the times I am showing with the activity of breeding.

The law may be an ass but to to make a reading in like manner simply makes a farce of the whole process.

And, this is what I was saying earlier. The document lacks nuance.

Px

[Tralee]

Yet everyone seems to think that the entirety of this document provides for mandatory conditions?

The only enforceable ones are the "standards" which are clearly defined in shaded boxes. Read it again. Carefully, and only the shaded boxes. The cause for alarm bells should ring much, much more softly.

Anyone?

Agreed

Except you haven't been very specific.

Px

[Alyosha]

:confused: Is that facetious?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Yet everyone seems to think that the entirety of this document provides for mandatory conditions?

The only enforceable ones are the "standards" which are clearly defined in shaded boxes. Read it again. Carefully, and only the shaded boxes. The cause for alarm bells should ring much, much more softly.

Anyone?

No, I noticed that the shaded bits are the bits that are required. I have a bigger set of baggage about animal regulation being one size fits all, probably from a previous life in regulatory jobs, but I don't have any magic solutions.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

:confused: Is that facetious?

You and Espinay are making a lot of very good sense in this thread.

[Alyosha]

Thanks SSM. I thought I was going mad... (er...)

The nature of much regulation is that it can't fit every circumstance and situation. That's where discretion and reasonable come in. I'm not for a moment saying that all those who work in regulation are reasonable, and there are cowboys in every regulatory field. But people subject to stuff like this need to know it, apply it practically and reasonably, and challenge cowboys in a sensible manner if they encounter them.

Most of us would have no qualms about lodging complaints about a police officer whom we felt had gone completely over the top in applying some minor regulation or law. So why wouldn't we do the same if challenged about our dogs when we have nothing to hide? I found Steve's example pretty disheartening really - why run off and desex all your dogs if you feel you can justify what you do and why you do it, and can demonstrate how it relates to this Code? Even if not word for word.

[espinay2]

Yet everyone seems to think that the entirety of this document provides for mandatory conditions?

The only enforceable ones are the "standards" which are clearly defined in shaded boxes. Read it again. Carefully, and only the shaded boxes. The cause for alarm bells should ring much, much more softly.

Anyone?

No, no mistakes. I have been outlining the differences between the Standards (law) and Guidance (policy) in the Code in my posts?

I do agree with you totally on how it should be. In fact I try to make sure that is how it is in my job ;) Unfortunately I think I have become a bit jaded over the years and have seen how wide the gap can be between what the 'general public' considers natural justice and what the 'system' does .

I think one of the problems is that under prevention of cruelty to animals legislation there are actually a lot more powers given to the 'enforcers' than there would be under 'normal' legislation (for example they actually in some cases have more powers than police when it comes to entry, search and seizure). It seems to stand on its own in this respect and the abiliy to redress isn't as robust as IMO it should be. These powers have been used and abused numerous times and there are multiple examples of how this has affected people in the dog community. Steves example and Judy's in Vic are just the tip of the iceberg. Another example I know of was a breed rescue (in our area) that ended up shutting down as it could not meet the requirement that all its runs be concreted with inbuilt drainage (this is under a separate code, but also covered by the Regs quoted here). The runs in question were clean, well kept and covered but had dirt floors so could not meet the legislated requirements for regular disinfection.

No, I don't want to be doomsday about this. There is a lot of good in the code and if some people lift their game as a result then that can only be good. But it pays to make sure we know what is in it and think about how it affects us individually. If someone came to my gate today, what would they see and how might they interpret that? If I was asked for the documents I was supposed to have, could I produce them? (whether I WOULD produce them is another issue ;) ). Certainly I personally have a bit of work to do checking this stuff and seeing how many boxes I can reasonably tick - for my own peace of mind.

Edited December 28, 2011 by espinay2

[Alyosha]

You're right Espinay.

But if people are finding that the problems faced by breeders are not the specifications of this or similar Codes, but over zealous regulators enforcing them, that issue needs to be where dog people stand together and support each other. The Courts take a dim view of over-regulation and their time being wasted.

I cannot see the majority of normal small time hobby exhibitor/breeders having any issue with compliance with this document. But I have to say, on a personal note, that I would want first hand physical knowledge of a situation before I sided with any dog owner or breeder on their standards, as I have walked into some nightmares both large and small scale. It's hard to say we should band together when some of us have experience that makes us wary of doing so.

PS. In NSW RSPCA don't have powers in excess of what police do. Police have all the same powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The difference lies in a different level of accountability - police are and rspca largely aren't.

[espinay2]

Thanks for the correction, you are right . (Perhaps I should have said the powers in general under the act are greater than in many other circumstances when it comes to things like search and seizure?)

One of the important things I think will be to ensure that if the code comes up for review that we make sure we have input - individually as well as through organisations such as Dogs NSW. I have no problem with it being enacted where it is, as you say, reasonable to do so. We have to be careful though that we are not legislated more and more over time into a situation where the only way we can be a 'breeder' is to invest in expensive facilities and adopt practices which add no value to the production of healthy and well balanced dogs.

Edited December 28, 2011 by espinay2

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I have to say, on a personal note, that I would want first hand physical knowledge of a situation before I sided with any dog owner or breeder on their standards, as I have walked into some nightmares both large and small scale. It's hard to say we should band together when some of us have experience that makes us wary of doing so.

x 2 I haven't seen the nightmares you've seen, but I've seen enough to know that you can't judge how well a person keeps their dogs by how they present away from their house or how good they sound on the internet.

Edit: This applies not just to breeders, but to pet owners as well.

Edited December 28, 2011 by SkySoaringMagpie

[Alyosha]

Yep. The only constants in disastrous animal husbandry are humans and animals. Pure, cross, rural, urban, large scale or small. Any can be shocking, with no minimum standards. External appearances, awards, qualifications and whatever other credentials are involved don't mean squat sometimes.

Like Espinay says, we need to stay involved in the consultation process. We need to be seen to be acknowledging and discrediting those who don't meet bare minimum standards, not trying to protect them as that will put the credibility of all breeders out the window.

Yes pure breeders need to stick together, but we need to ensure that we are maintaining standards as part of that. Hence the email I suppose. :D

edit - missed some words!!

Edited December 28, 2011 by Alyosha