Email From Tom Couchman

[Steve]

Better than what and for which animals? This is not better for my dogs - they already had it pretty good living as part of a flock or part of a family.

How on earth is it better for my dogs to have to be over vaccinated or over medicated and way way over managed in order to be able to breed a litter now and then?

[Tralee]

Better than what and for which animals? This is not better for my dogs - they already had it pretty good living as part of a flock or part of a family.

How on earth is it better for my dogs to have to be over vaccinated or over medicated and way way over managed in order to be able to breed a litter now and then?

Well you shouldn't remove my comment from the context of byb.

But your question is exactly what my query is.

How does the code benefit, and not restrict, among others of course, the breeding of working dogs like the Maremma?

Also, the situation in Italy is very interesting but we are concerned with NSW at the moment.

Px

[BJean]

Better than what and for which animals? This is not better for my dogs - they already had it pretty good living as part of a flock or part of a family.

How on earth is it better for my dogs to have to be over vaccinated or over medicated and way way over managed in order to be able to breed a litter now and then?

Well you shouldn't remove my comment from the context of byb.

But your question is exactly what my query is.

How does the code benefit, and not restrict, among others of course, the breeding of working dogs like the Maremma?

Also, the situation in Italy is very interesting but we are concerned with NSW at the moment.

I don't think Steve lives in Italy

Edited December 26, 2011 by lilli

[Steve]

But I have no choice but to assess the code from the context of my dogs and my environment not BYB or large scale commercial places or any others. The fact is my dogs are not better off because I have to comply with this code.Especially my Maremma.

I have to look at how this impacts on me , my dogs and how I want to be able to live with them and enjoy their company. I'm not happy to be restricted in the choices I can make based on what someone else may do if these laws are not placed on them. I'm not happy to have codes and laws placed on breeders where there is no science to support that it is best practice. BYB and big commercial kennels shouldn't have to have their dogs over vaccinated and over medicated either by the way.

[Alyosha]

Reading it carefully I think there is less cause for alarm than upon initial perusal.

The vaccination regime I don't agree with, nor the heartworm one. But my vet would agree with me on both, and so those sections are covered. I'm sure many reliable vets would be similar.

What sections in particular worry you about your Maremma Steve?

[Tralee]

But I have no choice but to assess the code from the context of my dogs and my environment not BYB or large scale commercial places or any others. The fact is my dogs are not better off because I have to comply with this code.Especially my Maremma.

I have to look at how this impacts on me , my dogs and how I want to be able to live with them and enjoy their company. I'm not happy to be restricted in the choices I can make based on what someone else may do if these laws are not placed on them. I'm not happy to have codes and laws placed on breeders where there is no science to support that it is best practice. BYB and big commercial kennels shouldn't have to have their dogs over vaccinated and over medicated either by the way.

Exactly.

The issue is about choice.

And that bring us back the the triple criteria I have mentioned before.

Which practises, with which dogs, in which situations will be the most efficacious?

The permutations and combinations are enormous.

But most importantly, as I have been thinking about the document, if the meaning of the title is not skewed to an understanding of breeding as an adjective, that is breeding as in keeping an entire dog (which would put the document into the context of anyone with a prefix) but is extended to the meaning of breeding as a verb which is to say the time in which the animals are mated, whelped and weaned, then the requirements of the code become particular and limited. In other words, it only needs to be enacted during the actual breeding (verb) of the animals.

The other documents will, therefore, cover other non-breeding times.

But the other point is that the document could not have been envisaged or compiled with the intention of applying to one individual person with dogs. It must be particular and universal. That is why I made the point: I suspect the definition of terms is lacking the essential nuance companion animal owners will be looking for, and who can be expected to start screaming about its ommission.

Just as homing pet shop puppies before eight weeks of age does not apply to all puppies, the setting of a baseline in which to define the criteria for which investigations may be assessed, could not have been designed, in particular, to undermine the majority of dog owners but was surely intended more universally to apply to those who believe they can disregard the dignity of our more favoured sentient beings.

Regards

Px

Edited December 26, 2011 by Tralee

[BJean]

Exactly.

The issue is about choice.

And that bring us back the the triple criteria I have mentioned before.

Which practises, with which dogs, in which situations will be the most efficacious?

The permutations and combinations are enormous.

The document has replaced 'choice' with Standards.

But most importantly, as I have been thinking about the document, if the meaning of the title is not skewed to an understanding of breeding as an adjective, that is breeding as in keeping an entire dog (which would put the document into the context of anyone with a prefix) but is extended to the meaning of breeding as a verb which is to say the time in which the animals are mated, whelped and weaned, then the requirements of the code become particular and limited. In other words, it only needs to be enacted during the actual breeding (verb) of the animals.

The other documents will, therefore, cover other non-breeding times.

Lot's of ifs and fluff when there is no need.

It is clearly stated:

This Code is designed for everyone involved in the activity of breeding dogs and cats and has been developed to protect the welfare of the animals in their care.

But the other point is that the document could not have been envisaged or compiled with the intention of applying to one individual person with dogs. It must be particular and universal. That is why I made the point: I suspect the definition of terms is lacking the essential nuance companion animal owners will be looking for, and who can be expected to start screaming about its ommission.

I doubt most companion animal owners will even read it.

Just as homing pet shop puppies before eight weeks of age does not apply to all puppies, the setting of a baseline in which to define the criteria for which investigations may be assessed, could not have been designed, in particular, to undermine the majority of dog owners but was surely intended more universally to apply to those who believe they can disregard the dignity of our more favoured sentient beings.

whether "designed in particular"

or as a result of the design,

the majority of hobby dog breeders are adversely affected or impinged upon,

is hardly a good thing for the future of dog ownership and hobby dog breeding.

[espinay2]

Exactly.

The issue is about choice.

And that bring us back the the triple criteria I have mentioned before.

Which practises, with which dogs, in which situations will be the most efficacious?

The permutations and combinations are enormous.

The document has replaced 'choice' with Standards.

Certainly breeders will have a choice, but that choice will be to either comply, or to not comply with the clear understanding that that non-compliance may potentially mean a penalty or prosecution depending on the severity of the infringement. The document makes that very clear whether you choose to accept that or not.

Beleive me, as someone whose day job has for many years involved writing, reviewing, amending and determining compliance with legislation written in similar language, there are no ifs ands or buts with this. The code makes it clear that those sections specified as 'standards' MUST be complied with by all those involved in breeding dogs:

"Standards describe the mandatory specific actions needed to achieve acceptable animal welfare levels. These are the minimum standards that must be met under law."

Edited December 27, 2011 by espinay2

[Tralee]

It is clearly stated: This Code is designed for everyone involved in the activity of breeding dogs and cats and has been developed to protect the welfare of the animals in their care.

And therein is the escape clause, namely, where it states: 'the activity of breeding dogs and cats' should be read as the time and duration in which dogs or cats are bred.

I can't imagine many people are going to have multiple dogs involved in 'the activity of breeding' all at the same time.

Therefore many of the clauses are redundant.

If they have multiple dogs or cats being mated simultaneously, then it is for them to address the issues as they arise.

This whole exercise in this thread is only an attempt to firstly, make sense of the document and secondly, to consider its ramifications.

If I appear to be advocating for it or taking a stance in opposition to it then I have been misunderstood.

My dogs can't read, I have to do it for them.

Px

Edited December 27, 2011 by Tralee

[espinay2]

Sorry, but there is no escape clause there.

If you keep a dog or dogs for the purpose of breeding, whether or not you happen to have a litter or bitch in whelp at the time, it will apply. No use trying to read something into it that is not there.

There is no time limit specification in the wording which switches it on and off and the standards actually cover more than just the events that happen during that short time where a bitch is in whelp or has a litter (i.e. covers lifetime care).

So if, for example, you have a breeders prefix, a website that says you are a breeder, a breeder listing on DOL, or even if you co-own a dog that is bred (note definition of owner includes 'each and all owners') you are subject to the code ALL THE TIME and not just if you happen to have a bitch in whelp or have a litter on the ground.

[Alyosha]

The larger majority of information contained in the document consists of "guidlelines" with the enforceable "standards" only being in the shaded boxes.

This Code contains both standards and guidelines for the care of dogs or cats for breeding. The standards have legal effect in three ways:

Much of what folks have copied and pasted here as being of concern, comes from the "guideline" sections.

Scanning through them, most are no brainers...

This one is odd

6.3.1.5 Functioning fire fighting equipment must be readily available and staff trained and practised in its use.

Ordinarily? A hose.

These ones are a bit out there for a normal household type setup:

7.3.1.2 Animal enclosures must be disinfected at least once weekly.

7.3.1.4 Bedding must be cleaned or changed at least once daily and disinfected at least once a week.

But, as with all legislation the test of reasonable-ness will apply. Obviously courts would take a very dim view of people being expected to disinfect a paddock, or a human home once a week. It would be reasonably argued that these conditions would relate to animals confined to enclosures such as the document describes.

And maybe this one:

10.1.1.14 Solid food must be offered to puppies and kittens from three weeks of age.

Yet again, what is reasonable in the circumstances? And a vet's opinion would quickly overrule any allegation about lack of feeding made against a breeder who had obviously well nourished pups and bitch.

This code is not like an Act that may have some sections that are subject to legal rules such as Strict Liability. The key word is always going to be reasonable. The aim of the Code is not prosecution, or a legislative instrument would have been preferred. The aim appears to be largely advisory.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Sorry, but there is no escape clause there.

If you keep a dog or dogs for the purpose of breeding, whether or not you happen to have a litter or bitch in whelp at the time, it will apply. No use trying to read something into it that is not there.

There is no time limit specification in the wording which switches it on and off and the standards actually cover more than just the events that happen during that short time where a bitch is in whelp or has a litter (i.e. covers lifetime care).

So if, for example, you have a breeders prefix, a website that says you are a breeder, a breeder listing on DOL, or even if you co-own a dog that is bred (note definition of owner includes 'each and all owners') you are subject to the code ALL THE TIME and not just if you happen to have a bitch in whelp or have a litter on the ground.

Agree with espinay - I have a website that says "no puppies available at the moment" but which also clearly indicates I am contemplating breeding. So I'm caught in this.

I'll be working with the requirements to sort out my compliance, something which annoys the hell out of me because I think dogs are better bred in family homes, and this is not a set of guidelines suited for a family home. Maybe someone needs to wind Dr Dunbar up to send a message to our regulators when he is out here in January? This is rubbish regulation, apart from anything else. Does NSW have an OBPR equivalent I wonder?

[Tralee]

Sorry, but there is no escape clause there.

If you keep a dog or dogs for the purpose of breeding, whether or not you happen to have a litter or bitch in whelp at the time, it will apply. No use trying to read something into it that is not there.

There is no time limit specification in the wording which switches it on and off and the standards actually cover more than just the events that happen during that short time where a bitch is in whelp or has a litter (i.e. covers lifetime care).

So if, for example, you have a breeders prefix, a website that says you are a breeder, a breeder listing on DOL, or even if you co-own a dog that is bred (note definition of owner includes 'each and all owners') you are subject to the code ALL THE TIME and not just if you happen to have a bitch in whelp or have a litter on the ground.

espinay2

Well, it now becomes a philosphical argument over the meaning of Breeding. It can be taken as an adjective, which I would hasten to add makes the document 'punative.'

Or, it can be understood as a verb as in 'the breeding' of cats and dogs, which obviously casts the document in a less restrictive light.

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.

I don't think mum and dad breeders would or should warrant breaches.

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

Edited December 27, 2011 by Tralee

[Tralee]

If you keep a dog or dogs for the purpose of breeding, whether or not you happen to have a litter or bitch in whelp at the time, it will apply. No use trying to read something into it that is not there.

There is no time limit specification in the wording which switches it on and off and the standards actually cover more than just the events that happen during that short time where a bitch is in whelp or has a litter (i.e. covers lifetime care).

So if, for example, you have a breeders prefix, a website that says you are a breeder, a breeder listing on DOL, or even if you co-own a dog that is bred (note definition of owner includes 'each and all owners') you are subject to the code ALL THE TIME and not just if you happen to have a bitch in whelp or have a litter on the ground.

Agree with espinay - I have a website that says "no puppies available at the moment" but which also clearly indicates I am contemplating breeding. So I'm caught in this.

I'll be working with the requirements to sort out my compliance, something which annoys the hell out of me because I think dogs are better bred in family homes, and this is not a set of guidelines suited for a family home. Maybe someone needs to wind Dr Dunbar up to send a message to our regulators when he is out here in January? This is rubbish regulation, apart from anything else. Does NSW have an OBPR equivalent I wonder?

SkySoaringMagpie

It is a rubbish document if, and only if, it does not apply specifically to the particular activity of breeding.

It is not a rubbish document if it has to be observed universally.

In saying that I do not intend a contradiction.

I think it needs to be understood as it is encompassed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1979

To wit:

Part 3 Section 34A

34A Guidelines relating to welfare of farm or companion animals

(1) The regulations may prescribe guidelines, or may adopt a document in the nature of guidelines or a code of practice as guidelines, relating to the welfare of species of farm or companion animals.

And that there are other laws and regulations, for example; the Local Government Act, 1993; or the Companion Animals Act, 1998 that cater for 'other activities.'

In my efforts to come to terms with the document I don't think it is helpful to take a literal or fundamentalist position.

That would be to claim the document is comparable to our Quarantine practices and processes and it does not seem to me to have been the authors' and collaborators' intentions.

Regards

Px

Edited December 27, 2011 by Tralee

[Tralee]

Much of what folks have copied and pasted here as being of concern, comes from the "guideline" sections.

These ones are a bit out there for a normal household type setup:

7.3.1.2 Animal enclosures must be disinfected at least once weekly.

7.3.1.4 Bedding must be cleaned or changed at least once daily and disinfected at least once a week.[/b]

It would be reasonably argued that these conditions would relate to animals confined to enclosures such as the document describes.

This code is not like an Act that may have some sections that are subject to legal rules such as Strict Liability.

Alyosha

Exactly.

Those guidelines scream to me of a hospital type situation or accomodation, a more institutionalised facility.

There, strict controls on 'biosecurity' are paramount.

And I think you are right again it is a Code.

But more than that it falls within the auspices of both the DOGS NSW Code of Ethics and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200.

That I think places it in its intended perpective as far as DOGS NSW are concerned.

To those of us with a prefix it is a sub-code.

Px

[espinay2]

The larger majority of information contained in the document consists of "guidlelines" with the enforceable "standards" only being in the shaded boxes.

This Code contains both standards and guidelines for the care of dogs or cats for breeding. The standards have legal effect in three ways:

Much of what folks have copied and pasted here as being of concern, comes from the "guideline" sections.

Scanning through them, most are no brainers...

This one is odd

6.3.1.5 Functioning fire fighting equipment must be readily available and staff trained and practised in its use.

Ordinarily? A hose.

These ones are a bit out there for a normal household type setup:

7.3.1.2 Animal enclosures must be disinfected at least once weekly.

7.3.1.4 Bedding must be cleaned or changed at least once daily and disinfected at least once a week.

But, as with all legislation the test of reasonable-ness will apply. Obviously courts would take a very dim view of people being expected to disinfect a paddock, or a human home once a week. It would be reasonably argued that these conditions would relate to animals confined to enclosures such as the document describes.

And maybe this one:

10.1.1.14 Solid food must be offered to puppies and kittens from three weeks of age.

Yet again, what is reasonable in the circumstances? And a vet's opinion would quickly overrule any allegation about lack of feeding made against a breeder who had obviously well nourished pups and bitch.

This code is not like an Act that may have some sections that are subject to legal rules such as Strict Liability. The key word is always going to be reasonable. The aim of the Code is not prosecution, or a legislative instrument would have been preferred. The aim appears to be largely advisory.

Remembering of course that the test for 'unreasonableness' (as per Wednesbury) is that for grounds for review to be available the decision must be 'so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come of it'. It is also important to note that VERY few cases ever succeed on the grounds of unreasonableness alone so it is not something I would ever want to rely on.

Having been involved in the use of this principle quite often I know that just because we may not think it is 'reasonable' does not necessarily mean those in power reviewing it will. Remember that many thought it 'reasonable' to show a dog that has been debarked. It is not within the realms of possibility for it to be considered reasonable for someone to disinfect a backyard dog run weekly, to wash bedding daily, to feed puppies solids at 3 weeks or to vaccinate for canine cough (this one is in the 'standards' section too). Certainly I would perhaps consider disinfecting a house to be 'something overwhelming' (in the words of the case mentioned above) enough to be considered unreasonable, but if that same person has a dog run, paved outdoor area or designated whelping room etc, where dogs are housed even for part of the time, I doubt the test for unreasonableness would apply to those areas. Also, if a person were to argue that their set-up does not easily permit these things designated in the standards to happen, I would also be wary of the counter argument that the set-up is therefore 'deficient'.

Note that the Code of Practice is made under the provisions of Part 3, Clause 20 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 2006 which is classified as subdelegated legislation. It is listed in Schedule 2 of that document. The 'standards' within the code are also subdelegated legislation (factors which must be considered by law), while the 'guidelines' can be classified as policy (still to be considered, but not compelled by law).

Tralee, please note that as far as NSW state law is concerned, the DOGS NSW Code of ethics is irrelevant. That is a private body we sign up to as a private individual and has no standing whatsoever in law.

Edited December 28, 2011 by espinay2

[Steve]

Sorry, but there is no escape clause there.

If you keep a dog or dogs for the purpose of breeding, whether or not you happen to have a litter or bitch in whelp at the time, it will apply. No use trying to read something into it that is not there.

There is no time limit specification in the wording which switches it on and off and the standards actually cover more than just the events that happen during that short time where a bitch is in whelp or has a litter (i.e. covers lifetime care).

So if, for example, you have a breeders prefix, a website that says you are a breeder, a breeder listing on DOL, or even if you co-own a dog that is bred (note definition of owner includes 'each and all owners') you are subject to the code ALL THE TIME and not just if you happen to have a bitch in whelp or have a litter on the ground.

espinay2

Well, it now becomes a philosphical argument over the meaning of Breeding. It can be taken as an adjective, which I would hasten to add makes the document 'punative.'

Or, it can be understood as a verb as in 'the breeding' of cats and dogs, which obviously casts the document in a less restrictive light.

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.

I don't think mum and dad breeders would or should warrant breaches.

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 after she had been reported for having a de barked dog - the dog was debarked 5 years ago. I wont go into what happened with this - different subject but 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. She took all of her dogs out and had them desexed. When the ranger returned again she was told she couldn't breed dogs on her premises as it did not comply with the code. She replied that she no longer intended to breed and all of her dogs were now desexed. No more problem she is able to keep her dogs in the manner she had always kept them.

[Alyosha]

I think we are succumbing to doomsday feelings here.

Maybe with my background I have less qualms about applying or even challenging something like this if need be? But I think the doom and gloom around it is unwarranted if it is read carefully and any cowboy regulators that may appear out of the woodwork can be challenged sensibly.

With the bit like vaccinations for KC, heartworm regimes etc. They all specify under veterinary advice, or otherwise with veterinary advice etc. So me as an example: I don't vaccinate for KC, and I don't treat for heartworm. Both are on advice from my vet and supported by him. So those clauses wouldn't worry me. I would presume that most breeders are fortunate to have a vet available that they trust and interact with on a level that support would be forthcoming in these sort of instances?

[Alyosha]

And, if I had an enclosure in my backyard, it would normally be kept at a sanitary level, so no issues there. How would an attending regulator possibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that I had not disinfected it within the last week??

If it was encrusted with filth it might be an issue. But again, if it was at a normal standard of cleanliness like we would all maintain anyway... It may have been disinfected yesterday. last week, last year if not in current use. Who knows? Only the owner/user.

Sometimes people need to be a bit savvy when answering questions too. ;) If anyone here was questioned on any of these "standards" by a visiting regulator - council, RSPCA, whoever - they should be issued a caution (as in - you don't have to say anything and anything you say may be used in evidence etc etc). If that caution is not issued, the breeder needs to ask whether this information may be used as evidence, and either shutup or obtain legal advice.

Like in any legal matter, you are not obliged to provide information or answer questions. Silence is a right, not an admission of guilt.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Alyosha

[espinay2]

Not doomsday, but people should be aware and not dismiss it as 'this doesn't apply to me in my situation' without careful consideration of the provisions and what they each mean for them. Each individual is going to be different in what is simple for them to comply with and what isn't. We have been sent the document and can not plead ignorance to its content. As Steve has mentioned, some breeders have already had difficulties as a result of enforcement of the code and some have made the decision to no longer breed as a result. The same scruitiny may not be given to me or you, but there is also a chance that at some point it could be given too. None of us knows what is in the future. Each person needs to consider carefully their options and practices under the code and decide for themselves the cost/benefit of compliance and the risks of non compliance. Truly I doubt many breeders will ever be fully compliant, and that may be a risk we all have to take. But we can't say we weren't warned.