Steve Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 They said there was no place for unregistered, backyard, or any other sort of puppy farm that wasn't subject to RSPCA or council scrutiny. Mr Bartlett said that in the context of an animal welfare storm surrounding unscrupulous breeders, his business had nothing to hide. They breed and sell between 300 and 400 pups a year. At Tasmanian Labradoodles, Mr Bartlett said two male breeders and one female were typically housed in 5m by 25m pens, with garden shed kennels at one end. Heavily pregnant mums are moved indoors, to lie in plastic clam-shell containers for giving birth. Hi All :) Well if we are going to pick holes in this 'multi-million dollar enterprise?' then our criticism needs to be based on breechs of the known laws. 10.1.1.3 During mating, breeding pairs must be isolated from the remaining breeding population, and monitored by the person in charge. Two males and one females is a breech. 10.1.1.6 Whelping bitches must be provided with a suitable whelping box, lined with clean bedding, changed daily. I can't see plastic clam shells being suitable as whelping boxes. There is no protection for the pups. 10.1.1.9 Bitches must not have more than two litters in any two year period, unless with the written approval of a veterinary practitioner. The number of pups produced suggests that continual back-to-back matings are occurring. It is also obvious that they are ignorant of several of the guidelines in the animal Welfare Code of Practice, or they are deliberately disregarding them. Clearly, Brightside Sanctuary is not complying with RSPCA or Council requirements. The Council cannot allow breechs of the DPI Code of Practice Px EXCEPT - They are in Tasmania and they dont say that the dogs are in a pen together when they are mating anyway - only they are housed together - they may well take the dogs out when they are in season. Many breeders expecially of smaller breeds use clam shells as whelping boxes and its one of the things breeders on this forum have inthe past recommended. There is no limit on litters for breeding bitches in Tasmania and its an assumption that they are breeding back to back rather than turning over their breeding stock . These People believe they are the good guys and thats why they are being used to write stupid newspaper articles. Many - most if not all of the really big commercial kennels in other states believe they are the ones doing it right too and pass requirements for mandatory codes for breeding dogs more easily than a small hobby breeder . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I wonder if there is a DOL type website out there for these 'caring' puppy farmers that helps them share these fantastic mass breeding ideas? Oh I'd like to have a read of that and see what they tell themselves! I notice there was no mention of the vet that must always be on hand to help with managing pregnant bitches, whelping, vaccinating the pups and the like given their core business can be a life and death thing. Yes I'm sure their dogs are regularly health assessed to see if they are up to the breeding task and if the pups are healthy enough for those long international flights! And I'm sure they have a range of top quality ancilliary services they work with like groomers and behaviouralists given their clear focus on the dogs. Oh yes I'm sure they're very proud of the only great homes their pups go to because they have nothing to hide at all! Think I might just take a holiday to Tassie and see if they offer a B & B service as well. It sounds like such a lovely place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I wonder if there is a DOL type website out there for these 'caring' puppy farmers that helps them share these fantastic mass breeding ideas? Oh I'd like to have a read of that and see what they tell themselves! I notice there was no mention of the vet that must always be on hand to help with managing pregnant bitches, whelping, vaccinating the pups and the like given their core business can be a life and death thing. Yes I'm sure their dogs are regularly health assessed to see if they are up to the breeding task and if the pups are healthy enough for those long international flights! And I'm sure they have a range of top quality ancilliary services they work with like groomers and behaviouralists given their clear focus on the dogs. Oh yes I'm sure they're very proud of the only great homes their pups go to because they have nothing to hide at all! Think I might just take a holiday to Tassie and see if they offer a B & B service as well. It sounds like such a lovely place! Actually yes they do have a Dol type website where they pat each other on the back and share their ideas.You will need to pay a couple of hundred dollars though to see what is going on and be one of the appointed. lets play fair just because there is no mention of a vet doesnt mean there isnt one and probably is one or two making lots of money from the exercise. All puppies leaving Australia are vet checked by aqis vets and its unlikely any would get out of the country if there were in less than optimum condition and health. With this many dogs they probably do have ancillary staff though Ive never ever heard of one who felt a behaviourist was on the need card. the entire issue for me is that they dont think they are puppy farming and nor do most others - because of that when we beat a drum for no puppy farming what we think we are yelling about doesnt translate to the same thing and the end result is bigger more commercial kennels. Here on this forum and via animal rights puppy farming = commercial but it simply doesnt in real life.Puppy farming for the purposes of regs and laws is someone who breeds dogs in substandard conditions - regardless of whether they breed for demand or any other reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 "Clearly" a Tasmanian farm is not complying with NSW regulations...??? When we criticise, we need to make sure we don't look like we have no idea what we're talking about. I'm sure you would find a NSW DPI inspector who would be more than happy to make the paid trip to Tas to investigate, but he would be a bit useless when he got there..l ;) I can't see the relevance of state jurisdiction when the issue and context is animal welfare. Surely, what has been deemed minmal care in one state, and generalised for all dogs in that state, very easily can be extended to other states. What, do Tasmania and NT get a different set of basic criteria because the weather is different? Why can't NSW ask Tasmania what they think they are doing? And isn't the RSPCA national? Px Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No tralee, you can't expect Tasmanians to enforce NSW law, it doesn't work like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) "Clearly" a Tasmanian farm is not complying with NSW regulations...??? When we criticise, we need to make sure we don't look like we have no idea what we're talking about. I'm sure you would find a NSW DPI inspector who would be more than happy to make the paid trip to Tas to investigate, but he would be a bit useless when he got there..l ;) I can't see the relevance of state jurisdiction when the issue and context is animal welfare. Surely, what has been deemed minmal care in one state, and generalised for all dogs in that state, very easily can be extended to other states. What, do Tasmania and NT get a different set of basic criteria because the weather is different? Why can't NSW ask Tasmania what they think they are doing? And isn't the RSPCA national? Px Different laws and different regs apply in each state and some states have greater flexibility between shires and even though we have RSPCA Australia we also have an RSPCA in each state which is autonomous and they still have to fit in with laws within their own states. They cant just decide they like some other state's laws better than their own and go and police them even though they dont apply in their own state. - thank god. Edited January 22, 2012 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I wonder if there is a DOL type website out there for these 'caring' puppy farmers that helps them share these fantastic mass breeding ideas? Oh I'd like to have a read of that and see what they tell themselves! Worse. There is the Australian Association of Professional Dog Breeder (AAPDB) website. Some of our breeders breed purebred dogs, some breed crossbreds and some are developing new breeds not yet recognised in the purebred dog world. The developing new breeds is an open issue. Since Tasmanian Labradoodles is a developing new breed I wonder who gets to decide these kind of issues. Secondly, it is an uphill battle when there are organisations that are willing to sanction these 'unvalidated' developing new breeds. To my mind, developing new breeds should not leave the laboratory, if they can be justifiably used for research anyway. Remembering of course the well intentioned foray into a "non-shedding breed." It is very difficult trying to be wise when no one has a crystal ball and what new breeds might be admitted to the ANKC is largely unknown. That said, Tasmanian Labradoodles obviously involves large scale commercial experimentation which I, for one, cannot support Regards Px Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No tralee, you can't expect Tasmanians to enforce NSW law, it doesn't work like that. The law is irrelvant in the context of negligence in animal welfare. Ethics over-rides law every time. And agreed mimimum standards cannot be deemed to lack foundation just because it is politically expedient for one state to do so. Afterall, this is the frontline of our efforts to promote our dogs interests. This is where the trenches have to be dug and a stand against such 'ludicrous' logic has to be taken. Px Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I wonder if there is a DOL type website out there for these 'caring' puppy farmers that helps them share these fantastic mass breeding ideas? Oh I'd like to have a read of that and see what they tell themselves! Worse. There is the Australian Association of Professional Dog Breeder (AAPDB) website. Some of our breeders breed purebred dogs, some breed crossbreds and some are developing new breeds not yet recognised in the purebred dog world. The developing new breeds is an open issue. Since Tasmanian Labradoodles is a developing new breed I wonder who gets to decide these kind of issues. Secondly, it is an uphill battle when there are organisations that are willing to sanction these 'unvalidated' developing new breeds. To my mind, developing new breeds should not leave the laboratory, if they can be justifiably used for research anyway. Remembering of course the well intentioned foray into a "non-shedding breed." It is very difficult trying to be wise when no one has a crystal ball and what new breeds might be admitted to the ANKC is largely unknown. That said, Tasmanian Labradoodles obviously involves large scale commercial experimentation which I, for one, cannot support Regards Px Traditionally breeds in devlopment havent been able to be assessed for anything as they are developing and the main recognising body still doesnt want to know until they actually reach the necessary crieteria for application for breed recognition. Approx 15 years down the track .That often causes problems due to in fighting so no independent is keeping their pedigrees or assessing for the welfare issues whcih may be associated with a standard or breeding program. Just because someone is working toward breed recognition rather than breeding a recognised breed doesnt automatically mean they are doing the wrong thing. but having an outside body means there is less risk they are as well. many other registries and countries have foundation registries including the AKC for exactly this reason and just because a new breed in development is accepted by a registry on their foundation registry that is no guarantee that they will ever obtain recognition - it simply means they are doing what is needed to try to get it right. That said it doesnt look to me that these particular breeders are in that league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No tralee, you can't expect Tasmanians to enforce NSW law, it doesn't work like that. The law is irrelvant in the context of negligence in animal welfare. Ethics over-rides law every time. And agreed mimimum standards cannot be deemed to lack foundation just because it is politically expedient for one state to do so. Afterall, this is the frontline of our efforts to promote our dogs interests. This is where the trenches have to be dug and a stand against such 'ludicrous' logic has to be taken. Px So who will decide which states laws are best ? Who would vote that the one you are familar with is the best or that we didnt need a bit of one and some of the other. think it through its a state issue not federal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The developing new breeds is an open issue. Since Tasmanian Labradoodles is a developing new breed I wonder who gets to decide these kind of issues. Secondly, it is an uphill battle when there are organisations that are willing to sanction these 'unvalidated' developing new breeds. To my mind, developing new breeds should not leave the laboratory, if they can be justifiably used for research anyway. Remembering of course the well intentioned foray into a "non-shedding breed." It is very difficult trying to be wise when no one has a crystal ball and what new breeds might be admitted to the ANKC is largely unknown. That said, Tasmanian Labradoodles obviously involves large scale commercial experimentation which I, for one, cannot support Regards Px You do understand that inthe USA the Maremma Sheepdog is considered to be a breed in development nad has not as yet been accepted for registration and its not even accepted on their foundation registry? its not all black and white and the ANKC isnt the only registry which gets to say whether something is a breed. Some breeds dont want a bar to do with the ANKC and actively go after ways other than them to gain recognition. Not that I am in any way defending these particular breeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No tralee, you can't expect Tasmanians to enforce NSW law, it doesn't work like that. The law is irrelvant in the context of negligence in animal welfare. Ethics over-rides law every time. And agreed mimimum standards cannot be deemed to lack foundation just because it is politically expedient for one state to do so. Afterall, this is the frontline of our efforts to promote our dogs interests. This is where the trenches have to be dug and a stand against such 'ludicrous' logic has to be taken. Px Umm, we live in a society where laws are the only things enforceable. The law is certainly not irrelevant and is the only stick that matters. If you want to report someone then they have to have breached some agreed upon piece of legislation as there has to be a written set of guidelines that they have broken. Are you saying that the Tasmanian puppy farmers can be reported for unethical practices? Who would you report them to and what act are you reporting a breach of? Are you really confusing ethics with legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Umm, we live in a society where laws are the only things enforceable. The law is certainly not irrelevant and is the only stick that matters. If you want to report someone then they have to have breached some agreed upon piece of legislation as there has to be a written set of guidelines that they have broken. Are you saying that the Tasmanian puppy farmers can be reported for unethical practices? Who would you report them to and what act are you reporting a breach of? Are you really confusing ethics with legislation? With all due respect, that's simply inaccurate. Everyone has been subjected to social sanctions, or ostracised. Other sticks are financial boycott, public discrediting and political protest. Education of course should be included. The Law is an ass. And the law is informed by social practice. Change social practice and the law will change. Regards Px Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You are jumping between legislation and social pressure. Your first quote refers to the NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice, and you asked why that was not enforceable in NSW. Simply put, NSW state law (you even refer to it as law) is not applicable in Tasmania. Hence why it is called state law. Well if we are going to pick holes in this 'multi-million dollar enterprise?' then our criticism needs to be based on breechs of the known laws. 10.1.1.3 During mating, breeding pairs must be isolated from the remaining breeding population, and monitored by the person in charge. Two males and one females is a breech. 10.1.1.6 Whelping bitches must be provided with a suitable whelping box, lined with clean bedding, changed daily. I can't see plastic clam shells being suitable as whelping boxes. There is no protection for the pups. 10.1.1.9 Bitches must not have more than two litters in any two year period, unless with the written approval of a veterinary practitioner. The number of pups produced suggests that continual back-to-back matings are occurring. It is also obvious that they are ignorant of several of the guidelines in the animal Welfare Code of Practice, or they are deliberately disregarding them. Clearly, Brightside Sanctuary is not complying with RSPCA or Council requirements. The Council cannot allow breechs of the DPI Code of Practice Px This quote below has moved from laws to ethics, which are non legislated guides that people usually abide due to social pressure. They are NOT enforceable by law. Since your first quote was in reference to the law in NSW then that is what I was referring to, see your quote above. Umm, we live in a society where laws are the only things enforceable. The law is certainly not irrelevant and is the only stick that matters. If you want to report someone then they have to have breached some agreed upon piece of legislation as there has to be a written set of guidelines that they have broken. Are you saying that the Tasmanian puppy farmers can be reported for unethical practices? Who would you report them to and what act are you reporting a breach of? Are you really confusing ethics with legislation? With all due respect, that's simply inaccurate. Everyone has been subjected to social sanctions, or ostracised. Other sticks are financial boycott, public discrediting and political protest. Education of course should be included. The Law is an ass. And the law is informed by social practice. Change social practice and the law will change. Regards Px Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You do understand that in the USA the Maremma Sheepdog is considered to be a breed in development and has not as yet been accepted for registration and its not even accepted on their foundation registry? the ANKC and actively go after ways other than them to gain recognition. Not that I am in any way defending these particular breeders. :laugh: :laugh: :p Well tickle me pink! I suppose over two thousand years counts for nothing for "a breed in development." Only in the USA. They have to americanise everything and cannot be beholden to anything or anyone. Well the Italians recognise it as breed. FCI Standard N° 201 / 26.3.1998 Otherwise, there wouldn't be any and that's all I need. Px Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You are jumping between legislation and social pressure. Your first quote refers to the NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice, and you asked why that was not enforceable in NSW. Simply put, NSW state law (you even refer to it as law) is not applicable in Tasmania. Hence why it is called state law. This quote below has moved from laws to ethics, which are non legislated guides that people usually abide due to social pressure. They are NOT enforceable by law. Since your first quote was in reference to the law in NSW then that is what I was referring to, see your quote above. Laws are mandated social pressure. It is not much of a leap to see how they are connected or their relevance to each other or how one informs the other. You can always let a reply 'go through to the keeper.' Px Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 But until a law has been passed it is no use to report someone in another state as you suggested. I understand the process of forming new legislation but that wasn't what you posted, you said they should be reported for "breech" (sic) of law, but that won't work in this case and I explained to you why. Now if you were advocating contacting relevant state politicians then that is a different matter entirely. But again if they are complying to the Tasmanian laws then that might fall on deaf ears and currently the push is toward regulating puppy farms instead of shutting them down. If you do a search on here you'll find all the relevant facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You do understand that in the USA the Maremma Sheepdog is considered to be a breed in development and has not as yet been accepted for registration and its not even accepted on their foundation registry? the ANKC and actively go after ways other than them to gain recognition. Not that I am in any way defending these particular breeders. :laugh: :laugh: :p Well tickle me pink! I suppose over two thousand years counts for nothing for "a breed in development." Only in the USA. They have to americanise everything and cannot be beholden to anything or anyone. Well the Italians recognise it as breed. FCI Standard N° 201 / 26.3.1998 Otherwise, there wouldn't be any and that's all I need. Px Yes me too - but in the US its not a recognised breed and not likely to be for a long time yet. People breeding them over there are seen to be skuzz buckets as we see those working on non ANKC recognised breeds. there is usually a bigger view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 But until a law has been passed it is no use to report someone in another state as you suggested. I understand the process of forming new legislation but that wasn't what you posted, you said they should be reported for "breech" (sic) of law, but that won't work in this case and I explained to you why. Now if you were advocating contacting relevant state politicians then that is a different matter entirely. But again if they are complying to the Tasmanian laws then that might fall on deaf ears and currently the push is toward regulating puppy farms instead of shutting them down. If you do a search on here you'll find all the relevant facts. I've already qualified my initial post with this comment. I can't see the relevance of state jurisdiction when the issue and context is animal welfare. Surely, what has been deemed minmal care in one state, and generalised for all dogs in that state, very easily can be extended to other states. What, do Tasmania and NT get a different set of basic criteria because the weather is different? Why can't NSW ask Tasmania what they think they are doing? And isn't the RSPCA national? Px The discussion needs to be moved forward and not around in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Puppy farms won't be shut down, they'll just be licensed. Once they are they can demonstrate that there are no welfare issues (via govern. sanctioned licenses) and they won't be touched. Articles like this only serve to promote the new generation of puppy farms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now