Steve Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) 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. State legislation/ mandatory codes etc are virtually non existent in SA and WA .I could show you some example which would curl your hair which are seen to be perfectly O.K. according to that state's regs. until such time as the laws and regs are changed nothing can be done and sadly when it is done it regulates breeding which advantages large commercial breeders - as they attempt to regulate them not abolish them. In the real worlds big commercial kennels are seen as legitimate businesses - evidenced by where the Pm's dog came from. Edited January 22, 2012 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve 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. I agree It should be straight up animal welfare not a different set of regs and laws for breeding animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 be careful what you wish for with state laws being made to go National - you would not want the lovely laws we have go through in Vic recently, such as the restricted breed law and their lovely document of description used to determine dogs at danger to people, which can be made to fit a wide variety of types at a pinch, nor would you like the lovely one we now have as at 1 Jan that any puppies or kittens advertised online (even on ones on website), must have microchip nos included in the add, The only exception is if one is a registered DAB, then that no can be quoted instead. In other words, puppy farmers don't need to, but smaller breeders who are not a DAB can't advertise and compete with either them or interstate breeders for advertising until the animals have been chipped. Do you really want those laws carried across everywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 be careful what you wish for with state laws being made to go National - you would not want the lovely laws we have go through in Vic recently, such as the restricted breed law and their lovely document of description used to determine dogs at danger to people, which can be made to fit a wide variety of types at a pinch, nor would you like the lovely one we now have as at 1 Jan that any puppies or kittens advertised online (even on ones on website), must have microchip nos included in the add, The only exception is if one is a registered DAB, then that no can be quoted instead. In other words, puppy farmers don't need to, but smaller breeders who are not a DAB can't advertise and compete with either them or interstate breeders for advertising until the animals have been chipped. Do you really want those laws carried across everywhere? Agreed. Commercial farmer heaven now - squeezing out the little guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Articles like this only serve to promote the new generation of puppy farms. Well, maybe they do in some places. But they don't get a sympathetic ear here. It should be straight up animal welfare not a different set of regs and laws for breeding animals. I thought that was the nuance in my comments. While the DPI regs are problematic they have set a precedent and we will need to choose a yardstick from somewhere. It may be a one glove fits all approach but until something better comes along that's science I'm afraid. be careful what you wish for with state laws being made to go National - you would not want the lovely laws we have go through in Vic Well again I don't think I was being pro-law at least I was not trying to be. My point was that a reasonable yardstick has to be taken from somewhere and the Tasmanian case did not meet the minimum requirements of Our Code of Practice here in NSW. I think some of the regs can inform and educate and that is welcome. Some others seem to infringe on common sense. But blatant neglect, abuse and exploitation needs to be identified for what it is, and those implicated in it brought to light. Let me be florid in my expression here. Just because the authorities live by: "So let it be done, so let it be written" which means to say 'they go by the book' it does not follow that the sense of horror, disgust and cognitive dissonance that cases like the Tasmanian labradoodles create cannot be taken beyond law in our appeals to a wider audience, or that we cannot bring a greater voice to our protests against them. Px Edited January 22, 2012 by Tralee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raineth Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Anyone who can breed 300+ puppies a year and sleep at night, in my opinion, is not a dog lover. At $2000 a pop, I think it's safe to assume they love something else (enough to compromise the welfare of animals). Some interesting maths, while I'm at it.. if they have 75 adult dogs and 300+ puppies a year, assuming each dog only gets one hour of human interaction per day.. just for the adults, that 27,375 hours a year. Running 6 staff to provide daily interaction, it'd take 12.5 hours a day for them (that's 12.5 hours per staff member, loooong day) to get through all the dogs, nevermind feeding and cleaning. And that's not counting puppy interaction (300+) and care. They "care" about their dogs? I don't see how, given they can't even care for them. Also by the looks of their website all the dogs are labradoodle with long/shaggy coats - how on earth do they keep up with the grooming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 But there isnt any evidence to say they compromise the welfare of their animals. We assume they must because they own so many and because they breed so many but clearly they think they are doing a crack up job and are complying with regs and ensuring their animals are well and healthy. Breeding dogs for profit in any state in Australia is a bone fide legal activity and there isnt anything to back up that even if NSW state regs were n there that they wouldn't be complying. All that article tells us is that they breed their dogs and their motivation is developing a new breed for money. 50 brood bitches x 7 puppies each per year = 350 puppies per year. No evidence there that they are over breeding them - even if you agree that more than one litter per year is over breeding them. No evidence they dont employ staff to groom them and play with them,no evidence they don't vet them ,No evidence they keep them in poor conditions. They [place them themselves and dont sell to pet shops ,they don't have a bunch sitting around with no homes to go to because they bred for demand. The real world is seeing they are the good guys and that article helps to promote them. Its the same theme every time the subject comes up. If we are protesting commercial breeding then we need to be clear about the fact that is what we are talking about because when we call commercial breeders puppy farmers the rest of the world doesn't. Then of course if ever we finally get it and see that the definition used for a puppy farmer isnt quite what we thought it was and we do want to start yelling about commercial breeders that brings with it a whole new set of challenges and its a fight we are unlikely to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverchips Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Sadly, I believe that in the near future larger registered businesses/breeders will be considered the professional breeders and small hobby breeders will be seen to be backyarders or ameatures. If healthy well bred dogs become big money then the larger breeders will be the only ones who can afford to buy large properties and provide their dogs with all kinds of benhefits including full time staff caring for them and fancy websites to promote their businesses. Everytime legislation becomes tougher it's going to be us smaller hobby breeders that can't keep up so be careful when supporting certain animal rights groups because they don't have our best interests in mind. Animal Rights groups would prefer to see dogs becoming so difficult to breed that they become very expensive and dog ownersship will decreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That was predicted and I am sure it will end up just that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Sadly, I believe that in the near future larger registered businesses/breeders will be considered the professional breeders and small hobby breeders will be seen to be backyarders or ameatures. If healthy well bred dogs become big money then the larger breeders will be the only ones who can afford to buy large properties and provide their dogs with all kinds of benhefits including full time staff caring for them and fancy websites to promote their businesses. Everytime legislation becomes tougher it's going to be us smaller hobby breeders that can't keep up so be careful when supporting certain animal rights groups because they don't have our best interests in mind. Animal Rights groups would prefer to see dogs becoming so difficult to breed that they become very expensive and dog ownersship will decreas. That was predicted and I am sure it will end up just that way. Nuh. Disagree I am not ususally the optimist, but what is needed is the banding together of like minded people. Have you never heard of things like "Class Action." The lines are being drawn as we type this and we need to align ourselves on the side we wish to advocate for, ie, the dogs. Its a democracy and its your vote that will ultimately count. Edited January 23, 2012 by Tralee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverchips Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Sadly, I believe that in the near future larger registered businesses/breeders will be considered the professional breeders and small hobby breeders will be seen to be backyarders or ameatures. If healthy well bred dogs become big money then the larger breeders will be the only ones who can afford to buy large properties and provide their dogs with all kinds of benhefits including full time staff caring for them and fancy websites to promote their businesses. Everytime legislation becomes tougher it's going to be us smaller hobby breeders that can't keep up so be careful when supporting certain animal rights groups because they don't have our best interests in mind. Animal Rights groups would prefer to see dogs becoming so difficult to breed that they become very expensive and dog ownersship will decreas. That was predicted and I am sure it will end up just that way. Nuh. Disagree I am not ususally the optimist, but what is needed is the banding together of like minded people. Have you never heard of things like "Class Action." The lines are being drawn as we type this and we need to align ourselves on the side we wish to advocate for, ie, the dogs. Its a democracy and its your vote that will ultimately count. A class action against who? Commercial Dog Breeders?? What would you be taking them to court for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Sadly, I believe that in the near future larger registered businesses/breeders will be considered the professional breeders and small hobby breeders will be seen to be backyarders or ameatures. If healthy well bred dogs become big money then the larger breeders will be the only ones who can afford to buy large properties and provide their dogs with all kinds of benhefits including full time staff caring for them and fancy websites to promote their businesses. Everytime legislation becomes tougher it's going to be us smaller hobby breeders that can't keep up so be careful when supporting certain animal rights groups because they don't have our best interests in mind. Animal Rights groups would prefer to see dogs becoming so difficult to breed that they become very expensive and dog ownersship will decreas. That was predicted and I am sure it will end up just that way. Nuh. Disagree I am not ususally the optimist, but what is needed is the banding together of like minded people. Have you never heard of things like "Class Action." The lines are being drawn as we type this and we need to align ourselves on the side we wish to advocate for, ie, the dogs. Its a democracy and its your vote that will ultimately count. A class action against who? Commercial Dog Breeders?? What would you be taking them to court for? I've been asking this and am yet to get an answer. Class action for what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 A class action against who? Commercial Dog Breeders?? What would you be taking them to court for? I've been asking this and am yet to get an answer. Class action for what? Its a metaphor. That's how language works, you know. Without metaphor there is no language. You know, like, draw me a picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No, it's raining cats and dogs is a metaphor, a class action is a real thing and in the context of this conversation it is quite reasonable to take it literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) No, it's raining cats and dogs is a metaphor, a class action is a real thing and in the context of this conversation it is quite reasonable to take it literally. A very common mistake. Raining cats and dogs is a simile. A simile - a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared. ... Compare metaphor- a figure of speech that expresses the resemblance of one thing to another of a different category, usually introduced by as or like. For example: as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” It follows that: Banding together to form a group or class action is a metaphor. A metaphor is something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else. ... Compare simile- a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action that it does not literally denote in order to imply a resemblance, for example: "He is a lion in battle." Regards Px Edited January 23, 2012 by Tralee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Some argue they are two versions of the same thing, yet neither are correct to describe your use of class action in this context. The truth is you cannot take legal action based on laws that do not exist. You are also pushing the proverbial up a hill to get puppy farms shut down because they are soon to be RSPCA approved. They won't be the filth pits they used to be but large scale commercial enterprises that are fully legalised and endorsed by both government and the RSPCA. If you can't show welfare breaches then what are you going to complain about, because your opinion doesn't have any legal basis. Now that there will be a piece of paper that the puppy farmers can wave in front of everyone that says they are above board they will be untouchable as long as they don't breach the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 A class action against who? Commercial Dog Breeders?? What would you be taking them to court for? I've been asking this and am yet to get an answer. Class action for what? Its a metaphor. That's how language works, you know. Without metaphor there is no language. You know, like, draw me a picture. I'm having the biggest feeling of deja vu about Tralee aka Pewithers claiming that a word or phrase means something it actually doesn't. I thought a metaphor is an implied comparison, something that cannot be taken literally, a figure of speech. Tralee won't agree with me but I take comfort from the fact dictionaries do.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 :D Build a bridge. GONE FISHING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozzie Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Raining cats and dogs is actually an idiom. A simile compares two unlike things with the use of the word 'like' or 'as'. A metaphor expresses the familiar with the unfamiliar. I hope you are not an English teacher Tralee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Raining cats and dogs is actually an idiom. A simile compares two unlike things with the use of the word 'like' or 'as'. A metaphor expresses the familiar with the unfamiliar. I hope you are not an English teacher Tralee Nuh BSc DipEd MA 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