New Legislation For Puppy Farmers

[Stitch]

I heard on the news yesterday that Govt. were going to legislate that puppy breeders/farmers were going to be rigorously controlled.....unfortunately I only picked up on the end of the broadcast.

Can anyone fill me in on this? It sounded like it was in Queensland.

There has always been these kind of mutterings about but if this is now going to be definite does anyone know what it is going to cover??? If it is just puppy farmers, that's great!! If registered breeders are going to get caught up in the net...hmmmm???

Edited January 22, 2012 by Stitch

[Steve]

I heard on the news yesterday that Govt. were going to legislate that puppy breeders/farmers were going to be rigorously controlled.....unfortunately I only picked up on the end of the broadcast.

Can anyone fill me in on this? It sounded like it was in Queensland.

There has always been these kind of mutterings about but if this is now going to be definite does anyone know what it is going to cover??? If it is just puppy farmers, that's great!! If registered breeders are going to get caught up in the net...hmmmm???

If its the same and the submission from Queensland I looked at a couple of months ago it was the easiest Ive seen so unless there is something new - really new on the plate its hard to see how they will do much to stop much.

It certainly doenst make life harder for large scale commercial breeders.

My concern is that you end up with the same result as we now see in Victoria where large scale commercial kennels are advantaged and small breeders find it harder. we have already seen this happening in some shires in Brisbane.

one breeder who has had a breed for 15 years on her 100 acre property and whelps her puppies inthe loungroom, dogs sleep on beds - has to find 25,000 to comply with regs for breeding dogs, quaratine areas etc.

If there is an updated proposal there may be hope.

[Stitch]

I am surprised there hasn't been any discussion on DOL about it if it has got to the stage of being reported about in the news reports.

I haven't heard any rumblings about it from CCCQ either - or maybe I have missed something???

[Steve]

I am surprised there hasn't been any discussion on DOL about it if it has got to the stage of being reported about in the news reports.

I haven't heard any rumblings about it from CCCQ either - or maybe I have missed something???

Well if it was the one I saw there was nothing in it worth mentioning.Big non event

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

Here's the article Click

THE Queensland Government aims to wipe out puppy farms under proposed new registration requirements for dog breeders.

Agriculture Minister Tim Mulherin says unscrupulous breeders who usually run large-scale operations in isolated areas will be squeezed out under a proposed two-tiered breeder registration system.

"These notorious operations generally have very poor conditions - sometimes with hundreds of dogs - and fail to meet any of the dogs' behavioural, social and physiological needs," Mr Mulherin said

The registration system will be mandatory for intensive dog breeders with regular monitoring and voluntary registration for smaller scale breeders.

As well, microchips will include the breeder's information and specific details about the mother of each litter.

"This will allow authorities to more easily identify puppy farms and trace the origins of puppies," Mr Mulherin said.

He said with registered breeders having to display their identification number at the point of sale and on ads, consumer demand to buy from those breeders will soon force puppy farm operators out of the market.

The RSPCA's Mark Townend welcomed the plan.

"The RSCPA strongly urges all interested parties to get involved in the consultation process and make a submission," Mr Townend said.

The Canine Control Council said it has been working closely with the Government for more than a year on ways to wipe out puppy farms.

Mr Mulherin said the standards will be open for comment until March 5

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/new-laws-target-queensland-puppy-farms/story-e6frfkwr-1226250158953#ixzz1kB9SgvHa

[Tralee]

Deja Vu

[Steve]

Well you see for a start everyone breeding intensively becomes a registered breeder and those who are breeding intensively are not the ones they want to wipe out because their definition of a puppy farmer isn't someone who breeds intensively or commercially. Someone breeding 500 puppies each year gets the same credibility as a registered breeder from any recognised Canine Association.

So it is mandatory for intensive dog breeders but voluntary for smaller scale - so how will they determine which is which when they are advertised ,how do they decide at what point is it not intensive ?

So the smaller scale have less credibility because they are not registered ?

Microchipping has been mandatory in NSW for around 13 years and still people don't chip puppies and most coming through pounds are not chipped - whilst I agree that adding the breeder details is a good move for having the ability to gather stats etc I don't hold much hope that this will help much to prevent people who breed dogs in rotten conditions. I spoke to a NSW CC registered breeder last week who has never chipped a pup and was complaining as now she has to in order to register her puppies. Does anyone really think that BYB and people who breed dogs in rotten conditions will comply? They bought this in as a pilot in the Gold Coast shire and 8 months later we found that not ONE ad had the numbers required to advertise, when we challenged the council we were told they had no way and no one to enforce it

These registered commercial intensive breeders who have to advertise their ID number at point of sale and on ads will soon force puppy farm operators out of the market????????????????? they will force small breeders out of the market which gives them more demand.

pet shops can easily buy from these registered breeders and claim they only buy from registered breeders and not puppy farmers and they can easily buy puppies by the truckload for any one who gives them an interstate address.

then the large scale commercial breeders spend more money ontheir nice registered facilities and need to breed more puppies to pay for it - and Queensland has effectively done what Victoria has done - become commercial breeder heaven and the government actually increased the demand for their product

[Stitch]

Does anyone know exactly how much input the CCCQ is having with this proposed legislation??

Is anyone else representing the breeder of purebred dogs in Qld???

[Steve]

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/AnimalIndustries_AnimalWelfareAndEthics/Regulation-of-dog-breeders-draft-Regulatory-Assessment-Statement.pdf

This is just a start - remember RSPCA has no outside ombudsman.

A prescribed organisation, such as RSPCA Qld, would be responsible for dealing with registration requests and keeping the register of breeders.

Registered breeders would be assigned a breeder identification number (breeder ID). Breeders

would be required to display their breeder ID (if applicable) at points of sale or in advertising for

sale or supply. On-sellers, such as pet shops, could choose to display the breeder ID (if

applicable). It would be an offence to knowingly display an incorrect breeder ID for a dog.

Some of the information about registered breeders (e.g. breeder ID, name of registered breeder,

and town/suburb of address where dogs are bred) would be made publicly available. Interest

groups would likely encourage Queenslanders to buy only from registered breeders unless they

could check for themselves the conditions under which a puppy had been bred. <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

[Steve]

All of their options are centred around 10 dogs .

10 entire bitches, - 20 or more entire dogs - these 10 dogs must be over 6 months to be counted so you can have a bunch of them getting ready to breed while you are breeding the first 10

or 10 fertile dogs,

or 10 dogs.

[Stitch]

I do hope that the CCCQ is ready and able to 'protect' their own!

That said, 10 is a lot of dogs. I wonder how many non-puppy farmers ie. CCCQ registered breeders would keep that many breedable dogs???

Sounds like RSPCA has plans for 'doggy world domination' or at least Australia!!

[Steve]

There is a plan to have all dog related issues made accountable by an outside agency - I was told this is part of the strategy a couple of years ago by someone who was part of putting the plan together . Looks like the candidate is the RSPCA

Ive got 11 dogs here but 6 are working in the paddocks with the sheep and if I had to comply with this I would consider putting my old boy to sleep to bring it back to 10.

[Souff]

Microchipping has been mandatory in NSW for around 13 years and still people don't chip puppies and most coming through pounds are not chipped - whilst I agree that adding the breeder details is a good move for having the ability to gather stats etc I don't hold much hope that this will help much to prevent people who breed dogs in rotten conditions. I spoke to a NSW CC registered breeder last week who has never chipped a pup and was complaining as now she has to in order to register her puppies. Does anyone really think that BYB and people who breed dogs in rotten conditions will comply?

When I drive in heavy traffic I often wonder how many of the drivers around me are not licensed. There is no way of knowing, unless they get pulled up by Officer Dibble. I hope all of the b's get caught.

Microchipping, registering animals, registering boats etc ..... it is all part of our way of life.

I have become a fan of microchipping over the years - it serves a good purpose.

If dodgy people don't want to comply then there is a chance that they will get busted.

And I hope that chance gets higher and higher.

Souff

[Souff]

There is a plan to have all dog related issues made accountable by an outside agency - I was told this is part of the strategy a couple of years ago by someone who was part of putting the plan together . Looks like the candidate is the RSPCA

Ive got 11 dogs here but 6 are working in the paddocks with the sheep and if I had to comply with this I would consider putting my old boy to sleep to bring it back to 10.

How old is the old boy?

[Steve]

15 years and 6 months and I love him

[Wags]

I heard on the news yesterday that Govt. were going to legislate that puppy breeders/farmers were going to be rigorously controlled.....unfortunately I only picked up on the end of the broadcast.

Can anyone fill me in on this? It sounded like it was in Queensland.

There has always been these kind of mutterings about but if this is now going to be definite does anyone know what it is going to cover??? If it is just puppy farmers, that's great!! If registered breeders are going to get caught up in the net...hmmmm???

Qld State Government are introducing legislation to help stamp out Puppy Farmers.

In essence, it is a great piece of legislation, however, it falls short in one area.

Where breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland, this has little impact and in fact, the requirements of breeders is based on the requirements of Dogs Queensland breeder registration. Breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland only require to obtain an ID number with the State Government, which will more than likely be issued to them free - all else remains basically the same. Registered breeders puppies continue to be registered in the same manner as currently required.

Unregistered breeders will be subject to fees and charges to obtain their ID number and register puppies etc. They will be given requirements and regulations to adhere to and will be prosecuted if necessary.

The problem arises with the fact that the proposed legislation only requires breeders with 10 or more dogs to obtain a Breeders ID number and therefore fall under the regulations to be imposed. They've only gone halfway.

Even 9 dogs can contribute greatly to the same problems we have currently with naive or irresponsible backyard breeders and the smaller puppy farms. This leaves plenty of loopholes for the continuation of abhorrent practices and the only way the new legislation can have a proper affect on the overall situation is to delete any reference to the number of dogs owned. Their initial outline of the legislation was to cover 'any breeder, whether acidental or intentional' with no reference to the number of dogs owned or utilised in breeding practices.

If you even remotely care about these poor puppies, please take 5 minutes to have your say on the proposed legislation to regulate the large scale breeding of dogs in intensive breeding establishments. We believe the legislation should cover ALL breeders, accidental or otherwise and there should be no stipulation as to the number of dogs owned, because naive or irresponsible backyard breeders are as much of a problem as puppy farmers. If you agree, you can express your opinion in the comments section of the form. Closes 5th March Follow this link http://www.getinvolv...n/315/view.html

[yarracully]

I heard on the news yesterday that Govt. were going to legislate that puppy breeders/farmers were going to be rigorously controlled.....unfortunately I only picked up on the end of the broadcast.

Can anyone fill me in on this? It sounded like it was in Queensland.

There has always been these kind of mutterings about but if this is now going to be definite does anyone know what it is going to cover??? If it is just puppy farmers, that's great!! If registered breeders are going to get caught up in the net...hmmmm???

Qld State Government are introducing legislation to help stamp out Puppy Farmers.

In essence, it is a great piece of legislation, however, it falls short in one area.

Where breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland, this has little impact and in fact, the requirements of breeders is based on the requirements of Dogs Queensland breeder registration. Breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland only require to obtain an ID number with the State Government, which will more than likely be issued to them free - all else remains basically the same. Registered breeders puppies continue to be registered in the same manner as currently required.

Unregistered breeders will be subject to fees and charges to obtain their ID number and register puppies etc. They will be given requirements and regulations to adhere to and will be prosecuted if necessary.

The problem arises with the fact that the proposed legislation only requires breeders with 10 or more dogs to obtain a Breeders ID number and therefore fall under the regulations to be imposed. They've only gone halfway.

Even 9 dogs can contribute greatly to the same problems we have currently with naive or irresponsible backyard breeders and the smaller puppy farms. This leaves plenty of loopholes for the continuation of abhorrent practices and the only way the new legislation can have a proper affect on the overall situation is to delete any reference to the number of dogs owned. Their initial outline of the legislation was to cover 'any breeder, whether acidental or intentional' with no reference to the number of dogs owned or utilised in breeding practices.

If you even remotely care about these poor puppies, please take 5 minutes to have your say on the proposed legislation to regulate the large scale breeding of dogs in intensive breeding establishments. We believe the legislation should cover ALL breeders, accidental or otherwise and there should be no stipulation as to the number of dogs owned, because naive or irresponsible backyard breeders are as much of a problem as puppy farmers. If you agree, you can express your opinion in the comments section of the form. Closes 5th March Follow this link http://www.getinvolv...n/315/view.html

Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states.

Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity.

A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal.

Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises.

And why does this organisation get this power. Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act.

This means there is no accountability. In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer. The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce.

This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given.

Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability.

While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

[Tralee]

Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states.

Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity.

A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal.

Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises.

And why does this organisation get this power.

Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act.

This means there is no accountability.

In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer.

The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce.

This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given.

Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability.

While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

Hi yarracully. :)

I understand you were replying to wags.

However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal.

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation.

The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency.

Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant.

The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past.

Regards

Px

Edited January 26, 2012 by Tralee

[Steve]

Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states.

Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity.

A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal.

Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises.

And why does this organisation get this power.

Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act.

This means there is no accountability.

In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer.

The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce.

This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given.

Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability.

While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

Hi yarracully. :)

I understand you were replying to wags.

However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal.

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation.

The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency.

Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant.

The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past.

Regards

Px

Tralee these comments are not anti RSPCA they are anti state law which gives a quasi police force powers without out side accountability.

If a police officer is accused of corruption or misuse of power there is an outside accountability process which is independent with no bias or political stake in covering such things up and until such time that there is the equivalent for any agency given such powers whether that be in animal welfare or any other arena that has to raise red flags.

Try and understand this is proposed legislation in QUeensland and reference to a NSW protection act is useless.

[yarracully]

Hi yarracully. :)

I understand you were replying to wags.

However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal.

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation.

The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency.

Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant.

The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past.

Regards

Px

Tralee

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

I think you might want to re-read your own posting . The wording you have quoted shows that a member of a charitable organisation (RSPCA) can enter premises without a warrant if they suspect anything being done to harm an animal or about to be done. They do not require any proof prior to entering. They only need to suspect you are harming them or are even going to in the future.Police must at least provide some justification prior to obtaining a warrant and must satisfy a judge that the warrant is required.

The inspectors are not independant. How can they be when they operate under the umbrella of a body involved in formulation of the law and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the law.

Recent history has already shown what can happen when a body is involved in formulating and enforceing law. The same body will also be involved in prosecuting this law. There has to be a seperation of power so that some form of accountability can exist.

Under this law (As has already happened in NSW and VIC) an RSPCA inspector can walk past your front gate and hear one of your dogs bark/howl/growl. Under this act they have the right to enter your property and seize your dogs because they "Suspect" harm being done. They will then prosecute you in court and the whole time run up a huge bill for feeding your dogs which if you succeed in court (months later) you will have to pay (I believe at one point they were claiming upto $85.00 per day per dog).

Thats unless they decide to rehome your dogs so that you cannot have them returned or they decide the dogs are not able to be rehomed and are PTS. All before the actual day in court.

Also remember that if you do happen to win in court (Expensive to fight- they have donated money to fight with, do you?) you cannot sue for compensation or return of costs as they are acting within the law.

As I have said before look at the two cases mentioned that have already occured. The new law will not redress the issue of abuse of power as this wording is the same as in the NSW and VIC laws that created the abuse of power. If you care to look at the NSW act you will find the same applies. An RSPCA inspector in NSW has the same power as the QLD law proposes. All power that exceeds any member of the states police (NSW act section 24 Power to enter land- item 2a and 2b)

Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Edited January 27, 2012 by yarracully