New Legislation For Puppy Farmers

[Howl]

DEEDI isnt an outside agency such as an independent ombudsman. This is akin to having the Police minister running interference for his officers and why we now have an OUTSIDE accountability processes in place.

Being accountable to their own department is hardly the same as being able to be easily looked at by an independent ombudsman.

Steve, you miss the point that DEEDI is subject to the ombudsman. If someone is not happy with DEEDI's review of a situation they do have a further independant avenue of appeal.

DEEDI can't sack the Inspector, but they can withdraw the Inspector's appointment so the can't perform that role anymore and RSPCA either has to find somewhere else in the organisation for them, or let them go. DEEDI can also request that the Insepctor be retrained or some other form of performance management.

I know, its not the answer you want - but it is a whole lot better than what most people think.

[Tralee]

I am clearly not across all the issues, so I have not tried to analyse the comments that have been made here.

That doesn't mean that I will not be looking to find some compliance between the state laws and regulations with my own practices.

From what I can discern from what is written here, there seems to be objections to the powers of inspectors based upon abuses of similar powers in the past.

It is easy to be critical the proposal being presented, until the question of what would you suggest in its place is asked.

Clearly something has to be done and one theme running through the document is a collection of data.

That data could then be used to re-evaluate the status quo and I have an inkling that this proposaL, if it gets up, in one or other of its variants, will not be the last word on the matter.

More to the point, the power of the inspectors seems to me to be quite benign, remebering that it is not proposed that there be a return to the past.

It is proposed that employees of the RSPCA Qld could be appointed as inspectors under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008.

Their powers would be limitedto monitoring and enforcing compliance with the breeder registration requirements and to accessing microchip data.

It will probably raise more questions than it will answer but that is a healthy process. If no questions were raised the document would be stagnant.

Px

[Steve]

I am happy to give it a tick if and when they introduce an outside accountability process for any group or any one charged with enforcement which doesn't have to go through the system- in this case deedi - to get there.

How can this be a problem and why would anyone oppose it ?

[yarracully]

As for not being responsible for enforcing a law that they had a role in formulating - gee I would say the police have a strong role in formulating the law they enforce, DERM has a strong role in formulating environmental protection law, etc, etc. Unless you are trying to say that RSPCA Qld will benefit financially from enforcing the law??? Considering the money they have to put in to having even one Inspector in place, with all costs of office, vehicle and fuel, computer, shelter requirements for animals, etc I really don't think so. If people feel that precious about it maybe they could suggest that the DEEDI Inspectors take on the role of enforcing puppy farm legislation, just as they cover the commercial ventures and animals kept for scientific purposes.

As for why DPI (DEEDI) can't take on the entire role - why indeed?. Maybe you should ask them. I would think that the RSPCA would be quite happy to withdraw if DEEDI would put enough officers on to cover the state.

Wrong. No police force anywhere is involved in formulating a law. That is the role of politicians. Politicians create, police enforce, courts prosecute. Its called seperation of powers. What you have here with the RSPCA is Conflict Of Interest.

As for the inspectors quote

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.

And that means they can enter property and sieze animals on a suspicion without a warrant. Greater power than the police themselves.

Further the RSPCA comes under the umbrella of the RSPCA of Australia. As such the queensland branch is the same as any other. As a charity non government organisation they have no ties to any government. As such a government body may take a complaint but cannot act on any member of the organisation if that person is acting under the powers of that organisation. Members of the RSPCA executive have even admitted there is no accountability to any body outside the RSPCA. And QLD would be no different.

However as I have already said I don't live in Qld so this law won't affect me. We already have it in NSW and its caused alot of pain and achieved nothing.

I'll just wait and read all the comments about it in time to come- when others realise the mistake these laws, as they stand, have made.

I have already seen what can happen when this sort of thing occurs. As it has already happened in NSW. There have already been two large scale incidents that have resulted from this type of legislation. One a cattle farmer who ended up losing an entire herd (all perfectly healthy but never the less shot by the RSPCA inspector) as well as the farm itself, the other involving a wildlife park. And all because of the RSPCA and the abuse of power that these laws brought in.

Further the information you claim to be incorrect is based on facts of incidents that have occured in other states by this organisation under similarly worded legislation. Learn from history.

If you think the police have no input into developing the laws they enforce then you are kidding yourself. We have experts in policing, years of knowledge and experience - are you saying everyone just ignores what they have to say regarding what works, what doesn't and what is needed, and leaves it up to a politicians who has no idea on the subject, to formulate law? Of course not! Public servants are there to provide "frank and fearless advice" to their elected members, and the police are no different in that respect.

RSPCA Qld Inspectors do not have greater powers than the Qld police. In fact, Qld police under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act have the SAME powers as an Inspector to enter a property without a warrant to take action in specific circumstances. I would familiarise yourself with the whole Police Powers and Responsibilities Act before you make such a ridiculous statement again - you will find Qld police have more powers than you think.

Yes RSPCA Qld does come under the umbrella of RSPCA Australia, but it is still a separate organisation AND the law its Inspectorate enforces is different to all the other states. Just because they are part of the RSPCA does not override the fact that the Qld Inspectors appointment comes from the state government and they must abide by the provisions of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and DEEDI guidelines in the course of their duties. If they did not they would be acting outside of the law and there would be no authority to support their actions.

I understand there have been problems in NSW but I have tried to make it quite clear that I have been talking about the situation in Qld. Because at the end of the day, this is the state where the proposed legislation is being considered. Not NSW, not Vic. They have different Acts and different lines of reporting. Are you also aware that the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 is not a new situation - it has been enforced by RSPCA Qld Inspectors since its introduction over 10 years ago. So in those 10 years, they have run around unfettered with this great power and the ability to abuse it - and you can only bring up a case in NSW (with different legislation) and a case in Victoria (with different legislation) to say it clearly doesn't work?

I am well aware of the law making process. And Qld police are no different in their powers than any other state. But at least there is a police ombudsman which can be brought in for accountability. The RSCPA in any state has no such independant umpire.

As for who makes the laws do you think that anyone with knowledge was involved in drafting the ridiculous laws that are now in place in Victoria. No it was done by politicians with direct guidance and input from a charitable organisation with a very powerful PR image. By the way public servants that you refer to are people like teachers, nurses etc.

Politicians make the laws. Thats what they do in Parliment-debate and create laws.Not have tea parties. The public servants only supply the information to them but other forces guide them.

As for the law itself the wording of this law that gives power to the RSPCA in QLD is the exact same wording that appears in the laws of NSW and Vic. Also in all cases the organisation has no independant umpire or system to which it must answer. As for the DEEDI you mentioned, if they were tasked with enforcement good. Then you will have an accountable system with due process and seperation of powers.

Furthermore the law being proposed in QLD is one being pushed by RSPCA Australia federation. Of which QLD is only a branch of. It is not a seperate organisation. It has the same structure and guidelines to work within as any other state branch. It has the same lines of reporting and the same potential to be exploited.

However the involvement of the RSPCA Australian federation tells me the law is intended to go Australia wide.

Its not the legislation that is the issue. Its the ability for it to be abused with no outside control. This is something that people in NSW and Vic tried to point out years ago and yet the law went through and the problem has occured.

How hard is it to see that QLD will be heading down the same road as NSW and Vic have already gone. Then again it is always easier to agree with anything and then realise later that it was the wrong way to go.

I don't have a problem with the intent of the law. Its just the Judge, Jury and Executioner are the one and the same and they shouldn't be. I have already posted about a document that will give insight into what can and has happened. Read it and see for yourself how individual inspectors will go outside the laws and due process and the victim had no recourse.

Be informed, or you could just pretend it wont happen then cry foul when it does. Its easier to fix the problem before it becomes law-impossible to fix afterwards.

As I have already said I and others tried fighting this before it came in in NSW, now it has been realised how big a mistake this power creates but its too late for some here.

Make your own decision about it, but try to be fully informed first. Remember this though, what you decide now is what you will be stuck with forever, but also quite likely so will others in every other state in Australia. Because this will go Australia wide.

Kind of reminds me of the way the docking and debarking ban was brought in in one state and all the other states said "It won't happen here" yet it did. Interestingly enough same organisation, same powers granted, same tactics- history it seems does repeat.

Edited January 27, 2012 by yarracully

[Steve]

http://www.dogsqueensland.org.au/Members/Dog-Blogs-2012.aspx

Quote - There are two other URGENT items of business of which members need to be made aware:

1. Despite two requests via the Queensland Dog World magazine over the past 12 months (for members to update their data), it would appear that our Dogs Queensland registers still have details of “deceased dogs” appearing against individual Queensland members. Just one example would be as follows: There are 24,719 QLD registered dogs on file BORN PRIOR to 2000 that are NOT marked as deceased.

It would be highly unlikely that very many of those dogs would actually still be alive today. The same would apply to dogs younger than 12 years of age that are deceased. Please contact the Dogs Queensland Office if you require assistance in identifying any dogs that remain incorrectly on your records.

The State Government will not be able to differentiate – all dogs that appear against a member’s name will be considered to be alive and as such may be counted into the Puppy Farm management scheme.

We know of members who have owned in excess of 50 dogs over the period of their “dog world” participation and yet none of those dogs (some showing up as 20 – 30 years of age) still appear on our registers. Updating dog register details is easy – you don’t need to send in original pedigree certificates (these can be kept on your files for nostalgia purposes).

All members need to do is photocopy the certificate of registration and pedigree, mark across this photocopy the word “DECEASED” and then post these photocopies into the Dogs Queensland office with an accompanying note providing your name and membership number.

2. The other issue is one of litter registrations and the number of puppies being bred by some of our members. It may come as a surprise to many of our responsible member breeders to realise just how many litters are being registered by a small percentage of our members. Whilst these breeders are not breaking any specific Dogs Queensland rule, it does raise serious questions about their compliance with our Code of Ethics – in particular Clause 2 e which states: I agree not to breed from a bitch or a dog in a way that is detrimental to the dog or the bitch or to the breed. I further acknowledge that I shall breed only with the intent of maintaining and/or improving the standard of the breed and welfare, health and soundness of my dogs and I shall strive to eliminate hereditary diseases within my dogs and from within the breeds.

Despite the best efforts of Dogs Queensland, it is unlikely that some of these breeders can avoid being caught up in any future Queensland Government Puppy Farm strategy. It may be a good time for these breeders to consider their breeding strategies and be mindful that compliance with State Government imposed regulations may be inevitable.

[Steve]

If this were to happen in NSW Id be done like a dinner as here we cant change the owners details over - its up to the new owner to do that .

Good luck Queenslanders did you know these details were going to be passed onto the agency afforded the responsibility of policing you when you signed up?

Nothing to worry about if you are doing the right thing anyway.

[melzawelza]

If this were to happen in NSW Id be done like a dinner as here we cant change the owners details over - its up to the new owner to do that .

Nope, in NSW it is the responsibility of the OLD owner to lodge the change of ownership paperwork, and you can get fined for not doing it.

ETA: Link - Section 31

Edited February 24, 2012 by melzawelza

[Steve]

If this were to happen in NSW Id be done like a dinner as here we cant change the owners details over - its up to the new owner to do that .

Nope, in NSW it is the responsibility of the OLD owner to lodge the change of ownership paperwork, and you can get fined for not doing it.

ETA: Link - Section 31

No I meant papers with the CC not council regs All of my chips are in the new owners names but my CC regos there would be a hell of a lot still in my name because we cant change them over on their records.

[goldchow]

According to the ANKC website just on 2,000 registered breeders jumped ship in the last 12 months, we now have a grand total of 4.800 and something ANKC registered breeders Australia wide. By all means check for yourself.

I suspect the numbers of those opting out of breeding purebred dogs will increase, whether they have anything to worry about or not, in the next 12 months, soon there will be no need for state controls and ANKC, the RSPCA will have taken over, just as was predicted by those who openly stated they were actively working with the RSPCA to that end 3 years ago.

Kiwiland is looking good.

Edited February 24, 2012 by goldchow

[WreckitWhippet]

If this were to happen in NSW Id be done like a dinner as here we cant change the owners details over - its up to the new owner to do that .

Nope, in NSW it is the responsibility of the OLD owner to lodge the change of ownership paperwork, and you can get fined for not doing it.

ETA: Link - Section 31

No I meant papers with the CC not council regs All of my chips are in the new owners names but my CC regos there would be a hell of a lot still in my name because we cant change them over on their records.

They've got us right where thery want us and we have nowhere to hide, who'd have thought this day would come. Ohh but wait, the good one's will have nothing to fear.

Now in NSW it's compulsary for us to chip before a litter will be registered. We've played right into their hands and no we have nowhere to run. Either way we are up poo creek, they can either bust us via council rego's, which of course those of us doing the right thing have all of our dogs registered and chipped or they'll simply pull our ANKC owner details and we'll be done that way.

Kiss goodbye the ethical, registered ANKC breeder, soon there will be nothing left but commercial breeders and the BYBers that fly under the radar

[melzawelza]

If this were to happen in NSW Id be done like a dinner as here we cant change the owners details over - its up to the new owner to do that .

Nope, in NSW it is the responsibility of the OLD owner to lodge the change of ownership paperwork, and you can get fined for not doing it.

ETA: Link - Section 31

No I meant papers with the CC not council regs All of my chips are in the new owners names but my CC regos there would be a hell of a lot still in my name because we cant change them over on their records.

Ahh, I see! That's certainly frustrating then, surely so many people would have heaps of dogs left in their names!

[Steve]

Its not only that - there are a lot of breeders who haven't up till now been micro chipping - if they hand over the records of what puppies they have bred and match it to puppies which have been chipped over the last 12 years that's a lot of breeders exposed.

Im safe Ive never sold a pup since day one that wasn't chipped but a huge amount of breeders haven't been doing it.I know two who have recently walked away because of the new rules in NSW to put chip numbers on pedigrees

Some of them register an extra dog in a litter too so they can beat resting them - papers are everywhere for dogs that don't exist.

Some may argue that this is what they need to do to pull it into them all doing the right thing - but the introduction of chipping to register a pup with them has done that.

Many breeders have more dogs than they should according to council and wont be happy about the mob charged with policing them is also being given their info.

The other thing that interests me is the warning to their members who breed higher numbers - First they say they are not breaching any regs but then say quote "Despite the best efforts of Dogs Queensland, it is unlikely that some of these breeders can avoid being caught up in any future Queensland Government Puppy Farm strategy. It may be a good time for these breeders to consider their breeding strategies and be mindful that compliance with State Government imposed regulations may be inevitable"

What does that mean ? Does this mean that those who breed higher than average numbers and are seen to own too many dogs which they havent notified because they have died etc will be in a sticky position and be under the gun / How are the mongrel mob who have been breeding thousands of puppies each year commercially etc being made to be as accountable ?

Queensland just told their members they are going to hand over their details to the RSPCA and yet there is no legal requirement on them to do so. One step closer to having an outside body overseeing the breeding of purebred dogs.

Since 1998 – The year when we began to make it compulsory in some states to register all puppies and introduced the limited register we breed - Australia wide - approx 26,000 less puppies per year now than we did then.

Approx only 12,000 puppies Australia wide in approx 100 breeds were placed on main register in 2011 and were able to be used to breed registered purebred dogs.

If registrations drop at the current rate in 20 years only ahandful of puppies will be registered

If breeder numbers drop in the numbers they have in the last 5 years in 3 years time there will be less than a thousand left Australia wide.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Steve

[asal]

If this were to happen in NSW Id be done like a dinner as here we cant change the owners details over - its up to the new owner to do that .

Nope, in NSW it is the responsibility of the OLD owner to lodge the change of ownership paperwork, and you can get fined for not doing it.

ETA: Link - Section 31

No I meant papers with the CC not council regs All of my chips are in the new owners names but my CC regos there would be a hell of a lot still in my name because we cant change them over on their records.

They've got us right where thery want us and we have nowhere to hide, who'd have thought this day would come. Ohh but wait, the good one's will have nothing to fear.

Now in NSW it's compulsary for us to chip before a litter will be registered. We've played right into their hands and no we have nowhere to run. Either way we are up poo creek, they can either bust us via council rego's, which of course those of us doing the right thing have all of our dogs registered and chipped or they'll simply pull our ANKC owner details and we'll be done that way.

Kiss goodbye the ethical, registered ANKC breeder, soon there will be nothing left but commercial breeders and the BYBers that fly under the radar

exactly. AND it was evident that was on the agenda 20 years ago... now its arrived.

why i could see it and all the precious ethicals couldnt see they were being divided and next to the slaugher i could never understand.

until last night.. watching sbs and the second world war with the slaughter of the jews?

where i worked as a teen one of my friends could speak 8 languages.. he learned so many in his parents travels to escape the program.. yes he is jewish.

last night i twigged... he had told me how his family had been led to accept this new law, then this new, then this new and all his family and friends were being gently herded to their deaths.

except his parents saw the danger signs and realised they were being set up for something but at the time not exactly what. they did a runner and didnt end up in the death camps but the migration to stay out of reach took them around the world.

they survived soo many millions didnt..

weres the difference?

[goldchow]

"Despite the best efforts of Dogs Queensland, it is unlikely that some of these breeders can avoid being caught up in any future Queensland Government Puppy Farm strategy. It may be a good time for these breeders to consider their breeding strategies and be mindful that compliance with State Government imposed regulations may be inevitable"

This statement is unbelievable, it would seem to be warning its own members to be careful not to be seen to breed 'too many dogs'

Why on earth shouldn't our ANKC members be able to breed as many dogs as they like providing they are abiding by all care and concerns relating to their dogs health and welfare. Isn't that why we joined the ANKC?

Commercial breeders & puppy farms have successfully stepped into the gap created by the very fact that ANKC registered breeders haven't been allowed to be more productive because they have been so hog tied with council and local law restrictions, endless regulations brought in by those who have never bred a litter in their lives, animal rights concerns and State controls who instead of supporting and protecting their members seem to be now actually selling them out.

With this attitude why wouldn't ANKC breeders walk, the hobby of breeding good dogs is now a bureaucratic minefield.

[asal]

what I do not understand is as a pedigree breeder why was it turned around that to be "ethical" you only bred for yourself?

ie dead end kennels.

ive had pedigree dogs since 1970's and we thought we were not only continuing the lines ourselves but puppies sold to pet homes, might interest some into becoming members themselves...no one lives forever, so if you do not pass the baton, you have become a dead end breeder.

now that is being consisered as proving how ethical you are?

in those days you sold any puppy you considered a good representative of your kennel on main register... it was not a guarantee it was going to be a champion. it was that you thought this puppy looked like it would be a dog to be proud of and capable of being another generation to the next of its breed.

now its a bloody mess of precious, ethicals and I NEVER sell on main register, some even desex puppies sold on main register as the buyer wants main but insistes "only as a pet' so the breeder makes sure it can only be. I know because i met a lady who does exactly that.

far as i am concerned if the committe of OUR registry is going to hand over records to u know who must not be named.

since when do you put the lion in charge of the zebras?

only fairly recently i sold a main register puppy to a long time showi of a different breed... yes know puppies can change.. only want one to show i understand they can change, blah blah blah..

had them assessed by judges and showi friends before making a selection... puppy won many challenges , that is until new teeth came in...nothing else was changed.. visually a stunning dog. the bottom teeth came in slanted forward instead of the same angle as before with the puppy teeth top teeth still nice and straight soo now have lost the scissor bite.

still won some challanges but nil awarded twice.

even the judge who picked the puppy and the fellow exhibitors as well told her she is entitled to her money back as the main register papers were a guarantee the puppy bought was going to be show quality.

was even told by them return the money or you reputation will be ruined. returned the money but hey,, what reputation. now im the bitch who sold a crap puppy.

even better, a happy customer with her "pet" went to a show with it. gets told by one, this pups a xbred, sends the victum to two others for assessment, and both agree, yes its a xbred. get your money back. (baby is in the leggy ugg stage)

when they learn the name of the breeder rings moi up, yes have it here, obviously theres been a mismating,,, has a neighbours got in?

as which puppy this is under discussion?

gets its name... guess what folks.

the two on the phone talking me to me on speaker? one bred the dam and the other bred the sire?

so just who is breeding the x breds then?

the original party to sent the victum to the two new victum's knew as had perused the pedigree before sending off for the 2nd and 3rd opinions who didnt ask to see said papers. they walked into that one like lambs to the slaughter

this is the distructivness thats going on every day, week in year out.

fortunately for the sanity of that puppy owner i had them come and see mum, dad and a sibling again, so satisfied it was just in its horror growth stages.

but this whiteanting and backstabbing is playing right into the hands of the must not be named.

Edited February 25, 2012 by asal

[Souff]

.... Someone breeding 500 puppies each year gets the same credibility as a registered breeder from any recognised Canine Association.

..... 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.

And so ..... there is no difference between a registered breeder and a puppy farmer, and this is all sanctioned by the canine councils and the state governments and the animal welfare lobbyists.

Joy oh joy, we have some more bright and shining new legislation, all expensive and all paid for by the taxpayers, so all must now be wonderful again ...

The wheel has been reinvented and those lil ole puppy farmers are still free to ply their trade.

Souff

[Souff]

According to the ANKC website just on 2,000 registered breeders jumped ship in the last 12 months, we now have a grand total of 4.800 and something ANKC registered breeders Australia wide. By all means check for yourself.

I suspect the numbers of those opting out of breeding purebred dogs will increase, whether they have anything to worry about or not, in the next 12 months, soon there will be no need for state controls and ANKC, the RSPCA will have taken over, just as was predicted by those who openly stated they were actively working with the RSPCA to that end 3 years ago.

Kiwiland is looking good.

I will take your word for it.

The never-ending slide of registered breeder numbers and the ever-reducing numbers of pups being registered in the last 10 years became too much for me some time back.

I got tired of glazed eyes looking at me when I rabbited on about it. So I gave up.

Australia has been legislating good breeders and good dogs out of existence for years now and there are a lot of vets who should have splinters in their bums by now.

They are the professionals that government advisors consult when somebody comes up with proposed legislation, and they have sold the purebred dog breeders - some of their best customers - right down the drain.

NZ has to date done the right thing, but keep a sharp watch on vets in that country too.

Souff

[Steve]

What fascinates me is that the QCCC has said out loud they are going to hand over their member's data - data that was entered years ago up to now to the RSPCA and there hasn't been a whimper.

not that I expect there to be much there that can create a problem for breeders but surely its a matter of principal - who can and who do QCCC simply hand over their members data to without any requirement on them to do so?

You also have to ask about the warning to those who are breeding more than average too. You would think if they are dong anything that needs them to be warned on that they wouldn't be members - surely a part of membership especially when they get exemptions for policing state laws is to comply with all legislation and the assumption is all registered breeders are.

It would appear some are not and needed to be warned they may have a problem - or that when its changed they will have a problem they don't now.

[bluedeer]

In many slaughterhouses it was common to use a goat called a "Judas Goat" that the sheep that were being readied for slaughter would be placed with before being directed into the kill room. The Judas Goat's job was to lead the sheep quickly and quietly up the ramp to where the killing took place. The sheep eagerly followed the goat because as another herbivore they think it has the same interests as them. At the top of the ramp the Judas Goat was let out to repeat the process and lived to an old age while the sheep met their end.

I think we as small ethical breeders are the sheep and the Judas Goat is the Animal Libs/Oscars flaw eager to get us to think that our interests are the same.

I will not be led by these fanatics who view ALL Breeders as one and the same.

[moosmum]

In many slaughterhouses it was common to use a goat called a "Judas Goat" that the sheep that were being readied for slaughter would be placed with before being directed into the kill room. The Judas Goat's job was to lead the sheep quickly and quietly up the ramp to where the killing took place. The sheep eagerly followed the goat because as another herbivore they think it has the same interests as them. At the top of the ramp the Judas Goat was let out to repeat the process and lived to an old age while the sheep met their end.

I think we as small ethical breeders are the sheep and the Judas Goat is the Animal Libs/Oscars flaw eager to get us to think that our interests are the same.

I will not be led by these fanatics who view ALL Breeders as one and the same.

Trouble is,we all are the same.Ethics aren't excluse to ANKC.

As long as ANKC breeders can't see that,a broader view of ethics acceptable to all interests can't be reached.

Every ones too busy trying to point the finger elsewhere and theres no Body to represent all interests equally.

Whether breeders like it or not,there is a whole industry associated with dogs in the community and we are part of it.

Edited to add, and affected by all legislation we ask for, or don't study very carefully and and comment on.

Edited February 29, 2012 by moosmum