Qld Government Breeder Legislation

[Wags]

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.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/315/view.html

Added Later:

There are some who are viewing this post as it was meant - to assess the impact the legislation might have on the responsibility of breeding practices and accountability of ALL small and large breeders and thereby reduce and/or regulate puppy farming and backyard breeding practices to bring them into line with registered breeders.

There are others who seem more focussed on a negative campaign against the RSPCA, particuarly in regard to being the policer of the legislation.

EVERYBODY has the ability to express their concerns by going to the website and expressing them directly to the state government.

You have the avenue, you have the notice ..... hopefully most of you, at least, might be proactive enough to take up the opportunity.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Wags

[yarracully]

Whos the "we" you referred to?

Perhaps if you intend to come onto a forum and persuade people to support an act which will give a charitable organisation greater power than the state police has you should fully disclose who you actually represent.

[Wags]

Whos the "we" you referred to?

Perhaps if you intend to come onto a forum and persuade people to support an act which will give a charitable organisation greater power than the state police has you should fully disclose who you actually represent.

1. My identification level is no different to yours, and therefore I could ask the same question of you. If you are inquiring as to whether we might be associated with an organisation, the answer is no, but we are concerned registered breeders :D

2. We have not come onto a forum to persuade, but merely to inform and also to give the opportunity for individuals to 'have their say' of their own free will.

3. I think it's very possible that you are a little misguided in regard to 'big brother' tactics being utilised, given that rules, regulations and requirements will need to be met by breeders, which in turn gives guidelines to those inspecting. Misuse of power, in our view, would not be viewed as acceptable. Perhaps sensationalism about misuse of power might be a little pre-emptive on your part.

[Steve]

So which option is it that you are advocating for that you think should be accepted and amended to a lower number of dogs ?

From what I can see This proposal doesn't change anything as far as how people who breed or own dogs are required to do so now or have I missed something ? It has nothing whatever to do with how they are kept its about how they can be sold. Its about who gets the info and how that info is used . Surely if we are to advocate for all breeders to come under this rather than only those which have more than 10 fertile dogs there is no incentive for people to keep less rather than more dogs,there is no incentive for them to sell their puppies personally rather than sell them to a pet shop without the need to advertise them. So the assumption is that when the RSPCA pick up that someone is breeding dogs they will then turn up and check the dogs are being kept in conditions which comply with the laws and codes - guilty until proven innocent type of system based on how many or how often you breed a puppy and that the group of registered breeders you are speaking for believe this to be in the dogs and their best interest?

Whether or not the system will ever be corrupt the reason that no other system is like this is to prevent it from being able to have the ability to be corrupted so easily. A charity which advocates for law changes ,which is charged with policing those laws and prosecuting any breaches is able to be corrupt to a much greater extent than any other in this country. More power than a police force and less accountability . Why change it from councils and state government to RSPCA ?

Every single day in the news there are stories of government officials and police officers who mis -use their power and are found guilty of corruption even with outside accountability and no matter what there will be people who are in any system who will bend the rules, hand over info or who don't play fair .So suggestions of misuse of power may be a little pre-emptive but what is the alternative - say nothing , give it a tick and go in faith ? Advocate for more laws, more power position especially when you add to the mix passion against the people they are policing and then without outside accountability because only those doing the wrong thing have anything to worry about right?

Purebred registered breeders may be exempt from the fee but they will still be watched for how many dogs they own and breed by those collecting the registration data just as anyone else is - and they are more likely to be the ones chipping and what they breed being registered. But of course all purebred registered breeders only have the numbers they tell council, all of their dogs are registered and they only ever keep their dogs according to mandatory codes don't they ? So why wouldn't we want breeders with less than 10 dogs to come under such legislation.?

We wont mention that there is a pretty good campaign building and that in some areas of the RSPCA they actually think that purebred registered breeders especially those who show dogs do more suffering to animals than back yard breeders do. They think we are the naive and irresponsible but we will continue on in the naive belief what we do is seen as being special and bleat on and advocate for more legislation which of course will not impact on us? Come in sucker.

[Sandra777]

I could be wrong and I sincerely apologise if I am, but I believe this is the same poster who thought the Dogs Qld accredited breeder scheme was just the cat's PJ's?

[Wags]

I could be wrong and I sincerely apologise if I am, but I believe this is the same poster who thought the Dogs Qld accredited breeder scheme was just the cat's PJ's?

Hahahah !!!! Way off the mark there ..... in fact I'm an accredited breeder.

[Wags]

So which option is it that you are advocating for that you think should be accepted and amended to a lower number of dogs ?

From what I can see This proposal doesn't change anything as far as how people who breed or own dogs are required to do so now or have I missed something ? It has nothing whatever to do with how they are kept its about how they can be sold. Its about who gets the info and how that info is used . Surely if we are to advocate for all breeders to come under this rather than only those which have more than 10 fertile dogs there is no incentive for people to keep less rather than more dogs,there is no incentive for them to sell their puppies personally rather than sell them to a pet shop without the need to advertise them. So the assumption is that when the RSPCA pick up that someone is breeding dogs they will then turn up and check the dogs are being kept in conditions which comply with the laws and codes - guilty until proven innocent type of system based on how many or how often you breed a puppy and that the group of registered breeders you are speaking for believe this to be in the dogs and their best interest?

Whether or not the system will ever be corrupt the reason that no other system is like this is to prevent it from being able to have the ability to be corrupted so easily. A charity which advocates for law changes ,which is charged with policing those laws and prosecuting any breaches is able to be corrupt to a much greater extent than any other in this country. More power than a police force and less accountability . Why change it from councils and state government to RSPCA ?

Every single day in the news there are stories of government officials and police officers who mis -use their power and are found guilty of corruption even with outside accountability and no matter what there will be people who are in any system who will bend the rules, hand over info or who don't play fair .So suggestions of misuse of power may be a little pre-emptive but what is the alternative - say nothing , give it a tick and go in faith ? Advocate for more laws, more power position especially when you add to the mix passion against the people they are policing and then without outside accountability because only those doing the wrong thing have anything to worry about right?

Purebred registered breeders may be exempt from the fee but they will still be watched for how many dogs they own and breed by those collecting the registration data just as anyone else is - and they are more likely to be the ones chipping and what they breed being registered. But of course all purebred registered breeders only have the numbers they tell council, all of their dogs are registered and they only ever keep their dogs according to mandatory codes don't they ? So why wouldn't we want breeders with less than 10 dogs to come under such legislation.?

We wont mention that there is a pretty good campaign building and that in some areas of the RSPCA they actually think that purebred registered breeders especially those who show dogs do more suffering to animals than back yard breeders do. They think we are the naive and irresponsible but we will continue on in the naive belief what we do is seen as being special and bleat on and advocate for more legislation which of course will not impact on us? Come in sucker.

I would personally like to see the same legislation for all breeders, particularly unregistered, whether accidental or intentional, regardless of the number of entire dogs owned. If you actually read the information, you will see that responsible registered breeders remain under the jurisdiction of their canine control council, apart from requiring an ID number from the State Government. They are deemed to be responsible already.

It is not just about registering puppies, it is also about operating breeding programmes responsibly, and introduces health testing requirements as well as standards of care for breeding dogs and puppies.

It seems that so far, posters on this forum are too stuck on issues of 'power over' to be able to see the proactive move towards stamping out BYB and puppy farms.

You can have your say, direct to the horses mouth, by following the link I've provided.

[Steve]

So which option is it that you are advocating for that you think should be accepted and amended to a lower number of dogs ?

From what I can see This proposal doesn't change anything as far as how people who breed or own dogs are required to do so now or have I missed something ? It has nothing whatever to do with how they are kept its about how they can be sold. Its about who gets the info and how that info is used . Surely if we are to advocate for all breeders to come under this rather than only those which have more than 10 fertile dogs there is no incentive for people to keep less rather than more dogs,there is no incentive for them to sell their puppies personally rather than sell them to a pet shop without the need to advertise them. So the assumption is that when the RSPCA pick up that someone is breeding dogs they will then turn up and check the dogs are being kept in conditions which comply with the laws and codes - guilty until proven innocent type of system based on how many or how often you breed a puppy and that the group of registered breeders you are speaking for believe this to be in the dogs and their best interest?

Whether or not the system will ever be corrupt the reason that no other system is like this is to prevent it from being able to have the ability to be corrupted so easily. A charity which advocates for law changes ,which is charged with policing those laws and prosecuting any breaches is able to be corrupt to a much greater extent than any other in this country. More power than a police force and less accountability . Why change it from councils and state government to RSPCA ?

Every single day in the news there are stories of government officials and police officers who mis -use their power and are found guilty of corruption even with outside accountability and no matter what there will be people who are in any system who will bend the rules, hand over info or who don't play fair .So suggestions of misuse of power may be a little pre-emptive but what is the alternative - say nothing , give it a tick and go in faith ? Advocate for more laws, more power position especially when you add to the mix passion against the people they are policing and then without outside accountability because only those doing the wrong thing have anything to worry about right?

Purebred registered breeders may be exempt from the fee but they will still be watched for how many dogs they own and breed by those collecting the registration data just as anyone else is - and they are more likely to be the ones chipping and what they breed being registered. But of course all purebred registered breeders only have the numbers they tell council, all of their dogs are registered and they only ever keep their dogs according to mandatory codes don't they ? So why wouldn't we want breeders with less than 10 dogs to come under such legislation.?

We wont mention that there is a pretty good campaign building and that in some areas of the RSPCA they actually think that purebred registered breeders especially those who show dogs do more suffering to animals than back yard breeders do. They think we are the naive and irresponsible but we will continue on in the naive belief what we do is seen as being special and bleat on and advocate for more legislation which of course will not impact on us? Come in sucker.

I would personally like to see the same legislation for all breeders, particularly unregistered, whether accidental or intentional, regardless of the number of entire dogs owned. If you actually read the information, you will see that responsible registered breeders remain under the jurisdiction of their canine control council, apart from requiring an ID number from the State Government. They are deemed to be responsible already.

It is not just about registering puppies, it is also about operating breeding programmes responsibly, and introduces health testing requirements as well as standards of care for breeding dogs and puppies.

It seems that so far, posters on this forum are too stuck on issues of 'power over' to be able to see the proactive move towards stamping out BYB and puppy farms.

You can have your say, direct to the horses mouth, by following the link I've provided.

Ok. Im interested - go slowly - So how will this affect breeding programs and health testing or standards for breeding dogs and puppies. I see nothing in this proposal which will change anything which is already required in this regard.

Are you saying that what ever agency is given the responsibility of keeping the registration details will also become involved in counselling or enforcing their own conditions on how an animal is chosen for breeding?

Based on what is presented even if only one thing happens - that the RSPCA is charged with keeping these records and policing the regs and laws already in place whether someone has more than 10 dogs or how they want to sell and advertise their puppies everyone who has a litter will show up anyway as all puppies sold in Queensland have to be chipped. They would show up on current council records So whether or not anything changes these things could be policed and people prosecuted now - why do we need anything new?

[Wags]

So which option is it that you are advocating for that you think should be accepted and amended to a lower number of dogs ?

From what I can see This proposal doesn't change anything as far as how people who breed or own dogs are required to do so now or have I missed something ? It has nothing whatever to do with how they are kept its about how they can be sold. Its about who gets the info and how that info is used . Surely if we are to advocate for all breeders to come under this rather than only those which have more than 10 fertile dogs there is no incentive for people to keep less rather than more dogs,there is no incentive for them to sell their puppies personally rather than sell them to a pet shop without the need to advertise them. So the assumption is that when the RSPCA pick up that someone is breeding dogs they will then turn up and check the dogs are being kept in conditions which comply with the laws and codes - guilty until proven innocent type of system based on how many or how often you breed a puppy and that the group of registered breeders you are speaking for believe this to be in the dogs and their best interest?

Whether or not the system will ever be corrupt the reason that no other system is like this is to prevent it from being able to have the ability to be corrupted so easily. A charity which advocates for law changes ,which is charged with policing those laws and prosecuting any breaches is able to be corrupt to a much greater extent than any other in this country. More power than a police force and less accountability . Why change it from councils and state government to RSPCA ?

Every single day in the news there are stories of government officials and police officers who mis -use their power and are found guilty of corruption even with outside accountability and no matter what there will be people who are in any system who will bend the rules, hand over info or who don't play fair .So suggestions of misuse of power may be a little pre-emptive but what is the alternative - say nothing , give it a tick and go in faith ? Advocate for more laws, more power position especially when you add to the mix passion against the people they are policing and then without outside accountability because only those doing the wrong thing have anything to worry about right?

Purebred registered breeders may be exempt from the fee but they will still be watched for how many dogs they own and breed by those collecting the registration data just as anyone else is - and they are more likely to be the ones chipping and what they breed being registered. But of course all purebred registered breeders only have the numbers they tell council, all of their dogs are registered and they only ever keep their dogs according to mandatory codes don't they ? So why wouldn't we want breeders with less than 10 dogs to come under such legislation.?

We wont mention that there is a pretty good campaign building and that in some areas of the RSPCA they actually think that purebred registered breeders especially those who show dogs do more suffering to animals than back yard breeders do. They think we are the naive and irresponsible but we will continue on in the naive belief what we do is seen as being special and bleat on and advocate for more legislation which of course will not impact on us? Come in sucker.

I would personally like to see the same legislation for all breeders, particularly unregistered, whether accidental or intentional, regardless of the number of entire dogs owned. If you actually read the information, you will see that responsible registered breeders remain under the jurisdiction of their canine control council, apart from requiring an ID number from the State Government. They are deemed to be responsible already.

It is not just about registering puppies, it is also about operating breeding programmes responsibly, and introduces health testing requirements as well as standards of care for breeding dogs and puppies.

It seems that so far, posters on this forum are too stuck on issues of 'power over' to be able to see the proactive move towards stamping out BYB and puppy farms.

You can have your say, direct to the horses mouth, by following the link I've provided.

Ok. Im interested - go slowly - So how will this affect breeding programs and health testing or standards for breeding dogs and puppies. I see nothing in this proposal which will change anything which is already required in this regard.

Are you saying that what ever agency is given the responsibility of keeping the registration details will also become involved in counselling or enforcing their own conditions on how an animal is chosen for breeding?

Based on what is presented even if only one thing happens - that the RSPCA is charged with keeping these records and policing the regs and laws already in place whether someone has more than 10 dogs or how they want to sell and advertise their puppies everyone who has a litter will show up anyway as all puppies sold in Queensland have to be chipped. They would show up on current council records So whether or not anything changes these things could be policed and people prosecuted now - why do we need anything new?

Because at the moment loads of puppies are being sold un-microchipped and there is no tracing or policing ability. Unregistered breeders currently enjoy no rules, regulations or requirements and of course anonimity. The breeder ID deletes their anonimity and also educates them on proper breeding practices, enforces those practices and yes, polices and prosecutes those that don't comply. Frankly, I believe that if they don't comply, they deserve to be prosecuted.

We were afforded access to the full version of the legislation proposed and the requirements were more fully explained. I will see if I can find that document again - believe me, it's not just about microchipping, although breeder records on microchipping papers are included in the proposal. This can only be a good thing.

Again, my only concern about the legislation is that it does not cover every breeder, whether accidental or intentional, and regardless of the number of dogs owned.

[Steve]

but this isnt true all breeders in Queensland come under the same state legislation and all have to microchip their puppies - how ill this legislation impact at all on their breeding programs or anything else they do which isnt already covered by codes and laws .All the have to do is not advertise a specific puppy to dodge it just as they are now.

I agree that any breeder who doesnt comply should be prosecuted so why arent they prosecuted now? There is nothing in this legislation which goes anywhere near breeding programs so where are you coming from?

Who will decide the breeding program and what someone can breed how did you get to this - what am I missing?

[Christina]

Looking at the possible future I am thinking that people in Australia will not breed dogs or cats anymore.

Maybe there will be government run facilities, like laboratories, that produce cats & dogs & people will have to pass an exam & be licensed to own one.

All people who want to breed cats & dogs will have to go & live in other countries.

More useless rules

It used to be easy & uncomplicated being a pet owner, breeding a little harder, now its becoming a regulated nightmare for all & there is still widespread abuse & neglect.

As much now, if not more, as there was 30 years ago

[Steve]

I can see that your only objection is about the fact that all breeders aren't included and I admit I can see the validity in that based on the fact that Ive seen many breeders registered and unregsitered who have 10 dogs or less who treat them appallingly and keep them in horrible conditions .

there are 4 options - which one does your group which Im assuming is QCCC feel is preferable for acceptance?

Im also assuming that you have a nice feeling about the RSPCA considering a past [assumed] affiliation but why is it necessary for this to be placed under their control? How is this more beneficial to the dogs than for it to be simply policed now.

[Wags]

I can see that your only objection is about the fact that all breeders aren't included and I admit I can see the validity in that based on the fact that Ive seen many breeders registered and unregsitered who have 10 dogs or less who treat them appallingly and keep them in horrible conditions .

there are 4 options - which one does your group which Im assuming is QCCC feel is preferable for acceptance?

Im also assuming that you have a nice feeling about the RSPCA considering a past [assumed] affiliation but why is it necessary for this to be placed under their control? How is this more beneficial to the dogs than for it to be simply policed now.

Firstly I'll deal with your assumptions ..... I am not speaking for an organisation. I am a concerned registered breeder who merely wants other concerned breeders to be aware of the legislation and the shortfalls and have their individual say on the matter, while the opportunity is available to do so. And I agree with your comments on breeders with less than 10 dogs. I believe it is very possible that those very breeders you comment on could well be responsible for that shortfall, ie keeping themselves under the radar. However, there are still the backyard breeders and smaller puppy farms to be made acountable as well.

As to the RSPCA policing the legislation ..... I cannot totally disagree that there have been times where the RSPCA have been over zealous in their efforts to stamp out animal cruelty - I see this happening often in animal rescue organisations as they become too wrapped up in marterism to see clearly. However, their initial aim is good and as with any organisation, some members can make the whole organisation look out of kilter. However, there is the question of who would police the legislation and provided the RSPCA have guidelines to work with, they may well be one of the few organisations in a position to police it.

This legislation is more beneficial because at the moment, a situation has to be reported before being policed because of breeder anonimity. It also places requirements of practice on the breeders which are currently non-existent. The breeder ID takes away that anonimity and gives families a means to identify breeders to authorities and report misnomers, and for the number of misnomers to be recorded, as is currently available for registered breeders. In fact it places the currently anonymous breeders under the same regulations and requirements and responsibilities as a registered breeder.

Frankly, I can't understand why the benefits to the dogs (and for that matter, the families who are naive enough to buy these puppies) through this legislation needs to be explained. It's blatantly obvious to me.

[Steve]

Firstly I'll deal with your assumptions ..... I am not speaking for an organisation. I am a concerned registered breeder who merely wants other concerned breeders to be aware of the legislation and the shortfalls and have their individual say on the matter, while the opportunity is available to do so. And I agree with your comments on breeders with less than 10 dogs. I believe it is very possible that those very breeders you comment on could well be responsible for that shortfall, ie keeping themselves under the radar. However, there are still the backyard breeders and smaller puppy farms to be made acountable as well.

As to the RSPCA policing the legislation ..... I cannot totally disagree that there have been times where the RSPCA have been over zealous in their efforts to stamp out animal cruelty - I see this happening often in animal rescue organisations as they become too wrapped up in marterism to see clearly. However, their initial aim is good and as with any organisation, some members can make the whole organisation look out of kilter. However, there is the question of who would police the legislation and provided the RSPCA have guidelines to work with, they may well be one of the few organisations in a position to police it.

This legislation is more beneficial because at the moment, a situation has to be reported before being policed because of breeder anonimity. It also places requirements of practice on the breeders which are currently non-existent. The breeder ID takes away that anonimity and gives families a means to identify breeders to authorities and report misnomers, and for the number of misnomers to be recorded, as is currently available for registered breeders. In fact it places the currently anonymous breeders under the same regulations and requirements and responsibilities as a registered breeder.

Frankly, I can't understand why the benefits to the dogs (and for that matter, the families who are naive enough to buy these puppies) through this legislation needs to be explained. It's blatantly obvious to me.

My apologies I assumed because you used the word we that you were speaking on behalf of a group rather than from a personal start point.

I also agree that to date council have been disgraceful at policing laws and I tend to agree that the RSPCA is probably a good candidate but I will not support this until such time that there is an outside accountability process in place which allows a system of perceived fairness and an ability to be more transparent about their dealings and behaviours - just in case now and then a zealot gets in or influences something they shouldn't.

I will have to think about why those who choose to breed dogs deserve to loose their right to privacy and free enjoyment of their property and assumed potentially guilty before they are reported - why do you say there are no requirements of of practice on breeders when the POCTA acts and mandatory codes and council by laws cover such things . If I could see some new requirements on breeders practices covered in this proposal I may understand but to date based on your link and what I have seen nothing in that regard will change.The requirements are the same as they are now.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Steve

[Wags]

Firstly I'll deal with your assumptions ..... I am not speaking for an organisation. I am a concerned registered breeder who merely wants other concerned breeders to be aware of the legislation and the shortfalls and have their individual say on the matter, while the opportunity is available to do so. And I agree with your comments on breeders with less than 10 dogs. I believe it is very possible that those very breeders you comment on could well be responsible for that shortfall, ie keeping themselves under the radar. However, there are still the backyard breeders and smaller puppy farms to be made acountable as well.

As to the RSPCA policing the legislation ..... I cannot totally disagree that there have been times where the RSPCA have been over zealous in their efforts to stamp out animal cruelty - I see this happening often in animal rescue organisations as they become too wrapped up in marterism to see clearly. However, their initial aim is good and as with any organisation, some members can make the whole organisation look out of kilter. However, there is the question of who would police the legislation and provided the RSPCA have guidelines to work with, they may well be one of the few organisations in a position to police it.

This legislation is more beneficial because at the moment, a situation has to be reported before being policed because of breeder anonimity. It also places requirements of practice on the breeders which are currently non-existent. The breeder ID takes away that anonimity and gives families a means to identify breeders to authorities and report misnomers, and for the number of misnomers to be recorded, as is currently available for registered breeders. In fact it places the currently anonymous breeders under the same regulations and requirements and responsibilities as a registered breeder.

Frankly, I can't understand why the benefits to the dogs (and for that matter, the families who are naive enough to buy these puppies) through this legislation needs to be explained. It's blatantly obvious to me.

My apologies I assumed because you used the word we that you were speaking on behalf of a group rather than from a personal start point.

I also agree that to date council have been disgraceful at policing laws and I tend to agree that the RSPCA is probably a good candidate but I will not support this until such time that there is an outside accountability process in place which allows a system of perceived fairness and an ability to be more transparent about their dealings and behaviours - just in case now and then a zealot gets in or influences something they shouldn't.

I will have to think about why those who choose to breed dogs deserve to loose their right to privacy and free enjoyment of their property and assumed potentially guilty before they are reported - why do you say there are no requirements of of practice on breeders when the POCTA acts and mandatory codes and council by laws cover such things . If I could see some new requirements on breeders practices covered in this proposal I may understand but to date based on your link and what I have seen nothing in that regard will change.The requirements are the same as they are now.

I say there is no accountability - because a lot of the problem breeders are anonymous and therefore unaccountable. For instance, go an ask a pet shop for the details of a breeder of a puppy in their shop ...... you will not get it, believed me, nor will you get it if you try to trace them through the vaccination card vet details.

Registered breeders are traceable and accountable through their registration with canine councils - unregistered breeders are not at this point in time.

Why do you assume that the RSPCA will, out of the blue, for no reason, stomp over your property ???? Their ability and stimulation to do so is no different to local councils, in my experience. I have also heard of situations where they are called and walk away disgusted because they've been called out on a grudge mission where their services are definitely not needed or justified. These situations aren't as newsworthy of course.

[Steve]

I say there is no accountability - because a lot of the problem breeders are anonymous and therefore unaccountable. For instance, go an ask a pet shop for the details of a breeder of a puppy in their shop ...... you will not get it, believed me, nor will you get it if you try to trace them through the vaccination card vet details.

Registered breeders are traceable and accountable through their registration with canine councils - unregistered breeders are not at this point in time.

Why do you assume that the RSPCA will, out of the blue, for no reason, stomp over your property ???? Their ability and stimulation to do so is no different to local councils, in my experience. I have also heard of situations where they are called and walk away disgusted because they've been called out on a grudge mission where their services are definitely not needed or justified. These situations aren't as newsworthy of course.

I wouldn't expect any business to simply hand over details of clients to me - why would I expect that a pet shop should have to do so? Surely whether they have to keep these records and who they have to report that to is about regulation on pet shops. How will the introduction of these regulations change the fact that I couldn't walk in and demand details on a pet shop's supplier? if you mean should the RSPCA or council or anyone else have access to that info how will there be any difference ? They will still buy from whomever they want in amounts they want and if they sell a sick puppy they will still be accountable and come under consumer laws as they do now - why introduce a system which assumes everyone may be breeding illegally and selling truckloads of their pups to a pet shop when nothing as far as buying and selling to a pet shop is changed? Dont pet shops have t sell puppies with chips , dont breeders have to sell puppies with chips ? if you want information on which breeders sell puppies to pet shops why not make pet shops keep this info and report it as part of their business licences? the Cc's already know which of their members sell to pet shops what are they doing with that info?

Registered breeders are traceable to the CC's they belong to but since when are they traceable by any other agency and addresses and private info traceable to anyone else to access unless they choose to be ? If this were the case then NSW breeders who were registering their puppies via Dogsnsw and who haven't been chipping their puppies would have been done in by now .instead they have had to introduce a mandatory requirement after a decade of it being law to have chips on pedigrees .

If I want to breed cross bred dogs or a breed in development or unregistered dogs as well as registered purebred dogs how am I be made accountable and traceable for puppies which are not registerable by the CC?

[Steve]

Why do you assume that the RSPCA will, out of the blue, for no reason, stomp over your property ???? Their ability and stimulation to do so is no different to local councils, in my experience. I have also heard of situations where they are called and walk away disgusted because they've been called out on a grudge mission where their services are definitely not needed or justified. These situations aren't as newsworthy of course.

Why else do they want the info ? If they are going to wait for a legitimate reason then why not do so after someone has been reported? Their stimulation to date has been no different to councils however, if they have access to who is breeding dogs etc then they have already said and so has the legislation proposal that they will be alerted to potential puppy farmers - so they will enter people's property out of the blue in case though both of us know in reality the bad puppy farmers wont chip and wont register and wont advertise.

So the only stats they will have is on those who follow the law.

[goldchow]

Personaly I shudder at the idea of more rules & regulations, breeding my dogs was once the love of my life, which I thoroughly enjoyed but am a heartbeat from walking away due to the over regulated nightmare it has become. We have more than enough rules and regulations to deal with those keeping their dogs in appalling conditions, the improvement I would like to see is local councils being appropriately educated and being far more proactive in supervising and enforcing the Animal Care Act to those who have permits and those who do not. The problem lies therein that everyone has a different idea of what constituents a puppy farm, and I agree that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of dogs being kept on a property. Even the RSPCA at their Round table discussion stated their definition of a puppy farm was 'One person who bred a litter of pups in substandard conditions'.

Compulsory microchipping has been in NSW for many years, many dogs are still coming into pounds & rescue in that state not chipped and has proved that it is a logistic nightmare to enforce.

I see many very young puppies being sold at local flea markets, how can this be enforced/supervised, particularly in regional areas

I would be totally against the RSPCA being the organization to police any regulations involving registered purebred breeders and certainly not without them being accountable to a completely independent authority, (not a head of a government department either) a huge conflict of interest comes to mind.

[goldchow]

In support of what Steve has stated above those who are believed to be puppy farmers certainly won't be putting their hands up to be registered with anyone, and I would be very surprised if they chipped any or some of their puppies. Indications are that more and more people breeding dogs are 'going underground' making any regulation or supervision impossible unless they can be found somewhere way out in the wide open spaces. These people will find their way around any rules and regulations brought in to keep doing what they are doing and the general public will continue to buy. The only ones that this new legislation will affect is registered purbred breeders.

Edited January 27, 2012 by goldchow

[Wags]

In support of what Steve has stated above those who are believed to be puppy farmers certainly won't be putting their hands up to be registered with anyone, and I would be very surprised if they chipped any or some of their puppies. Indications are that more and more people breeding dogs are 'going underground' making any regulation or supervision impossible unless they can be found somewhere way out in the wide open spaces. These people will find their way around any rules and regulations brought in to keep doing what they are doing and the general public will continue to buy. The only ones that this new legislation will affect is registered purbred breeders.

As I understand it, only those with less than 10 dogs will not be compelled to register and an ID number will be voluntary. Points of sale will require an ID number which negates any choice for the larger breeders, if they are to continue to sell their puppies. This I believe includes advertising points of sale.

Breeders with less than 10 dogs are under the radar - which is the point I'm trying to make.

The requirement for breeder ID to be included on microchipping papers ought to bring a lot o non ID'd breeders in, but there are still a vaste number of puppies which are not microchipped - hence the point of advertising or sale ID requirement.

Obviously, as with every system there will remain a small number of breeders who manage to bypass, but it should still have an impact.