Qld Government Breeder Legislation

[Steve]

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.

yes you have me - in fact it is a definite absolute done deal that if only those with over ten dogs have to advertise and sell this way that its not possible to police any of them - if its going to have any impact at all it has to be all breeders and those small breeders who elect not to advertise this way or be registered will be in less demand than big commercial breeders due to how it is presented. registered with a number equals better.it creates demand for commercfially bred puppies over those small scale breeders. Still the issue for me is that they are handing it over to an outside agency before they implement accountability processes.

[goldchow]

Sadly Wags those I refer to have many more that 10 fertile bitches and they don't advertise nor do they give out 'papers'

[Wags]

Sadly Wags those I refer to have many more that 10 fertile bitches and they don't advertise nor do they give out 'papers'

There are smaller breeders who fall into this category as well, and they usually sell through the pet shops or via the local papers. They need to be caught in the loop as well.

[goldchow]

Most Definitely.

Finally getting to read the link you provided.

Some of the things that really scream at me so far are

Page 12: 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.

What sort of information does this actually mean, general whereabouts or address as such? This is scary stuff when many of us make it a practise not to publicise we have a litter on the ground until the puppies have actually been sold. I also believe this was one such point the RSPCA had on their agenda at the Roundtable discussion and which, correct me if I'm wrong the AAPDB, DogsNsw, MDBA and ANKC voted against, specifically for security reasons.

Page 12 again: Breeders would continue to be subject to the microchipping requirements under the Animal Management (Cats & Dogs)Act 2008). However these requirements would be enhanced to provide for recording and retrieval of breeding information that would assist Biosecurity Queensland and the RSPCA Qld to target their enforcement activities

and in fine print down the bottom of the page

The RSPCA Qld has expressed willingness to develop, host and maintain the register. Negotiations between the Queensland Government and the RSPCA Qld are ongoing with a view to the RSPCA Qld providinf this service. If no organization was prescribed the chief executive of DEEDI would be obliged to keep the register

Of course they have, Paul McGreevey & the RSPCA are doing a great job of taking over the control of the purebred dogs they have publicly denounced which we initially witnessed at the Breeding Better Dogs Seminar in Melbourne several years ago.

[Wags]

Most Definitely.

Finally getting to read the link you provided.

Some of the things that really scream at me so far are

Page 12: 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.

What sort of information does this actually mean, general whereabouts or address as such? This is scary stuff when many of us make it a practise not to publicise we have a litter on the ground until the puppies have actually been sold. I also believe this was one such point the RSPCA had on their agenda at the Roundtable discussion and which, correct me if I'm wrong the AAPDB, DogsNsw, MDBA and ANKC voted against, specifically for security reasons.

Page 12 again: Breeders would continue to be subject to the microchipping requirements under the Animal Management (Cats & Dogs)Act 2008). However these requirements would be enhanced to provide for recording and retrieval of breeding information that would assist Biosecurity Queensland and the RSPCA Qld to target their enforcement activities

and in fine print down the bottom of the page

The RSPCA Qld has expressed willingness to develop, host and maintain the register. Negotiations between the Queensland Government and the RSPCA Qld are ongoing with a view to the RSPCA Qld providinf this service. If no organization was prescribed the chief executive of DEEDI would be obliged to keep the register

Of course they have, Paul McGreevey & the RSPCA are doing a great job of taking over the control of the purebred dogs they have publicly denounced which we initially witnessed at the Breeding Better Dogs Seminar in Melbourne several years ago.

I'm not sure I totally agree with your interpretation of these points, but nevertheless, I really don't have a problem in the accountability. Which is what it boils down to. I think you'll find that much is status quo for the canine control registered breeders, so there is little impact on that sector. I actually think they'e done a good job of integrating the current registered breeders while establishing a State register of breeders.

[goldchow]

Unfortunately I do have major problems with the accountability of the RSPCA who are not accountable to anyone but themselves which can be breeding grounds for corruption, conflict of interest and the 'Guilty until proven Innocent' system they use. Mark Townend is but a small fish in a big pond and eventually even he has to do as he's told.

Apart from that I can't see anything in this paper which will achieve its supposed objective of dealing with so called puppy farmers but I can see negative impacts on registered purebred dog breeders.

I note that Dogs Queensland is considering applying for accreditation, it would seem to me that they would be the logical choice to handle all this new information rather than an outsider with little to no practical knowledge of the breeding and keeping of dogs, even if it meant employing appropriate staff or is this a too simplistic view?

[Jed]

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?

Yep, sure is.

I thought "we" was a perogative of the Queen of England?

And there is no need for legislation of this type, which will cost registered breeders more money, and cause a lot of grief, without reducing the level of suffering at all.

All the government needs to do is ban the sale of pups in pet shops. They have banned other similar things, there is no reason not to do this. I would be really interested in knowing why they simply wont do that. Vested interests in PIAA, or.....................

Edited February 2, 2012 by Jed

[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?

Yep, sure is.

I thought "we" was a perogative of the Queen of England?

And there is no need for legislation of this type, which will cost registered breeders more money, and cause a lot of grief, without reducing the level of suffering at all.

All the government needs to do is ban the sale of pups in pet shops. They have banned other similar things, there is no reason not to do this. I would be really interested in knowing why they simply wont do that. Vested interests in PIAA, or.....................

It would indeed seem that assumptions that are incorrect are rive on this site ..... from people who are indeed not necessarily what they purport to be. It would seem that Jed would be the one referred to Sandra's assumption. And perhaps one should not throw stones if they live in glass houses - either of you.

[Jed]

If you are referring to your support on this forum for the ABS, my comments were not based on assumption, but on the information you posted on the forum. Sandra777 also remarked on this, and you denied it. If you want to support something, you should be prepared to stand up for it.

Here is the thread, just to prove my comments were not based on assumptions. Over the 20 pages of this thread, you continually showed support for the ABS. And that is your perogative, of course.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/214253-ccc-qlds-new-breeder-accredited-system/page__st__60__p__5122231__hl__accredited+breeder__fromsearch__1#entry5122231

And I didn't assume you are the Queen. I know you aren't :D

And when you read that thread to reacquaint yourself with your opinion, you might like to check to see what my opinion of the ABS in Qld is.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread. But Sandra asked, and your answer was ..... um.

Maybe you don't know the meaning of the colloquialism, "the cats pjs"?

Yes, I do think the Qld ABS stinks. I will never join while CCCQ registered puppy farmers are members. When the CCCQ sees fit to expel them, decent breeders may join, but most of us will not stand up with these people. What you do is up to you.

No more from me, no interest in this thread thanks :)

Edited February 3, 2012 by Jed

[Wags]

If you are referring to your support on this forum for the ABS, my comments were not based on assumption, but on the information you posted on the forum. Sandra777 also remarked on this, and you denied it. If you want to support something, you should be prepared to stand up for it.

Here is the thread, just to prove my comments were not based on assumptions. Over the 20 pages of this thread, you continually showed support for the ABS. And that is your perogative, of course.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/214253-ccc-qlds-new-breeder-accredited-system/page__st__60__p__5122231__hl__accredited+breeder__fromsearch__1#entry5122231

And I didn't assume you are the Queen. I know you aren't :D

And when you read that thread to reacquaint yourself with your opinion, you might like to check to see what my opinion of the ABS in Qld is.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread. But Sandra asked, and your answer was ..... um.

Maybe you don't know the meaning of the colloquialism, "the cats pjs"?

Yes, I do think the Qld ABS stinks. I will never join while CCCQ registered puppy farmers are members. When the CCCQ sees fit to expel them, decent breeders may join, but most of us will not stand up with these people. What you do is up to you.

No more from me, no interest in this thread thanks :)

For your information Jed .....

I misread Sandy's original comment regarding the Accredited Breeders Scheme - yes I am in favour of anything that makes breeders, registered or otherwise, more accountable and responsible. And what was the inferance in Sandy's raising this ..... what relevance did it have to the State Govt scheme? It certainly wasn't meant to give credence to my posting about the State scheme, was it? In fact it was no doubt meant to have the opposite affect.

The denigration heaped on Dogs Qld in regard to the ABS scheme in my view is indicative of the general attitude of some posters on this site - negative, derogatory, destructive and maligning. The excuses for boycotting the scheme are weak as well as the things I've just stated - and the accountability is dodged in the process. In my mind, that's speaks enough on it's own.

To malign and denigrate those who are positive about the scheme and partake is childish bullying - and in speaking up for Dogs Qld and the scheme I reaped a great deal of inferred and direct negative and malign attitude. No need to redo the link, I remember it well and it gave me quite a taste of the attitudes and behaviour of a lot of posters on this site.

As to the use of colloquialisms ...... do you really think that snide references like this are meant to be positive or complimentary inputs ...... Give me strength.

Lets hope that posting the information did reach some more mature and balanced minded breeders who might go on and use the opportunity to state their worries (whatever they are) where it matters, with the State Govt. The ones who merely used this post for another fun negative game and don't do anything proactive about having their say, get what they deserve, and no doubt will winge loudly about the outcome in the future. It's their bag to carry.

I'll stick to more positive and proactive forums in future. Enjoy denigrating and putting everything down - It's a pity these posters don't have better things to do with their lives.