Nsw Breeders - Heads Up

[Sheridan]

I made a comment about this on animal behaviourist Joanne Righetti's FB page where she was urging people to sign the petition. I said that I understood what they were trying to do, but that many registered, small hobby breeders who produced wonderful dogs would not be able to afford the annual fee. Tim Vasudeva CEO of the NSW Animal Welfare League responded and I have been having an ongoing discussion with him.

ETA, I have removed the quote by Tim Vasudeva, as I probably shouldn't put it on here, let's just say he thinks that all breeders sell their puppies for $1500 each, litters have at least five puppies in them and all breeders should be able to cover their costs or they aren't trying!

I replied to him -

I don't know what sort of puppies you are talking about, but the breed of dog that I own is $800-$850 per puppy, not $1500. When you have paid for genetic testing for your dogs, hip scoring, eye testing etc., progesterone tests to ensure the bitch is ovulating, sometimes artificial insemination, ultrasounds, stud fee, vet's fees for difficult deliveries or C-sections, vaccinations and micro-chipping of the puppies, etc., it will be very difficult to cover costs. Not everyone is lucky enough to get 5 puppies in a litter!!

Registered breeders already pay annual membership to the canine council (DogsNSW), to their respective breed clubs, and annual prefix fee on top of all that. Some breeders don't even have one litter every year, so how can they afford to pay an annual fee of $500?

I am not saying it won't close down some of the large-scale breeders, I am saying it will also cause a lot of the small registered breeders to stop breeding. Why should the ones who are doing the right thing have to subsidise a scheme to stop the ones who are doing the wrong thing? Why penalise the people who are doing it right?

Just goes to show that AWL don't know anything about dog breeding. It would behoove Tim Vasudeva to speak to ordinary breeders (rather than, say, the hierachy of Dogs NSW who seem to be a 'How high would you like me to jump, sir?' pushover). Invite him to come onto DOL and chat to people who will be severely affected by their petition should it go through. I'm betting he won't.

[Steve]

The sad thing is that Govt groups don't even need to put a registration fee in place - there is already a system that could easily be expanded.

In theory, anyone operating a puppy farm would need to have a license thru their council. This could be where an annual fee could be charged to anyone operating breeding situations on a commercial scale - in these cases the council and rspca already have authority to inspect the premises under the conditions of the planning permit - then issued with a Breed License Number

Breeders who are hobby breeders with less than (i think its usually 5 breeding dogs) should not need to come under this scheme especially if they already belong to the recognised state Breed Association - their membership number can be used as a Breed License Number.

The most simple solution would be to provide a Bill thru Government that states that no dogs can be sold without a microchip from the point of production. This would mean that Petshops cannot bring puppies in without records of where they come and who they have been sold to - using microchip numbers

Hence then stats could be developed to indicate for rescue/pounds where and how many pups are come from byb, puppy farms or even registered breeders. Rescue groups could trace back to the initial source..... how cool would that be....

The main thing then is to educate the public that it is law that a pup must be microchipped and with first vaccination when sold. Even a family having one accidental litter either has to surrender to welfare or pay for a vet to microchip so they can sell the pups.

Vets already check for microchips and fill out transfer of ownership for new puppy owners - if they find pups without microchip then the new owners would usually be happy to say where they purchased the pup and this can be written up with the new microchip - Computer programs are quite capable of recording the string of owners back to point of origin and this would allow red flags to show if there is many repeats of the same address appearing as origin. Especially when no Breed License Number is given.

Might seem a bit complicated but this system has already been tested - Used with cattle, sheep etc - Markets, Wholesalers, Butchers have to identify where they source their product. One good thing is that puppy farms and pet shops would have to spend extra money as well as keep accurate records (that can be inspected) whereas Registered Breeders are already required to keep this info - so more work and more expense for puppy farms and pet shops but not for the registered breeders.

We already have mandatory chipping before sale or at 12 weeks and no one policing it .

[Steve]

you can tell them over and over that all they do is advantage large scale breeders but they don't listen.

I would like to know where are all of these puppy farmers? If they really are as prolific as they tell us why haven't they pinged them?

Why is it we only see those on the TV which have all of their licenses and doing it all under the current laws? The Bulley kennels were zoomed in on but they weren't breaking any laws. You don't have to agree with what they were doing or where they were selling puppies but they were complying with the laws

They have hate pages on one person with accusations going back 12 years accusing her of puppy farming but she is a 73 year old lady with 3 dogs sleeping on her bed. If there really are such terrible puppy farmers where are they and why are they spending so much energy on something which doesn't exist?

[~Anne~]

I really do understand what they are trying to do, and I think it is great that they are trying to stop puppy farmers, but I don't think this is the way to go about it.

I don't know what the answer is!

This is my feelings also.

I wish I knew the answers. The way it is going, both in wlefare and the purebred world, I am scared of what the future holds.

[Kavik]

This definitely seems to only advantage those who have the money to spend on the licences - those that breed a lot of litters and make money from it and disadvantage those that have few litters. Why can't they see the impact it will have on small hobby breeders?

Edited March 11, 2012 by Kavik

[Are You Serious Jo]

It is quite scary that someone deep in the animal welfare world and in such a position of power can be so ignorant One step closer to the world of large puppy farms as they will be the only ones with enough income to afford to breed.

[Steve]

There is one stand out issue with any accusation that hobby breeders make enough money from breeding dogs to be able to cover such a high expenses - the tax man says we don't make a profit .

All of us would love to be able to claim our dog expenses against our taxable income as it would mean we paid less tax but they say we are breeding as a hobby and wont play with us.

Again its all based on assumption.

Its a bit naive too - alright for them to say any inspection wont make people have dogs whelping out in sheds etc but the planning laws and mandatory codes are going to have to dictate what they can and cant allow when they inspect.

they cant just come in and make it a case by case because that would mean if I sleep with the right one or take him out to dinner - or if he doesn't like my hair colour he can do what ever he wants. and say no show.or next year change his mind.

It has to be based on the guidelines.Everything advantages the large scale commercial breeder.

[BJean]

Just goes to show that AWL don't know anything about dog breeding. It would behoove Tim Vasudeva to speak to ordinary breeders (rather than, say, the hierachy of Dogs NSW who seem to be a 'How high would you like me to jump, sir?' pushover). Invite him to come onto DOL and chat to people who will be severely affected by their petition should it go through. I'm betting he won't.

AWL don't seem to know much about dog rehoming either.

Although their play on words in their annual report to doll up poor performance,

suggests Tim Vasudeva should busy himself with a licensing system for AWL CEOs, or maybe just busy himself with AWL actually rehoming more animals (instead of making misleading beat up statements about it).

Edited March 11, 2012 by lilli

[Souff]

Bringing in a $500 licence will not stop puppy farmers and will only push matters underground.

You only have to look at the pitbull world to see that.

The Department of Ag and the RSPCA and the AWL all have powers to act on animal cruelty under existing legislation.

Perhaps if the AWL and co targetted the vets who stay silent about the disgusting conditions in puppy farms that are known to the vet (as a regular customer and excellent source of income) ..... well then they might be doing some really good animal welfare work.

Souff

[BlackJaq]

We already have mandatory chipping before sale or at 12 weeks and no one policing it .

Perhaps if the AWL and co targetted the vets who stay silent about the disgusting conditions in puppy farms that are known to the vet (as a regular customer and excellent source of income) ..... well then they might be doing some really good animal welfare work.

Souff

I agree that the vets need cracking down on. I have been to all the vet clinics in the immediate townships around where I live on various occasions and not a single one has EVER asked to scan a single one of my dogs. NOT ONE.

For all they know, all my dogs could be stolen with the real owner still registered on the chip, or none of my dogs could have chips.

Maybe they should actually enforce the laws they already have, before slapping people with an extra bill of $500 and then still not making any inspections or enforcing any of this. I'm sure they will be happy enough to rake in the money any which way!

Maybe it should be mandatory for vet clinics to allow inspectors access to animals' files to be sure EVERY ONE has a chip number recorded? And then somebody actually needs to come along and check this of course.

Edited March 11, 2012 by BlackJaq

[cowanbree]

We recently had a code of welfare started over here which is very similar and to be honest it scares me silly. I can see what they are doing but suddenly my 1 or 2 litters a year which are born in my bedroom and raised in my kitchen have to be outside in set sized pens with minimum requirements for ease of cleaning etc which can not be met by having a home raised litter. I know they are trying to stop unethical breeders but they are also disadvantaging breeders such as myself who want to raise my puppies as part of the family. My dogs are not kennel dogs and the financial implications of not only paying license fees but also meeting all these minimum standards would be huge. The public would have to expect a huge increase in the cost of puppies.

[Nekhbet]

what comparative legal clout does the AWLNSW have compared to say, the RSPCA?

[Steve]

what comparative legal clout does the AWLNSW have compared to say, the RSPCA?

The AWL is equal to the RSPCA in legislation - only difference is in their size.

[mita]

We recently had a code of welfare started over here which is very similar and to be honest it scares me silly. I can see what they are doing but suddenly my 1 or 2 litters a year which are born in my bedroom and raised in my kitchen have to be outside in set sized pens with minimum requirements for ease of cleaning etc which can not be met by having a home raised litter.

Yet this is the breeding conditions where I'd head to, for a pure-bred dog or puppy. Part of the family.

It's not just sentimentality. The puppies' brains are being developed in the conditions they're raised in, from the word go.

Also ,if the adult dogs are also part of the family, that's the first 'dog behaviour' models the puppies have to follow.

This way of keeping & raising dogs and puppies, reduces their risk of being dumped later. Backed by evidence, too.

Which means that 'welfare' organisations, like the AWL in NSW, should be doing the opposite. They should be supporting the more 'family' style, hands-on approach. Because it gets better welfare outcomes for the dogs.

And I'm not arguing that it all must take place inside the house. But that any kennel set-up should be connected with the everyday home lifestyle of the owners. Most breeders I know balance this nicely, in their own ways.

Here's an example of a purebred puppy being happily raised in the 'family' way, surrounded by the adult dogs.

BTW the adult dog is not related to the baby puppy:

Edited March 12, 2012 by mita

[BlackJaq]

Just wondering, how do you guys who raise their puppies inside pretty much full time stop all those puppies from constantly having accidents inside?

My dog was born in a litter with 11 puppies all up, and when we first brought her home she had to go outside to do her business pretty much every time she played, ate, slept or did anything, really. Imagine having to take each puppy out each time, times by eleven? Lol

However, I would also always prefer a pup that was raised with indoor access and family interaction to a pup raised in a fully kennelled environment. Getting a pup, especially an older one, used to being an indoor dog when it had previously lived in a kennel is not always easy, especially concerning toilet training and such.

[Steve]

Just wondering, how do you guys who raise their puppies inside pretty much full time stop all those puppies from constantly having accidents inside?

My dog was born in a litter with 11 puppies all up, and when we first brought her home she had to go outside to do her business pretty much every time she played, ate, slept or did anything, really. Imagine having to take each puppy out each time, times by eleven? Lol

However, I would also always prefer a pup that was raised with indoor access and family interaction to a pup raised in a fully kennelled environment. Getting a pup, especially an older one, used to being an indoor dog when it had previously lived in a kennel is not always easy, especially concerning toilet training and such.

Until puppies are fed real food and over 21 days old their mum cleans up after then - You can have a litter of a dozen in your home and there is no smell and no mess. After they start to move around and their mum stops cleaning up they are managed differently.

Here for example they are moved onto the porch area where they can come and go in the house when I want them in and they can go out to the toot. Puppies given the chance to go away from where they are sleeping are clean and prefer to go out onto the grass - my house is also set up to have accidents now and then without a problem - no carpet.

[BlackJaq]

Ah, that sounds like a good system!

My dog pretty much toilet trained herself as well and only had accidents very rarely, usually when I wasn't paying enough attention to her signals! Given the choice, she definately did not want to live in her own mes lol

Also I see that there is no mention in this petition about dogs having social contact to other dogs and people or being socialized before sale. How is it that such an important point is simply ignored by these people? And it looks like they are easily going to meet their goal of 10,000 signatures.

Are 10,000 enough to possibly prompt the law makers to consider their suggestions?

[Rysup]

As a breeder who breeds, on average, one litter ever 5 years, I would just have to stop breeding. I would not be paying $500 a year PLUS my Dogs NSW fees, just so I can hold a breeders prefix.

I dont see how a $500 fee is going to stop a person who breeds for profit in ANY way, shape or form! They will keep doing just what they are doing, their dogs will pay for that fee.

[Steve]

Ah, that sounds like a good system!

My dog pretty much toilet trained herself as well and only had accidents very rarely, usually when I wasn't paying enough attention to her signals! Given the choice, she definately did not want to live in her own mes lol

Also I see that there is no mention in this petition about dogs having social contact to other dogs and people or being socialized before sale. How is it that such an important point is simply ignored by these people? And it looks like they are easily going to meet their goal of 10,000 signatures.

Are 10,000 enough to possibly prompt the law makers to consider their suggestions?

I don't think it will make any difference how many they get and they have to wait anyway until the review is up if they are going to go via the companion animals act but there is a push nation wide for a licencing system for breeders and for an outside agency to be calling all of the shots. If they try the way they did with the whole anti pet shop thing via someone like clover Moore it could get scary

For me its the general push and general anti breeder stuff that seems to be getting way way too much attention and lots of sensationalism and propaganda. Dishonesty, lies are every where .You can have hate pages about a breeder for the most trivial of things but not about a pedophile

I don't think breeders should have no rights of what they can do with their own property and no privacy rights and no rights of where they can sell their puppies etc simply because someone is guessing as to what may be causing dogs being PTS .

I don't understand how they can think they can introduce fees and regulations that make no sense to small breeders and not advantage commercial breeders - yet they say this is what they are trying to stop.

Nothing they do to breeders is going to stop irresponsible owners - its the owners who dump dogs .So its sort of like punishing someone for selling a car if they if they have lots of people deliberately running them into trees

How is it you have to be treated as a potential criminal and animal abuser because you happen to want to breed a litter of puppies - this is truly a world gone mad and it saddens me that my kids will never be able to experience the joy of breeding great dogs which will make a difference to the dogs and the people who live with them for generations.

We should be able to stand proud of what we do and not have to constantly defend ourselves and our property because now and then someone somewhere mucks it up.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Steve

[BlackJaq]

Yes, and all of this will only affect registered breeders anyway, those who usually breed pure bred dogs.

Those people who breed their dog of unknown origin every year and sell puppies for $50 a pop will not go through all the registrations and such anyways, they will continue to put up posters at the local supermarket and make a quick buck.

Which dogs are the ones being put down in pounds and such most of the time, aynways? The purebreeds with papers or the mixed breeds of unknown origin and sort-of pure bred looking ones without papers? I think this question is easily answered by having a look around the DOL rescue board where dogs in pounds around the country are listed.

I don't think a license to breed dogs would be a bad thing in general, but I don't think this is the right way to go about it, and adding extra fees really only stops the small scale breeders, as has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread now.

Maybe we should start a contra petition? :p

Edited March 12, 2012 by BlackJaq