Nsw Breeders - Heads Up

[sandgrubber]

So, for once everyone agrees. BAD IDEA. Where's the counter petition? I don't mean the facetious one suggesting that the idiots be castrated. I means a simple, sincere petition stating that the proposed measures will pose a severe hardship for small home/hobby breeders, and cause further expanse of commercially-oriented kennels,

Btw, I think we should be talking about 'family breeders', not 'hobby breeders'. It better conveys the fact that many 'breeders' treat their dogs as family members and only have occasional litters.

[Sheridan]

So, for once everyone agrees. BAD IDEA. Where's the counter petition? I don't mean the facetious one suggesting that the idiots be castrated. I means a simple, sincere petition stating that the proposed measures will pose a severe hardship for small home/hobby breeders, and cause further expanse of commercially-oriented kennels,

Btw, I think we should be talking about 'family breeders', not 'hobby breeders'. It better conveys the fact that many 'breeders' treat their dogs as family members and only have occasional litters.

Good luck with that one.

[Alyosha]

Sandgrubber I completely agree with you. But should such a petition in reality be instigated by our representative body - Dogs NSW?

Does anyone else see that as a more practical approach? Than a petition from disgrunted breeders on their own that is. :)

[moosmum]

I see a counter petition as essential.If no one speaks out these things are only going to gain momentum and there needs to be other sides to these debates put out there.

Should state clearly why its such such a bad idea,but also put forward alternative solutions,such as better policing of policies already in place and educating the BUYERS of their responsibilities,law,and obligations.

Encourage better research into where their puppy comes from, what responsible ownership means etc.

Why wait for a body such as dogs N.S.W to step in,if they will. There are many interests with a stake here who would welcome a chance to dissagree,and no means to do so ATM.

[asal]

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.

funny you should use that turn of phrase, I have always wondered at the weird state of affairs on that very subject, no one would countance giving a pedophile a job in a primary school.

yet no one see's the irony that an organisation like "they who must not be named" with such immense power that their inspectors only need to 'decide' an animal should be seized, an organisation that has no avenue of appeal for the owner of the seized, no avenue of appeal to stop the slaughter of was it 40? cows many with calves at foot, as in the Ruth Downey case. or in the case of Ruth Dalton facing wasnt it 80 years except in Ruth's case the magistrate threw it out of court. no one has an avenue of appeal, no one can apply for a stay of execution this place is judge jury and sentencing without out appeal.

this is a place that would attract sociopath's like flies to a carcase, the ultimate high the ultimate safe house.

its exists because no one has realised (except those that rised the ire of someone to thus learn the hard way)

anyone who complains has only let the world know they are tainted,,,this loving group soley exist "to protect the suffering, unable to speak for themselves" to put up your hand and admit the eye had turned on you is to admit you deserved it.

again to discover the herd around are also, judge jury and sentancing already done, n stand by as the lion takes down the one "that must have deserved it". there is no place for innocent in this scenario.

do you even believe such people would be drawn like a pedophile to a school?

to cite one example alone that I saw.

Marion Alcorn was promised if she signed her ten arabians over to this organisation, "good homes would be found for them"

Since it was less than a week after said signature was given. I was at Mcgraths Hill Saleyards and stood, watched and heard the seizing inspector walk into the sale ring and announce.

"NO ONE BUT THE DOGGERS ARE ALLOWED TO BID ON THESE HORSES"

He then turned and as he left heard to finish with "and they are all mad"

these horses comprised 3 yearling colts, 3 weanling fillies and 4 mares. (have to admit it may have been 3 mares and 4 weanling fillies) all up total 10 arabian mares foals and 3 yearling colts.

WHERE in anyones mind here is death at a doggers constitute 'good homes'

ESPECIALLY since I and many friends had been phoneing to buy these horses and all told "they were not available for sale yet"

I received that reply even after they had been loaded and trucked to the sales.

FACT....NOT HERESAY..

since there is no avenue of appeal no one will ever know how or why the decision was made to have them killed instead.

according to the court submitted $7,000 feed bill for the 10 weeks they were in custody and the decision to sell them to the doggers I doubt the raised much over 2,000 for the lot, i know the foals went for 60 to 75 each, the yearlings not much more and the mares 200 or thereabouts.

yet the callers had been willing to pay 500 to 1,000 each. again i know because i was one of them and one poor chap had already paid for one of the mares seized before he arrived with his float to pick her up. a receipt of sale meant zilch he discovered. who they are still owned by in the society's records he learned was what was ownership proof.

Edited March 13, 2012 by asal

[asal]

I know I will never feel any degree of safety until the day does arrive when there is an avenue of appeal written into law that such things cannot happen without avenue of appeal .

Where is a petition for that?

It says on dogzonline animal welfare already have 10,000 signatures to have 500 dollars added to registered breeders if they wish to breed before they can register a litter.

Where are the signatures for accountability and appeal avenue re the RSPCA

[asal]

Minister for Agriculture

Minister for Land and Water Conservation

(99541)

Dear Ms H 14 JUN 2001

Thank you for your letter of 30 April 2001 regarding the seizure of your dog ‘Stringy’ by the RSPCA. This whole incident has clearly been distressing for you. However, it would seem that the appearance of your dog breeding establishment and several of your animals attracted the attention of at least one other breeder who was concerned about the reputation of the industry, the conduct of your business and the welfare of some of your dogs.

The RSPCA is obliged to investigate genuine complaints regarding animal welfare and to pursue what they believe to be the most reasonable course of action given the circumstances.

You indicated that two dogs appeared to be in less than satisfactory condition. Without proper records of your own or your veterinarian, showing that Stringy was under veterinary care, the inspectors could only rely on their own judgement. In this case Inspector Donnelly decided that Stringy’s best interests would be served by a proper veterinary examination and diagnostic work up at the RSPCA shelter.

Whilst this whole incident has been aggravated by an unfortunate sequence of events and poor communication on both sides, I see no need for continuing bitterness over this issue. Springy has been returned and has now undergone a proper diagnostic work up, you have not been charged with any offences, and as a gesture of good will the RSPCA has removed kennel charges from your bill

I do not feel that the RSPCA has acted outside the law or unreasonably in this matter. If you conduct your business as outlined in the

Code of Practice for dog breeding establishments you will have nothing to fear from further visits from RSPCA inspectors.

Thanks you for expressing your concerns.

Yours sincerely

RICHARD AMERY MP

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

MINISTER FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION

LEVEL 17 “PARKVIEW” 157 LIVERPOOL STREET SYDNEY NSW 2000 AUSTRALIA

PO BOX K220 HAYMARKET 1240 AUSTRALIA

TELEPHONE 02 9372 0123 FACSIMILE 02 9372 0199 INTERNET http://www.minister.agric.nsw.gov.auEMAIL-ministers.office@agric.nsw.gov.au

[asal]

read the above and take careful note.

the lack of communication referred to is the fact that the owner was NEVER told the nature of the complaint.

until this letter arrived some two years and many letters after the event.

when an inspector arrives you have two weeks to fix the problem.

you cannot fix something if the inspector will not tell you what it is.

but if it is not done in the required 2 weeks they then can seize whatever has not been fixed.

as for the "without proper records" the inspector was given the vets name, number and address but chose never to contact the dogs vet before seizure.

as for the "nothing to fear from" "as outlined in the Code of Practice etc" none of the 21 needle insertions or tests conducted were for even one single condition that breeched said Code of practice?

so how does such adherance protect in that instance.....NONE whatsoever.

wheres your petition folks?

whose next?

as it stands if you try to stop them taking or in Ruth Daltons case try to stop them the police office told to restrain can get a medal for doing his duty in a dangerous situation.

no avenue of appeal, no one you can call for a seond opinion...not even the dogs nsw liason office Alan Candlish could find out the nature of the complaint during the two weeks he tried and failed to get an answer..

from where we stook the was no lack of communication on our side. as Mr Amery seems to be suggesting in his letter?

[asal]

Although it might be a very good idea to copy and print this letter. for the next time someone finds a really true case and is told "there is nothing they can do, the law as it stands has their hands tied"

this letter clearly states, all the inspector has to do is "decide" n its all over red rover.

to quote someone else.

[asal]

"as for the "nothing to fear from" "as outlined in the Code of Practice etc" none of the 21 needle insertions or tests conducted were for even one single condition that breeched said Code of practice?

so how does such adherance protect in that instance.....NONE whatsoever."

every one of which came back with a negative.

Edited March 13, 2012 by asal

[minimax]

read the above and take careful note.

the lack of communication referred to is the fact that the owner was NEVER told the nature of the complaint.

This seems a bit OT for this thread?

[Alyosha]

Why would NSW even need such a licensing system when the DPI already maintain an enforceable code of conduct for dog breeding. Chipping laws, Dogs NSW regs and animal welfare laws cover dogs being traceable already. If they're not, people aren't complying with the rules that are already in place. Are more rules going to help?

I really like to think positively of animal welfare groups but to me this looks like a ploy to assist the growth of AWL, an increase in funding and staffing. This is how NPOs start looking like their aims are growth and power. Even if they are't, the perception is there. Not a good look.

Dog breeders in NSW already have local Councils, DPI, RSPCA and Police if it comes to it, having monitoring and enforcement powers over what they do. Are we headed towards a "too many cooks" situation here?

[asal]

read the above and take careful note.

the lack of communication referred to is the fact that the owner was NEVER told the nature of the complaint.

This seems a bit OT for this thread?

some one suggested a petiton of our own... im suggesting one requesing its about time re the the issue of NO avenue of appeal

even after over 12 years of such power was already in place in 1999 and before. that is a very loooong time lag

[asal]

if its worth a thread could some one else do it?

i did swear i was giving this up. it makes me sick to my stomach remembering and knowing how vuneralbe we all still are.

think 12 years of trying its someone elses turn to shoot for the stars

as impossible it still seems to achieve

[mita]

Why would NSW even need such a licensing system when the DPI already maintain an enforceable code of conduct for dog breeding. Chipping laws, Dogs NSW regs and animal welfare laws cover dogs being traceable already. If they're not, people aren't complying with the rules that are already in place. Are more rules going to help?

I agree that the first step in problem-solving is to search out & put on the table anything that already exists. Something already could have a built-in solution... or it could need only some jiggering.

The same goes for 'reasons' for backing a more 'family style' as the preferred way for breeding, raising & homing dogs & puppies.

One that follows the research and puts socialisation, linked with health & temperament, at the centre.

All necessary if dogs are to become sound companions in human lifestyles....& more likely to 'stick' in well-selected good homes.

This type of breeding/homing already exists in the best of the work of registered breeders. RSPCA Qld, in a Feb 2011 newsletter, advised people looking for puppies/dogs, to go to 'good' breeders, or RSPCA shelters, or ethical Rescues.

It'd be a good idea for Dogs NSW to set up a working party to put together a case like that... with recommendations for supporting this welfare-friendly model. And also cautioning how proposals like AWL's could have the opposite effect.

Edited March 13, 2012 by mita

[dog_fan]

The no right of appeal re RSPCA decisions is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. It is the only organisation that has policing powers that has no right of appeal or complaint.

If a copper takes me aside and gives me a whack I can report him, if a government agency makes a decision I disagree with I can appeal it.

Not so the RSPCA decisions. This is a fundamental issue that needs addressing.

[Whippetsmum]

Sorry of this has already been addressed, but has this been raised this with Dogs NSW yet? If so, does anyone know what their response has been yet?

[Jed]

I would hope that dogsnsw has a submission which will exlude dogsnsw members, who already operate under a coe, who already pay registration fees to dogsnsw and who generally provide the better socialised dogs, FEWER of whom fetch up in the pound, and who are easier to rehome from the pound.

We have had similar here, and dogsqld and members have responded to a questionaire, and written submissions. We shall see what happens there, but if there is yet another registration fee, the 4000 ANKC breeders will be further reduced.

Qld government is notorious for licensing anything and everything as a money raiser. We can only hope the LNP comes to power and decides they wont license dog breeders. They aren't as keen on licensing as the Labour party

NZ is looking better and better, earthquakes and all.

DogsNSw needs to make a submission, dogsnsw members need to make submission, opposition to this should be shown.

[asal]

I learned that you can address mail to, the chairman and directors at [email protected]

and received this reply

"Thank you for your correspondence below which will be placed on the agenda for the Board’s consideration at their meeting 11 April 2012.

Regards "

so folks who else is going to get cracking?

[Sheridan]

How brave are people feeling in relation to this?