Nsw Breeders - Heads Up

[Alyosha]

Why? Do you have something in mind?

[bluedeer]

I don't have an issue with random inspections carried out by a government body, but to allow other groups with their own agendas is inviting disaster. Could you imagine how many false claims of cruelty there would be if inspectors from pretend welfare groups/activist groups were allowed to be a part of this? Would they see the low hanging teats on a bitch with a large litter as a result of "back to back " breeding as they do on their websites along with tales of "uterus's falling out of dogs everywhere" garbage.

I agree that these people breeding dogs in substandard conditions needs to be stopped but $500 won't fix it. We as experienced breeders need to lead the way in being open with government bodies in allowing them to see how ethical breeders work as a way of setting the guidelines regarding dog breeding. This would probably mean that ALL breeders must be able to be inspected regardless of whether they belong to the ANKC or not. Having a code of ethics that are poorly policed compared to actually being inspected against written requirements does not sit well with any government body or even the public. We would have a lot more influence on what the written requirements are if our state kennel bodies stopped trying to gain exemptions from dog legislation and instead focused on enlightening ministers etc with the science facts about dog breeding to counter the animal rights fiction they get bombarded with.

[asal]

I don't have an issue with random inspections carried out by a government body, but to allow other groups with their own agendas is inviting disaster. Could you imagine how many false claims of cruelty there would be if inspectors from pretend welfare groups/activist groups were allowed to be a part of this? Would they see the low hanging teats on a bitch with a large litter as a result of "back to back " breeding as they do on their websites along with tales of "uterus's falling out of dogs everywhere" garbage.

I agree that these people breeding dogs in substandard conditions needs to be stopped but $500 won't fix it. We as experienced breeders need to lead the way in being open with government bodies in allowing them to see how ethical breeders work as a way of setting the guidelines regarding dog breeding. This would probably mean that ALL breeders must be able to be inspected regardless of whether they belong to the ANKC or not. Having a code of ethics that are poorly policed compared to actually being inspected against written requirements does not sit well with any government body or even the public. We would have a lot more influence on what the written requirements are if our state kennel bodies stopped trying to gain exemptions from dog legislation and instead focused on enlightening ministers etc with the science facts about dog breeding to counter the animal rights fiction they get bombarded with.

excellent point. AND a few reminders that they do regular inspections themselves whenever a complaint is made and have for decades.... I dont see that has ever been mentioned for the public to be aware of either.

these are points that need to be out there...

not kept inhouse.

so that only registered breeders know. public perception is being manipulated by the anti lobbyist and so far our leaders have not been very vocal in reminding them and the press what they REALLY do do.

[Sheridan]

I don't have an issue with random inspections carried out by a government body, but to allow other groups with their own agendas is inviting disaster. Could you imagine how many false claims of cruelty there would be if inspectors from pretend welfare groups/activist groups were allowed to be a part of this? Would they see the low hanging teats on a bitch with a large litter as a result of "back to back " breeding as they do on their websites along with tales of "uterus's falling out of dogs everywhere" garbage.

I agree that these people breeding dogs in substandard conditions needs to be stopped but $500 won't fix it. We as experienced breeders need to lead the way in being open with government bodies in allowing them to see how ethical breeders work as a way of setting the guidelines regarding dog breeding. This would probably mean that ALL breeders must be able to be inspected regardless of whether they belong to the ANKC or not. Having a code of ethics that are poorly policed compared to actually being inspected against written requirements does not sit well with any government body or even the public. We would have a lot more influence on what the written requirements are if our state kennel bodies stopped trying to gain exemptions from dog legislation and instead focused on enlightening ministers etc with the science facts about dog breeding to counter the animal rights fiction they get bombarded with.

excellent point. AND a few reminders that they do regular inspections themselves whenever a complaint is made and have for decades.... I dont see that has ever been mentioned for the public to be aware of either.

these are points that need to be out there...

not kept inhouse.

so that only registered breeders know. public perception is being manipulated by the anti lobbyist and so far our leaders have not been very vocal in reminding them and the press what they REALLY do do.

asal, this last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain.

[Sheridan]

Why? Do you have something in mind?

I was having a bit of a think about it, yes. Not sure I'd want share in a public space, though.

[asal]

I don't have an issue with random inspections carried out by a government body, but to allow other groups with their own agendas is inviting disaster. Could you imagine how many false claims of cruelty there would be if inspectors from pretend welfare groups/activist groups were allowed to be a part of this? Would they see the low hanging teats on a bitch with a large litter as a result of "back to back " breeding as they do on their websites along with tales of "uterus's falling out of dogs everywhere" garbage.

I agree that these people breeding dogs in substandard conditions needs to be stopped but $500 won't fix it. We as experienced breeders need to lead the way in being open with government bodies in allowing them to see how ethical breeders work as a way of setting the guidelines regarding dog breeding. This would probably mean that ALL breeders must be able to be inspected regardless of whether they belong to the ANKC or not. Having a code of ethics that are poorly policed compared to actually being inspected against written requirements does not sit well with any government body or even the public. We would have a lot more influence on what the written requirements are if our state kennel bodies stopped trying to gain exemptions from dog legislation and instead focused on enlightening ministers etc with the science facts about dog breeding to counter the animal rights fiction they get bombarded with.

excellent point. AND a few reminders that they do regular inspections themselves whenever a complaint is made and have for decades.... I dont see that has ever been mentioned for the public to be aware of either.

these are points that need to be out there...

not kept inhouse.

so that only registered breeders know. public perception is being manipulated by the anti lobbyist and so far our leaders have not been very vocal in reminding them and the press what they REALLY do do.

asal, this last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain.

That Dogs NSW. (for example) if they receive a complaint about any breeder send out a representative to inspect their dogs and how they are kept.

How many people think this is only done by the rspca or animal welfare???

If a breeder did fail the inspection they can be told if not fixed in a defined time their membership can be cancelled. In the case of an animal welfare group you have 2 weeks to rectify the problem or face prosecution. I read that in the Newsletter the RSPCA publishes itself, in the Winter Edition of 1999 a lady was charged for not fleaing her dog during the two weeks she was given to rectify the problem. and was charged and convicted. I read it while i waited for them to bring in Stringy for me to take back home after his 13 days of testing for conditons he didnt have. for not complying with whatever he was seized over in the 2 weeks between the no information visit and seizing him 2 weeks later. Interesting to say the least that a lady who had a flea smothered dog was left still in charge of said dog and told to flea it yet i was told nothing whatsoever when i was inspected. As I keep saying like a broken record. you cant fix what you dont know is broken. as it was my dog had been fleaed only 48 hours before he was seized and according to their list of costs included flea treatment for dog that certainly had no fleas when he was taken and could have had serious adverse effects with a second dose on such a small 1.2 kg dog.

I know after a altercation with another breeder, they rang all of them on a fortnightly basis for something like 6 months, in the end even the rspca said one more call and we will be charging them with stalking.

dont know if they were told the same thing, but the complaints stopped, certainly learned how the system worked.

one of the reasons i knew instantly when insp donnelly rolled up a few years later and refused to tell me what the complaint was, that he was breaking the law then and there, then when leaving just as determined not to tell me anything he thought needed improving or if he was satisfied or not. you cant fix whats broken if you cant find out can you?

so I knew before he left that day I was being set up. for exactly what did happen.

Although it was stressful being stalked by that other person, they did do me a favour in that as a result i knew how the system is supposed to work.

[Steve]

I don't have an issue with random inspections carried out by a government body, but to allow other groups with their own agendas is inviting disaster. Could you imagine how many false claims of cruelty there would be if inspectors from pretend welfare groups/activist groups were allowed to be a part of this? Would they see the low hanging teats on a bitch with a large litter as a result of "back to back " breeding as they do on their websites along with tales of "uterus's falling out of dogs everywhere" garbage.

I agree that these people breeding dogs in substandard conditions needs to be stopped but $500 won't fix it. We as experienced breeders need to lead the way in being open with government bodies in allowing them to see how ethical breeders work as a way of setting the guidelines regarding dog breeding. This would probably mean that ALL breeders must be able to be inspected regardless of whether they belong to the ANKC or not. Having a code of ethics that are poorly policed compared to actually being inspected against written requirements does not sit well with any government body or even the public. We would have a lot more influence on what the written requirements are if our state kennel bodies stopped trying to gain exemptions from dog legislation and instead focused on enlightening ministers etc with the science facts about dog breeding to counter the animal rights fiction they get bombarded with.

excellent point. AND a few reminders that they do regular inspections themselves whenever a complaint is made and have for decades.... I dont see that has ever been mentioned for the public to be aware of either.

these are points that need to be out there...

not kept inhouse.

so that only registered breeders know. public perception is being manipulated by the anti lobbyist and so far our leaders have not been very vocal in reminding them and the press what they REALLY do do.

asal, this last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain.

That Dogs NSW. (for example) if they receive a complaint about any breeder send out a representative to inspect their dogs and how they are kept.

How many people think this is only done by the rspca or animal welfare???

If a breeder did fail the inspection they can be told if not fixed in a defined time their membership can be cancelled. In the case of an animal welfare group you have 2 weeks to rectify the problem or face prosecution. I read that in the Newsletter the RSPCA publishes itself, in the Winter Edition of 1999 a lady was charged for not fleaing her dog during the two weeks she was given to rectify the problem. and was charged and convicted. I read it while i waited for them to bring in Stringy for me to take back home after his 13 days of testing for conditons he didnt have. for not complying with whatever he was seized over in the 2 weeks between the no information visit and seizing him 2 weeks later. Interesting to say the least that a lady who had a flea smothered dog was left still in charge of said dog and told to flea it yet i was told nothing whatsoever when i was inspected. As I keep saying like a broken record. you cant fix what you dont know is broken. as it was my dog had been fleaed only 48 hours before he was seized and according to their list of costs included flea treatment for dog that certainly had no fleas when he was taken and could have had serious adverse effects with a second dose on such a small 1.2 kg dog.

I know after a altercation with another breeder, they rang all of them on a fortnightly basis for something like 6 months, in the end even the rspca said one more call and we will be charging them with stalking.

dont know if they were told the same thing, but the complaints stopped, certainly learned how the system worked.

one of the reasons i knew instantly when insp donnelly rolled up a few years later and refused to tell me what the complaint was, that he was breaking the law then and there, then when leaving just as determined not to tell me anything he thought needed improving or if he was satisfied or not. you cant fix whats broken if you cant find out can you?

so I knew before he left that day I was being set up. for exactly what did happen.

Although it was stressful being stalked by that other person, they did do me a favour in that as a result i knew how the system is supposed to work.

Part of the agreement dogs NSW have with the NSW state government is that they will police their members and that they will ensure they comply with legislation and codes.

This is the deal they cut in order to get members exemptions on registrations etc.

Same in Victoria with Vic dogs and in some shires in Queensland with QCCC.

[Tapua]

So I was wondering with this proposal do ANKC members get inspected prior to being granted a licence. Or do you pay an upfront fee, get a licence first based on already being a member of ANKC and then you might be inspected - following a complaint?

Personally I would rather be inspected first - if issues were raised a provisional licence be offered which will give the breeder time to address them - then following compliance be granted a licence. That would allow legitimate breeders the chance to evaluate their current standards if needed and to validate those that have a good set-up.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Tapua

[goldchow]

Personally I don't agree with licences for anyone breeding dogs or any other animal but I do think they need to be registered with their local council and be subject to random inspections by their state controlling body and/or suitably educated ACO/Environmental officer.

With a commercial boarding/breeding kennel, before amalgamtion the relevant officer would arrive unexpectedly every so often, wander around, check the place out, was happy to go through a foot bath last time he was here, never had a problem with that.

QCCC does not police their members and seem keen to hand this responsibility over to 'an approved organization' expected to be the RSPCA.

I would have a huge problem with any animal welfare organization made responsible for such inspections.

Change of government has saved the day there for abit :)

[Elenbah]

Well, from a quick look at their petition this evening, they are less then 1,500 signatures from their goal of 20,000..

On scrolling down the first few pages has anyone noticed where all these signatures are coming from.... You would be lucky to find a dozen signatures signed by Australians...surely overseas signatures cannot be counted here?

I, like many other breeders may have on average 2 litters in 2 years. My dogs are house pets and litters born in my bedroom. Each litter on average is 3 to 4 puppies for my breed.... Another $500.00 annual fee would prevent me from being able to breed any litters at all considering i already pay for my breeding licence (prefix). puppy registrations, membership with our states controlling body who's code of ethics i already adhere to and my breed clubs membership etc.

After 16 years breeding to the best of my ability, i have not had any puppies returned to me because they are ill or unmanageable. and i say to all my puppy buyers, if at any time you cannot keep him/her for any reason, just contact me and I will take the puppy back... I have had people contact me that bought the puppy off me years ago wanting their next puppy from me or just drop in with their present one to say hello or send up dates and pictures of their dogs.... I must be doing something right. .... the AWL is only going to be hurting those like myself, not their targets.

and governments just can't seem to get their priorities right...I just feel like hoisting the and saying ...please just leave me alone, I'm not hurting anyone, I'm actually giving a small amount of people the opportunity to own a happy healthy pet...

[Steve]

So I was wondering with this proposal do ANKC members get inspected prior to being granted a licence. Or do you pay an upfront fee, get a licence first based on already being a member of ANKC and then you might be inspected - following a complaint?

Personally I would rather be inspected first - if issues were raised a provisional licence be offered which will give the breeder time to address them - then following compliance be granted a licence. That would allow legitimate breeders the chance to evaluate their current standards if needed and to validate those that have a good set-up.

The Gold coast is being used as a pilot and there you have to have your premises inspected in order to be able to own an entire dog .

When that came in we had one person who owns a large breed dog.

She doesnt want to breed her dog yet [for at least 18 months] and when she does will be in a different premises. She was told she could not breed dogs on her current property - that meant she had to have her dog desexed. She moved to another shire.

If you hunt back through this forum there is someone telling us animal rights in Victoria intended to wait until breeder permits went in and then raid them because in the wait time for approval they are illegal.

We also had one last week[ not one of our members] who has 7 small dogs and council have rejected their application so they now have 10 days to get the dogs which are not desexed off their property.

As you look at this you are assessing as a person who owns acres and who has the ability to address such things if they are put on you but there are many small breeders who would not have those luxuries.

You also have to remember they want to inspect you every year for you to be able to renew your licence so at some point its inspecting you after the approval.

[Tapua]

So I was wondering with this proposal do ANKC members get inspected prior to being granted a licence. Or do you pay an upfront fee, get a licence first based on already being a member of ANKC and then you might be inspected - following a complaint?

Personally I would rather be inspected first - if issues were raised a provisional licence be offered which will give the breeder time to address them - then following compliance be granted a licence. That would allow legitimate breeders the chance to evaluate their current standards if needed and to validate those that have a good set-up.

The Gold coast is being used as a pilot and there you have to have your premises inspected in order to be able to own an entire dog .

When that came in we had one person who owns a large breed dog.

She doesnt want to breed her dog yet [for at least 18 months] and when she does will be in a different premises. She was told she could not breed dogs on her current property - that meant she had to have her dog desexed. She moved to another shire.

If you hunt back through this forum there is someone telling us animal rights in Victoria intended to wait until breeder permits went in and then raid them because in the wait time for approval they are illegal.

We also had one last week[ not one of our members] who has 7 small dogs and council have rejected their application so they now have 10 days to get the dogs which are not desexed off their property.

As you look at this you are assessing as a person who owns acres and who has the ability to address such things if they are put on you but there are many small breeders who would not have those luxuries.

You also have to remember they want to inspect you every year for you to be able to renew your licence so at some point its inspecting you after the approval.

Fair enough I guess if an organisation or council have an agenda for a particular area or particular person or breed in their area they will manipulate the rules to achieve their own agenda.