Another Puppy Farmer Charged

[Steve]

From the same link:

Dr Morison said through those years he had visited the property at least once a month and repeatedly described Mr Van Hollis's good care of the dogs.

When asked by counsel if he thought it was appropriate to keep a dog in a 44 gallon drum, Dr Morison replied he had seen it regularly on dairy farms.

Not sure if that means dogs were kept in 44 gallon drums on this property or what? If so I would not exactly call this "good care"...

Out around these parts kennels /shelters are made out of drums both plastic and metal. In fact they provide the same comfort as any plastic, or wooden kennel.

Im assuming the dog used it to shelter in not be locked up in.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Most new regulation and law imposing conditions on dog breeders make it much easier to operate large commercial facilities and harder for small home breeders. This is a recent fact of life sadly. With people jumping up and down for tighter controls and conditions - conditions become standardised to levels that cannot be met in family homes anymore.

Thus commercial breeders who are willing ethically and able financially to create these facilities survive and flourish. Home and family breeders are rapidly being legislated out of existence.

This, exactly. It's hard and boring, but we have to produce a product that people want to buy, so that they are prepared to put their money in the hands of the responsible rather than the irresponsible. More regulation is not the answer, particularly as we don't have a proper baseline to do a cost benefit analysis on proposed regulation because existing laws that would help with the unwanted dog population are not being enforced right now. Quite frankly, I don't think there is a way to legislate to give a puppy proper socialisation and enrichment anyway, how do we agree on what is appropriate and sufficient?

[Tralee]

If City Councils spent more time assisting, developing and facilitating dog owners then these type of avoidable farces could be eliminated.

Instead they just wait around, almost contriving some kind of entrapment, and then jump up and down claiming hero status.

Give me a break!

I haven't seen a City Council yet who hasen't put the town's coffers ahead of their ratepayers interests.

The moral of the story is to not be blinded by the authorities and bureaucrats.

[mita]

Quite frankly, I don't think there is a way to legislate to give a puppy proper socialisation and enrichment anyway, how do we agree on what is appropriate and sufficient?

The question of socialisation hasn't been seriously addressed yet in terms of any legislation, either animal welfare or consumer rights. So there's been no serious attempt to formulate what it is .... and what would be minimum observable standards. It's the elephant in the room of breeding/raising/selling puppies... & the keeping of the parent dogs.

In its absence, there's only discussion of material arrangements.... which tho' important... can be all in some kind of 'order', but there is no socialisation.

[Alyosha]

I think a whole lot of the control over the industry lies with consumers. Customers drive any market, whether legitimate or otherwise. You can create all the laws you like and if people will still pay for a product then the practices will continue.

If legislation was the answer to protecting animals the worldwide illegal trade in wildlife wouldn't exist. Education of end consumers is far more important.

[mita]

We have consumer laws that cover all sorts of 'products; which protect the public from unsafe items.

Puppies sold as companion animals need to have socialisation in their background & in their mother dogs, if they are to develop the base for living alongside people in their lifetsyles. It's such an important factor for dogs living alongside people that consumer law ought cover it. And there should be serious questions in how to do that.

[WreckitWhippet]

If City Councils spent more time assisting, developing and facilitating dog owners then these type of avoidable farces could be eliminated.

Instead they just wait around, almost contriving some kind of entrapment, and then jump up and down claiming hero status.

Give me a break!

I haven't seen a City Council yet who hasen't put the town's coffers ahead of their ratepayers interests.

The moral of the story is to not be blinded by the authorities and bureaucrats.

Give it a rest

[Tralee]

If City Councils spent more time assisting, developing and facilitating dog owners then these type of avoidable farces could be eliminated.

Instead they just wait around, almost contriving some kind of entrapment, and then jump up and down claiming hero status.

Give me a break!

I haven't seen a City Council yet who hasen't put the town's coffers ahead of their ratepayers interests.

The moral of the story is to not be blinded by the authorities and bureaucrats.

Give it a rest

Well that's your first mistake!

Didn't you read the Collarenebri story?

The Councils are getting it wrong far too often.

We shall not rest!

We will fight them on the beaches.

There will be no surrender.

Victory

[Alyosha]

No Tralee, the councils are not giving their side of the story - a balanced story makes for poor news. If you believe everything that the commercial media publishes that's your own lookout. That doesn't mean that it is factual...

[WreckitWhippet]

If City Councils spent more time assisting, developing and facilitating dog owners then these type of avoidable farces could be eliminated.

Instead they just wait around, almost contriving some kind of entrapment, and then jump up and down claiming hero status.

Give me a break!

I haven't seen a City Council yet who hasen't put the town's coffers ahead of their ratepayers interests.

The moral of the story is to not be blinded by the authorities and bureaucrats.

Give it a rest

Well that's your first mistake!

Didn't you read the Collarenebri story?

The Councils are getting it wrong far too often.

We shall not rest!

We will fight them on the beaches.

There will be no surrender.

Victory

Not everything is about you, but you appear to determined to make it so.

Yes I've read about Collarenebri and I'm also aware of the "dog" problems that exist in towns such as Bourke, Walgett, Collar, Wilcannia and the like.

I also find your war references to be in poor taste at the very least.

You had a run in with Council, you are the one that failed to contain your dogs in your yard, you are the one who has conceeded and accepted a control order. I think you might need to go and have a little think about how your situation came about and how it differs from others that have been reported in the media, because at the moment you can't be taken seriously and look the fool, when you wade into every topic where "Council" is mentioned, regardless of what the topic actually is.

This topic is about a person who has a lot of dogs and appeared not to have the appropriate approvals and licences to operate a breeding facility and as such has been taken to court. Councils and Rangers don't take great delight in waiting around, contriving some kind of entrapment, and then jump up and down claiming hero status as you put it. Councils would much rather that "breeders" and owners comply with their building requirements, seek the necessary approvals and licences, before they commence such ventures. However, there will always be those who choose to fly under the radar and are eventually busted for doing so.

Perhaps you might need to go back and have a look at what happens once you shift from being simply a "dog owner" to a "dog breeder" in NSW, because the whole ball game changes there. Breed a litter and the requirements become a lot stricter. Like the majority of small time breeders in NSW, I doubt your place is up to scratch and you could certainly find yourself without the necessary housing arrangements and DA approvals, that could land you in the same hot water as this Victorian breeder.

[Tralee]

If City Councils spent more time assisting, developing and facilitating dog owners then these type of avoidable farces could be eliminated.

Instead they just wait around, almost contriving some kind of entrapment, and then jump up and down claiming hero status.

Give me a break!

I haven't seen a City Council yet who hasen't put the town's coffers ahead of their ratepayers interests.

The moral of the story is to not be blinded by the authorities and bureaucrats.

Give it a rest

Well that's your first mistake!

Didn't you read the Collarenebri story?

The Councils are getting it wrong far too often.

We shall not rest!

We will fight them on the beaches.

There will be no surrender.

Victory

Not everything is about you, but you appear to determined to make it so.

Yes I've read about Collarenebri and I'm also aware of the "dog" problems that exist in towns such as Bourke, Walgett, Collar, Wilcannia and the like.

I also find your war references to be in poor taste at the very least.

You had a run in with Council, you are the one that failed to contain your dogs in your yard, you are the one who has conceeded and accepted a control order. I think you might need to go and have a little think about how your situation came about and how it differs from others that have been reported in the media, because at the moment you can't be taken seriously and look the fool, when you wade into every topic where "Council" is mentioned, regardless of what the topic actually is.

This topic is about a person who has a lot of dogs and appeared not to have the appropriate approvals and licences to operate a breeding facility and as such has been taken to court. Councils and Rangers don't take great delight in waiting around, contriving some kind of entrapment, and then jump up and down claiming hero status as you put it. Councils would much rather that "breeders" and owners comply with their building requirements, seek the necessary approvals and licences, before they commence such ventures. However, there will always be those who choose to fly under the radar and are eventually busted for doing so.

Perhaps you might need to go back and have a look at what happens once you shift from being simply a "dog owner" to a "dog breeder" in NSW, because the whole ball game changes there. Breed a litter and the requirements become a lot stricter. Like the majority of small time breeders in NSW, I doubt your place is up to scratch and you could certainly find yourself without the necessary housing arrangements and DA approvals, that could land you in the same hot water as this Victorian breeder.

Well, bully for you.

It is not a case of IMO here but in my experience.

I wouldn't wish you to continue to be misinformed about the facts.

You had a run in with Council, you are the one that failed to contain your dogs in your yard

The gate at the rear of the property was compromised by some crazy from either; the needle exchange across the road, the new Mental Heath Hospital a few doors down, or Family Services just up the road. He was consequently arrested by police because he rampaged through the neighbourhood looking for his children who apparently had just been taken from him by Family Services. The dogs were not at large due to any negligence or ommission on my part. Locked gates would not have deterred his rampage as he simply broke doors and windows as he wrecked havock and mayhem along the street. You should be more careful who you try to cast as irresponsible.

you are the one who has conceeded and accepted a control order.

I did not concede to a control order and had a number options available to me. On the contrary, the Council conceded they had errantly issued 4 DDD's, that the Ranger had been remiss in his duties, and indeed the Council compromised and acceded to my demands. It was appealled in court and the appeal was upheld.

Not everything is about you, but you appear to determined to make it so.

Absolutely right, its about dog advocacy.

You seem so driven to malign and villify others that you are blind to the all the issues involved and particulalry those that are most pertinient.

The Council are part of the problem, so are the laws such as the Companion Animals Act NSW 1998, and the Breeding of Cats and Dogs Regulations.

I also find your war references to be in poor taste at the very least.

You know, someone should start a splinter group like MDBA or something. Not at war as such but nothing is getting done elsewhere.

I have exposed one unfortunate chink in dog managment and control, it cost me time and money but my reputation is intact, possibly enhanced. What have you done exactly other than fling mud?

Councils and Rangers don't take great delight in waiting around, contriving some kind of entrapment, and then jump up and down claiming hero status as you put it.

I can name one particular Ranger, and I have his comments available, so that theory is shot to pieces.

Anyway back to our advocacy for dogs and ignoring those hell bent on villifying people.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Tralee

[WreckitWhippet]

I'm not sure how you can liken your run in with Council in NSW to someone in Victoria, who did not comply with their Councils breeding regulations and were subsequeqntly fined but had no conviction recorded and then scream "dog advocacy". You were both found to be doing the wrong thing.

[Tralee]

I'm not sure how you can liken your run in with Council in NSW to someone in Victoria, who did not comply with their Councils breeding regulations and were subsequeqntly fined but had no conviction recorded and then scream "dog advocacy". You were both found to be doing the wrong thing.

I posted for the benefit of others who might be under similar oppression and corruption.

I don't concur with what you think, and therefore I don't really care.

You were both found to be doing the wrong thing.

Neither Councils prosecuted their cases successfully.

If you think Councils are perfect then good luck to you.

I don't take too kindly to being called a fool and neither should anybody else.

Damage done.

[WreckitWhippet]

I'm not sure how you can liken your run in with Council in NSW to someone in Victoria, who did not comply with their Councils breeding regulations and were subsequeqntly fined but had no conviction recorded and then scream "dog advocacy". You were both found to be doing the wrong thing.

I posted for the benefit of others who might be under similar oppression and corruption.

I don't concur with what you think, and therefore I don't really care.

You were both found to be doing the wrong thing.

Neither Councils prosecuted their cases successfully.

If you think Councils are perfect then good luck to you.

I don't take too kindly to being called a fool and neither should anybody else.

Damage done.

You ended up with a "control order " and the "puppy farmer" nearly $20 000 in fines and costs.

The puppy farmer could have avoided the court case, by making sure they complied with local council regulations and made sure they had the appropriate licence. You could have avoided the NOI to delcare your dogs dangerous and subsequent council action, by making sure that you kept your dogs securely in your yard.

You cannot dress up you failings as a dog owner and badge it as "advocacy"

[Steve]

Bit personal here isn't it? Not really playing the ball at all.

There are many questions left unanswered in this case.

They are found guilty of not having their animals registered and have to pay fines but they don't loose their animals.

So what does this mean?

The assumption has to be that they are either complying with the mandatory codes for breeding dogs or they have been ordered to do so - but there is no mention of an order

or a time frame to comply, or of a restriction on them regarding whether they can breed their dogs.

According to the law they could have lost all of their animals and all of their assets as they didn't have the domestic animal licences nor a development application approval for breeding dogs on their premises. Remember these laws dont care whether you are breeding for money or not ,nor how many you have,or even how they are cared for - if you are breeding you are breeding. The prevention of cruelty to animals laws cover such things as basic care and treatment etc which the RSPCA and police prosecute under.

So is the fact that the dogs are well cared for a defense for any other breeder in Victoria who is pinged for not having their dogs or their premises registered?

It would also appear there is something else going on in this shire and at least two others where the councils are holding hands with an other group over the usual RSPCA.

Without knowing the finer details of the case its difficult to understand all of the variables but I have to ask if the outcome would have been the same if the council did hold hands with the RSPCA.

Of course the biggest question is how does the outcome of this case impact on how councils and RSPCA will deal with those who are not complying - not much point in knocking yourself out to prosecute if the outcome is worse than not prosecuting. They could have simply fined them for having unregistered dogs and given them time to get permits etc.

You beaut laws introduced on stopping puppy farming when all they do is give advantage to large scale commercial breeders and those not complying get the same outcome as they did before the laws anyway.

Dog Owner advocacy,council procedures and protocols is another issue really and one which deserves its own energy though this particular incident and comments from council need to be looked at closely as it raises some red flags

[Tralee]

You could have avoided the NOI to delcare your dogs dangerous and subsequent council action, by making sure that you kept your dogs securely in your yard.

Oh, for the love of Mary.

The dogs were let out, a fact that a local Police Officer was willing to testify to.

So, someone else commits a crime and its my fault!

Nobody follows that kind of logic.

[WoofnHoof]

I would wonder how a couple of people can adequately care for 112 dogs, that's a lot of dogs! I know some people can care well for a large number while others can't even care for one but surely there should be a point at which we can say x is too many dogs for one person? In a child care centre there is a limit as to how many children can be adequately cared for by one carer, this is in addition to the laws surrounding the environment and the other aspects of care. I think laws reducing numbers would go some of the way to addressing the puppy farmer issue, not the whole issue of course but looking at the common factors with puppy farms its usually large numbers of dogs with very few people responsible for their care. Most boarding kennels would have staff support if they housed that many dogs.

[Steve]

You could have avoided the NOI to delcare your dogs dangerous and subsequent council action, by making sure that you kept your dogs securely in your yard.

Oh, for the love of Mary.

The dogs were let out, a fact that a local Police Officer was willing to testify to.

So, someone else commits a crime and its my fault!

Nobody follows that kind of logic.

If you have done all in your power to contain your dogs and something happens to undo what you have done

and your dogs get out through no fault of your own I dont think that counts toward you not keeping your dogs securely in your yard.

If a Semi crashed through your fence and as a result your dogs were no longer secure you would hardly expect that you would have to answer for them getting out.

Cant see any difference between a semi and a crazy person making the fence something that no longer is as you left it.

Surely in circumstances such as these the owner should be treated with respect and with sympathy and the dogs given a bit of consideration for their predicament.

[Steve]

I would wonder how a couple of people can adequately care for 112 dogs, that's a lot of dogs! I know some people can care well for a large number while others can't even care for one but surely there should be a point at which we can say x is too many dogs for one person? In a child care centre there is a limit as to how many children can be adequately cared for by one carer, this is in addition to the laws surrounding the environment and the other aspects of care. I think laws reducing numbers would go some of the way to addressing the puppy farmer issue, not the whole issue of course but looking at the common factors with puppy farms its usually large numbers of dogs with very few people responsible for their care. Most boarding kennels would have staff support if they housed that many dogs.

Well how do we know they didnt have people who worked there or who lived there and helped with this?

The reports that were tended to the court said they were well cared for and this was accepted - no reports of sick dogs or poor temperaments etc either.

No one complaining they got a pup from them and it was no good or under socilaised.

So therefore what ever it was they were doing appears to have been caring well for them.

I wonder if their definition of well cared for equals mine though.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Steve

[mita]

[

No one complaining they got a pup from them and it was no good or under socilaised.

So therefore what ever it was they were doing appears to have been caring well for them.

I wonder if their definition of well cared for equals mine though.

Do we have any data on how the puppies were sold?

Or any data, long-term, on what happened with puppies that had been sold? Behaviour is incremental... so problems emerging after being masked by puppy stage would probably not even be thought of as relating to shaky base.

This kind of operation fails in the face of what research knowledge would suggest as optimal. Frankly, the sooner there's consumer law that reflects this, the better for both the dogs and potential owners. As part of that law... every puppy would carry an identifying number that listed their original breeder (using the microchip), to allow for life-long tracking.

Edited March 10, 2013 by mita