espinay2 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 A letter from Dogs VIC to members http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/Portals/0/assets/members/letter-to-members.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerojath Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 A letter from Dogs VIC to members http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/Portals/0/assets/members/letter-to-members.pdf My PC is playing up and I can't open a PDF. Would you be able to post it up here please??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 13 December 2012 Dear Member, You will no doubt be aware of the recent media coverage of animal welfare issues involving a DOGS Victoria member. This incident cast DOGS Victoria in a bad light and the Government expects us to be more active in ensuring that our members comply with what is required of them under the legislation and our own rules. Therefore DOGS Victoria is reviewing its monitoring and regulatory procedures. This letter is intended to remind you of what is required of you as a member of DOGS Victoria regarding your obligations in complying with our Rules, Regulations and Codes and the legislative requirements of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Act 1986, and to advise you of changes that will impact on all members. When the Domestic Animals Act 1994 was proclaimed, DOGS Victoria (then the Victorian Canine Association) was granted the status of an Applicable Organisation, under the Act. This status grants DOGS Victoria members the right to discounts on council registration fees for their dogs and allows them to have up to and including nine fertile bitches on their property without having to register as a Domestic Animal Business. Non DOGS Victoria dog owners who house more than two fertile bitches on their property are compelled by law to register as a Domestic Animal Business and that requires them to comply with the Code of Practice for Breeding and Rearing Establishments, covering issues such as staff numbers, animal husbandry, microchipping, vaccination, health care, sale of puppies, hygiene, exercise, construction and size of animal housing, record keeping etc. The Code can be accessed here: http://www.dpi.vic.gov. au/pets/about-pets/legislation-and-regulation/domestic-animal-businesses/operation-of-breeding-establishments. Note that this Code is in the final stages of a review; the updated Code will be released early in 2013. As you can see, there are important advantages for us as members of an Applicable Organisation. However, these advantages are dependant upon us fulfilling the State Government’s expectation that as an Applicable Organisation we will have self regulatory programs in place to monitor our members to ensure that they comply with our Codes, Rules and Regulations, and also with the relevant legislation. Non DOGS Victoria owners are monitored for compliance by local council officers. Members of DOGS Victoria who are given the advantage of exemption from the Code of Practice are expected to be monitored by DOGS Victoria. The Rules, Regulations and Codes of DOGS Victoria already allow for monitoring of members’ compliance e.g. Regulation 3.7.7 states It shall be a condition of membership that a person, or persons, so authorised by Management Committee may inspect the premises of any member and examine the dogs on the premises at that time. DOGS Victoria will be increasing the number of checks currently in force. In addition, as a reminder to members all future applications for a prefix and renewal thereof will require signed compliance with and acceptance of the right of DOGS Victoria to audit the individual breeding premises. The purpose of these audits will be to ensure that all members are complying with our Codes, Rules and Regulations, and the legislation. The majority of our members are complying and therefore will have no concerns with such audits. But we must not allow a few who do not comply to place every other member in jeopardy. The status of Applicable Organisation is a privilege which grants our members real advantages. In return DOGS Victoria must self regulate to ensure that our members comply with all Codes, Rules, Regulations and legislation. If you have any questions please forward them to the DOGS Victoria office. Peter Frost President Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerojath Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Thans Espinay2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerojath Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Interesting. I don't see that any member would have an issue with those requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Well here's a problem - as far as I know based on what we were told when we applied to be an applicable org in Victoria the only thing a VCA breeder who has less than 10 fertile dogs is exempt from is having to have the permit it doesnt mean they dont have to comply with the code for breeding dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share Posted December 15, 2012 I found that strange too Steve as that was my understanding of how the Vic exemptions work. I wonder if the VCA has it in writing that members are exempt from the code or if there is a disconnect somewhere. Could be a nasty surprise in store for some if VCA is saying one thing when the reality is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted December 16, 2012 Author Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) Ok I am pi**ed off as my computer just dumped a HEAP of work after I had written it, so this is the short version (I HATE that DOL does not save stuff in the reply pane if something goes wrong). Just did a walk through the legislation and basically yes, Members of DogsVIC ARE exempt from the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments (http://www.dpi.vic.g...-establishments ) IF they have LESS than ten fertile female dogs, as it is made under a section of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 that directly relates to the definition of a Domestic Animal Business which includes as part of that definition a member of an applicable body (which Dogs VIC is) who has 10 or more fertile female dogs. For others it is three or more fertile females so non Dogs VIC members can have only two entire bitches before they become subject to the code.(So under this current legislation, Dogs VIC members with 10 or more fertile female dogs are not exempt, but those with less are). HOWEVER, regardless of the number of dogs, they are still subject to the Code of Practice for the Private Keeping of Dogs ( http://www.dpi.vic.g...keeping-of-dogs ) made under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986) which everone is subject to and includes provisions in relation to breeding and housing etc. They are also all subject to the Code of Practice for the Responsible Breeding of Animals with Heritable Defects that Cause Disease ( http://www.dpi.vic.g...ritable-defects ) which is also made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. As an interesting aside point - in the recent 'collie' case, didn't the breeder have more than 10 fertile females? (I don't know the facts). In which case they would not have had an exemption and would be subject to the code of practice. In which case it was not a Dogs VIC 'failing to monitor' necessarily as it can be argued that while they 'should monitor all members, they have much more obligation in relation to monitoring those that are exempt than those which are already subject to the Code of Practice and the ACT, which provides for council to inspect the premises (and they may inspect annually prior to accepting the annual registration). I am wondering too, how the VCA, who holds no authority under the legislation, can play in ensuring compliance with any legislation. They can ensure/enforce compliance with the rules and regs and code of ethics of Dogs VIC. But as far as compliance with Govt Legislation (which is completely different to the Dogs VIC rules in many ways), surely their role and obligation is an advisory one? (advisory to the member and perhaps advisory to GOVT/Council if a member is not complying too?) Hmmmm. Edited December 16, 2012 by espinay2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebbles Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 In all my years in the dog world I've never heard of anyone being inspected, more the opposite 'they'didn't want to know. Maybe someone has heard of inspections being done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I would be surprised if state bodies had anywhere near the resources to conduct inspections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Yeah well I think we should all remember that the case they talk about and say has made them look bad and guilty as charged hasn't seen any charges and the accusations are coming from people who are known to tell lies and break the law. Why would they have felt they needed to inspect or monitor this particular breeder? She rarely had a bloody litter and was well known and well respected for decades with the quality of her dogs. All well and good to tell members they will pick up their monitoring process but linking that case is rather hard when no one has been found guilty or even suspected enough of being guilty to have charges laid. What of the people who have come in to get the exemptions who don't ever register a litter because they are breeding unregistered dogs,cross bred dogs and working dogs? How will they spot them and monitor them? What are they going to do about members who own 8 dogs and live in a council area where they are only allowed 2 ? Smoke and mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 In all my years in the dog world I've never heard of anyone being inspected, more the opposite 'they'didn't want to know. Maybe someone has heard of inspections being done? Well considering the majority of these"breeding premises" are lounge rooms because they have 10 or less fertile dogs and they cant know who is breeding more than shows up on their stud registry - and they are responsible for ensuring their members comply with ALL the laws and regs not just those pertaining to their membership if they did inspections and found that most of their members are breaking council laws and dont have a DA and approvals for keeping their dogs past the count of two it sure will be interesting to see how many they left standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Yeah well I think we should all remember that the case they talk about and say has made them look bad and guilty as charged hasn't seen any charges and the accusations are coming from people who are known to tell lies and break the law. Why would they have felt they needed to inspect or monitor this particular breeder? She rarely had a bloody litter and was well known and well respected for decades with the quality of her dogs. All well and good to tell members they will pick up their monitoring process but linking that case is rather hard when no one has been found guilty or even suspected enough of being guilty to have charges laid. What of the people who have come in to get the exemptions who don't ever register a litter because they are breeding unregistered dogs,cross bred dogs and working dogs? How will they spot them and monitor them? What are they going to do about members who own 8 dogs and live in a council area where they are only allowed 2 ? Smoke and mirrors. Excellent Post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebbles Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 See your point Steve re inspections. Guess I'm living in the past before all these new rules and regs came in (kennels, lounge rooms etc) where common sense ruled. I know of a couple of cases which were reported to the KCC/VCA re dreadful conditions and breeding unsound stock which were never followed up on. There's always been those few baddies, as in any organisation, but peer pressure came to bear and they either sorted themselves out or got out. There wasn't the personal bitchiness just concern about the welfare of the animals. How the world has changed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Pebbles common sense and logic are long gone. There feels like there's an element in the whole thing where they are not really helping their members much. Its really great that Vicdogs members have the exemption and dont need the permit but there is still a lot they do have to do which never seems to be really covered This part in that letter seems to suggest that Vicdogs members dont need to comply with this stuff if they have 9 or less fertile bitches - but thats not true. Non DOGS Victoria dog owners who house more than two fertile bitches on their property are compelled by law to register as a Domestic Animal Businessand that requires them to comply with the Code of Practice for Breeding and Rearing Establishments, covering issues such as staff numbers, animal husbandry, microchipping, vaccination, health care, sale of puppies, hygiene, exercise,construction and size of animal housing, record keeping etc. Their members could also be forgiven for believing they can have this many dogs because they are Vicdogs without council approval - also not true. The other question of course is where exactly is the cut off point - can members ever expect support and the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty - can members ever expect them to help them when they are accused of something they didnt do or is it about down to only being about how it looks? Edited December 18, 2012 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
experiencedfun Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I have never known the vca to inspect any property. I don't believe they have a legal right to inspect. Who knows things may have changed in the past 10 years. Maybe they have more staff than we are led to beleive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 In the case which was discussed, there were more than 10 fertile bitches (apparently) so the kennel would be subject to the relevant government regulations etc as far as welfare and housing were concerned, although they would also be bound by the COE of Vic Dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Its difficult to believe that it isn't going to get to a place where they have no choice but to inspect. The AAPDB are doing yearly audits and everyone else has to have someone look at their property to allow permission to legally breed dogs However, if they start coming to a person's property and find they have more dogs than they have approval for from council they will need well thought out policies and procedures in place and members need to know potential outcomes. Last survey we did showed 72% of breeders who had more numbers than their council knew about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts