Nsw Companion Animal Taskforce

[_PL_]

I have filled in the feedback from according to the DNSW recommendations that I have received in an email and I suggest all members do the same.

Sorry if the email was already mentioned.

I will send the feedback form in but as I'm not a breeder I want to change the additional comments. Does anyone have any ideas on what can be included?

The feedback questions are relevant to all pet owners, not just DogsNSW members. Add what you feel is relevant, to the "further comments" they have to process all submissions.

And if you own a dog from a registered breeder, if you own an entire dog, if you're on a low fixed income, if you own a dog who could fall under the eyeball of BSL fans or if you have rescued a BYB or puppy farm survivor you'd be well within your rights to consider your comments particularly relevant to certain questions.

[BlackJaq]

I just skipped the bit about the license number, as I am not a registered breeder. I did copy and paste the first part of the comment though

[Steve]

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndn.org.au%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2FNorris%2520Jade%2520Legislation%2520to%2520Prohibit%2520Puppy%2520Farming.ppt&ei=avp2UZ_vLaTziAeltYCgAg&usg=AFQjCNFqheJQF6tGVU574Gf8KtHsfF_SIQ&sig2=37iCqGvMuS4vmmoRaaVhMQ&bvm=bv.45580626,d.aGc

Take a look at the charts at how over regulated NSW is already in comparison to other states. Definitely an argument to state that we have more laws than any other state and ample ability to control bdog breeding without the need for further legislation.

[moosmum]

If there must be a single registry I'm all in favor of DogsNSW offer to provide that role,but wouldn't there be a conflict of interest with rulings that discriminate against non-pedigree dogs? ie; Entire cross breds not permitted to compete?

That would be a major stumbling block to an acceptance of the offer.

[Shelby]

Moosemum - there would probably be two registers. One for pedigree breeds and one for associated breeds.

[Steve]

If there must be a single registry I'm all in favor of DogsNSW offer to provide that role,but wouldn't there be a conflict of interest with rulings that discriminate against non-pedigree dogs? ie; Entire cross breds not permitted to compete?

That would be a major stumbling block to an acceptance of the offer.

I thought the role was about being an agent - so when a person changes details on a pedigree its changed on the data base etc.

There is no way there would be a possibility of two chip registries.

[Mille]

I have twice tried to respond to the survey on the link provided on the home page but it keeps timing out preventing any input.

[Steve]

I have twice tried to respond to the survey on the link provided on the home page but it keeps timing out preventing any input.

Seems lots of people are having the same problem.

[moosmum]

Might be wrong but My impression of that proposal is for all dogs to come under a single governing body to represent members and guide future policy with the aid of the data base.

Seeing what happens in other industries including live stock I believe such a body is inevitable in the long run and likely to be taken up world wide.

That would explain why dogsNSW proposal is not acceptable.

A shame,because I think such a registry MUST be community owned and run,like DogsNSW who are set up,running and ready to go.Or ANKC if it were taken up world wide.

Changing a couple of discriminatory KC rulings would put them in a position to fill that role with minimum impact on pedigree dogs,more likely a huge benefit and upsurge of interest IN pedigree dogs and the industry as a whole,with a common community of interest and information sharing,Enabling broad,balanced self regulation of the whole industry.

Any other way, I can only see it getting more difficult for pedigree breeders,becoming increasingly marginalized as long as they insist pedigree, pure breeds are the only justifiable option.

Sorry,but thats how I see it.

Edited April 25, 2013 by moosmum

[lester]

Hi, there is no Bill before the NSW Parliament on the Companion Animal Taskforce issue. There are 2 Reports from a Taskforce which the NSW Government set up in August 2011 to investigate ways to reduce the number of dogs and cats being euthanased each year, and to address the issue of dangerous dogs. To develop a Bill would require a quite lengthy process of Party Agreement, developmment of a draft, notice of intention, a number of readings, agreement by both Houses of Parliament, the management and resubmission of any amendments, etc etc. There are 22 Recommendations in the Companion Animal Welfare report and none of them indicate anything that would lead to the catastrophic costs outlined in some postings in this forum. However, there are problems and they require action to be taken by responsible pure bred dog fanciers. One of the Recommendations calls for making the best practice Guidelines in the NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice into mandatory standards. Already that code includes a large number of mandatory standards that we all MUST comply with and the Guidelines would not add much to that. However, if there are to be changes to the Code, they should be properly consulted and discussed and this has not yet happened, which comes pretty close to a breach of natural justice. Another problem for responsible breeders is that the Recommendations include a new tier of licensing that would be in addition to current registration with DogsNSW. As a result responsible breeders would face DogsNSW registration, Licensing and Companion Animal Registration requirements. This is clearly over-regulation, and it primarily affects those responsible breeders who are not even major contributors to the pound and euthanasia problems the Taskforce was set up to solve. The recommendations also include a licensing inspection process of breeder premises by the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League on a prioritised, risk management basis. Many of us have no problem with those organisations as such (although some do believe that they are not always as well-intentioned as the community thinks) however, the recommendation would expose responsible breeders to inspections by people who may have hostile agendas and who may make inspection reports that reflect those agendas rather than what is actually happening at the premises. Of course, the fly-by-nights would hardly be touched because they are used to finding illegitimate ways to run their cruel and horrible businesses. Finally, the Taskforce's approach imposes a costly extra level of regulation and administration that is contrary to the general principles about self regulation and reduction of red tape espoused by the current NSW Government. What is needed is effective self-regulation, conducted under an agreement with the Government and subject to the usual transparency and accountability requirements. This is basically what DogsNSW is seeking and what members and their friends need to impress upon their Local Members of State Parliament. You need to fill in the comment form which you will find at http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/eventregistration/eventstaskforce/ and you need to talk to your local member about the positive self regulation option being proposed by DogsNSW.

[Steve]

Might be wrong but My impression of that proposal is for all dogs to come under a single governing body to represent members and guide future policy with the aid of the data base.

Seeing what happens in other industries including live stock I believe such a body is inevitable in the long run and likely to be taken up world wide.

That would explain why dogsNSW proposal is not acceptable.

A shame,because I think such a registry MUST be community owned and run,like DogsNSW who are set up,running and ready to go.Or ANKC if it were taken up world wide.

Changing a couple of discriminatory KC rulings would put them in a position to fill that role with minimum impact on pedigree dogs,more likely a huge benefit and upsurge of interest IN pedigree dogs and the industry as a whole,with a common community of interest and information sharing,Enabling broad,balanced self regulation of the whole industry.

Any other way, I can only see it getting more difficult for pedigree breeders,becoming increasingly marginalized as long as they insist pedigree, pure breeds are the only justifiable option.

Sorry,but thats how I see it.

After discussion the MDBA have had behind the scenes I don't believe that is the case.

However, there is a push in that task force document to have a single body which will determine what will go on with all dogs - there isnt anything new in that some have been pushing for it for quite a while - the concept that Dogs NSW would be it is never ever going to fly and it would be a body made of of differing group representatives.

[lester]

I have twice tried to respond to the survey on the link provided on the home page but it keeps timing out preventing any input.

Seems lots of people are having the same problem.

Hi - I just completed the form over about 45 minutes with no problems, using the www.dlg reference I gave in my other posting.

[lester]

Might be wrong but My impression of that proposal is for all dogs to come under a single governing body to represent members and guide future policy with the aid of the data base.

Seeing what happens in other industries including live stock I believe such a body is inevitable in the long run and likely to be taken up world wide.

That would explain why dogsNSW proposal is not acceptable.

A shame,because I think such a registry MUST be community owned and run,like DogsNSW who are set up,running and ready to go.Or ANKC if it were taken up world wide.

Changing a couple of discriminatory KC rulings would put them in a position to fill that role with minimum impact on pedigree dogs,more likely a huge benefit and upsurge of interest IN pedigree dogs and the industry as a whole,with a common community of interest and information sharing,Enabling broad,balanced self regulation of the whole industry.

Any other way, I can only see it getting more difficult for pedigree breeders,becoming increasingly marginalized as long as they insist pedigree, pure breeds are the only justifiable option.

Sorry,but thats how I see it.

After discussion the MDBA have had behind the scenes I don't believe that is the case.

However, there is a push in that task force document to have a single body which will determine what will go on with all dogs - there isnt anything new in that some have been pushing for it for quite a while - the concept that Dogs NSW would be it is never ever going to fly and it would be a body made of of differing group representatives.

DogsNSW was on the Taskforce. It has the recognition, the systems, the ethics and the coverage to pick up this task, with a few tweaks and an accountability agreement with the government. It behoves us all to support this option.

[Elenbah]

Might be wrong but My impression of that proposal is for all dogs to come under a single governing body to represent members and guide future policy with the aid of the data base.

Seeing what happens in other industries including live stock I believe such a body is inevitable in the long run and likely to be taken up world wide.

That would explain why dogsNSW proposal is not acceptable.

A shame,because I think such a registry MUST be community owned and run,like DogsNSW who are set up,running and ready to go.Or ANKC if it were taken up world wide.

Changing a couple of discriminatory KC rulings would put them in a position to fill that role with minimum impact on pedigree dogs,more likely a huge benefit and upsurge of interest IN pedigree dogs and the industry as a whole,with a common community of interest and information sharing,Enabling broad,balanced self regulation of the whole industry.

Any other way, I can only see it getting more difficult for pedigree breeders,becoming increasingly marginalized as long as they insist pedigree, pure breeds are the only justifiable option.

Sorry,but thats how I see it.

After discussion the MDBA have had behind the scenes I don't believe that is the case.

However, there is a push in that task force document to have a single body which will determine what will go on with all dogs - there isnt anything new in that some have been pushing for it for quite a while - the concept that Dogs NSW would be it is never ever going to fly and it would be a body made of of differing group representatives.

DogsNSW was on the Taskforce. It has the recognition, the systems, the ethics and the coverage to pick up this task, with a few tweaks and an accountability agreement with the government. It behoves us all to support this option.

I am lead to believe that Dogs NSW Data base system has the capacity to take this on... They would be separated by their registration number with all other dogs having a DAB (Domestic Animal Breeds) (I think it was) in front of it's registration number.

[Steve]

So are you suggesting that they will allow Dogs NSW to take this over from what the council does now? Nup not a chance in my opinion. i was told that Dogs NSW and similar orgs would be able to change and ad data which they cant do now in order to encourage peopel to change info which they dont do now because its too hard to do.

Whats more if its a case of them doing what councils do how would this help registered purebred breeders?

Edited April 25, 2013 by Steve

[mita]

I was looking up the splendid examples of my breed of interest that are bred in Ireland. Took opportunity to check out the legal requirements for breeders. They look remarkably sensible to me.

The Breeding Establishments Act only applies if someone has 6 or more female dogs capable of breeding.

Which leaves the average small scale hobby show breeder to simply comply with the same laws & licensing system as any other dog owner. This fits the 'home based' keeping of pedigree dogs.

The Act applies to those owning more.... which is then considered a Breeding Establishment. The aims for how dogs should be kept are set out... & the breeder has to set up the environment to meet those needs.

But there's enough specifics that could be observed to catch those not doing the right thing by the dogs.

Why can't we have such a sensible system?

From the Irish Kennel Club website:

Legal requirements

Anyone seeking to carry out dog breeding in Ireland has a number of legal obligations in addition to those of any pet owner. The Dog Breeding Establishments Act, 2010, which came into force at the beginning of 2012, establishes regulations for anyone keeping six or more female dogs which are more than six months old and are capable of breeding.

Constructing and Maintaining a Dog Breeding Establishment

In order to comply with the Act the owner or manager of a dog breeding establishment should provide accommodation and equipment which suits the physical, behavioural and social requirements of the dogs held. The owner should protect the dogs from other animals and adverse environmental conditions, provide sufficient space for dogs to stand, move around freely, stretch fully and rest, along with sufficient quantities of appropriate food and clean water to maintain good health and support optimal growth and reproduction. Owners or managers should also protect the dogs from disease, distress, injury, fear and pain, maintain the hygiene of the breeding premises and health of the dogs held, and ensure the premises is appropriately licensed under the Control of Dogs Acts 1986 to 2010.

Edited April 25, 2013 by mita

[Elenbah]

So are you suggesting that they will allow Dogs NSW to take this over from what the council does now? Nup not a chance in my opinion. i was told that Dogs NSW and similar orgs would be able to change and ad data which they cant do now in order to encourage peopel to change info which they dont do now because its too hard to do.

Whats more if its a case of them doing what councils do how would this help registered purebred breeders?

No Steve, Councils will still do the microchip registrations, but just as every dog registered with Dogs NSW has a Registration number this DAR number will be applied to every other pup, once every dog breeder in NSW has a breeders licence.

[zoiboy]

If there must be a single registry I'm all in favor of DogsNSW offer to provide that role,but wouldn't there be a conflict of interest with rulings that discriminate against non-pedigree dogs? ie; Entire cross breds not permitted to compete?

That would be a major stumbling block to an acceptance of the offer.

I thought the role was about being an agent - so when a person changes details on a pedigree its changed on the data base etc.

There is no way there would be a possibility of two chip registries.

It may not be a good idea to have 2 chip registries bUT the case is that nation wide we have 8 or 9 registaries so far.

It would seem to me that if the NSW CAR registriy was made available to DogsNSW then it could well work a treat??

[Steve]

If there must be a single registry I'm all in favor of DogsNSW offer to provide that role,but wouldn't there be a conflict of interest with rulings that discriminate against non-pedigree dogs? ie; Entire cross breds not permitted to compete?

That would be a major stumbling block to an acceptance of the offer.

I thought the role was about being an agent - so when a person changes details on a pedigree its changed on the data base etc.

There is no way there would be a possibility of two chip registries.

It may not be a good idea to have 2 chip registries bUT the case is that nation wide we have 8 or 9 registaries so far.

It would seem to me that if the NSW CAR registriy was made available to DogsNSW then it could well work a treat??

I meant one compulsory registry for the state. Im happy for Dogs NSW to have access to the CAR - but anyone or any group can do that with a password and if Dogs NSW get that ability so will many other orgs. Im not sure what it is thats being discussed that Dogs NSW would do. Feel like Im missing something because they dont need any special resources for this.

[Elenbah]

If there must be a single registry I'm all in favor of DogsNSW offer to provide that role,but wouldn't there be a conflict of interest with rulings that discriminate against non-pedigree dogs? ie; Entire cross breds not permitted to compete?

That would be a major stumbling block to an acceptance of the offer.

I thought the role was about being an agent - so when a person changes details on a pedigree its changed on the data base etc.

There is no way there would be a possibility of two chip registries.

It may not be a good idea to have 2 chip registries bUT the case is that nation wide we have 8 or 9 registaries so far.

It would seem to me that if the NSW CAR registriy was made available to DogsNSW then it could well work a treat??

I meant one compulsory registry for the state. Im happy for Dogs NSW to have access to the CAR - but anyone or any group can do that with a password and if Dogs NSW get that ability so will many other orgs. Im not sure what it is thats being discussed that Dogs NSW would do. Feel like Im missing something because they dont need any special resources for this.

They are talking about one registry. The RSPCA want to take control of that. Dogs NSW is offering to do this as their computer systems and programs have the capacity to do this.... Pedigree dog puppies and all other pups born to Domestic Breeders (whoever they may be, one off litters from the

family pet of pups from large scale puppy breeders) will have a breeders registration number (just like pedigree dogs do now) the only difference will be that puppies born to non Dogs NSW members may have a DAR in front of their number...