Nsw Companion Animal Taskforce

[moosmum]

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.

I just tried again with that reference,still timed out in under 45 minutes.

[Steve]

O.K. all seems a bit dumb to me there already is one only compulsory registry in NSW and every dog on it gets a number anyway - a microchip number - cant see how Dogs NSW keeping it rather than the council as it is now would be of much benefit to anyone and I dont believe that's what was being proposed in the task force recommendations. I thought Dogs NSW were asking that if a licence came in that they wanted to inspect and police and issue licences their own members which would give their members exemptions from being inspected by the AWL or RSPCA - if a licence system ever did come in. I cant see that happening for several reasons including that Dogs NSW are no longer the only group in NSW which are recognised and which is eligible for exemptions and they havent been for quite some time.

Go back a couple of years and I was told by someone who was heavily involved in the whole PDE thingy and working closely with several groups at the uni that there was a time line. Back then they were waiting on the Bateson report to come out in the UK,then they wanted laws to stop first degree and second degree matings and the end result was that one panel would oversea all dog related issues - which is what was in that task force paper .That has nothing to do with who keeps or who can add to a registry its about some other org in charge of what can and cant be done over and above Dogs NSW or any other group or individual associated in any way with dogs.

[Ringo]

Looks like Victoria took notice of the Irish experience.

See there is no part 2 for the Bateson Report - guess too many bridges were burnt in the first one

Interesting in the discussion paper the first two objectives of the task force is in relation to impounded/euthanised dogs and

not one mention of any rescue organisation other than AWL & RSPCA who deal with only 25% of such dogs with 75% dealt with by local councils.

What is wrong with fighting to have DogsNSW as the main registry for ALL dogs in NSW - saves the problem of which data base your microchip details go on as is the case now. At least tracking dogs would become a lot easier. The idea just goes against the recommendations of the Taskforce which is why the reports were published to gauge public opinion before decisions are made. If the wrong ones are made by self interest groups then at some point it will end up in court with one or more challenges to the legislation which may lead to the whole thing starting again.

Pity they made no reference other than in passing as to how the Victorian legislation is travelling. Only mention was the Queensland TRIAL. Guess that agreed with their ideas.

[Steve]

Looks like Victoria took notice of the Irish experience.

See there is no part 2 for the Bateson Report - guess too many bridges were burnt in the first one

Interesting in the discussion paper the first two objectives of the task force is in relation to impounded/euthanised dogs and

not one mention of any rescue organisation other than AWL & RSPCA who deal with only 25% of such dogs with 75% dealt with by local councils.

What is wrong with fighting to have DogsNSW as the main registry for ALL dogs in NSW - saves the problem of which data base your microchip details go on as is the case now. At least tracking dogs would become a lot easier. The idea just goes against the recommendations of the Taskforce which is why the reports were published to gauge public opinion before decisions are made. If the wrong ones are made by self interest groups then at some point it will end up in court with one or more challenges to the legislation which may lead to the whole thing starting again.

Pity they made no reference other than in passing as to how the Victorian legislation is travelling. Only mention was the Queensland TRIAL. Guess that agreed with their ideas.

There is no problem now with which registry your chips go onto - every person who implants a chip sends the paper work to the CAR - this is the law. If you also want to register these with another registry its your choice - good idea if it goes interstate as access to the CAR is currently limited. Every person who has a dog microchipped in this state has their dog entered there whether they go another chip registry as well or not. How would it become much easier to track dogs? This makes no sense to me and I cant imagine that anyone thinks that Dogs NSW registry would replace the CAR and it would still be state based and the same problem would be there for access interstate. However, I can see that Dogs NSW could be given access to the current registry to add or change data which they receive to enable people to do that via them as well as via their council. All this takes is a password - a password for more orgs than we currently have who have access to this - with an expectation that data will be easier changed and therefore more likely to be updated.

The RSPCA and AWL want this access to be able to marry up number of dogs a person has registered on their property with number of litters they bred and chip so they can go after them if it shows they are breeding without a licence, or without renewing a licence a bitch too young or too often etc and therefore police it all via the registry. Sorry guys I think its madness to expect that Dogs NSW would keep the registration details for all dogs in NSW and I doubt that they want to anyway other than perhaps getting a service fee for their trouble for doing council jobs by adding or changing current info for them as an agent. It means when someone sends in a transfer of ownership for a purebred puppy that they also change that on the chip registry as well. When someone notifies a death they change it instead of hoping the owner will also notify the council.

When this almost came in prior to the last election in Queensland the CC was allowing the RSPCA access to their data base. Info from the pedigree data base would be accessible to the RSPCA as a trade off for some exemptions. Notices went out to members to tell them to be sure only dogs they currently owned were still registered on their pedigree system in their name so council and RSPCA could see how many dogs you had on the CC registry and whether they were registered on the council registry. All squashed when the government changed though the whole thing still had miles to go to get to be laws. That can never happen in NSW as the breeder cant change ownership details on the CC data base - only the new owners can .Over 37 years of breeding and registering puppies I would have hundreds of puppies still registered on their pedigree system that I haven't owned since they were 8 weeks old.

Forget all about what might happen happens if we have to be licensed and fight licensing. No new laws.

[lester]

Steve, I don't really want to speak for DogsNSW although I am a Member, but if you see page 6 of their 2012 submission to the Taskforce (go to the news item on the DogsNSW homepage and go through the links) you can see they were not proposing to take over or replace the CAR (Companion Animal Register) or any Council functions. They were proposing to pick up the Taskforce's proposed licensing function, with its related inspection activities, for all dog breeders including those who are members of Dogs NSW and for all other dog breeders. In other words, there would be one "licensing" or registration body for dogs in NSW and that body would be DogsNSW. Not having seen any evidence to the contrary, I imagine that is still the DogsNSW position. This would meet the need for accountability of dog breeders that the Taskforce seems to want, without seriously disadvantaging registered pure bred dog breeders which a Gov Licensing Service would do. The microchip based CAR would continue separately.

[LisaCC]

Online survey worked for me today.

[WreckitWhippet]

That can never happen in NSW as the breeder cant change ownership details on the CC data base - only the new owners can .Over 37 years of breeding and registering puppies I would have hundreds of puppies still registered on their pedigree system that I haven't owned since they were 8 weeks old.

Can you imagine the day they RSPCA and the like come knocking on your door, armed with a long list of dogs you own and supposedly breed from. They are going to draw the line in the sand and then have a power and the ability to access the Dogs NSW data base.

I'm estimating that I may well have to explain away 30 odd dogs, for others I imagine it could be hundreds.

[Steve]

Steve, I don't really want to speak for DogsNSW although I am a Member, but if you see page 6 of their 2012 submission to the Taskforce (go to the news item on the DogsNSW homepage and go through the links) you can see they were not proposing to take over or replace the CAR (Companion Animal Register) or any Council functions. They were proposing to pick up the Taskforce's proposed licensing function, with its related inspection activities, for all dog breeders including those who are members of Dogs NSW and for all other dog breeders. In other words, there would be one "licensing" or registration body for dogs in NSW and that body would be DogsNSW. Not having seen any evidence to the contrary, I imagine that is still the DogsNSW position. This would meet the need for accountability of dog breeders that the Taskforce seems to want, without seriously disadvantaging registered pure bred dog breeders which a Gov Licensing Service would do. The microchip based CAR would continue separately.

How would them inspecting all breeders benefit their own members? How would it ensure their members were not disadvantaged when they would have a set of criteria and everyone would have to be judged equally according to the licence requirements? the fact that we are small breeders already disadvantages us regardless of who is doing the inspecting. Of what benefit is it to the government to hand this over to Dogs NSW ? Now if you were telling me they wanted to inspect only their own members I get that but seriously asking for them to allow Dogs NSW to take on this role for all people in this state who might want to breed a litter or 500 is really pushing the ticket in my opinion. Either way they couldn't treat their own members any differently to any other person anyway - that's called corruption.

We should be yelling from the roof tops no licencing rather than conceding that if we are licensed we want it to run one way or the other. If we give signs we will simply go with the flow its a lost battle before we start.

[moosmum]

Steve, I don't really want to speak for DogsNSW although I am a Member, but if you see page 6 of their 2012 submission to the Taskforce (go to the news item on the DogsNSW homepage and go through the links) you can see they were not proposing to take over or replace the CAR (Companion Animal Register) or any Council functions. They were proposing to pick up the Taskforce's proposed licensing function, with its related inspection activities, for all dog breeders including those who are members of Dogs NSW and for all other dog breeders. In other words, there would be one "licensing" or registration body for dogs in NSW and that body would be DogsNSW. Not having seen any evidence to the contrary, I imagine that is still the DogsNSW position. This would meet the need for accountability of dog breeders that the Taskforce seems to want, without seriously disadvantaging registered pure bred dog breeders which a Gov Licensing Service would do. The microchip based CAR would continue separately.

How would them inspecting all breeders benefit their own members? How would it ensure their members were not disadvantaged when they would have a set of criteria and everyone would have to be judged equally according to the licence requirements? the fact that we are small breeders already disadvantages us regardless of who is doing the inspecting. Of what benefit is it to the government to hand this over to Dogs NSW ? Now if you were telling me they wanted to inspect only their own members I get that but seriously asking for them to allow Dogs NSW to take on this role for all people in this state who might want to breed a litter or 500 is really pushing the ticket in my opinion. Either way they couldn't treat their own members any differently to any other person anyway - that's called corruption.

We should be yelling from the roof tops no licencing rather than conceding that if we are licensed we want it to run one way or the other. If we give signs we will simply go with the flow its a lost battle before we start.

I agree. The K.Cs stance on cross breeds is a conflict they can't get around.The public will demand equality of treatment and services I.M.O that DogsNSW won't be able to provide.

[Sheridan]

I understand that a member of the task force will be on a Newcastle radio station tonight.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/447806795264957/permalink/527026357343000/

[lester]

Steve, I don't really want to speak for DogsNSW although I am a Member, but if you see page 6 of their 2012 submission to the Taskforce (go to the news item on the DogsNSW homepage and go through the links) you can see they were not proposing to take over or replace the CAR (Companion Animal Register) or any Council functions. They were proposing to pick up the Taskforce's proposed licensing function, with its related inspection activities, for all dog breeders including those who are members of Dogs NSW and for all other dog breeders. In other words, there would be one "licensing" or registration body for dogs in NSW and that body would be DogsNSW. Not having seen any evidence to the contrary, I imagine that is still the DogsNSW position. This would meet the need for accountability of dog breeders that the Taskforce seems to want, without seriously disadvantaging registered pure bred dog breeders which a Gov Licensing Service would do. The microchip based CAR would continue separately.

How would them inspecting all breeders benefit their own members? How would it ensure their members were not disadvantaged when they would have a set of criteria and everyone would have to be judged equally according to the licence requirements? the fact that we are small breeders already disadvantages us regardless of who is doing the inspecting. Of what benefit is it to the government to hand this over to Dogs NSW ? Now if you were telling me they wanted to inspect only their own members I get that but seriously asking for them to allow Dogs NSW to take on this role for all people in this state who might want to breed a litter or 500 is really pushing the ticket in my opinion. Either way they couldn't treat their own members any differently to any other person anyway - that's called corruption.

We should be yelling from the roof tops no licencing rather than conceding that if we are licensed we want it to run one way or the other. If we give signs we will simply go with the flow its a lost battle before we start.

I agree. The K.Cs stance on cross breeds is a conflict they can't get around.The public will demand equality of treatment and services I.M.O that DogsNSW won't be able to provide.

Again, I don't want to be speaking on behalf of DogsNSW but as nobody else is, here goes. The benefit to all dog breeders from the DogsNSW proposal is that licensing and inspection will be conducted by people who are not committed to closing down dog breeding. It will also leave DogsNSW breeders with 2 rego requirements - DogsNSW and the CAR - whereas under the Taskforce recommendation they will have additional costs and paperwork. As for the conflict about cross breeds, I'm pretty sure DogsNSW can continue to promote pure breeds and responsible breeding while accepting responsibility for general licensing. Already DogsNSW has provision for cross breeding under planned, responsible circumstances. Plus they will be running courses with TAFE Riverina in September to help identify breeds and their crosses. And think about this, if the public are not going to accept DogsNSW as a licensing body as Moosmum suggests, will they accept NO licensing at all instead? I don't think so. It's a question of getting real here. If you're going to tell me that the average MP will understand a "no licensing" message when the RSPCA - who they will see as "the goodies" - is telling them licensing will save 22,000 dogs every year (regardless of the validity of that argument), then I am going to tell you that you're very, very mistaken. We need a more sophisticated, reality based strategy than "we don't like it." And we need unity behind the DogsNSW message.

[Sheridan]

I think your error is in thinking the public cares.

[moosmum]

I think your error is in thinking the public cares.

I think once they have need to join an umbrella body though, they can learn to care a lot more. There will some sort of organization to begin.

[Steve]

We already have the "some sort of organisation". Its called the state government and local councils manage that .The RSPCA and AWL already have policing powers .Dogs NSW is a group which represents a vast minority of breeders. Breeder licencing has not proven to reduce euth rates in any place it has been introduced. Perhaps its time they started looking at promoting responsible dog ownership which includes buying a puppy that you can predictably assess whether it will suit your lifestyle and have a look at how rescue catch cry of save everything and take a mutt rescue before it is killed and before you consider buying a purebred is impacting that perception and encouraging the concept that any dog will do. In fact having the consequence of increasing demand for mongrel bred mutts from a puppy farmer who breeds dogs rather than from a real breeder. Nothing will work until you interrupt supply and demand. That's not even touching on the "rescues' who manage to put out over 200 puppies a year which are born on their premises.

This is about a person who wants to breed a dog having to get a licence to allow their dog to have a litter of puppies on their property.Its about making the act of having even a single litter of puppies illegal without a licence. This is about a person who wants to breed their dog having to have a TAFE course certificate which in no way even gets near how or the ethics of breeding dogs and covers all manner of animals which most dog breeders will never get near let alone own. Most of us would have to travel hundreds of kilometres to even attend the stupid course and spend a heap of money to take us nowhere!

Say no to more laws - regardless of which bloody group would do the dirty work.

[inez]

Up until now Dogs NSW breeders have been considered as hobbyists. Although we abide by the AWL Code of Practice Breeding Dogs and Cats certain parts have been Guidelines and not enforceable, that has allowed us to still have our dogs as pets first and live in houses as pets... They want to change that. Which in essence changes our pets to livestock. (Dept. of Primary Industries)

If you go to page 6 of the 155page recommendations and you have to read it slowly to digest it, it says every breeder must acquire a Breeders Licence, although if you only want one litter or plan a litter you may obtain a Licence at a reduced rate...... But.!... in order to obtain that Licence they have to know that your breeders premises will be in compliance with your local councils Development Control Requirements. (which have all been updated to mean your breeding establishment, must comply with their commercial boarding/breeding requirements)... You have to read between the lines.

Our now hobby will be classified as a business even if we only sell one puppy....

Whatever laws are already in place in NSW a lady I know who has had her dogs for over 20 years has been told not only that she cannot have any more than ten dogs (they are a very small toy breed) as she is a pensioner and in a government owned rental, if she breeds a litter in future, even one litter, she MUST notify centrelink as this is deemed income and the rental will be adjusted accordingly. As she had 20 dogs, must rehome half of them by a set date, she is between a rock and a hard place. her Oldies would probably be euthed if taken to a rescue, rehome people dont want old dogs either privately or from rescue. So, to enable the oldies to live out their lives leaves no room for any of the ones young enough to show and or breed for the future. Many who have seen her fate are heartbroken for her and what they see as next when they are inspected. This is soley the decision of a Liverpoll inspector no rspca or awl involvement.

So the councils are already working with legislation now in place, not pending, those I know expect the addition of new laws can only make the situation worse rather than better.

Attending a show, it seems the majority I see are in the older to pensioner bracket.

AS one of her friends said to me. If we choof off our oldies and only keep breeding age doesnt that make us puppy farmers anyway?

Edited April 28, 2013 by inez

[mita]

[AS one of her friends said to me. If we choof off our oldies and only keep breeding age doesnt that make us puppy farmers anyway?

No, it does not make you a puppy farmer. I've happily adopted my pet tibbies, at an older age, from the best of registered breeders. They're the best in my terms in supplying all the essential needs of dogs.... as well as doing sterling work to advance the breed. Beautifully socialised dogs who adapted to a new home with grace. Oldest I've taken is 9 years. Another was 8 years. And then 5 going on 6. Youngest was 3 yrs, retired after nearly dying having 1st litter of puppies. I'm presently Plan B for a lovely, healthy 14 yr old, should it ever become necessary. A friend adopted an 11 yr old, when a breeder fell ill.

Having said that, I totally agree with you about the truly horrible situation that elderly lady has been put in by the confused & confusing proposed new laws affecting registered breeders. So many 'masters' leaning over their shoulders & not a great understanding shown about p/b dogs.

As I've posted earlier, I admire the sensible system in Ireland. Small scale p/b show people are not counted in some massive campaign to regulate. They just take their place alongside the same licensing & management conditions required of anyone owning a modest number of dogs.

Even their Breeding Establisment Laws for more dogs than that, is based on breeders being able to demonstrate they've set up circumstances & care, so the full scale of needs of their dogs are being met.

Back to that poor lady. It's cruel what's being done to her in the name of law. Again, can she consider adopting some to good pet homes? Also can a system be applied where one of her dogs lives as someone's pet .... but which she shows?

She must never think she has to euth the dogs she's loved for so long. Please reassure her that help can be at hand.

Edited April 29, 2013 by mita

[inez]

I understand she has already rehomed the young dogs and kept the pensioners. She was not permitted sufficient time that would have been needed to wait for people who would consider an old dog.

[Steve]

The fact that she has been able to have that many dogs for that length of time especially living in public housing is a pretty good score. If they have said she can keep 10 she is travelling better than most.

[goldchow]

For many pensioners the show scene is their only social outing and for many, having a litter of pups every so often means the difference between eating paying the power bill. Many of these people live on bread & duck under the table so they can feed their dogs a decent diet.

That number of dogs in a rental situation though is pushing it, she's lucky to have got away with it as long as she has.

[mita]

She was not permitted sufficient time that would have been needed to wait for people who would consider an old dog.

There needs to be open discussion on calling registered breeders who rehome their adult dogs (of all ages) as pets.... puppy farmers.

If they've bred, raised & socialisedl those dogs well, then they've already proven they're not puppy farmers. The bottom line is that puppy farming does not value individual dogs to include them with human lives & thus socialise them. So those good registered breeders are the opposite of puppy farmers.

I've seen what wonderful adult dogs of all ages they offer to pet homes. When people praise our tibbies, I tell them the truth.... the dogs came like that! I'd love to be able to claim credit for their foundation. But can't.

I've put numerous good pet owners onto that way of adopting a dog.... an adult dog of any age, from a good registered breeder. Result has been happy dogs, happy pet owners & breeders happy to know their dogs have a good forever home.

As to older dogs.... we have an aging population in Australia. So there's a lot of people in the older brackets. Older dogs make great companions for them. As well as for younger people who want a laid-back, mellow dog with developed & known behaviours.

The golden oldies are gems.

Here's one I would've given my eye teeth for in recent times. Tragedy led to a breeder rehoming his beautifully raised, much loved dogs.

9, 10, 11 yrs? Can't remember & didn't care much. She got a great new home. The Lady Gizmo (click to enlarge):

It's only a click away for pet owners to locate adult dogs from registered breeders:

http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/dogs.asp

Edited April 29, 2013 by mita