Nsw Companion Animal Taskforce

[Ringo]

Interesting council giving permission to people to breed puppies on suburban house blocks in NSW (All states have different rules because all councils have different powers across Australia)

If they call it a commercial operation then they can't give permission because it is PROHIBITED.

For non commercial of the same activity they have no control over it under the LEP as that activity is not mentioned, ie it is an activity/land use they have no control over. Despite what many councils in NSW think they are in these circumstances what is called a consent authority. In other words if they have power over a land activity/development they may approve the activity or not with/without conditions) If they have no control over the activity then they cannot approve/disallow something they have no control over. It is something councils find hard to grasp at times. All LEPs in NSW are now basically the same with the same land zoning and what is allowed in each of these zones, what is prohibited and if it is not mentioned then they have no control of the activity.

Sounds like the ranger was talking up what he wanted to do and talking down what he was actually able to do.

And the NSW Land & Environment Court has again reinforced this view in regards to what councils may or may not have power over. They just at times have great difficulty grasping the idea that they don't make all the rules all the time and there is actually a higher authority that can over rule them. Comes a lot of the time from the inexperience of the people you deal with.

[espinay2]

Thanks Ringo. That seemed to be my reading of the LEP but certainly want to get it straight! It does pay to know where you stand. I actually have a reasonable background in legislation and admin law and even for me it is difficult trying to tease it all out, so I can imagine what it is like for those who don't have this working knowledge.

[inez]

I thought I had put this question earlir today. Decided I wanted to edit it, But cant find it.

I realised in all the years I have been microchipping dogs for people I cannot recall being asked to microchip a xbred or a litter bred by a non member of an AKC?

I have chipped heaps, nay hundreds of puppies bought by owners who have purchased them either by word of mouth or through the trading post, Gumtree or wherever and the majority of them were either 5 to 6 weeks old, unvaccinated, unchipped x breds and banned breeds which 'supposdely' anyway can only be kept if desexed.

WHAT? if any effect is any of this legislation going to do to locate the breeders of these pups who would never get onto the Council Microchip radar, except because some of them end up with owners who do want their dog chipped and registered because they dont want to lose their now much loved puppy? I would have to say about 90 percent of them when I ask for the vaccination card to put one of the stickers on did not get a vaccination card with their puppy so their next trip is off to the nearest vet.

Most of these people are not even aware that NO registered breeder would sell an unvaccinated, unchipped puppy, let alone let it go before it is 8 weeks old.

Where on earth? Correction, HOW on earth, do we get this message across to the "NSW COMPANION ANIMAL TASKFORCE" Do they even realise how many thousands of people and their dogs are paperwise invisible to the present system?

Need I add? I for one would be pretty sure not one of the breeders of these pups will be found on an ANKC data base, which I think is one of the things I have been told the RSCPA want the ANKC's to hand over.(Is this true? Or scare mongering?)

If true, So much for the privacy information act.

Edited April 30, 2013 by inez

[corvus]

One of the recommendations by the task force is that sellers would have to advertise the microchip numbers of puppies in their ads, and pet stores would also need to have these displayed. The onus would be on them to make sure they had microchip numbers from the people they got their puppies from before they sell them on. I guess the expectation is that this would make it much harder for people to dodge microchipping. Unless they don't need to advertise the dogs they want to sell.

[goldchow]

You have put that very well Inez and exactly my thoughts, its not going to make any difference to those this Task Force is supposedly targeting. I like many others with dogs live in a regional area and I don't believe these people have any idea how huge this problem is, the countless puppies being sold on the local radio stations Garage Sale, the puppies being sold at local flea markets, under 6 weeks, the woman who regularly drives down from somewhere up central Qld with something like 80 pups of varying crosses in a van, delivering pups on the way to those who have contacted her somehow. None of these people have advertised, none of these pups are chipped and the buyers are, as you say completely ignorant that this isn't a good way to purchase a puppy. Education instead of legislation would go a long way further than these Task Force ideas.

[Steve]

Some people who do chip now will stop chipping if it they think it means they will be easier to find and have to be licensed - if it means that anyone can see how many bitches they have and how often they breed them etc. Those who dont chip now wont chip at all anyway Its been compulsory in NSW since around 97 to chip before sale and its never been policed. No one will know whether a chip number in an ad is legit anyway It takes weeks to have the chip papers done via council so it could be checked even if someone wanted to.then there are chips that move and typos - chipping one pup in a litter and advertising one pup and by the way thats gone but we have another when they ring etc. More scoff laws and the big guys sell to pet shops and via generic ads for their kennels and dont need to advertise individual puppies anyway. They live in lah lah land.

[lester]

You have put that very well Inez and exactly my thoughts, its not going to make any difference to those this Task Force is supposedly targeting. I like many others with dogs live in a regional area and I don't believe these people have any idea how huge this problem is, the countless puppies being sold on the local radio stations Garage Sale, the puppies being sold at local flea markets, under 6 weeks, the woman who regularly drives down from somewhere up central Qld with something like 80 pups of varying crosses in a van, delivering pups on the way to those who have contacted her somehow. None of these people have advertised, none of these pups are chipped and the buyers are, as you say completely ignorant that this isn't a good way to purchase a puppy. Education instead of legislation would go a long way further than these Task Force ideas.

The situation so well described by Inez is one of the strongest arguments for supporting the DogsNSW proposal to pick up the registering/licensing function in NSW. The point is exactly that the Taskforce proposal as it stands will mainly impact on current registered, responsible breeders. It will not stop the fly-by-nights who will still get around it. By going the DogsNSW route the Government will get a single system, built on what's there already rather than creating whole new bureaucracies, that brings together all relatively responsible dog breeders, and it has the potential to engage a large number of people - mainly members of DogsNSW - in local monitoring of illegal dog sales at almost no cost. This is the time for standing together to make sure that change, which is most likely inevitable, has a positive result and not a negative result. Make sure you get your feedback in to the Government and in the comments at the end of the document state clearly that you support the DogsNSW proposal. If you can't use the form, just write to the Ministers and your local member saying you support the DogsNSW proposal. You can get the details from the Dogzonline Home Page links.

[BlackJaq]

I would really like to see the government enforcing existing laws on chipping and such and putting some more resources into that, than what is on the cards now.

I do however like the idea of permanently recording breeders' details on every pup's chip entry. This would make it very easy to contact breeders when a dog is in trouble and see if they are able to take it back or rehome it, as responsible breeders seem to do now anyway.

It would also enable some data to be processed, to show where dogs in pounds and such genuinely stem from, and would surely give some backing to PB breeders' claims that their puppies are not the ones filling up the pound.

Of course anybody who works with a pound already knows that it is mostly crossbreds, some mixed breed SWFs, bully types and sheep and cattle dogs with a smaller number of other cross and (potential) pure breds but it seems to me that the majority of the "adopt, don't shop" crowd genuinely believe that it is registered pure bred breeders who fill up pounds, a claim that I would like to see disproven with some solid evidence to shut their silly nattering up for good.

They make no distinction between "puppy farmers" and genuine small scale hobby breeders, breeding for improvement, showing and performance, rather than cash. This really rubs me the wrong way every time a stupid "adopt, don't shop" poster appears on my facebook wall, shared by a well meaning but ignorant friend...

Edited May 1, 2013 by BlackJaq

[corvus]

I think the mandatory advertisement of licence numbers and microchip numbers are part of attempting to better enforce current chipping laws. I imagine they have realised there is no real way to be able to enforce the current laws as the situation stands. Certainly, people could make up bogus chip numbers, but they are going to get found out as soon as the new puppy owner takes the puppy to the vet. If they also have a bogus licence number, presumably the puppy buyer has some way to contact them that can be passed on to the council, whether that be phone or an address. They had to have something to get the puppy in the first place. If the puppy has come through a broker, the broker will be in trouble as well.

I honestly think there is little harm in the "Adopt, don't shop" slogan being sloshed around. There ARE undeniably a lot of dogs that don't have a home and many of them can make great pets for someone who just wants a generic dog. The arguments used to push the slogan might be inaccurate, but I highly doubt having figures to refute them will make much of difference. Confirmation bias and all that.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Corvus is right, what harm can it do if the voting public believe that hobby breeders are just as bad as puppy farmers.

[Diva]

Corvus is right, what harm can it do if the voting public believe that hobby breeders are just as bad as puppy farmers.

yes, what harm can it do if the rarer breeds die out in this country because people are peer-pressured into believing that buying a pure bred dog that suits you is an unethicial thing to do, we shouldn't care about that should we.

[BlackJaq]

It is not the slogan that bothers me, it is the attitudes that come with it.

Apparently it is shameful to buy a well raised pure bred puppy from a registered, ethical breeder, when there are ill trained, unwanted older puppies to be had from the pound, of unknown breeding, with no health checks or breeder support, out of parents of unknown temperament and health...

Anybody who buys from any breeder should be ashamed, yet the same people will buy puppies from pet stores or adopt dogs that are completely unsuitable for their circumstances, because they are saving a life.

There is nothing wrong with getting a dog from a good rescue, but the same is true for getting a dog from a good breeder. These people seize blindly onto slogans and misleading arguments without wasting a second to think it through for themselves. Yes, there are plenty of unwanted dogs in need of homes. Personally I believe many of them come from "one off breeders" who have no clue about anything and will hand their puppies over to anybody with fifty bucks cash in their hand.

But how do you stop those people? They breed without planning or foresight, often without even intention. They and their dogs are not registered or recorded anywhere, often those dogs will never even see a vet for the duration of their short lives. They never leave the backyard or the radius of their chain on the farm and unless you check every single property you will never even know they are there and breeding.

It seems to me that others were very correct when they said only registered breeders will be affected by any of these changes anyway. There is nowhere that I am aware of to report backyard breeders who adhere to no regulations at all and even if there was, nobody would care to hold them to the law anyway.

[corvus]

It is not the slogan that bothers me, it is the attitudes that come with it.

It's nothing new. People were asking me to consider adopting instead of buying years ago. And they have been asking me why I'd spent lots of money on a pedigree dog when I could have adopted a dog from the pound and saved a life years before the current movement. It has come up on a regular basis particularly with Kivi because he LOOKS expensive. He's beautiful and has a big coat that looks like lots of work and people (correctly) assume that I'm vain about it and wanted a pretty dog. It immediately puts me in this category of dog owners that can afford a nice dog as if he's the Bentley of dogs. When I tell them I was looking for a particular temperament and just happened to find it in a very attractive dog they either accept it or start asking me what he's like to live with. No one has ever told me my choice of dogs was unethical. I don't talk to the kinds of people who think that is an appropriate way to talk to a friend or stranger. A hardened shelter worker once kind of scowled and muttered when I said my dogs came from a breeder, but seemed to think there was hope for me seeing as they were well bred and well cared for.

[inez]

Corvus is right, what harm can it do if the voting public believe that hobby breeders are just as bad as puppy farmers.

yes, what harm can it do if the rarer breeds die out in this country because people are peer-pressured into believing that buying a pure bred dog that suits you is an unethicial thing to do, we shouldn't care about that should we.

Wasnt the figure for maltese puppies registered in 2012 some 200? In a breed that is one of the most popular breeds seen ?

Does not sound like its just the rare breeds that are on the road to extinction here. Considering there are more than 24 million people in Australia of what a significant number have dogs as pets 200 purebred maltese wont go far. As pets or a viable future for the breed either

[Salukifan]

I think the mandatory advertisement of licence numbers and microchip numbers are part of attempting to better enforce current chipping laws.

How is it that you can still advertise a litter of APBT pups in NSW with impunity and yet legislation making advertising microchip numbers mandatory will force people to chip their pups???

New laws without new or increased methods of law enforcement don't make an ounce of difference. The day rangers visit dog parks with chip readers and fine anyone with an unchipped and unregistered dog I'll believe they're serious about enforcing current laws.

There are people and dogs that never see the legal side of current dog regulations. The dogs are BYB, not registered, not chipped and not desexed. Have a look at the profile of the average dog involved in a serious dog attack and I've just described it.

More law won't make people more responsible. It will simply be an additonal burden on those already complying with the laws.

I'm an advocate for increased education, not increased legislation. The Calgary model works and is being ignored. Of course legislation is cheaper.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[mita]

There are people and dogs that never see the legal side of current dog regulations. The dogs are BYB, not registered, not chipped and not desexed. Have a look at the profile of the average dog involved in a serious dog attack and I've just described it.

More law won't make people more responsible. It will simply be an additonal burden on those already complying with the laws.

I'm an advocate for increased education, not increased legislation. The Calgary model works and is being ignored. Of course legislation is cheaper.

Exactly, exactly & exactly.

There's evidence that dogs involved with serious bites/attacks tend to be unregistered. Also one study found that the owners tend to have higher than average traffic infringements. Connection is that owners who are impulsive & not given to compliance... will be the same with their dogs.

Not that I'm advocating it, but I just heard on ABC Radio National, the Swiss 'animal attorney' who's visiting Australia presently. He said people in Switzerland are required to do a 4 hour course about dog ownership.... when they want to get a dog.

Apart from that novelty, I wish our authorities would look at steps taken elsewhere & the long-term results. Calgary is a good example.

ADDED: Just out of interest.... I'm not advocating it... here's the Swiss requirement:

Geneva

All dog owners in Geneva must complete a dog instructional program, designed to ensure that dog owners are aware of the unique needs and behavior of dogs, along with the legislation that they are subjected to. This training is made available by a certified instructor or Geneva veterinarian.

Edited May 1, 2013 by mita

[Jed]

Licensing wont make any difference to those who wish to avoid it.

Get a mobile phone, take calls, meet people in a nice park, take their money, give them the pup, drive home, throw the mobile away. Do not put your name, only the mobile number, on the paperwork (if you give them any).

Too easy, and you can say that the pups are microchipped. How are the new owners going to find out unless they have their own scanner; or when they go to the vet.

They can phone you all they like ... you are never going to answer. Other benefit of this is that if something goes wrong with the pup, you are uncontactable.

Again, the honest and ethical will be doing the right thing and the people they want to catch, wont. And probably more people will walk away.

It is nearly impossible to buy a registered Maltese now ..... which is one reason the maltesex sell so well. Shame really.

[inez]

There are people and dogs that never see the legal side of current dog regulations. The dogs are BYB, not registered, not chipped and not desexed. Have a look at the profile of the average dog involved in a serious dog attack and I've just described it.

More law won't make people more responsible. It will simply be an additonal burden on those already complying with the laws.

I'm an advocate for increased education, not increased legislation. The Calgary model works and is being ignored. Of course legislation is cheaper.

Exactly, exactly & exactly.

There's evidence that dogs involved with serious bites/attacks tend to be unregistered. Also one study found that the owners tend to have higher than average traffic infringements. Connection is that owners who are impulsive & not given to compliance... will be the same with their dogs.

Not that I'm advocating it, but I just heard on ABC Radio National, the Swiss 'animal attorney' who's visiting Australia presently. He said people in Switzerland are required to do a 4 hour course about dog ownership.... when they want to get a dog.

Apart from that novelty, I wish our authorities would look at steps taken elsewhere & the long-term results. Calgary is a good example.

ADDED: Just out of interest.... I'm not advocating it... here's the Swiss requirement:

Geneva

All dog owners in Geneva must complete a dog instructional program, designed to ensure that dog owners are aware of the unique needs and behavior of dogs, along with the legislation that they are subjected to. This training is made available by a certified instructor or Geneva veterinarian.

Excellent points, although penalties against breeders especially registered breeders seems more on the agenda than education. If even the basics were taught, eg, Do not buy an unvaccinated unchipped puppy. would work a million times better than legislation it must be.

None of the people who bring me these babies have a clue they should walk away if the pup isnt already chipped and vaccination done or under 8 weeks. If Joe public KNEW they should walk away from any sale of the ones who are not their sellers wouldnt have a sale. End of business for them.

My pet hate is dogs not kept at home, allowed to run the streets.

No dog should be let run in a public area off leash. PARTICULARY in country areas, the tragedy of the dogs shot could just as easily have been,distracted by other vehicle and ran out onto road and killed. As another said, feral dog attacks are so bad most farmers will shot on sight any loose dogs. Something the city people have no conception of, an education program would save many dogs, the vast majority being the ones run over for exactly the same reason as the shooting tragedy, loose and uncontrolled.

[mita]

Couldn't agree more with all your points, inez. (We're starting a Mutual Admiration Society :) )

You're so right about registered breeders being targeted.... because they're lumped in the big category of 'breeders'.

It's not snobbery... the evidence is in that dogs coming from registered breeders are far better socialised, & those breeders have more control over numbers of litters. UQ research. Of course, there will be exceptions... but that's the statistical trend.

Given that... it means what the 'regular' registered breeder already does is fine. And should be supported as it's not the group from whom the big problems come.

Frustrating, isn't it. Seems that at the level where regulations about dogs are being made, actual evidence (of all kinds) is not being looked at. They just keep making it up.

[inez]

None of the people who bring me these babies have a clue they should walk away if the pup isnt already chipped and vaccination done or under 8 weeks. If Joe public KNEW they should walk away from any sale of the ones who are not their sellers wouldnt have a sale. End of business for them.

I forgot to add. Once these people already have their little bundle of love its already too late for education. You have a snowflakes chance of getting them to take it back once they have brought it home, it has their heart.