Nsw Companion Animal Taskforce

[lester]

So, the NSW Government has a report from a committee chaired by an MP who is a vet, with recommendations including licensing that have the support of the RSPCA and AWL who are organisations that are much loved by the public and as a result have 1) deep pockets, 2) widespread connections in the media and elsewhere and 3) high cred with the politicians who will decide this matter. What do you think are the chances of the Government just saying "oh well, a few posters on DogzOnline don't want laws, they want an education strategy. How many millions have they got for a campaign to persuade our voters? Not a one? Oh well, that doesn't matter - let's be brave. Forget about laws, let's just do a few pamphlets for the kiddies." Hmmm? In politics, "brave" is a 5 letter word. That's 4 letters with an extra one just for emphasis.

Do you think that if the MPs went soft on this they wouldn't be reminded forcefully by the animal rights groups about their campaign that brought the Australian live beef export industry to its knees and engulfed politicians and industry in huge embarrassment and huge financial losses? Do you think they wouldn't be reminded of the dreaded BBC campaign and hear us all being branded as irresponsible breed fetishists? Do you think the animal rights people wouldn't draw comparisons with us, the responsible pure bred dog breeders of Australia? Perhaps you think the animal rights people are too fair and honest to do such a thing. Do you?

It's time for a reality check people. This issue will not go the way of the "educate don't legislate" people, and it will not go away. We have a chance of grabbing it and turning it into a good thing for dogs and a good thing for responsible breeders if we are sensible, reasonable, clearly understanding of the issues and united behind a positive proposal. Say "no" to licensing on the feedback form and support the DogsNSW proposal to take up the registration/licensing role in the comment section, and in respectful but passionate letters to MPs and Ministers. The rest is detail.

[inez]

Excellent post and thanks

Much better explaination and easier to understand than the one I read on the DOGS NSW site.

eg

Dear Member, every single one of you.

“We are fighting for our very existence! You must join us in this fight!”

The Companion Animal Taskforce Reports to the Ministers for Local Government and Primary Industries include a number of recommendations which are opposed by a large number of members of Dogs NSW, particularly those who are breeders. The implications are very significant and, even for those Members who are not breeders, it could severely restrict the availability of pure bred puppies, with which you can pursue your hobby activities as a show exhibitor or trialler, with your breed of choice. There is a very real potential that some breeds with relatively restricted gene pools could be totally wiped out.

The opposition to certain recommendations in the reports was voiced loudly and clearly by many hundreds of Members at two Special Meetings held over the past week to assist members in understanding the possible consequences of a number of the recommendations being conveyed into binding legislation.

In response to the overwhelming concerns expressed by Members leading up to and at those Meetings, the Board of Directors have appointed a Steering Committee to develop and implement the strategy for responding to the Reports. This Committee draws on the extensive knowledge and experience of a number of our Members and, as President, I sincerely thank each one of them for making their considerable time available to assist the company and its Members in this task.

We have also necessarily engaged external expertise in areas where it is urgently required.

The purpose of this particular article is to alert you to one of the important ways which are available for members to respond to the recommendations. It is the Feedback Form provided by the Division of Local Government on their website.

The way it has been set up by the Division, it is expected that most respondees will in fact do so online. They cannot however reject submissions which are made by Members who do not have access to the Internet and that could still apply to several thousand of our Members given that we only hold email addresses for 7000+ of our 10,000+ Members.

[espinay2]

Steve, what is the mechanism for gaining that approval? There has to be some kind of mechanism if approval is required.

I think I get what Ringo is saying - if the mechanism for approval is through the council LEP, then the Land and environment court makes a distinction between commercial and non-commercial which is relevant to application of the LEP.

You have to apply to council just as you would if you were intending to use the land for any other purpose which requires council approval - via a planning approval application.

I am guessing then that it would depend on your property zoning under the council LEP, which is what specifies what use requires approval and what is exempt. Reading my own council LEP and zoning requirements it doesnt make it clear at all, so I have written to council for clarification.

Just to follow up on this, I got a written reply from my council. Basically it does depend on your zoning. And then the definition of 'commercial' (this is probably the greyest area, but is where the LEC ruling Ringo was talking about would come in). Council advice was basically in my situation and zone, additional approvals were not required. Happy to share the reply privately if someone wants to read it.

[luvsdogs]

I filled in the Taskforce Response form this morning. It took 3 goes for them to accept my response

(keep persisting if you are rejected/time outed).

If the reference no's on the online response form are anything to go by only 980 people have responded to the taskforce response paper since my son did his over a week ago. Come on people, fill in the form & send them in. With Dogs NSW saying they have 7000 member email addresses, that is not good enough IMHO.

Although I'm not a breeder, I don't want my choice of puppy from a pure bred registered dog breeder restricted because most of them can't afford to keep breeding.

[Jed]

Apparently, only 800+ forms have been filled in and returned.

Look forward to paying a licensing fee, peeps, or complete and return the form :)

[luvsdogs]

That's even worse Jed. I received yet another desperate email from Dogs NSW begging members to send in their responses for family members as well, so did one for OH.

[Steve]

About a thousand responses - only just over 400 are members of a registered body. We are once again out numbered by the welfare sector.

[Bjelkier]

Where are these numbers written?

[mita]

I

Although I'm not a breeder, I don't want my choice of puppy from a pure bred registered dog breeder restricted because most of them can't afford to keep breeding.

Good on you & I totally agree with your reasoning.

I'm not impressed with the work of that NSW Companion Animal Taskforce. The unique contribution of registered breeders & how they go about achieving it, should've been recognised in the original paper.

They're the only group in dog breeding that have solid evidence that the majority do what they do well, in how they produce dogs suitable to be companion dogs. Which means they reduce the risk of their dogs becoming welfare problems. So what they already do is fine & should be supported, not penalised so they can't afford to keep breeding.

[Jed]

I hope you submitted a response, Mita, (or a couple) saying just that - as an interested member of the public. Great response. We know that, but someone needs to tell them

[mita]

I hope you submitted a response, Mita, (or a couple) saying just that - as an interested member of the public. Great response. We know that, but someone needs to tell them

Jed. will they accept a response from a Q'ld person? If so, I will.

And here's the research. Findings were clear. The tendency is for registered breeders to socialise their puppies well.

So people getting puppies from the majority of registered breeders, will have little ones with the base for being a companion dog already in place.

The paper says straight out, that people buying puppies from unregistered breeders will not tend to get this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21985351

Of course, there'll be exceptions, but that's the statistically significant tendency.

Overall, it means that registered breeders are already doing something very important well. So why put them in a position of no longer being able to afford showing, breeding & raising puppies. Which would reduce the numbers of well-socialised puppies available. And that would be the pet-buying public's loss.

As poor socialisation is linked with the development of later behaviour problems in companion dogs, there are implications for welfare & dog management problems.

And the researchers say this should be teased out & measured in later studies.

Edited May 7, 2013 by mita

[Jed]

I am sure they will accept something from Q. DogsNSW is advising people to state on their forms "interested person" rather than CC member. Last time people said they were CC members, they gov. counted ALL the responses as one!

I have sent one in as an interested person.

I like what you have written, and I am sure most purebred people agree with you, but you have said it well and I think it is going to take a big effort to overcome this one.

Do it for the dogs :)

[Elenbah]

About a thousand responses - only just over 400 are members of a registered body. We are once again out numbered by the welfare sector.

We were all told to do our feedback in as "An Interested Individual" Steve because last year (July) nearly 1000 submissions with member of a registered body were deemed as one submission and counted as such....

Edited May 7, 2013 by Elenbah

[Cat]

Wow..that sounds pretty dodgy

[luvsdogs]

Although I'm not a breeder, I don't want my choice of puppy from a pure bred registered dog breeder restricted because most of them can't afford to keep breeding.

Good on you & I totally agree with your reasoning.

I'm not impressed with the work of that NSW Companion Animal Taskforce. The unique contribution of registered breeders & how they go about achieving it, should've been recognised in the original paper.

They're the only group in dog breeding that have solid evidence that the majority do what they do well, in how they produce dogs suitable to be companion dogs. Which means they reduce the risk of their dogs becoming welfare problems. So what they already do is fine & should be supported, not penalised so they can't afford to keep breeding.

Thanks mita.

When I submitted my response I used the Dogs NSW suggestion. I wasn't able to think what I really wanted to say. I nearly didn't put interested individual on the form, glad now I did. Thought it funny that they, DogsNSW, didn't tell us to put our respective clubs. Very dodgy indeed Cat.

To put another spanner in the works, tonight the Project did a story on Lane Cove Council wanting to charge members of the public a yearly fee for walking their dogs in their parks. As someone interviewed said "double dipping" as home owners already pay their council rates etc & if they go ahead with it other councils could follow suit.

Edited May 7, 2013 by luvsdogs

[mita]

I

I like what you have written, and I am sure most purebred people agree with you, but you have said it well and I think it is going to take a big effort to overcome this one.

Do it for the dogs :)

Most p/b registered breeders would agree because they're actually doing it. The research measured it .... & the jargon gives it a name 'socialisation'. It's the one thing that sticks out a mile in developing a dog into a companion animal.

The NSW Companion Animal Taskforce should've have started with it, when they wrote that paper.

If it's companion animals they're talking about & wanting to 'regulate', they should say exactly what that means and what's necessary to 'produce' them.

Like, if you were setting up a system to produce widgets, you first have to know what the hell widgets are & what has to be done to make them.

So I'd be handing back that paper to the Taskforce, with the comment, 'You didn't answer the question. So how can you set up a system of management of companion dogs?'

I noticed there was no member on the Taskforce representing research, like a representative from a University. Their first move is always to define exactly what's being spoken about & do a search of current research that might throw light on it.

If someone had done that.... up would've come the UQ study showing that registered breeders are the group who tend to socialise their dogs/puppies best. And pointing to why this is so important for dogs to become companion dogs.

So, first conclusion would've been to support whatever it is that this group of breeders is already doing. And make sure any changes don't get in the way of their continuing to do it.

Why didn't they put someone from Sydney University on the Taskforce? Great research about dogs, from that place. Or borrow someone from UQ .... where they have the bonds between dogs & people as one of their major research areas. Monash University is another.

I looked at the small bunch of References at the end of the Taskforce's paper. I couldn't see one that related to the essential question... how are dogs best bred, raised & managed so they become suitable as companion dogs.

Edited May 8, 2013 by mita

[luvsdogs]

wow mita, I hope you have submitted a response with some of that info in the Comments window.

I received an email from dlg thanking me for my response &

& some I would think.

[_PL_]

It may be relevant (sorry if it's been brought up already) ...NSW Govt is looking at amalgamating councils into 'Super Councils'. So what your council says now, may be completely different later.

[mita]

wow mita, I hope you have submitted a response with some of that info in the Comments window.

Completing the feedback form ensures that the NSW Government receives your input into all of the companion animals issues considered by the Taskforce.] & some I would think.

Where's the feedback form? And I hope there's lots of space in the Comments window. Because the things that need to be said to them are presently nowhere in their paper.

Not only is there nothing in the Taskforce paper about what's needed to 'make' a dog, a companion dog... but there's nothing from us pet owners' perspective, as consumers.

As you said, a little back, if the changes knock so many of the registered breeders out of the game, then consumers will have less access to puppies bred by the people who are likely to produce the best socialised puppies.

And it's not only socialisation that's likely best from registered breeders. Even tho' the Pedigree Dogs Exposed stuff left the idea that purebreds are unhealthier, the evidence points to purebreds being extensively studied to improve health.

The breeders of my own breed of interest are currently thrilled pink, because UK research has come up with screening for late onset PRA. Same with other breeds.

I've yet to see top-notch, internationally recognised health research aimed at improving the health of mixed-breed puppy farmed dogs.

If anyone has influence with Dogs NSW, get them to encourage submissions from university researchers.... & from individual pet owners, because we are the consumers.

All our Tibbies, except one, came from NSW registered breeders. I'd be appalled if these people were no longer able to afford what they're already doing brilliantly. Like heaps of others with other breeds.

Edited May 9, 2013 by mita

[Sheridan]

Well, I tried to provide comments and got a 'incorrect validation key' response. Will see if I can provide a response by email.