Nsw Companion Animal Taskforce

[Steve]

Also curently Vicdogs members still have to comply with the code they just dont need a permit - new proposals were about them not needing to comply with the code.

[Steve]

NSW is much scarier for purebred breeders because there is a big push for no exemptions other than a reduction in fees.

[froggriff]

O.K. But I just spent an entire week answering the proposals and I didn't turn that up - in fact the parts where they were calculating staff ratios male dogs were specifically included in allowable numbers. Not that this surprises me it was the most tacky unprofessional proposal Ive ever seen. if its changed or the intent is to change it to fertile bitches rather than fertile dogs I haven't seen it.

The Victorian legislation (Domestic Animals Act) specifically states that it is fertile bitches. Whoever wrote the DPI info did not quote the Act correctly. The maximum number of fertile bitches a member of an applicable organisation can have while remaining exempt from being considered a domestic animal business is nine.

[Steve]

O.K. But I just spent an entire week answering the proposals and I didn't turn that up - in fact the parts where they were calculating staff ratios male dogs were specifically included in allowable numbers. Not that this surprises me it was the most tacky unprofessional proposal Ive ever seen. if its changed or the intent is to change it to fertile bitches rather than fertile dogs I haven't seen it.

The Victorian legislation (Domestic Animals Act) specifically states that it is fertile bitches. Whoever wrote the DPI info did not quote the Act correctly. The maximum number of fertile bitches a member of an applicable organisation can have while remaining exempt from being considered a domestic animal business is nine.

Would appear who ever wrote the proposals took notice of what was written in the DPI info then and not the act. Not very re assuring.

[Elenbah]

NSW is much scarier for purebred breeders because there is a big push for no exemptions other than a reduction in fees.

The only place that I saw a reduction in fees in the NSW Taskforce proposal feedback, was in the Annual Registrations where you could "tick" for a reduced fee for dogs/cats purchased from a Pound or Animal Shelter... Not even pensioners were mentioned, where as now they have reduced life time registration for their desexed pets.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Here is an example of the thinking of the OL people, in response to a newspaper article about the new laws push.

"A fellow foster carer shared this Newspaper article that she say today. Poor hobby breeders.. it would be such a shame if euthanasia wrecked their hobby.. maybe they should take up knitting or crochet."

[Steve]

Less hobby breeders equals more dogs being kept in factory like conditions - nutters.

[mita]

Less hobby breeders equals more dogs being kept in factory like conditions - nutters.

And yet the more 'towards- homestyle' practices of the registered 'hobby' breeders are linked with better socialised companion dogs.

Less likely to be people-aggressive and to be excessively fearful.

Commercial 'factory-farming' of dogs... no matter how 'good' all the infrastructure is ... does not have that research backing. Quite the opposite.

So it'd be a great loss to the pet-buying public if regulations push hobby registered breeders out.

Edited May 15, 2013 by mita

[BlackJaq]

I honestly think most dogs in pounds come from one off, accidental or under-the radar byb than registered breeders and puppy farmers together.

99% of dog owning people I know got their dog from the paper, local notice board or "a guy" they now who has puppies. I don't think I know anybody with a petshop puppy because they are ridiculously expensive, especially as most of the ones around here are usually mutts without even the fancy oodle names.

This legislation will only impact a small minority of puppy producers, Joe Public will go on their merry way popping out unsocialized staffies down the back just as generations before him did. This will not impact either impound numbers of euth numbers in opinion, except maybe to increase them as well raised, well socialized puppies from pb breeders become a rarity and people source themelsewhere

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yep, and no amount of harassing registered breeders is going to have any impact on those BYBers.

[inez]

I had an interesting phone call today. A lady whose friend rang Mr Couchman and asked "whats the Dogs NSW doing to gain any input to the proposed changes?"

Her friend then told Mr Couchman that as things presently looked like they are going, (he believes that the RSPCA will be allowed to acess all membership records,which he feels is a complete breech of the privacy laws.) If this is going to happen he will be smartly cancelling his membership and going back to the days before there were KC's.

My friend who called is going to do the same thing.

They both believe the only way they will be able to enjoy their dogs in future is dissapper like the BYB'ers.

Funny, isnt that just what led to dog owners creating all the different breeds in the first place before KCC's emerged to the scene?

Bit like "Back to the future"? Perhaps?

As she pointed out, it wasnt that long ago that there were no such thing as "registered" breeders anyway.

The real irony she said, is that most of the commercial breeders the libbers so loved to get the TV channels out to film and humiliate have already been busy and built the infrastructure these laws are set to be the only ones allowed, and are going to breeze through this.

Edited May 15, 2013 by inez

[Missymoo]

I have been reading the thread and one question I have keeps popping up. Average Joe wants a puppy, the guy next door staffie is pregnant accidently to the dog down the road. Average Joe had no idea about all these regulations about permits etc and buys puppy from next door.

How are they going to stop that? Would average Joe even care? If they can buy a puppy for $100-00 from next door why would they buy from a registered breeder for $1000? How is this all going to enforced? Backyard breeders will still be doing what they always do unless the average Joes knows exactly what the laws are and the council/rspca pounce on everyone who has a new puppy and start asking questions about where said puppy came from.

Average Joe who wants a puppy won't care. Guy next door won't care. Authorities will not police the newspapers, Facebook, signs at the local shops, they will not be policed at all.

The only people who will be policed are those doing the right thing already whether that's registered breeders or puppyfarmers.

+ 1

[Steve]

I had an interesting phone call today. A lady whose friend rang Mr Couchman and asked "whats the Dogs NSW doing to gain any input to the proposed changes?"

Her friend then told Mr Couchman that as things presently looked like they are going, (he believes that the RSPCA will be allowed to acess all membership records,which he feels is a complete breech of the privacy laws.) If this is going to happen he will be smartly cancelling his membership and going back to the days before there were KC's.

My friend who called is going to do the same thing.

They both believe the only way they will be able to enjoy their dogs in future is dissapper like the BYB'ers.

Funny, isnt that just what led to dog owners creating all the different breeds in the first place before KCC's emerged to the scene?

Bit like "Back to the future"? Perhaps?

As she pointed out, it wasnt that long ago that there were no such thing as "registered" breeders anyway.

The real irony she said, is that most of the commercial breeders the libbers so loved to get the TV channels out to film and humiliate have already been busy and built the infrastructure these laws are set to be the only ones allowed, and are going to breeze through this.

I dont believe that there is a way that any legislation can make the ANKC hand over member details to the RSPCA and Dog NSW policies make it irrelevant anyway as we have to leave ownership change to the new owner, we don't notify dogs NSW who the new owners are, we use our own prefixes to register puppies which are bred by dogs we no longer own etc. UNLESS they agree. However, some parts of their records are already able to be accessed anyway. Not a chance in hell they will get into the MDBA .

I suppose when you think about it having to show evidence of your street address to renew your membership and having to put in chip numbers in fact is info they can access anyway because its all on the companion animals registry. All they have to do is make it illegal for the chip implanter not to put the first details in any name but the breeder's - no need for them to have access to Dogs NSW info - they have us anyway .

[Steve]

Loop hole - everyone find someone in states where there isnt this crap going on and take out a joint prefix - they can be born in the NT and registered with the ANKC there but can still be moved here and chipped and sold here. Im sure the NT would welcome the extra revenue. And if the council come in and find her on your property - hell she only just arrived from her other owner who lives in another state.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Steve

[Ringo]

As it stands at the moment the only way for the RSPCA to gain access to a persons records held by Dogs NSW is to serve a search warrant on them specifying what they want. Can't be refused.

But they have to get the search warrant first which is usually associated with an investigation of some kind being undertaken by the RSPCA.

And the affadavit filed at the court to get the search warrant becomes public information so is viewable by any person to see what information was relied upon to obtain the search warrant.

It has already been done once by the RSPCA on Dogs NSW

Why they do this when the companion animals act microchip register is the primary proof of ownership for a dog in NSW is a little hard to fathom. And as you are required to microchip your animals that register has the same information. On the other hand some larger breeders do not do what the companion animals act says and register the microchip straight into the details for the new owners, not what the act says. Some designer dog breeders do the same thing as well.

[luvsdogs]

Has anyone had a meeting with their local members re their concerns about all of this? and if so what was the outcome. And no I haven't.

Edited May 21, 2013 by luvsdogs

[moosmum]

Has anyone had a meeting with their local members re their concerns about all of this? and if so what was the outcome. And no I haven't.

No meeting,but my local member had a staffer call me. Staffer is a breeder,concerned and sounds like having some input to explain breeder concerns which are being treated seriously . Said discussions on going with non commercial groups. Not able to give details at this time.

Member for fair trading says not their dept. Ha!

[luvsdogs]

Today Tonight is about to air a story on designer dogs. I hope it goes in favour of registered dog breeders.

ETA. Not what I expected. Talked about the faults that can happen when crossing 2 breeds. Hugh Worth tried to tell us that crossing was good.

Edited May 21, 2013 by luvsdogs

[dotdashdot]

I have booked a meeting with my local member, I thought it was today (rocked up at the office and everything) and was told no, it was JULY that my appointment was booked for

So could somebody tell me when it's too late to try and talk to our local member? For some reason August is in my head, but I have no idea why. If the deadline is before July 19 I'll just cancel my meeting.

[Steve]

Submissions have already closed and in my opinion its better to wait until we see what the final deal is which is going to parliament

so we know exactly what it is we are arguing against.For al we know they have looked at what we had to say and chucked most of it away- wishful thinking I know