Labor - Daniel Andrews Mp

[Karentrimbo]

Beautifully said Terri.

Karen, I was having trouble making sense of what you were trying to say before but bringing in that specific tragic case as any sort of representation of anything to do with the impact of legislation on dog breeding and welfare, let alone what registered pedigree breeders have to do with that, is utterly ridiculous.

You "rest your case" based on an irrelevant misquote? Righto.

They are both dead

They were both breeding dogs as they lived together in one apartment and were married which equals one union.

I rest my case.

[Karentrimbo]

I rest my case,

The guy that killed himself after cutting up and murdering his transexual girlfriend prostitute has started breeding dogs from his apartment to keep him occupied:

“Febri did not feel at home in Brisbane, however, he started to breed dogs about a month ago and hoped that would keep him occupied,” Ms Sukarni said.

The backyard breeders are the problem.

The property without the auditing and the facilities.

It was the poor transgender woman who was killed who was breeding dogs, not the the awful man who murdered her. The quote was from the girl's mother who still refers to her as a son. But even if it was the murderer who was breeding the dogs I hardly see how that is at all relevant to BYB and puppy farmers needing tougher regulation nor in anyway a sufficient argument to 'rest your case'.

How can a prostitute that travels the world as a hooker, who just moved to Brisbane from Melbourne. Who was living in a high-rise apartment equal an ethical dog breeder? This is just one of hundreds of examples I could pull.

Sex work is a legitimate occupation, your moral objections to it does not necessarily equate to somebody being incapable of caring for animals. I don't really think there's enough information on this poor woman's breeding practices for you to use her as an example and I think she's suffered enough without needing to be further vilified, perhaps use one of your other hundreds of other examples instead. Also I don't think high-rise apartments rule people out of being ethical breeders if they only have one male and female that are toy breeds.

Also as for rescue pups and kittens in petshops... the pet shops don't really profit from them, they are merely used as a platform by rescues and shelters to find homes. Anyone wanting to purchase one would still need to undergo the same checks as if they were getting the dog directly from the shelter or rescue as they don't belong to the petshop. I don't think it's in anyway comparable to pet shop puppies and does not harbor the same negative elements that puppies born in horrible conditions, shipped all across the country and sold for ridiculous prices to anyone willing to buy them does.

They say Petshops are not responsible because it encourages impulse buying which means that puppy or cat has a higher rate being dumped.

How do you know that the previously dumped dog, that is advertised in a pet shop won't get re dumped?

Ban all pet shop sales

[Simply Grand]

Beautifully said Terri.

Karen, I was having trouble making sense of what you were trying to say before but bringing in that specific tragic case as any sort of representation of anything to do with the impact of legislation on dog breeding and welfare, let alone what registered pedigree breeders have to do with that, is utterly ridiculous.

You "rest your case" based on an irrelevant misquote? Righto.

They are both dead

They were both breeding dogs as they lived together in one apartment and were married which equals one union.

I rest my case.

I don't understand what case you are resting??

No one who might die should breed dogs? No one married or living in one place should breed dogs?

I don't like the random breeding of dogs for the sake of it better than anyone else but I have no idea what the deal was with this particular couple and still cannot see how their individual case has anything to do with what legislation is or should be.

[Simply Grand]

[quote name=Karentrimbo' timestamp='1412769549'

post='6575924]

I rest my case,

The guy that killed himself after cutting up and murdering his transexual girlfriend prostitute has started breeding dogs from his apartment to keep him occupied:

“Febri did not feel at home in Brisbane, however, he started to breed dogs about a month ago and hoped that would keep him occupied,” Ms Sukarni said.

The backyard breeders are the problem.

The property without the auditing and the facilities.

It was the poor transgender woman who was killed who was breeding dogs, not the the awful man who murdered her. The quote was from the girl's mother who still refers to her as a son. But even if it was the murderer who was breeding the dogs I hardly see how that is at all relevant to BYB and puppy farmers needing tougher regulation nor in anyway a sufficient argument to 'rest your case'.

How can a prostitute that travels the world as a hooker, who just moved to Brisbane from Melbourne. Who was living in a high-rise apartment equal an ethical dog breeder? This is just one of hundreds of examples I could pull.

Sex work is a legitimate occupation, your moral objections to it does not necessarily equate to somebody being incapable of caring for animals. I don't really think there's enough information on this poor woman's breeding practices for you to use her as an example and I think she's suffered enough without needing to be further vilified, perhaps use one of your other hundreds of other examples instead. Also I don't think high-rise apartments rule people out of being ethical breeders if they only have one male and female that are toy breeds.

Also as for rescue pups and kittens in petshops... the pet shops don't really profit from them, they are merely used as a platform by rescues and shelters to find homes. Anyone wanting to purchase one would still need to undergo the same checks as if they were getting the dog directly from the shelter or rescue as they don't belong to the petshop. I don't think it's in anyway comparable to pet shop puppies and does not harbor the same negative elements that puppies born in horrible conditions, shipped all across the country and sold for ridiculous prices to anyone willing to buy them does.

They say Petshops are not responsible because it encourages impulse buying which means that puppy or cat has a higher rate being dumped.

How do you know that the previously dumped dog, that is advertised in a pet shop won't get re dumped?

Ban all pet shop sales

I don't think you have an understanding of how it works when rescue groups work in conjunction with pet shops. People who do know have explained earlier in the thread. Those dogs have basically as good a chance of finding their permanent home as any dog homed through a rescue as potential adopters go through the same process.

It's a completely different scenario to sales staff selling a cute puppy that a breeder has already sold to the pet shop as stock to whomever offers the sale price.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Simply Grand

[sheena]

You still havn't answered my question :) I shall repeat....do you health & genetic test & hip score the dogs that you breed from & sell on behalf of your family & friends. Genuine question from one who loves Border Collies (that you breed) & like to see the right thing done by them.

[Leah82]

As others have said you cannot 'impulse buy' a rescue dog that is being displayed in a pet shop, you need to go through the same checks and balances as if you came across the dog on pet rescue.

As far as only needing to follow the DEPI code goes, well that still leave a lot to be desired.

I have a former puppy farm bitch, she was 7 years old when I got her and from my understanding the puppy farm was 'one of the better ones' indicating that they are an approved facility.

Sarah didn't have a name, she was a scared little dog for a long time and even now (nearly 18 months later) she still jumps at loud noises and hasn't really warmed up to my husband.

She's only recently learned how to 'play' with dogs although she will still only play with our cocker spaniel, it takes her awhile to warm up to other dogs.

As far as training and stimulation goes she didn't even know to sit when I got her. Her repertoire now includes sit, drop, stand, spin, bed, come and sometimes shy but it takes her longer to learn things simply because she was never taught how to learn as a puppy.

So I realise you think this proposed legislation is a direct attack on you and your farm dogs but have a thought to the many dogs who would benefit from such a legislation. You will never be able to catch everyone that breaks the law but a law like this would mean that when people are clearly doing the wrong thing the police and RSPCA have the ability to prosecute. Without legislation behind them their hands are tied

[sunny1shine]

I rest my case,

The guy that killed himself after cutting up and murdering his transexual girlfriend prostitute has started breeding dogs from his apartment to keep him occupied:

“Febri did not feel at home in Brisbane, however, he started to breed dogs about a month ago and hoped that would keep him occupied,” Ms Sukarni said.

The backyard breeders are the problem.

The property without the auditing and the facilities.

It was the poor transgender woman who was killed who was breeding dogs, not the the awful man who murdered her. The quote was from the girl's mother who still refers to her as a son. But even if it was the murderer who was breeding the dogs I hardly see how that is at all relevant to BYB and puppy farmers needing tougher regulation nor in anyway a sufficient argument to 'rest your case'.

Sex work is a legitimate occupation, your moral objections to it does not necessarily equate to somebody being incapable of caring for animals. I don't really think there's enough information on this poor woman's breeding practices for you to use her as an example and I think she's suffered enough without needing to be further vilified, perhaps use one of your other hundreds of other examples instead.

[Tapua]

Let me put this scenario to you all. I have an ANKC breeding prefix since 1991. Originally I bred Australian Kelpies. Bench dogs - persevered through all blah blah yabber about working vs bench dog for temperament/health/ability etc. Pups went to various homes ranging from companion, service, working, show and some to other kennels as breeding stock. If you look at the results of Sydney Royal and current top winners you will find my past Prefix behind them (Mimbil). But long ago decided that when I breed what I bring into my kennel and what goes from my kennels is my responsibility. I bred maybe 10 litters between 1991 and 2006. I often wouldn't breed for a few years. I am not sure I qualified as a puppy farmer.

So in 2006 after becoming disillusioned with the attitude of bench dog breeders I changed to Labs. Now here is an interesting thing, because I choose to breed dogs that experienced Early Neurological Stimulation, are raised in an enriched environment, are highly socialised and who are desensitised to sounds I started to attract a clientele who sought service dogs for people with special needs. Via the growing success of this we were approached to breed Labs & Springers for the ADF and now the Police are looking at our dogs too. Wonderful they have a purposeful life :) I am a happy breeder.

Then the other weekend a nob neighbour ... 3 1/2 acre blocks away from us, put a complaint into council our dogs are barking - after we were away for the weekend. The direct neighbours were looking after our dogs for us while we were away. Council visited, they very impressed with set up but have decided that because we supply service dogs were are a commercial set up and have to apply for 'Approval as a Breeding Complex'. Now council are not being jerk,s it is actually about shutting up the serial whinger and allowing us to continue what we are doing.

That's sounds good doesn't it? But I would argue that while I may now be breeding say 1-3 litters a year - I don't consider myself to be a 'Puppy Farmer' but technically being classified as a commercial business I am. Do I make money - yep - and sometimes a profit but my set up costs exceed $90K so it will be a long time before I see clear profits.

So before people righteously judge registered breeder it is damn hard and expensive to do it right. Yes some breeders are definitely not ethical - and their dogs are suffering for it - however I think I am an ethical breeder. Julie is right - the people who are doing the right thing are the ones who will pay for the blanket thrown over the much slighted term 'Breeder'

Edited October 12, 2014 by Tapua

[tdierikx]

Gotta love laws that make it easier to "police" those doing the right thing right out of business - and leaving those mass producing pups for the "pet market" virtually untouched... *sigh*

T.

[mita]

Regarding rescue dogs, what I was saying is if you are going to ban dogs bred for profit from pet shop windows, you should be banning the pet shops that sell rescue dogs too....

Two different rehoming options.

Selling puppies in petshops is a purely commercial undertaking. Consumer has money, passes it over, gets puppy to take home. Research from UQ showed that a leading cause of dogs later being dumped, was that the dog did not 'live up to an owner's expectations'. Which would indicate the need for screening & counselling of potential owners at point of sale. But both of which are not available in commercial transactions where profit is the priority.

Making available rescue dogs in pet shops (by responsible rescue agencies) is non-commercial in that there is screening/counselling according to the agency's guidelines ... & the agency reserves the right to refuse to sell a dog, based on that. Suitable rehoming is the priority, not profit.

Edited October 12, 2014 by mita

[Steve]

Beautifully said Terri.

Karen, I was having trouble making sense of what you were trying to say before but bringing in that specific tragic case as any sort of representation of anything to do with the impact of legislation on dog breeding and welfare, let alone what registered pedigree breeders have to do with that, is utterly ridiculous.

You "rest your case" based on an irrelevant misquote? Righto.

They are both dead

They were both breeding dogs as they lived together in one apartment and were married which equals one union.

I rest my case.

For the record they were not breeding dogs - they had purchased a pair of dogs which they were intending to breed with when they moved onto a larger property and they made the breeder who sold them the dogs believe they were intending to do it all right. Dont believe everything you read and make assumptions about in a newspaper. The dogs were only 4 months old.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Steve

[Steve]

Here are some of the issues in the mix in Victoria with a push on for the same crap in each state.

First one

Before this code was changed there was no staff ratio other than enough to adequately care for the animals. This meant that someone could come in and tell them they needed more staff to cover it and they had to comply. If someone can show me how this change in the legislation could possibly make things better for the dogs who live there and see less dogs suffering, and why addressing how many a breeder can own before anything else on the list I would appreciate it

Do the sums and work out how many one staff member is able to look after and legally be seen to be having the right staff to dog ratio. Remember– bitches usually come in season together and some breeds have up to 14 in a litter my experience tells me an average of 6 per litter is a fair assumption.

According to the code of practice.

2 (6) Staff ratio

The minimum of one full-time staff member (includes any staff member including proprietor, operations manager and animal attendants)must be onsite at the business for every 25 fertile animals (or equivalent)housed in the business during business hours. The staffing ratio must be maintained 7 days per week.

A single fertile animal equivalent is:

• any animal over the age of 16 weeks

• a litter and its mother while the litter remains housed with its mother

• a litter no longer residing with its mother, but under the age of 16 weeks.

For example, 14 females, 3 males, 6 litters residing with their mothers, and 2 litters without their mothers is equivalent to 25 fertile animals and require one full-time staff member during business hours.

In addition, the minimum of one staff member (includes any staff member including proprietor, operations manager and animal attendants)must be onsite at the business for every 100 fertile animals (or equivalent)housed in the business overnight. For example, 80 females,

5 males, 10 litters with their mothers and 5 litters without their mothers is equivalent to 100 fertile adults and requires one full-time staff member overnight.

In addition, sufficient staff (including those already residing at the business overnight) for a ratio of 1:50 fertile animals (or equivalent) housed in the business overnight must be 'on call' to attend the business in the case of an emergency. On call overnight staff must be able to travel to the property within 30 minutes of contact.

Overnight staff must be available to care for whelping/queening animals, sick or injured animals and undertake emergency activities should the need arise.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Steve

[Steve]

Then look at how long they have to be exercised - adult dog 2 x 30 mins per day !

[Steve]

Must consistof a minimum of

30 minutes human handling per dog daily

So someone tell me how does one human "staff" handle up to 200 dogs for 30 mins each day?

[*Avanti*]

I best leave the breeders issues to the experts but given this thread by title is almost electioneering for the Victorian LNP I wish to say this: Maybe Labor and Daniel Andrews have their heart/s is in the right place regarding animal welfare but need more assistance in policy making from people with experience and knowledge in this area. They are not in office yet! At least they are opposed to the current Liberal government's, plans for a huge tunnel and freeway network in inner Melbourne that is planned to be right next to the Melbourne Zoo. There are concerns this could seriously impact or the health of the animals.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/fears-of-eastwest-link-impact-on-zoo-animals-20131003-2uxg6.html

http://www.thecitizen.org.au/features/risk-animals-makes-tunneling-near-zoo-illogical-say-east-west-opponents

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/east-west-link-protesters-claim-tunnel-will-affect-animals-at-melbourne-zoo/story-fni0fit3-1226905021914

Anyway I do not wish to derail the thread but wanted to add this information since dol is a national forum and a lot of members may not know the bigger picture in Victoria.

[Little Gifts]

So before people righteously judge registered breeder it is damn hard and expensive to do it right. Yes some breeders are definitely not ethical - and their dogs are suffering for it - however I think I am an ethical breeder. Julie is right - the people who are doing the right thing are the ones who will pay for the blanket thrown over the much slighted term 'Breeder'

Every time there is a story about a puppy farmer and the pictures show matted dogs living in their own faeces I want to throttle the RSPCA. They already have national laws to protect all creatures great and small. If puppy farms and back yard breeders are going to continue to exist then instead of making new laws (that can cost millions to implement and millions more to police) why not use the ones we already have to protect the animals making money for these people? I'm sure the RSPCA knows where many of them are already and if they were out there protecting those animals who are potentially in the most vulnerable of positions - being used to make someone money rather than living in a companion capacity, then perhaps new laws that miss the point would not even be considered necessary. Perhaps they could even spend some money on educational programs advising the general public on how best to choose and raise a healthy a companion animal regardless of where they source it from.

How do they keep getting away with not doing their job???? BYB and puppy farmed dogs are always going to be at higher risk of harm or neglect because of how they are raised and because the numbers of dogs produced in this category are higher there also has to be a co-relation with the numbers ending up in pounds, shelters and rescues. Basic common sense that most of us seem to get. So why do the RSPCA seemingly do nothing to enforce adequate care of these animals on an ongoing basis? Instead they prefer to do a big raid, show pictures of something that used to look like a dog, call on the public for assistance to cover their stretched resources (ie money) and still put most of those dogs down (blaming it on the puppy farmer). As with most animal welfare solutions it is again the animals who suffer the most from these 'efforts'. If all the checks and balances were occurring at these regulated premises then how do breeding bitches end up being subjected to years of neglect and abuse? That is in effect saying that not one enforcing officer or unbiased person (vet, member of the public) saw that dog for years. How is that actually even possible if the premises are meeting their lawful requirements as a business????

[Christina]

So before people righteously judge registered breeder it is damn hard and expensive to do it right. Yes some breeders are definitely not ethical - and their dogs are suffering for it - however I think I am an ethical breeder. Julie is right - the people who are doing the right thing are the ones who will pay for the blanket thrown over the much slighted term 'Breeder'

Every time there is a story about a puppy farmer and the pictures show matted dogs living in their own faeces I want to throttle the RSPCA. They already have national laws to protect all creatures great and small. If puppy farms and back yard breeders are going to continue to exist then instead of making new laws (that can cost millions to implement and millions more to police) why not use the ones we already have to protect the animals making money for these people? I'm sure the RSPCA knows where many of them are already and if they were out there protecting those animals who are potentially in the most vulnerable of positions - being used to make someone money rather than living in a companion capacity, then perhaps new laws that miss the point would not even be considered necessary.

That is exactly what I am always saying too. It feels like stating the bleeding obvious.

Why can't people see this instead of calling for all this useless & ridiculous, time & money wasting, bumbling inefficient waffling. More rules & regulations that won't make life good for dogs with callous owners anyway.

[Steve]

I best leave the breeders issues to the experts but given this thread by title is almost electioneering for the Victorian LNP I wish to say this: Maybe Labor and Daniel Andrews have their heart/s is in the right place regarding animal welfare but need more assistance in policy making from people with experience and knowledge in this area. They are not in office yet! At least they are opposed to the current Liberal government's, plans for a huge tunnel and freeway network in inner Melbourne that is planned to be right next to the Melbourne Zoo. There are concerns this could seriously impact or the health of the animals.

http://www.theage.co...1003-2uxg6.html

http://www.thecitize...-west-opponents

http://www.heraldsun...3-1226905021914

Anyway I do not wish to derail the thread but wanted to add this information since dol is a national forum and a lot of members may not know the bigger picture in Victoria.

I hear you and if it wasnt for the "all breeders will only own 10 dogs" I would have been the first to vote for them but they lost me with this one.

[Steve]

And when government changes hands you still have the same public servants who advise them so it goes on the same regardless of who is in power - minor changes but nothing that helps.

[*Avanti*]

I hear you and if it wasnt for the "all breeders will only own 10 dogs" I would have been the first to vote for them but they lost me with this one.

I presume you mean there are similar proposals in NSW unless you have moved to Victoria. I hear you too but I do think the lack of consideration for the Melbourne Zoo's animals is appalling but it is also a topic for another thread!

Edited October 12, 2014 by LabTested