Steve Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Yes If I was in Victoria and voting this issue would turn me off . My point is that while ever we make laws that focus on management rather than welfare we dig bigger holes for the dogs. If his focus is on numbers we don't go anywhere. Breeders have had to spend so much money on concrete cells that they have to breed huge numbers to get their money back. There are better answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pjrt Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Who the hell needs more than 10 fertile dogs anyway? I personally have 'owned' more than 10 dogs at a time (never had more than 15 at any time) living in relative luxury in huge runs with a large exercise area, all designed within metres of the house opening onto the massive back lawn. I worked from home and ran a rescue set up. I was very strict on numbers. I was not breeding. After a few years I gave it up mainly because even without the work of raising litters I felt I just could not give each individual dog enough time. I spent 10 to 12 hours a day tending to those dogs, cleaning yards, training & exercising, feeding, cleaning beds, bowls etc, doing basic health checks, grooming etc etc .....and I still felt like they were missing out. Even though most of them had had their lives saved from our three local country pounds where if I did not take them for rehoming they were shot, and they were with me for a relatively short interim until a new home came along (fully vet worked of course) I STILL felt like they were hard done by in comparison to having maybe less than 5 dogs in a more homely environment. I also really do not think even pet dogs deserve a life where they need to be managed within he home. Kept separate from each other by divisions within the home or split yards etc. I say all this from personal experience, not just a fancy idea I thought up in my head. I was one of those people who dreamed of moving to the country and having all the dogs. For me the reality did not match the dream. I had grown up in the city and worked with dogs all of my life. I got my 30 acres in the country and took my 3 city dogs...then a few more came along. I didnt realise it for a while but the more dogs, the more stressed the dogs lives become. The more bickering there was, the occaisional scrap. Even a fight now and then. The rescue operation put more pressure on. One day I woke up and realised I was not enjoying the dogs anymore, but spending my days tending to their basic needs and 'managing' them. I rehomed the last of the rescue dogs and was down to just a few of my own. Now I live in town (country) with a small yard and 1 dog. Its bliss! I may add 1 more at some stage, maybe. I really think anyone wanting more than 10 dogs whether they be desexed pets or top shelf pedigrees is doing the dogs a disservice. I speak this from experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) I cant imagine how anyone person could want to own more than 10 fertile dogs either but the fact is clearly some do and some even have what I believe to be good reason - someone owning 10 chis is rather different to someone owning 10 staffies. Edited October 12, 2014 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapua Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 I hear what you are saying GrufLife, I think every breeder needs to consider the dogs first but also consider thie human limitations to meet their needs! That's why I am annoyed that 2 stud dogs (1 Lab & 1 Springer) and 5 entire bitches (4 Labs & 1 Springer) constitute a commercial set up.... and I am in NSW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. Well, I spit chips every time someone refers to 'the' RSPCA. There are different RSPCA organizations in each state & each can act only in accordance with that state's laws. I've seen up close & personal the Q'ld laws which have evolved since many years ago when I was close to a tibbie with orange legs rescued in an RSPCA raid on a puppy farmer who 'specialized' in small breeds in appalling conditions. The orange legs took months to fade...they were the result of a life-time standing knee deep in faeces & urine. But, still, the laws only kick in after some horrendous conditions are uncovered. And there's nothing standing in the way of one of the worst puppy farming characteristics.. & that's lack of socialisation. Which has already been pointed out in public here by an RSPCA Qld Inspector. There can be minimum physical standards which keeps the 'farmer' out of the 'horrendous' sin bin... & thus the present law. But dogs & puppies are mentally crippled by lack of socialisation... which, as the Inspector (& the research) points out...can be the most difficult/impossible to remediate. As to the Victorian law as proposed in the draft code. Again, there's no reflection of the importance of socialization & the means needed to implement it. Even tho', amazingly, one critical study appeared in the draft's References. But that should be taken as a starting point for any laws about the establishment of breeding premises... the behaviour of the breeder towards his/her dogs & puppies. By happy chance, a UQ study found that registered breeders tend to be those who socialize adequately & who also manage their litter numbers best. Which means, we want laws (in every state) that would support what these people already do... & absolutely not interfere with or prevent their doing it. My own view is that consumer awareness should be cranked up... educating people in what conditions have been found to most humanely & successfully keep, breed, raise & home companion dogs. Allowing people to vote with their feet. CHOICE (Australian Consumers' Association) has guidelines for people wanting to buy a puppy or a dog...which seeks to direct buyers away from those breeders who employ puppy farming strategies. These guidelines could well be updated.... with even more information on what to look out for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Agreed Mita Unless we also consider supply and demand - if we make it so hard for small breeders and the demand is constant the big big breeders take up the slack . We need more small breeders so there isnt so much demand for a puppy bred anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Agreed Mita Unless we also consider supply and demand - if we make it so hard for small breeders and the demand is constant the big big breeders take up the slack . We need more small breeders so there isnt so much demand for a puppy bred anywhere. Agree absolutely. And objective research backs it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Apologies Mita. I really thought the RSPCA had one national piece of legislation because they are a national body. I was sure I'd even read the legislation maybe only last year? Don't have time to look it up now but I will. Makes me wonder though why they themselves haven't sought legislative changes to enable them to protect more effectively? The whole socialisation issue is why companion animals should not be 'farmed' at all. Dogs are not like cows or sheep or pigs or chickens that you can stick in a pen or a field and let them do their thing. A knowledgeable farmer would not raise a foal destined for riding or racing without it being handled and trained because they know it would not have the right kind of temperament for the purpose and no-one would buy it. But because people willingly pay good money for a cute puppy, puppy farmers have worked out that they don't need to worry about socialisation. A cute face and maybe a bath and they good to go. The rest will be the new owner's problem. Mita, do you think the RSPCA has a role to play in public education? I could see tv ads being so valuable - something catchy that kids will remember too. Even some ads about how much it can cost to raise an animal might make some think twice. I think the RSPCA are better known across the general public than CHOICE and people seem to be so visually orientated today that I can imagine an ad having more impact than reading some guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 LG - RSPCA doesn't have any animal welfare legislation per se although they do of course have policy. Animal welfare legislation is state government based and they use the RSPCA to enforce it. I'm not sure how you change attitudes on such a tight budget (think seat belts, speeding, drink driving etc which are very resource hungry) - I am getting a LOT of puppy farm types and awful BYB examples in my classes and so many of these new owners proudly tell me they went to a "breeder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Apologies Mita. I really thought the RSPCA had one national piece of legislation because they are a national body. I was sure I'd even read the legislation maybe only last year? Makes me wonder though why they themselves haven't sought legislative changes to enable them to protect more effectively? The whole socialisation issue is why companion animals should not be 'farmed' at all. Dogs are not like cows or sheep or pigs or chickens that you can stick in a pen or a field and let them do their thing. A knowledgeable farmer would not raise a foal destined for riding or racing without it being handled and trained because they know it would not have the right kind of temperament for the purpose and no-one would buy it. But because people willingly pay good money for a cute puppy, puppy farmers have worked out that they don't need to worry about socialisation. A cute face and maybe a bath and they good to go. The rest will be the new owner's problem. Mita, do you think the RSPCA has a role to play in public education? I could see tv ads being so valuable - something catchy that kids will remember too. Even some ads about how much it can cost to raise an animal might make some think twice. I think the RSPCA are better known across the general public than CHOICE and people seem to be so visually orientated today that I can imagine an ad having more impact than reading some guidelines. Apologies back, LG, for the 'spitting chips' rave!!!! Spitting not nice! I can't speak for other states but RSPCA Qld has lobbied for stronger legislative measures re puppy farming. Given present Qld state law only kicks in when they can take severe action... after the physical conditions are horrendous. And even then, the law must be followed to the letter, because the RSPCA only gets ownership of dogs rescued in a raid.. after the matter's been tested before a magistrate. If one technicality isn't in place, the magistrate can be required to return the dogs to the farmer. That happened once, long time back... but bless the volunteer foster-carers for the RSPCA Qld. Bravely they said, 'No way will these little dogs in awful condition, be sent back!' ... putting themselves in legal peril. Fortunately, the then President of RSCPA Qld was able to personally negotiate with the farmer, to keep them. I've often wondered what would have happened if this hadn't been achieved. A whole bunch of foster-carers would've been marched off for contempt of court... for reasons of conscience! Honestly, LG, I think as many bodies as possible should be spreading the consumer message that the welfare & development of sound companion dogs goes hand in hand with well-socialized breeding practices. Which is why I've highlighted your comment. But, as other DOLers have said, there's many vested interests in commercial scale breeding. And state governments, like in Victoria, seem to be supporting them, because 'all business must be good'. Welfare of animals comes a poor second. Edited October 13, 2014 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 The RSPCA and AWL can only operate within the state laws Codes of practice, companion animals laws and animal cruelty etc. If the law says that 30 mins twice a day is enough they cant come in and say its not enough and if the breeder says they are getting it then it’s virtually impossible to prove otherwise. If the law allows one person to look after up to 200 dogs they cant do a thing about it even if its not working. None of us want to see dogs locked in concrete cells all their lives but in some states this is what is required. You cant get approval to breed dogs if you don’t keep them in such a shocking environment. In some states they RSPCA can police the codes of practice in others they cant Councils are responsible for development applications and approvals and Inspections etc. RSPCA Australia has been pushing for laws across states – the same regardless of where you live - but it is really all about management rather than welfare and little of it is based on what is best according to the science of the species. There really is so much to talk about from whether we as breeder should be made to even have the most basic of decisions taken from us such as the need to feed every dog out of a bowl at least once per day and there is a fine line between what is best and or easiest for the humans and making money and a greater line for what really is best for dogs. There are so many loop holes and so much that most are not aware of. There isn’t any point in telling everyone where to buy or not to buy when the places you are telling them they should buy from don’t have any puppies for sale or won’t sell to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 prime example - bet he is feeding them out of bowls too. http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/259842-no-permits-for-puppy-farm/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karentrimbo Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 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. I shall repeat darling to read the legal requirements a Domestic Animal Business is required to undergo. READ IT then COMMENT All breeders must comply with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, particularly with respect to the Code of Practice for the Responsible Breeding of Animals with Heritable Defects that Cause Disease. The proprietor of any business notified that an animal sold by the business has been diagnosed by a veterinary practitioner to have a heritable defect, or provided with reasonable evidence of a heritable defect in such an animal, must stop breeding from the parents of this animal until the following have been completed: • test the parents if they are still breeding where an acceptable test is available, or if a test is not available have the parents assessed by a veterinary practitioner for the defect, and • test any existing offspring of those parents still currently residing at the business where an acceptable test is available. − Ifoneorbothoftheparents have the heritable defect, genetic counselling must be obtained from a veterinary practitioner prior to continuing to breed those animals. − If any offspring have the heritable defect, a sale or euthanasia plan must be developed in conjunction with a veterinary practitioner and all details about the heritable defect and likely outcomes for the animals and their owners must be fully disclosed to prospective purchasers. This is why Lawyers make so much money, because people are so lazy to research. They would prefer to open their uneducated mouths first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karentrimbo Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 I know little of this issue but does anyone kniw why they won't ban puppy sales from pet shops? It would seem that a puppy farmer could still pump out two litters per bitch a year and still sell 200 odd puppies a year. Just more work for the bitches I suppose. They aren't going to ban the sale of rescue dogs from approved rescue facilities in the lovely shop window, but only dogs bred for profit? You either ban one or all I say… Seriously!? VERY few rescues have ever placed a pet into a shop window and no rescue is doing it for even $1 of profit. The profit on the rescue animals has already been made by the person who bred and sold the animal in the first place. The shop makes a profit by selling the accessories they hope people will buy to go with the animal. So is it the dent in your profit you are against or just the limited number of dogs? From your comments you want less laws but more laws. It doesn't make sense. If I passed compliance in April. This shows I am doing something right No it doesn't. Puppy farms easily pass their relevant compliance regulations as well. A puppy dog in the window is putting the animal in someones face. Oh look at that adorable puppy/kitten. Mum, can I have it… please… This is the usual response. No pets should be sold in a Pet Shop at all. I am sorry, but I saved a Staffie X from a RSPCA Shelter and they could not wait to get rid of me. I do not believe the checks are enough. What is good for one, should be good for all. You cannot legislate to allow rescue dogs in shop windows, but not puppies that are bred for profit. At the end of the day, the proprietor of the Pet Shop is making money. And do not tell me for a second the lost dogs home, rspca. Do not make money…. The RSPCA should be ashamed of themselves. There is always going to be rogue operators in all industries You get it in Building, Sheep farming, Horse breeding etc etc The issue is not the law itself. It is regulation. In Victoria. You are REQUIRED by LAW to have 1 FULL time staffer for every 25 FERTILE dogs. Plus all of the other requirements - WHICH I WELCOME But if a PUPPY FARMER can abide by all of the laws. GOOD ON THEM if they make money because they would not be acting unethically because the laws pretty much STAMP out rogue operators IF the RSPCA, Councils etc actually used donations and rate payers money to good use and REGULATED the industry. The set up costs alone for anyone breeding in excess of 25 would outweigh the benefits. I do not think puppy farmers have capital in the millions to make it happen to sell a puppy for $600.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 [n Victoria. You are REQUIRED by LAW to have 1 FULL time staffer for every 25 FERTILE dogs. Plus all of the other requirements - WHICH I WELCOME But if a PUPPY FARMER can abide by all of the laws. GOOD ON THEM if they make money because they would not be acting unethically because the laws pretty much STAMP out rogue operators IF the RSPCA, Councils etc actually used donations and rate payers money to good use and REGULATED the industry. You agree with 1 full time staffer for every 25 fertile dogs.... to do what? Are these the breeding & raising stock for companion dogs? If so, do you know the studies which indicate what practices tend to produce such dogs best? You seem to approve of puppy farmers making money.... I'd be more interested in the heart of the matter ... how their 'farming' practices fall short on producing companion dogs. I'd like to see consumers take their money elsewhere to those breeders whose practices are in line with the research. And evidence is that they tend to be registered breeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pjrt Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 1 full time staff for 25 fertile dogs. Even if they are 24hrs a day full time that is still less than 1 hrs a day per dog. Even if they worked 12 hrs a day its less than 30 mins per dog. NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH :mad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) 1 full time staff for 25 fertile dogs. Even if they are 24hrs a day full time that is still less than 1 hrs a day per dog. Even if they worked 12 hrs a day its less than 30 mins per dog. NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH :mad Do the sums - could be hundreds equivalent to 25 fertile animals. 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. This would be over 100 dogs on the property at any given time and counted as only 25 if they were a breed like a Maremma that has a dozen a litter! Edited October 18, 2014 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) And the question which continues to go begging is....'to do what with the X number of dogs?' And...'why?'. If these were car manufacturers we'd call them the Dodgy Brothers... if the engineering element of designing & making cars to do what cars are supposed to do, was totally off the menu. And we'd call them the Double Dodgy Brothers if they had no knowledge & skills in that engineering & manufacture. We'd find it ludicrous if all they could rabbit on about was number of cars. Today I saw an example of dogs socialized to be biddable & confident around humans (including strangers) and other dogs. I went to the Petbarn at Mitchelton in Brisbane because Red Collar Rescue (from Biggenden) was showcasing some of their dogs & taking expressions of interest. I owed this group since they rescued a couple of traumatized tibbies from a puppy farm... & wanted to donate bags of dry food. Well, they had some young dogs that had been rescued from the pound as unsold puppies. They'd been placed with foster-carers in situations that can only be described as homely... where companion dogs live closely interacting with their humans & sharing their lifestyle. In other words, a model environment for shaping the kind of experiences & behaviours which make companion dogs. And getting the best of physical care. Frankly, these young dogs were stunning ... first in their exceptionally healthy appearance, and second in their total ease around people & other dogs & even the movements of cars and traffic. The environment which had produced both, is remarkably the same as that provided by the registered breeders we've chosen to get our purebreds from. Studies back up the efficacy of what is actually done. Red Collar Rescue will be at the Petbarn in Osbourne Rd Mitchelton again tomorrow. We're going again...two more bags of dry food to give. Edited October 18, 2014 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pjrt Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 1 full time staff for 25 fertile dogs. Even if they are 24hrs a day full time that is still less than 1 hrs a day per dog. Even if they worked 12 hrs a day its less than 30 mins per dog. NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH :mad Do the sums - could be hundreds equivalent to 25 fertile animals. 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. This would be over 100 dogs on the property at any given time and counted as only 25 if they were a breed like a Maremma that has a dozen a litter! Pathetically inadequate doesn't come close to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 That's what happens when a COP is written by a pencil pusher who has never managed breeding animals. And they tell us its for the dogs - what a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now