For All The Unethical (But Responsible) Dog Owners ...

[Steve]

Steve wrote

There will never be a situation where you NEED to be registered with an ANKC state body unless you want to show dogs in ANKC recognised events and'/ or if you want to provide ANKC registered pedigrees with your puppies. Both of these are voluntary and always will be.

Well, first of all, says who? When the debate of licensing first came up, it was opposed by various state canine associations with the argument being "our members are already licensed". True, but, it would seem that there is some common ground in the licensing of non registered breeders…….

Steve wrote

Dogs NSW breeders are already licensed by Dogs NSW and members must pass an examination before being accredited by Dogs NSW. Dogs NSW members abide by a strict and enforceable Code of Ethics.

Can you show me where I said this? I cant imagine why I would say such a thing and if I did I would like to know where you took that quote from to enable me to retract it. Dogs NSW breeders are not licenced by Dogs NSW though members must pass an examination before obtaining a breeders prefix which enables them to register their puppies.Not all members abide by a strict and enforceable code of ethics and I agree 100% that there are no criminal penalties for non compliance though there is a system which does apply fines. Breach of code of practice via the state for breeding dogs does not carry criminal penalties either . In all states but Victoria the same laws apply to all breeders regardless of which group they are in. In Victoria if you are a Vicdogs member and own under 10 dogs you do not need to comply with the same laws that all other breeders do.

So couple of issues here:- First, whilst Dogs NSW breeders (and this applies nationwide) are in a sense licensed and have a requirement to adhere to a code of ethics, the fact is that there are no monetary or criminal penalties for non compliance. Second, is there a suggestion that there is one law for part of the dog breeding industry and exemptions for others? Doesn't make any good sense.

The reality is Steve, some of these registered breeders of purebred dogs are in fact puppy mills……Are we suggesting that we ignore these with exemptions?

Again Im not sure what you are talking about we seem to be on a different wave lengths . Of course I know some of these registered breeders are doing the wrong thing and how can we ignore the exemptions when they exist?

Do I think they should exist? No I dont

Steve wrote

A licence requirement in NSW would never see an increase in registered ANKC breeders.

In Victoria exemptions on needing a licence are given to people who are Vicdogs members and who own under 10 dogs [that cant happen in NSW] - sure they may have picked up a few member numbers because of this but why would a group of people want people in that group with them who only joined so they dont have to get a licence rather than because they share their philosophy?

Exactly! Whenever any sort of license is required there are standards and regulations that apply. We don't simply issue a piece of paper to anyone who wants to breed…..Its not about numbers, its about animal welfare and reducing the numbers in pounds/shelters…..Its never going to be zero its only ever going to be at best reduced. The same codes and standards would apply to all breeders. Dogs NSW have already expressed this sentiment.

So if the same codes and standards apply to all breeders what benefit would there be for people who dont want to show their dog or issue DogsNSW registered pedigrees to join DogsNSW and jump through all the hoops , pay all the extra money - how would that increase the numbers of registered DogsNSW breeders?

Dogs NSW welcomes the announcement of a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into companion animal breeding practices and is opposed to puppy farming by unlicensed breeders.

In response to the announcement of the Inquiry by the NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Niall Blair, Dogs NSW recommends that the breeding of all dogs be subject to the same Code of Ethics that its members must follow to ensure the health, well-being and integrity of puppies offered for sale.

You cant have it both ways…….There has to be some common ground here. If you want more members who hold the same philosophical POV then you either market for it or encourage people to that way of thinking by legislation. It really is a fine line between the carrot and the stick…..If the carrot doesn't work then the stick needs to be applied in a manner where its not to constrictive.

So who said this and under what context and how does that have to do with me and what I said ?

Steve wroteHow do we get more registered breeders and how do we stop dogs being dumped is not about introducing licensing.

Actually it is Steve, a license would require the breeder to

• Adhere to a code of ethics and a breeding standard similar to that of Dogs NSW and the requirement for owners of dogs issued with papers that are to be bred to hold prefix's before license issue.

• Limit the number of licenses issued??

• Limit the number of litters a bitch can have

• Increasing the space of confinement

• The requirement for vets to report

• Etc etc

There is scope for more control over the way dogs are treated. The ability to glean data on a host of issues surrounding the entire industry nation wide helping us better the treatment of animals and reduce shelter/pound number further. There would also be added benefits in other areas such as control on taxation/income plus more.

To suggest legislating for a biased way of thinking held by a small minority in the land of dog breeding is pretty nutty.And Firstly all breeders in NSW already have to comply with breeding standards similar if not more strict than Dogs NSW secondly are you seriously telling me that you expect legislation to determine whether someone has to join a minority group in order to breed their dog [only if its got papers] to get approval to breed it ? Limit the number of licences issued - nuts .

Limit the number of litter a dog can have - why? Im all for increasing the size of confinement but hard to see how that is integral to your argument.Vets reporting stops dogs getting vets to treat them and vets will never agree to this

Edited June 1, 2016 by Steve

[sandgrubber]

Some parts of California have mandatory spey/neuter laws. These mean you must have a license to keep a mature dog or bitch that isn't speutered. The biggest outcome of this seems to be that fewer and fewer people are registering their pets with the local county (ie,,council), and some people are turning their dogs over to shelters because they aren't willing to pay desexing costs. The restrictions make sense in theory . . . licenses for breeding dogs are automatic if you don't have a record of violating dog laws; they require annual veterinary health checks, and of course, payment of licensing fees. Shelter populations have been reduced, but that probably owes more to widespread subsidized speutering and social pressure to speuter than it does to mandatory speutering. See, eg., http://www.scanimalshelter.org/planned_pethood_fees

[RuralPug]

Maybe we can do something like: before any breeder gets a permit to sell puppies they must produce vet records, microchip records etc. for that litter.Those breeding more than say, 10 litters in a calendar year would need to be registered as a business per their state laws (e.g. in Victoria a Domestic Animal Business).

You can either have agencies to provide the permits (ANKC, working dog registry, other approved registries for example which could charge a small fee) OR you could have state stamp duty payable (as for motor cars) and have a state govt department provide permits. In the latter case there would be the stamp duty incentive for the state to provide actual decent policing of unlicensed selling.

I would also like to see that breeders are required to microchip puppies and kittens before giving them away free UNLESS they are giving the litter to an approved rescue/rehoming organisation. I am sadly aware that the only "approved" rescues in some states are the big shelters and council impounds, but this would be a stronger incentive for desexing, as you couldn't even give away kittens without shelling out for chipping.

The push to have the breeders' ID permanently included on the microchip is a great one as it will mean that we should be able to track where the dumped dogs are originating. I would like to see this in more states.

[Willem]

I find it interesting that the US, Canada and Australia seem to have the same problems regarding dogs, and that they adopt the same approach (desexing) as the silver bullet. Europe doesn't promote desexing the same way (in Norway it is even prohibited) and consequently the percentage of entire dogs is significant higher - still, it seems they have less problems with pounds and overpopulation.

I lived in Germany and know other European countries a little bit, and one difference to Australia (and I assume Australia is similar to US and Canada) is that it is nearly impossible to breed dogs 'underground'. IMO there are 2 reasons:

1. lack of remoteness: it is very hard to find a place where you could do it without alarming any neighbours who would dob you in;
   
2. legislation and law enforcement
   

...obviously we can't address the 'remoteness aspect' in Australia...

[Steve]

Maybe we can do something like: before any breeder gets a permit to sell puppies they must produce vet records, microchip records etc. for that litter.Those breeding more than say, 10 litters in a calendar year would need to be registered as a business per their state laws (e.g. in Victoria a Domestic Animal Business).

You can either have agencies to provide the permits (ANKC, working dog registry, other approved registries for example which could charge a small fee) OR you could have state stamp duty payable (as for motor cars) and have a state govt department provide permits. In the latter case there would be the stamp duty incentive for the state to provide actual decent policing of unlicensed selling.

I would also like to see that breeders are required to microchip puppies and kittens before giving them away free UNLESS they are giving the litter to an approved rescue/rehoming organisation. I am sadly aware that the only "approved" rescues in some states are the big shelters and council impounds, but this would be a stronger incentive for desexing, as you couldn't even give away kittens without shelling out for chipping.

The push to have the breeders' ID permanently included on the microchip is a great one as it will mean that we should be able to track where the dumped dogs are originating. I would like to see this in more states.

There is so much wrong with microchipping laws that you can write a book on it especially when you start comparing systems in different states and I still believe the answer to where do dogs in pounds come from could be answered by appropriate microchip laws.

But this requires a government listening to BREEDERS to understand the issues and potential loop holes and closing them,and potential unintended consequences by the small print, it requires enforcement of the laws. it requires the public understanding that purchasing a puppy without a chip is undesirable etc.

New amendments come in for NSW July 1st and they sound good until you look at them knowing the politics of the people who will be called on to follow them - the breeders and seeing how they will be understandably circumvented. In my opinion less not more dogs will be chipped in NSW prior to sale due to these introductions. The chances of a fine are negligible and if a fine comes for selling a pup un chipped many breeders are saying its worth the risk .Its worth the risk today and after the 1st of July for many people the risk of being fined for not chipping puppies is preferable to being targeted because they have more than average litters etc. So many things they haven't taken into account which could have given a great resource but in my opinion a negative impact will be seen.

You cant make purchasing a dog without a chip illegal unless you want to make more pets homeless and non chipped dogs contraband. But you can reward the public if they purchase a pup that is chipped prior to sale - in other words if it is chipped in someone other than their name before they buy it .You can give them a discount on their registrations just as in the OP we give discounts for desexed dogs and cats.That wont cure the problem but it would raise community awareness of what is required by a seller they are considering buying from.

Then you need a system such as car registration transfers in NSW where both the buyer and the seller are responsible for transfer of details. Then you need council to see that if they enforce registration and microchip laws that its not sucking money and resources but bringing more in.

Perhaps there is a start up enterprise for someone who subcontracts to council to do their work for them. Walking the streets, door knocking and issuing fines for non registration and non microchipping, directing people to get better fencing to contain their dogs,fining them for having their dogs on the street not leashed etc, picking up puppy sales where the breeder is not complying etc. This frees up their rangers and allows them to continue issue parking fines ,makes someone rich if they get to keep the fines and a percentage of rego fees.

Either way wanting more laws and licenses and permits only making one part of the chain [breeders] be seen to be responsible for dogs being dumped etc is not on and only creates scoff laws that only those already doing it alright comply with.

You have to consider ALL groups and types of breeders, the politics, culture and you have to work with breeders not just animal rights loonies, rescue and bureaucrats. It has to be about the dogs not just the votes.

Licences, permits have been proven not to work - Victoria its given us more huge commercial kennels, less small hobby breeders same numbers dumped . The only way people who are not complying are picked up is after a complaint ,then they are given time to comply ,they comply and continue on. Not having a licence, not microchipping, not registering dogs is not criminal its a warning and at worst a fine

[Steve]

I find it interesting that the US, Canada and Australia seem to have the same problems regarding dogs, and that they adopt the same approach (desexing) as the silver bullet. Europe doesn't promote desexing the same way (in Norway it is even prohibited) and consequently the percentage of entire dogs is significant higher - still, it seems they have less problems with pounds and overpopulation.

I lived in Germany and know other European countries a little bit, and one difference to Australia (and I assume Australia is similar to US and Canada) is that it is nearly impossible to breed dogs 'underground'. IMO there are 2 reasons:

1. lack of remoteness: it is very hard to find a place where you could do it without alarming any neighbours who would dob you in;
2. legislation and law enforcement

...obviously we can't address the 'remoteness aspect' in Australia...

Maybe - but couple of issues

1. Why do some breeders in Australia feel they need to breed their dogs in remote areas - that's a whole new thread

2. the MDBA has breeder members in most European countries and we have also over 300 pet owner members who live in European countries and thats growing every day so I know them - especially the breeders as well as I know our Australian members and its a completely different attitude to breeders and what they breed to what it is here. We issue registered pedigrees for over 100 puppies born each year in Norway and the breeders are not concerned as we are about keeping their camp fires low and staying off the track in fear of being belted. They are seen in high regard and respected for their expertise within the community. They are proud of what they do and not having to constantly defend themselves and being considered pond scum as breeders are here. Some breed dogs as a full time occupation though most are hobby breeders. Their laws and regs are based on science for the species rather than what animal rights have petitioned for.

So remoteness may play a role but they don't play the same animal rights games and politics Australia, Canada and the USA do.

[Dogdragon]

Steve wrote:

Can you show me where I said this? I cant imagine why I would say such a thing and if I did I would like to know where you took that quote from to enable me to retract it. Dogs NSW breeders are not licenced by Dogs NSW though members must pass an examination before obtaining a breeders prefix which enables them to register their puppies.Not all members abide by a strict and enforceable code of ethics and I agree 100% that there are no criminal penalties for non compliance though there is a system which does apply fines. Breach of code of practice via the state for breeding dogs does not carry criminal penalties either . In all states but Victoria the same laws apply to all breeders regardless of which group they are in. In Victoria if you are a Vicdogs member and own under 10 dogs you do not need to comply with the same laws that all other breeders do.

My apologies Steve, I didn’t mean to add Steve wrote there.(fixed) Actually this statement is posted on the DogsNSW site. Meant to post the link but forgot.

http://www.dogsnsw.org.au/resources/media/849-inquiry-into-companion-animal-breeding-practices.html

Dogs NSW breeders are already licensed by Dogs NSW and members must pass an examination before being accredited by Dogs NSW. Dogs NSW members abide by a strict and enforceable Code of Ethics

So what I am saying is that when the debate of licensing first came up, it was opposed with the argument put forward being "our members are already licensed". As stated also on the Dog NSW site. Seems to me that there is some common ground in licensing of non registered breeders by this statement on that same page…….

In response to the announcement of the Inquiry by the NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Niall Blair, Dogs NSW recommends that the breeding of all dogs be subject to the same Code of Ethics that its members must follow to ensure the health, well-being and integrity of puppies offered for sale. This would also provide consumer protection for buyers

This can only be done by legislation and I am saying licensing. I am also saying that you cant have one group of breeders following one state legislation and another (registered breeders) exempt from that…..As I said, some of these registered breeders are also puppy mills.

Steve wrote:[b/]

So if the same codes and standards apply to all breeders what benefit would there be for people who dont want to show their dog or issue DogsNSW registered pedigrees to join DogsNSW and jump through all the hoops , pay all the extra money - how would that increase the numbers of registered DogsNSW breeders?

If all breeders had to be licensed (by government) then those dog owners who wanted to breed pedigree (papered) dogs would need to first hold prefix’s effectively increasing the registered breeder numbers.

Dogs NSW welcomes the announcement of a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into companion animal breeding practices and is opposed to puppy farming by unlicensed breeders

Steve wrote:[b/]

So who said this and under what context and how does that have to do with me and what I said ?

Same page same link – Dogs NSW said this as the statement infers.

When I say you cant have it both ways…….I am not saying you personally I am saying the idea of separate rules for different groups. There has to be some common ground here. If you want more members who hold the same philosophical POV then you either market for it or encourage people to that way of thinking by legislation.

It really is a fine line between the carrot and the stick…..If the carrot doesn't work then the stick needs to be applied in a manner where its not too constrictive.

Do you know what I mean by the carrot and the stick?

[Dogdragon]

Steve wrote:

To suggest legislating for a biased way of thinking held by a small minority in the land of dog breeding is pretty nutty.

Biased? How is it biased?

Steve wrote:

And Firstly all breeders in NSW already have to comply with breeding standards similar if not more strict than Dogs NSW

Sorry? Please explain this?

Steve wrote:

secondly are you seriously telling me that you expect legislation to determine whether someone has to join a minority group in order to breed their dog [only if its got papers] to get approval to breed it ?

Yes, you read that correct.

Steve wrote:

Limit the number of licences issued - nuts .

lacing comments with insults is not using is a discussion, how about putting forward your arguments against it instead of simply saying…….nuts.

Steve wrote:

Limit the number of litter a dog can have - why?

Sorry, should have elaborated…….limit the number of litters a bitch can have…..Isnt the reasons for this obvious? So are you fine with letting a bitch have as many litters in her life as she is capable of? Of course you are not.

Steve wrote

Im all for increasing the size of confinement but hard to see how that is integral to your argument.

Great! Glad we agree on something. Not sure what you mean by integral to my argument? You are the one who wants to focus on reducing shelter numbers and increasing registration numbers. That’s ok but I also view the issue of licensing an issue of protecting the animals rights and as stated a host of other spinoffs from that.

Steve wrote:

Vets reporting stops dogs getting vets to treat them and vets will never agree to this

Would not stop people taking their dog to the vets if that’s what you’re saying. Doctors requirements to report does not stop people taking their children to the doctors vets (like doctors) don’t have to agree.

[Steve]

Steve wrote:

Can you show me where I said this? I cant imagine why I would say such a thing and if I did I would like to know where you took that quote from to enable me to retract it. Dogs NSW breeders are not licenced by Dogs NSW though members must pass an examination before obtaining a breeders prefix which enables them to register their puppies.Not all members abide by a strict and enforceable code of ethics and I agree 100% that there are no criminal penalties for non compliance though there is a system which does apply fines. Breach of code of practice via the state for breeding dogs does not carry criminal penalties either . In all states but Victoria the same laws apply to all breeders regardless of which group they are in. In Victoria if you are a Vicdogs member and own under 10 dogs you do not need to comply with the same laws that all other breeders do.

My apologies Steve, I didn't mean to add Steve wrote there.(fixed) Actually this statement is posted on the DogsNSW site. Meant to post the link but forgot.

http://www.dogsnsw.o...-practices.html

Dogs NSW breeders are already licensed by Dogs NSW and members must pass an examination before being accredited by Dogs NSW. Dogs NSW members abide by a strict and enforceable Code of Ethics

So what I am saying is that when the debate of licensing first came up, it was opposed with the argument put forward being "our members are already licensed". As stated also on the Dog NSW site. Seems to me that there is some common ground in licensing of non registered breeders by this statement on that same page…….

Apology accepted but just because DogsNSW says it on their website doesnt make it so and everyone who is not a DogsNSW member knows that .The big deal for DogsNSW is that they saw the terms of an enquiry and pre empted the probable outcome so introduced new rules and regs to try to get their members exemptions if licences were introduced .they wanted everyone else to be licensed except their members but that argument was pretty much squashed when they were speaking of a breeder who they had found guilty of breach of their rules when asked what was the outcome .Answer she is no longer a member but still breeds hundreds of puppies a year .As you have rightly pointed out the only punishment for a DogsNSW who doesn't follow the rules is expulsion from the group.

In response to the announcement of the Inquiry by the NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Niall Blair, Dogs NSW recommends that the breeding of all dogs be subject to the same Code of Ethics that its members must follow to ensure the health, well-being and integrity of puppies offered for sale. This would also provide consumer protection for buyers

This can only be done by legislation and I am saying licensing. I am also saying that you cant have one group of breeders following one state legislation and another (registered breeders) exempt from that…..As I said, some of these registered breeders are also puppy mills.

Well read the legislation - the ONLY things that are in the DogsNSW code of ethics which are not covered in the code of practice is regarding the protocols for their purebred registry

Steve wrote:[b/]

So if the same codes and standards apply to all breeders what benefit would there be for people who dont want to show their dog or issue DogsNSW registered pedigrees to join DogsNSW and jump through all the hoops , pay all the extra money - how would that increase the numbers of registered DogsNSW breeders?

If all breeders had to be licensed (by government) then those dog owners who wanted to breed pedigree (papered) dogs would need to first hold prefix's effectively increasing the registered breeder numbers.

Stop and think about what you are saying here.Surely we must be speaking of two different things. Breeders who want to breed pedigree papered dogs already need to hold a prefix. Licensing by government cannot increase the need for people to become ANKC registered breeders.

If anything it would have a negative effect rather than a positive one.

Dogs NSW welcomes the announcement of a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into companion animal breeding practices and is opposed to puppy farming by unlicensed breeders

But puppy farming by licensed breeders is O.K.?

Steve wrote:[b/]

So who said this and under what context and how does that have to do with me and what I said ?

Same page same link – Dogs NSW said this as the statement infers.

When I say you cant have it both ways…….I am not saying you personally I am saying the idea of separate rules for different groups. There has to be some common ground here. If you want more members who hold the same philosophical POV then you either market for it or encourage people to that way of thinking by legislation.

It really is a fine line between the carrot and the stick…..If the carrot doesn't work then the stick needs to be applied in a manner where its not too constrictive.

Do you know what I mean by the carrot and the stick?

You misunderstand I am against separate rules for different groups and it is the main reason I am opposed to the concept of exemptions for breeders such as those currently in Victoria.

In Victoria if you are a Vicdogs member with less than 10 dogs you get to comply only with Vicdogs rules which are miles easier than the code via state government and you dont have to worry about the code of practice via state law including registering as a domestic animal business.

I also agree that if you want people with the same POV you market for it which I beleive VICDOGS have done - that hasnt stopped those who get a bigger carrot by joining and who dont have the same base philosophy coming in .

[Steve]

Steve wrote:

To suggest legislating for a biased way of thinking held by a small minority in the land of dog breeding is pretty nutty.

Biased? How is it biased?

How is it biased? Because it sees the world through the beliefs of the purebred pedigreed dog breeder who is in the vast minority and completely over looks the tens of thousands of people who breed dogs ,purebred and cross bred for numerous purposes who are not now nor ever want to be members of a voluntary organisation.

Steve wrote:

And Firstly all breeders in NSW already have to comply with breeding standards similar if not more strict than Dogs NSW

Sorry? Please explain this?

Compare the code of practice for breeding dogs in NSW to the code of ethics for DogsNSW .the only breeding standards that are different is about how to keep the gene pool pure and qualify to be able to register a litter.

ALL breeders - that is everyone who breeds a litter of puppies in this state have to comply or face harsher potential penalties than DogsNSW hand out.

Steve wrote:

secondly are you seriously telling me that you expect legislation to determine whether someone has to join a minority group in order to breed their dog [only if its got papers] to get approval to breed it ?

Yes, you read that correct.

Steve wrote:

Limit the number of licences issued - nuts .

lacing comments with insults is not using is a discussion, how about putting forward your arguments against it instead of simply saying…….nuts.

Dog breeding is a legal activity and as long as people comply with codes and laws and dont upset the neighbours like it or not everyone has the same right to breed their dog .How do you possibly limit the number of licences issued when that affects property laws and restriction of trade laws?

Steve wrote:

Limit the number of litter a dog can have - why?

Sorry, should have elaborated…….limit the number of litters a bitch can have…..Isnt the reasons for this obvious? So are you fine with letting a bitch have as many litters in her life as she is capable of? Of course you are not.

No of course not but I am fine with a breeder making a decision that their bitch is O.K. to have a litter based on not how many she has had but what condition she is in .If she is in good condition is there any reason why via the science of the species that she should not have as many litters as she is capable of?

Steve wrote

Im all for increasing the size of confinement but hard to see how that is integral to your argument.

Great! Glad we agree on something. Not sure what you mean by integral to my argument? You are the one who wants to focus on reducing shelter numbers and increasing registration numbers. That's ok but I also view the issue of licensing an issue of protecting the animals rights and as stated a host of other spinoffs from that.

Steve wrote:

Vets reporting stops dogs getting vets to treat them and vets will never agree to this

Would not stop people taking their dog to the vets if that's what you're saying. Doctors requirements to report does not stop people taking their children to the doctors vets (like doctors) don't have to agree.

I promise you that if vets start reporting breeders lots and lots of breeders will be less inclined to take their dogs to the vet .You dont need to agree but the vets believe this too and have on every occasion that its ever been on the table squashed it

[YOLO]

...maybe one day our kids will ask whether the entire male dog that just walked by is sick because they think the balls are tumors hanging out of the bum...or how many dog owners here still know the first signs when an entire bitch comes into heat?...I walk our dog even when she is on heat, now sometimes we meet other dog walkers and when I mentioned to them - from a distance - that I can't let her off the leash for a play today because she is on heat their facial expression tells me that they think I must be crazy....I never had an incident, problems to keep other dogs away and the like. And no, there are no straying dogs queueing up in front of our house either. Of course this will also depend on where you live - in a neighbourhood with a lot of straying dogs it might happen that you find the ocasssional male sniffing in front of your house. I don't take her to the obedience and agility training, dog parks etc. etc. while she is on heat...no off-leash outside the house or backyard...but that's it.

...and yes, owners who think desexing would stop their male from humping other dogs - keep dreaming :D ....

If you you were walking towards me and told me that uour bitch was in season you would get a mouthful of not very nice words! Part of the responsibility of keeping you bitch entire is leaving her at home when she is in season. Walking a bitch in season even on a lead in a public place is irresponsible and asking for trouble.

Yes, just like all those rape victims who were just "asking for trouble"

I continue to be amazed that people with such Neanderthal attitudes know how to use a keyboard.

you would get a mouthful of not very nice words!

What a champion.

[YOLO]

does that make me a irresponsible dog owner cause all my dogs are desexed? I own 2 females and 2 males. I choose to desex cause I wasn't interested in breeding and cause I didn't want to risk problems.

Jasper was a re-home and castrated when we got him, so we never had to bother about my darling Coco conceiving.

Similarly, after Coco passed it wasn't a consideration in getting a new dog, but as it turns out Chloe was also neutered.

But, hypothetically, what would we have done if the RSPCA had given us a choice?

I'll say this, knowing what I know now there is no way I would ever allow another dog to be castrated. Maybe I would not have made the same decision back then, but there's nothing wrong with LEARNING.

Short answer now, is that if I were certain he would never be wanted for breeding, I would get the dog a vasectomy.

[moosmum]

does that make me a irresponsible dog owner cause all my dogs are desexed? I own 2 females and 2 males. I choose to desex cause I wasn't interested in breeding and cause I didn't want to risk problems.

Jasper was a re-home and castrated when we got him, so we never had to bother about my darling Coco conceiving.

Similarly, after Coco passed it wasn't a consideration in getting a new dog, but as it turns out Chloe was also neutered.

But, hypothetically, what would we have done if the RSPCA had given us a choice?

I'll say this, knowing what I know now there is no way I would ever allow another dog to be castrated. Maybe I would not have made the same decision back then, but there's nothing wrong with LEARNING.

Short answer now, is that if I were certain he would never be wanted for breeding, I would get the dog a vasectomy.

Yep. (Nothing wrong with learning)

The wrong sort of legislation says there is only one possible response to avoid problems in that area. And nothing to learn about management.

So Its not something you can learn from, or about to shape an environmentaly appropriate response- This fixed reaction means no need to understand, Or respond.

It absolves us of responsibility, or an ability to respond. In exchange for a fixed action.

Nothing to understand. Just do it.

I can agree that spey or neuter is the responsible choice for the majority of Australian Dog owners today. But it doesn't make them the MORE responsible owners any more than leaving the dog entire would.

Understanding the dogs in your care and managing them appropriately, whatever that means to your own situation is taking responsibility.

Dictating what actions are acceptable puts the final responsibility with who ever is doing the dictating.

So should we expect people to be responsible for their own choices or not?

Dogdragon, your legislation won't encourage understanding or knowing the the dogs in your care.

It takes away an expectation we should understand the dog, so long as our reactions are predictable and fixed.

Edited June 7, 2016 by moosmum

[Paul777]

G'day Willem.

You've well & truly stirred up a hornets nest with this thread, lol. Strongly held convictions from both sides of the argument.

Why oh why do so many animal lovers think that butchering an animal unnecessarily is the way to go?

My opinion is that castration is a means of last resort. Only if it's absolutely necessary.

Looking for a new companion recently, I went to the local pound where there was this beautiful, self-assured 18 month old German Shepard. While the other dogs were yapping their heads off at nothing in particular, this handsome, intact boy just sat, observing the immediate activity around him with relaxed interest. Exactly the kind of dog I was looking for.

With cash in hand, I was told that he 'was not ready yet' because he hadn't been castrated. There was "no way possible", that I could take him home intact (Hadn't even thought of a vasectomy but it wasn't offered as an option, which I would've gladly paid for)

The GSD was eventually re-homed.

When I discovered that ALL shelters & pounds castrate dogs before going to a new home, I rejected 'rescue' as a possibility & eventually brought home a Rotti pup a fortnight ago from a breeder.

It's sad that proven responsible dog owners are not given the option of rescuing an intact dog. In over 40 years of dog ownership, only one of my dogs was ever picked up by animal control. An adopted Staffy X escape artist that had been abandoned (a beautiful animal that was as stubborn & headstrong as they get - obedient until left alone) who never became pregnant because I built an escape proof 'run' for her (after her pound experience)

My last dog, a 50kg Rotti, was intact & lived to 14yo. He never once got out to menace the neighbourhood despite many opportunities to do so (on one occasion I'd forgotten to shut the front door while running late for work. Came home 10 hours later with both the front & screen doors wide open, with Ponti guarding the doorway)

If a system was employed where new owners of rescued dogs were given the opportunity to prove that they were responsible owners, with adequate yard security &/or an enclosed run, how many more pound puppies/dogs would be found new homes? They could implement a 'one strike & off to surgery' rule.

[juice]

And how would you control the " we want a litter or two because our dog is so cute" ? offspring dumped at pounds later brigade.

[persephone]

And how would you control the " we want a litter or two because our dog is so cute" ? offspring dumped at pounds later brigade.

yes. I have several friends who have done/do that

[Paul777]

And how would you control the " we want a litter or two because our dog is so cute" ? offspring dumped at pounds later brigade.

Give the morons a lobotomy? And ban them from ever owning another dog?

I was really thinking of dogs, rather than bitches, when I wrote the above.

Just a 5 min talk with me would convince any animal control official that I definitely was not looking to breed any rescue, but I guess that people lie & others could change their minds.

Others irresponsible attitudes spoil it for the rest of us. Not that I regret my Rotti pup (who's a very cheeky mischievous boy) but that GSD was just beautiful. Hope he went to a good home.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Paul777

[Paul777]

And how would you control the " we want a litter or two because our dog is so cute" ? offspring dumped at pounds later brigade.

yes. I have several friends who have done/do that

Would you believe that an acquaintance who belongs to the GSDRescue group, is actually intending to get her GS pregnant BEFORE she gets her spayed?

She's had dozens upon dozens of rescues go through her home & yet she still doesn't get it.

Stupid is what stupid does & until we can clean up the human gene pool ..........

[tdierikx]

And how would you control the " we want a litter or two because our dog is so cute" ? offspring dumped at pounds later brigade.

yes. I have several friends who have done/do that

Would you believe that an acquaintance who belongs to the GSDRescue group, is actually intending to get her GS pregnant BEFORE she gets her spayed?

She's had dozens upon dozens of rescues go through her home & yet she still doesn't get it.

Stupid is what stupid does & until we can clean up the human gene pool ..........

I would think that your friend is within their rights to breed her dog if she wishes... doing so if the dog is not a registered pedigree, health tested, and is breeding a registered litter - is when you might be able to point the finger...

T.

[Simply Grand]

And how would you control the " we want a litter or two because our dog is so cute" ? offspring dumped at pounds later brigade.

yes. I have several friends who have done/do that

Would you believe that an acquaintance who belongs to the GSDRescue group, is actually intending to get her GS pregnant BEFORE she gets her spayed?

She's had dozens upon dozens of rescues go through her home & yet she still doesn't get it.

Stupid is what stupid does & until we can clean up the human gene pool ..........

I would think that your friend is within their rights to breed her dog if she wishes... doing so if the dog is not a registered pedigree, health tested, and is breeding a registered litter - is when you might be able to point the finger...

T.

Agree, if she's breeding and placing her puppies responsibly and offering ongoing support then she's not contributing to the problem, and she obviously does her bit for rescue dogs.