Victorian Gov To Introduce New Breeding Laws

[The Spotted Devil]

Dogs Vic on FB:

[Steve]

The ANY VICTORIAN part seems to be a direct signal that a Dogs Vic membership does not provide an exemption from having to register as a domestic animal business and all the stuff that goes with that like kennels, concrete, inspections by council officers, and forced desexing of dogs not sold to another business etc. Any comment or advice from Dogs Vic management on here would be appreciated!!

Im not DV member or management but.

Up until now VicDogs members didn't need to comply with codes for breeding and rearing establishments if they owned less than ten dogs. They did have to comply with the code for keeping dogs and their VD codes. If everyone who owns a fertile dog has to now comply with the DAB where prior to this they only had to comply with the code for keeping dogs then many of them will find it impossible to comply on their current properties and without massive costs. VD have always maintained their members followed codes and they agreed to police their own codes and the code for keeping dogs not for DAB this was always council responsibility for their members who owned more than 10 dogs and didn't have an exemption. There is no mention in the application or requirements for exemption for an applicable org to police their members under the DAB codes as their members never had to comply with them unless they had 10 or more and had no exemptions.

The consequence of this is that few of those VD breeders who have less than 10 dogs will now be able to comply and be eligible for a DAB and that part of the amendment takes place straight away as soon as its passed. So it appears to me that none of those breeders can keep even one of their fertile dogs on their properties. It means they have to move all of their fertile dogs out or break the law. It is difficult to see how managing this issue this way is conducive to what is best for the dogs. If the goal was to remove exemptions doing it this way is a disaster.

The MDBA didn't want exemptions because we saw what was coming and doesn't have them- we don't think they are a good thing but many of our Victorian members own 2 or 3 fertile dogs that they have been able to breed without issue under the code for keeping of dogs. They also never needed a DAB and most if not all will not be able to fit with the requirements for a DAB. At least some of them too will need to make a decision in whether to get rid of their dogs, move or break the law. What of all the dogs owned by people who have been breeding dogs who own 3 fertile dogs under the keeping of dogs code who are not a member of a group who will now need to become a DAB ?

Edited October 14, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

Its pretty amazing that in order to produce this bill that 100% affects breeders that the only stake holders that were included were RSPCA and Oscars law

The minister for Ag made a statement that these amendments will only affect 90 people in Victoria - Screaming hot headline- she was way way off the mark

[bluedeer]

Thanks for clearing that up Steve

[asal]

Looks like the greyhounds arent the only ones tarred with the lowest common denominator tag

[moosmum]

NO.

And until people can agree there are dog breeders/people, and non dog people and that the division stops there, all that CAN be done is keep eliminating the lowest common denominator.

If you won't allow community focus and discussion of COMMON expectations and what those should be, society can only agree on what is NOT acceptable to common expectations.

If we can't teach shared values that aid purpose for dogs (through discussion) all you have is minority groups who will fail to meet common expectations. And a shared expectation of eliminating those.

But nah, its more important to be seen as exclusive and elite.

Edited October 14, 2016 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

NO.

And until people can agree there are dog breeders/people, and non dog people and that the division stops there, all that CAN be done is keep eliminating the lowest common denominator.

If you won't allow community focus and discussion of COMMON expectations and what those should be, society can only agree on what is NOT acceptable to common expectations.

If we can't teach shared values that aid purpose for dogs (through discussion) all you have is minority groups who will fail to meet common expectations. And a shared expectation of eliminating those.

But nah, its more important to be seen as exclusive and elite.

Yep.

[Kirislin]

I thought DogsVic were supposed to be our voice for things like this. Over the years I would have paid thousands to them, and for what?

[asal]

I thought DogsVic were supposed to be our voice for things like this. Over the years I would have paid thousands to them, and for what?

no one seems to understand that all these rules are only ever going to apply to the people who are responsible and belong to a breed society, vaccinated and microchip their puppies are are accountable even though it will mean they will be legislated out of being able to keep their dogs anymore.

the people who never chip or register their dogs or puppies are safe and can continue their merry way.

How many times are we hearing how many dogs are taken in by the pounds and animal welfare that ARE NOT MICROCHIPPED? THOUSANDS, yet all is being done is making it harder and harder for the registered tracable people, All the adverse publicity over the two breeders in Victoria who were members of Dogs Vic who have had their dogs taken as justification for Dogs Vic not being responisble therefor not allowed imput to govt, yet how many thousands members are not breaking any rules yet they are tarred with the same brush.

as for the untracables who never chip. nada zilch is going to happen.

there are forums on FB with a zillion unregistered puppies for sale of just about every breed imaginable and where is the traceability of those or accountabilty. None. They actually say on some that their puppies are better because they are being bred for pets not the show ring.

Ive been sent links to them so they do exist. They dont need to advertise on gumtree or trading post or whatever. the ones I was sent new borns had deposits on them before they were a week old

Edited October 15, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

Re the exemptions

Victoria has been the only place in Australia and as far as I know world wide where members of a group were able to have these knd of exemptions .

In some other states in Australia breeder members of applicable orgs get at most a slight reduction in registration fees but in Victoria a situation has come about whether by design or accident which has created the current situation.

So back when everyone at VD was nice and snuggly warm about how they were better and different and special and would not have to deal with the nutty codes of conduct as long as they either stayed under 10 dogs or didn't tell anyone they had more than 10 dogs VD board and many of its members advocated for the codes to be so hard and have very little to do with best practice or because they thought they would never affect them.Wrong.

Everywhere else people who breed dogs have had to comply with laws and codes equally regardless of whether they bred purebred or not, whether they belonged to one group or not and the world hasn't gone to hell and purebred dog breeders and their dogs are O.K.

So now we have a situation where without exemptions registered breeders in other states have been able to cope and have survived nicely. In the big scheme of things if it were just exemptions it would be no big deal - but without the exemptions being a hobby breeder in Victoria is a much harder - because they made it that way because they wanted hobby breeders who were not VD to bugger off.

The word is that because they think there will be no puppy farmers left in Victoria they will amend the code to be a bit less nutty. But how would you know what they will do or if you could trust them to get it right if you stopped yelling about loss of exemptions and beleived the codes wouldn't be so stupid.

But wait - you see the real issue here is that if you intended to breed your dog anywhere in Victoria you already needed a development approval whether you needed to get a DAB or not . So if you were a VD member and had one litter of puppies without that you were breaking the local laws. MOST VD members never ever got these development approvals. If now they have to have a DAB then council will know who they are and where they are - up till now they didnt. So without the exemptions they have to follow harder codes AND they have to get a Development approval .

That is where the major fear is . What if they don't get approval to breed dogs on their property because its in the wrong zone or any number of silly things they use to restrict dog breeders or until they have all they need to be compliant with the Code of Practice. Small breeders who had less than 3 dogs are in the same position. So effectively they don't want to loose the exemptions because they were breaking the law and if they get a DAB means they cant hide as they have been able to with the exemptions.

[The Spotted Devil]

Response from Dogs Victoria. They have been well and truly kept out of the loop:

Dear Members,

Management Committee understand that you are very anxious to know what is happening in regards to the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016. These are the facts as we know them:

• Currently, Dogs Victoria have been fortunate to hold Applicable Organisation status which, in brief, allows Dogs Victoria members to:

1) keep up to ten fertile females without having to register with their council as a Domestic Animal Business

2) be exempt from local government regulations that requires desexing of dogs owned in that council

3) discounted council registration fees

• Dogs Victoria have been aware for several months that all Applicable Organisations are required to reapply for their Applicable Organisation Status at the end of 2016. There have been several meetings with Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport, and Resources (DEDJTR) where the ongoing requirements and obligations of Applicable Organisation status have been clearly explained. Dogs Victoria have formed a working group, headed by a consultant experienced in this field, to develop a submission to cover our application for renewal of the Applicable Organisation status.

• On Wednesday 12th, Dogs Victoria was informed via a fact sheet (available on the DV website and Facebook page of changes to the exemptions offered under the Applicable Organisation status. This was the first DV had heard of these changes.

• These changes will mean that ALL Dogs Victoria members who wish to breed a litter will be required to register their premises as a domestic animal business with their local council in the year that they breed the litter, and comply with the mandatory Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014 (the Code). If the member does not breed a litter in any given year (April to April, to coincide with council registrations) they need not register the premises in that year.

• It is important that Dogs Victoria is successful in their application to retain Applicable Organisation status to ensure that DV members are still entitled to the exemption afforded to members of an Applicable Organisation of not having to desex their dogs (even if their council requires it) and the discount on dog registration fees.

• Representatives from Dogs Victoria met with Minister Pulford’s Chief of Staff Megan Berry and Dr Mariko Lauber from the Domestic Animal Unit yesterday (Friday) to discuss DV concerns and to clarify some of the proposals in the bill.

• Dogs Victoria will continue to communicate with key representatives regarding this bill and represent members’ interests to the best of their ability

Wayne Fleming

President

Dogs Victoria

[Steve]

Response from Dogs Victoria. They have been well and truly kept out of the loop:

Dear Members,

Management Committee understand that you are very anxious to know what is happening in regards to the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016. These are the facts as we know them:

• Currently, Dogs Victoria have been fortunate to hold Applicable Organisation status which, in brief, allows Dogs Victoria members to:

1) keep up to ten fertile females without having to register with their council as a Domestic Animal Business

2) be exempt from local government regulations that requires desexing of dogs owned in that council

3) discounted council registration fees

• Dogs Victoria have been aware for several months that all Applicable Organisations are required to reapply for their Applicable Organisation Status at the end of 2016. There have been several meetings with Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport, and Resources (DEDJTR) where the ongoing requirements and obligations of Applicable Organisation status have been clearly explained. Dogs Victoria have formed a working group, headed by a consultant experienced in this field, to develop a submission to cover our application for renewal of the Applicable Organisation status.

• On Wednesday 12th, Dogs Victoria was informed via a fact sheet (available on the DV website and Facebook page of changes to the exemptions offered under the Applicable Organisation status. This was the first DV had heard of these changes.

• These changes will mean that ALL Dogs Victoria members who wish to breed a litter will be required to register their premises as a domestic animal business with their local council in the year that they breed the litter, and comply with the mandatory Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014 (the Code). If the member does not breed a litter in any given year (April to April, to coincide with council registrations) they need not register the premises in that year.

• It is important that Dogs Victoria is successful in their application to retain Applicable Organisation status to ensure that DV members are still entitled to the exemption afforded to members of an Applicable Organisation of not having to desex their dogs (even if their council requires it) and the discount on dog registration fees.

• Representatives from Dogs Victoria met with Minister Pulford's Chief of Staff Megan Berry and Dr Mariko Lauber from the Domestic Animal Unit yesterday (Friday) to discuss DV concerns and to clarify some of the proposals in the bill.

• Dogs Victoria will continue to communicate with key representatives regarding this bill and represent members' interests to the best of their ability

Wayne Fleming

President

Dogs Victoria

Even if they only need to register as a DAB in the year they breed a litter they still need development approval which is a one off and doesn't need to be renewed.

[moosmum]

I thought DogsVic were supposed to be our voice for things like this. Over the years I would have paid thousands to them, and for what?

no one seems to understand that all these rules are only ever going to apply to the people who are responsible and belong to a breed society, vaccinated and microchip their puppies are are accountable even though it will mean they will be legislated out of being able to keep their dogs anymore.

the people who never chip or register their dogs or puppies are safe and can continue their merry way.

The people who are responsible and law abiding. Period. Those are the ones captured in a reduced available space to operate. The environment is reduced.

The ones best able to meet DEMAND now, are the least responsible. They will supply a 'demonstration' of the product that dominates. A more visible one, and peoples expectations will be lowered by the results.

We will have even fewer people willing to fight FOR dogs, because fewer people will see any real value in it. But lots more to complain about and legislate way.

For every ounce it gets harder for pedigree breeders to operate, it becomes even harder for 'Responsible' breeders who are NOT part of an organization. They are always going to be a target or scapegoat for Orgs. believing an exclusive superiority. There is no advocacy.

Yet if you get rid of those people, you have no one left to say "we will fight for dogs" Because its not going to be about dogs, its going to be about an exclusive organization. A minority group that no one understands anything about, except what makes it into the media.

Edited October 15, 2016 by moosmum

[The Spotted Devil]

Inside information is telling me that this is NOT in the spirit of the legislation. A face to face meeting is being organised between myself and an MP as soon as possible. It definitely is NOT to late to fix this so please talk/write to your local MP if you want change.

[Steve]

One has to question the base for the bill.

Reduce all breeders to a maximum of 10 dogs on any one property - even though that's a bit loonie when you consider Great Danes and Chihuahuas ,the amount of people who live and work on a property, property sizes etc and a heap of other things you could actually see that in their ignorance they have said no more than 10 on one property to have only small colonies of dogs in the belief that smaller number regardless of all the variables equals greater welfare. But then they muck it up and put all of these other crazy restrictions on restricting people's ability to own other pet related businesses in case they break the law etc or have any other type of pet related business on the same property. Its sort of like saying a surgeon who owns a private hospital cant also own a facility that specialises in transplants - in case he grabs organs form one and illegal hands it to the other! You cant own a retail pet shop that doesnt sell live animals if you own a property that has less than 10 fertile dogs - That's going to cause em grief because its cuts across free trade and consumer rights and maybe others.

Then they ban the sales of animals in pet shops - so we could say they think pet shops are a bad place for dogs on a welfare level but then they go nuts and allow rescue dogs to be sold in pet shops. If they are worried about who breeds and whether they have less than 10 dogs on a property the all they have to do is ramp up the regs on pet shops and they have already stopped anyone owning more than ten on one property anyway. But effectively they have squashed their own argument,allow one group who is technically competition for those they have banned to have a monopoly on a market and again bought into play all the things Clover Moore's ban on sales of animals in pet shops bill was bounced for - restriction of trade. federal laws haven't changes since then. You cant shut down someone's business in case they use an illegal supplier or in case they breach codes or laws.

All they had to do was stick to the welfare thing and have NO live animals in pet shops and they may have stood a chance.

They have clearly underestimated the work load for council if everyone who owns a fertile dog and want to breed it does what they want them to do. Thousands of Vic dogs members, tens of thousands of people who have three or less. Money for public education so people know their obligations Re issue admin every year, inspections, reports, complaints - will there be any money or people to look out for the really bad guys who will dig in? The Rangers on the Gold coast who were involved in pilot program that resembled this told me that originally they had a dedicated ranger to handle breeder licenses for those who owned fertile dogs. This was abandoned because no one - none applied for a permit and the only way they knew who some were was after complaints - No difference what ever to what it was before the pilot program. It failed so why on earth would they want to replicate it .laws to stop BYB and puppy farmers from advertising on line ideal strategy is a microchip number to be included ? Would all be funny if it weren' so serious.

They always push for laws that are well intentioned but have gaping holes in them and then they whinge about their disappointment and start to push for harder and harder laws that atively impact on the small good guys

How will it be assessed and reviewed and we all know what comes next is periodic harder and harder codes which only those who already comply will follow and more and more laws that people get a little upset about but on the whole carry on because no one ever enforces them anyway.

Scoff laws.

[Steve]

..

Edited October 15, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

This is the hansard report of the tabling of the Victorian Legislation Please take a minute to read it especially page 22 to 26.

Link

Edited October 15, 2016 by Steve

[bridgie_cat]

Would it not then be more appropriate to place a minimum number of people per X dogs kept to ensure adequate time for socialisation/care for each dog...

Important question - this states 10 breeding bitch limit, and 6 adult dog limit before you must build a kennel facility. The wording makes me think that is 6 adult dogs regardless of whether they are entire, boys or girls?

[Steve]

Would it not then be more appropriate to place a minimum number of people per X dogs kept to ensure adequate time for socialisation/care for each dog...

Important question - this states 10 breeding bitch limit, and 6 adult dog limit before you must build a kennel facility. The wording makes me think that is 6 adult dogs regardless of whether they are entire, boys or girls?

Yep fertile includes boys too.

Will be interesting how they intend to make everyone who has a DAB - everyone who has a fertile dog and intends to breed that year - stay on the property during business hours. If they don't stick with that - which is the code now then how will they stop people form dropping 10 dogs on a property and just ducking in once a day to feed and water them? But of course you would only have to stay home all day every day during business hours if you intended to breed that year . What a bloody joke.

[witheverythingiam]

Only 1 entire female to breed... as opposed to THREE fertile female cats??? Has anyone advised the people drawing this up that cats can well outbreed dogs?

T.

As a pedigree cat breeder I find that offensive.

Firstly, average litter size of 4 for cats. Secondly, maximum of 1 litter a year. And thirdly, all my kittens are desexed before they go to their new homes.

It's the ferals, and cats at large whose kittens are the ones which majority end up in pounds and shelters!