The Spotted Devil Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Alpha Bet - I will correct you on one thing. Dogs Vic did argue a number of points but were ignored by the department. Up to the point of the release of this Bill they were in consultation about the AO. They were clearly told this Bill did not concern them. As to the rest well there's not much argument there. However an organisation such as DV are only as strong as their members. Where was everyone at the AGMs for example. Personally though I am focussing on the fight we have now and looking to the future - thinking about how I can volunteer my services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Alpha Bet - I will correct you on one thing. Dogs Vic did argue a number of points but were ignored by the department. Up to the point of the release of this Bill they were in consultation about the AO. They were clearly told this Bill did not concern them. As to the rest well there's not much argument there. However an organisation such as DV are only as strong as their members. Where was everyone at the AGMs for example. Personally though I am focussing on the fight we have now and looking to the future - thinking about how I can volunteer my services. Vicdogs members who own more than 10 dogs are too frightened to say anything out loud because people who own more than 10 fertile dogs instead of being seen as being the ones who help a breed to survive are now seen as pond scum. Why would anyone who does own more than ten own up? for years the worst question you can ask a breeder is "how many dogs do you own?" With the first chatter that began about this amendment when Vicdogs were in consultation with OL and that was proclaimed all over OL facebook page it was about not being seen to be supporting the puppy factories. Vicdogs members who dont own more than 10 fertile dogs cant imagine that there may be a day when they might want to own 10 fertile dogs or why anyone would want to own 10 fertile dogs or how anyone could do a good job of raising puppies if they have more than a litter a year. Most of them are members of OL and have backed and cheered their crap in the belief they were going after their competition - not them! The big commercial breeders only care about the numbers because they have already done everything they had to do and comply with bullshit codes to operate. They dont care about a small breeder who only owns three fertile dogs who now has to have a DA. Vicdog members who have spent money , big money to comply with the codes are no one and just thrown under the bridge. Take people's businesses, their hobbies, their base human rights come right into their lounge rooms and have power to steal their property without due process and all of that is O.K. as long as it only happening to the others. Give us back our exemptions - everyone else sucks but we are the best and the only ones who can get it right . OOPs dont forget about the sensationalised stories of Vicdogs members who have been outed and their lives ruined ,their dogs and their pedigrees taken yet no charges laid. This just shows Vicdogs members cant police their own so no more exemptions. There is no data ,no facts - nothing to back up the idea that there even is a problem. There are tens of thousands of people who own puppies bred by big commercial breeders [ including Julia Gillard] , thousands who have bought a puppy from a pet shop, thousands who have bought a puppy from a registered breeder who owns more than 10 dogs, who love their dogs and are extremely happy with them, who would buy off the same source again and recommend them. There are tens of thousands including me who have advertised on gumtree or some other free classified website. Most of the stories thrown around about terrible breeders aren't even the breeders fault. Even the terminology has changed so we arent fighting against filthy puppy farms anymore in Victoria because there are none but now we fight against puppy factories - anyone who has 10 fertile dogs. And heaven help the poor bugger who just wants to breed a dog now and then who isnt a member of Vicdogs. They dont even know they are about to be judged as criminals and their puppies stolen without due process. The fact that the CCs have gone along like zombies and allowed them to interfere in our breeding programs that has no resemblance on science in order to make themselves look better and the "others" look worse is a bloody disgrace. Every time we turn around we have more bits added into the code of ethics or the regulations and NONE of them are about what is best for the dogs. None of this is O.K. and if the CCs haven't worked it out yet that they are the target as well as any other and that all dog breeders should have their rights protected anything they do to or take from anyone else will eventually impact on them. The worst thing about all of this is we get pushed around , our lives dictated by a government who has no business in telling us how to breed dogs and there is never a process included to assess the success or failure of their crazy ideas. Even when one clearly fails in one state its implemented in another .If it doesn't have the desired affect in Victoria they just keep amending the bill that should never have been bought in originally. The crap that is put out that the CCs go along with reaches into every inch of what we do. Its like being pecked to death by a duck. If they tried to bring in legislation that someone who owned two cows was doing a better job of cattle breeding than someone who owned 5000 they would be laughed out of the country .If they tried to tell a breeder of any other animal how often they could breed them or what they can breed them to and they would be told to wake up and stay out of what they dont know. But our CCs hear about something that might become law and introduce their own crap in the hope that their members will only have to answer to them - Then every poor bugger gets stuck with it BECAUSE the CCs don't stand up to them. Its no bloody wonder Trump got in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 So the argument they use to market rescue animals is a great way to show there is no problem that their crappy amendments need to fix. Would be nice if they separated the number surender by those involved in the grey industry from breeders. My link “Just 9.5% of owners who brought their dogs and cats to us for rehoming said that problem behaviours – such as barking, aggression, destructiveness, chasing or inappropriate toileting – were the reason,” Dr Walker said. “A further 1.2% said that the animal’s health was the main reason for their surrender.” By contrast, human circumstances were the driving force behind 2,780 animal surrenders (67.2%). Of those who brought cats or dogs to RSPCA Victoria to be rehomed: 761 (21.0%) indicated that that housing was the main issue: they were moving, their homes were too small or their fencing was unsuited to keeping pets. This group included 40 owners facing homelessness or other crises who felt that relinquishing their animals was their only choice. 374 (10.3%) said that they could not afford to feed or provide basic vet care to their animals. 360 (9.9%) were pets of owners who had died or were in ill health. 232 (6.4%) said they did not have enough time to meet their pet’s exercise or social needs. 203 (5.6%) said they had too many animals. 58 (1.6%) indicated that the surrender resulted from the birth of a baby. 46 (1.3%) were seeking to rehome a pet after a relationship breakdown or divorce. “People’s lives and circumstances can change quickly, often for reasons beyond their control,” Dr Walker said. “It’s important that we understand that these things are beyond the control of the animals in our lives, too – but they have an impact. “It’s a powerful reminder to aspiring pet owners who might dismiss the adoption option, believing rescue animals as ‘problems’, ‘broken’, or ‘secondhand’. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. “Almost all of these dogs and cats have been the beloved companions of people who could no longer care for them the way all animals should be cared for. Those people have done the right thing in bringing their pets to us, in the hope that we can find new owners to love them and meet all of their needs.” Dr Walker said that in many instances, owners travelled huge distances to bring their pets to RSPCA Victoria for rehoming. Last year, for example, the organisation received six dogs from East Gippsland – a three-hour drive from its closest Animal Care Centre. “We are honoured that so many people come to us when they want their pets to have a second chance,” she said. Around 7.9% (287) of the dogs and cats surrendered last financial year came from breeders or those involved in the greyhound racing industry. A further 4.7% were brought to RSPCA Victoria by Good Samaritans who had either found them abandoned, or rescued them from neglect. One in ten people bringing in dogs or cats for surrender declined to give a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) I have no idea if these petitions really have an impact but gee, look how many have signed. https://www.change.org/p/nsw-national-parks-wildlife-please-help-prevent-the-barbaric-slaughter-of-innocent-brumbies?recruiter=98890400&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-reason_msg I dont remember seeing any to save our dogs from being legislated out of existence by laws that take no notice they are being formulated as a social experiment with no basis in fact? think I posted it earlier but here it is again anyway. ""RSPCA Victoria CEO Dr Liz Walker today applauded the Victorian Government’s efforts to stamp out puppy and kitten factories, with the introduction of amendments to laws about the commercial breeding of dogs and cats. The amendments will impose a limit of ten female breeding dogs or cats in a Domestic Animal Business by 2020, and require pet stores to only sell registered pound and shelter dogs and cats. “It’s a bold initiative, and that’s what’s needed to bring about change in this industry,” said Dr Walker. “We have seen the squalid conditions in the mass production of dogs and cats time and again, and it has to stop. “This legislation provides the starting point for a great step forward in animal welfare. “By 2020, we hope that breeding facilities with hundreds of dogs and cats in putrid conditions will be a thing of the past. “These changes will also mean breeding dogs should be healthier and easier for breeders to rehome, because it’s easier to provide some basic socialisation and exposure to a normal life when smaller numbers of animals are involved,” she said. Dr Walker said RSPCA Victoria would welcome further investigation and research around the relationship between numbers of animals and welfare outcomes. “No jurisdiction in the world has had the courage to set a low limit on the number of animals kept by breeders, so research into the link between animal numbers and welfare outcomes is limited,” Dr Walker said. “Setting a limit will allow us to start benchmarking welfare outcomes in Victoria.” AND when it discovers its a fail will it be repealed? or stay as law just as I believe their equally stupid ban on showing a debarked dog, IF it was owned by a victorian and debarked in another state THAT IS. any other debarked dogs can be shown legally and their owner not prosecuted. if that is not insane what is? Edited November 12, 2016 by asal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Alpha Bet - I will correct you on one thing. Dogs Vic did argue a number of points but were ignored by the department. Up to the point of the release of this Bill they were in consultation about the AO. They were clearly told this Bill did not concern them. As to the rest well there's not much argument there. However an organisation such as DV are only as strong as their members. Where was everyone at the AGMs for example. Personally though I am focussing on the fight we have now and looking to the future - thinking about how I can volunteer my services. Dogs Vic response has been atrocious. The only reason the members have got as far as they have is because of themselves. As soon as the topic came up months ago Dogs Vic should have been campaigning. Even now they're not keeping all members informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 (edited) Alpha Bet - I will correct you on one thing. Dogs Vic did argue a number of points but were ignored by the department. Up to the point of the release of this Bill they were in consultation about the AO. They were clearly told this Bill did not concern them. As to the rest well there's not much argument there. However an organisation such as DV are only as strong as their members. Where was everyone at the AGMs for example. Personally though I am focussing on the fight we have now and looking to the future - thinking about how I can volunteer my services. Dogs Vic response has been atrocious. The only reason the members have got as far as they have is because of themselves. As soon as the topic came up months ago Dogs Vic should have been campaigning. Even now they're not keeping all members informed. I won't argue that it's been poorly handled but remember that Dogs Victoria is only as good as its members. How many apathetic people have their heads in the sand? How many people vote in the elections? How many turn up to the AGM? And don't forget that the VAST majority of management committee (you know, the ones that do all the work) are UNPAID VOLUNTEERS. As one of them recently said he has volunteered for the role knowing what it would cost him in time, travel, fuel and etag because he said you can't complain if you won't put in. DV were purposely blindsided by this legislation by experienced people in paid positions. It was no accident. Edited November 13, 2016 by The Spotted Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonwoman Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Personally I am disgusted with Vic Dogs lack of response when these Breeding Regulations were first discussed with the Dept Primary Industries back some 5 years ago. Vic Dogs seemed happy to accept the bill then which allowed for the 10 entire bitches as they felt this wouldnt affect most of their members - so they just rolled over and let the Government just push their bill thru... and then 2 years down the track more amendments made as well as control being handed over to the Department of Ag - who actually see having responsibility for dogs/cats as being a fly in their ointment as they are dealing with far more "important" farming welfare. When this was first raised back in 2010 Vic Dogs (ANKC as well) should have started working to push our cause... to fight against the politics as well as starting to implement systems to regulate their own breeding members. Welfare Groups / Individuals use social media to fuel outrage with the public for their cause. Just look at the often horrendous photos that are often posted of poor filthy puppies lost in dark sheds or livestock covered in blood and jammed into cages. Governments traditionally respond to welfare groups who can drum up enough media drama by introducing legislation. Usually by engaging some public servants with little if any experience in the field who probably sit around a table, drinking latte, chatting to the welfare groups and coming up with what they think are some 'good ideas' and then write their draft.... which gets hacked around for a time and then handed over for a rubber stamp. Well the rubber stamp has cometh..... Now ALL breeders have been lumped into the same basket as the puppy farmer and BYB.... Our biggest fear is that this legislation hands over the power for decisions to our local council bylaw officer... these public servants have no knowledge or understanding, all they do is tick the boxes without even having any opinions.... it doesn't matter what you think or say... if you don't tick their boxes they have the power to shut you down...... BEWARE THE PUBLIC SERVANT AT YOUR DOOR..... Only a few months ago DV were sent forms by govt to renew AO status from early next year, never a word about what was in the pipeline, even when DV asked face to face was there anything else they should know.............DV were led to believe (and led up the garden path) that they would renew their AO status, albeit with more accountability (with which DV were happy to comply), a working party was set up by MC to prepare the application.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Yes exactly dragonwoman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 finally a voice of sanity, BUT has it a snowballs chance in hell of making a difference is the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) Yes, that has been AVAs position from the start. What is making a difference is the action of members. Edited November 14, 2016 by The Spotted Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 spotted on FB interesting "Regarding the current negotiations goingon in Victoria. and the attempt to rein in the effort to extend destructive 'government' controls over all animal owners, have you thought to consider WHO will be given the mandate to 'enforce' the new rules - however benignly they may be in the way they are written up. My suggestion - make sure. first, before you agree to ANYTHING, that the RSPCA will not be permitted to get their nose in the financial trough they are building. See the DEFRA report recommendations now going to the House of Commons in the UK regarding the RSPCA's role in 'enforcing' animal welfare provisions. (It might be helpful to to get OL totally out of the scene first also). In negotiating with these folk standing by, waiting to pounce on you, you are building your own end, no matter what terms are agreed upon. First things first!!! " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 (edited) RSPCA, councils and police are the only ones who can act on/enforce CoP anyway. The only way is to have an independent body but that ain't going to happen anytime soon. And every industry has a CoP, enforceable under the law. Even pet owners. Edited November 15, 2016 by The Spotted Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Transcripts available from Day 1 of the hearing (scroll to the bottom of the page for pdf): http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/eic/inquiries/article/3173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Shows OL has very little understanding of ... well, anything really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Shows OL has very little understanding of ... well, anything really. Yep 100% agree and completely exposes the real agenda of OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lhok Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Shows OL has very little understanding of ... well, anything really. Yep 100% agree and completely exposes the real agenda of OL. And Animal Australia. --Lhok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 The evidence of the MAV shows just how little stakeholders were consulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 The evidence of the MAV shows just how little stakeholders were consulted. wow, getting my head around the idea dogs can end up costing $5,000 $15,000 because there are too few to go around? at those prices anyone with a puppy for sale will be pillared for having bred it to make money, even more of a no win situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lhok Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 (edited) The evidence of the MAV shows just how little stakeholders were consulted. The comments by Animals Australia and by proxy Oscar's law believe they were sufficiently consulted though. Having read through the transcripts and comments on Oscar's law fb page I find it hard to work out which is right. On the transcripts they (ol) are saying they weren't consulted officially and on the fb page they are saying they were in someway part of the consultation process. They also have no costings or information regarding how many people will be needed to enforce the new legislation and they also have no idea about how many people it will affect, but they still want to push it through. What a mess. --Lhok Edited November 15, 2016 by Lhok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 The evidence of the MAV shows just how little stakeholders were consulted. The comments by Animals Australia and by proxy Oscar's law believe they were sufficiently consulted though. Having read through the transcripts and comments on Oscar's law fb page I find it hard to work out which is right. On the transcripts they (ol) are saying they weren't consulted officially and on the fb page they are saying they were in someway part of the consultation process. They also have no costings or information regarding how many people will be needed to enforce the new legislation and they also have no idea about how many people it will affect, but they still want to push it through. What a mess. --Lhok I took a look, Lhok, and it makes interesting reading. Well, horrifying reading. 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