Victorian Gov To Introduce New Breeding Laws

[The Spotted Devil]

It's a massive achievement in such a short time. But it's not over yet.

[asal]

just had an idea.

why dont those who are going to be affected AND EVEN THOSE who might be affected get their collective butts together and launch a class action RE Restriction of Trade, same as the Greyhound people did? With a little luck every pet shop in the land will be onboaard along with the rest of us lowlifes as the Hon Ms PULFORD views them.

Get enough together and its not the mega thousands apiece if its just a lone or a few and dont tell me these pollies dont run petrified at spending mega bulk in court costs.

Remember the Greys won the judgement, even before Baird did his about spin.

I have a friend is one of those in the class action against be chucked off the pending Badgerys Creek airport. they know the drill for what needs to be done to get one up and running, maybe a crowdfunding appeal ???? Incidently the cheeky buggers are still living there.

I sure know I would be donating

This is morphing into a war of them or us. make no mistake. no matter how they like to sugar coat its only going to affect :eek: :eek: puppy farmers, oops now hasnt there been a word exchange? puppy factories? :eek: :eek: :eek: now imagine matted doggy photo to jerk out all those tears. (anyone spot the matted doggie that was cleaned up by a groomer recently, one dog househould?)

but surely NOOOOOOOOOOO! only puppy farmer/factories have matted doggies, get rid of them and the world is the long coat doggies oyster, no matts heaven.

WHAT? No reality checks permitted?

Registered breeders cannot argue restriction of trade in one breath and argue they should not be treated like a commercial enterprise in the next.

the pet shops can in spades

pretty rich to tell us that selling a puppy bred by a breeder will have poor outcome for the puppy and the buyer.

BUT its fine for rescue pups and dogs?

thats like telling Harvey Norman you can only stock Westinghouse and no other brand, THAT certainly is restriction of trade

Edited November 22, 2016 by asal

[Sheridan]

just had an idea.

why dont those who are going to be affected AND EVEN THOSE who might be affected get their collective butts together and launch a class action RE Restriction of Trade, same as the Greyhound people did? With a little luck every pet shop in the land will be onboaard along with the rest of us lowlifes as the Hon Ms PULFORD views them.

Get enough together and its not the mega thousands apiece if its just a lone or a few and dont tell me these pollies dont run petrified at spending mega bulk in court costs.

Remember the Greys won the judgement, even before Baird did his about spin.

I have a friend is one of those in the class action against be chucked off the pending Badgerys Creek airport. they know the drill for what needs to be done to get one up and running, maybe a crowdfunding appeal ???? Incidently the cheeky buggers are still living there.

I sure know I would be donating

This is morphing into a war of them or us. make no mistake. no matter how they like to sugar coat its only going to affect :eek: :eek: puppy farmers, oops now hasnt there been a word exchange? puppy factories? :eek: :eek: :eek: now imagine matted doggy photo to jerk out all those tears. (anyone spot the matted doggie that was cleaned up by a groomer recently, one dog househould?)

but surely NOOOOOOOOOOO! only puppy farmer/factories have matted doggies, get rid of them and the world is the long coat doggies oyster, no matts heaven.

WHAT? No reality checks permitted?

Registered breeders cannot argue restriction of trade in one breath and argue they should not be treated like a commercial enterprise in the next.

the pet shops can in spades

pretty rich to tell us that selling a puppy bred by a breeder will have poor outcome for the puppy and the buyer.

BUT its fine for rescue pups and dogs?

thats like telling Harvey Norman you can only stock Westinghouse and no other brand, THAT certainly is restriction of trade

Then feel free to argue that to the politicians. Given one of the objections to this Bill's amendments is Dogs Vic's members are not a business it is not an argument that should be made about them.

[Steve]

just had an idea.

why dont those who are going to be affected AND EVEN THOSE who might be affected get their collective butts together and launch a class action RE Restriction of Trade, same as the Greyhound people did? With a little luck every pet shop in the land will be onboaard along with the rest of us lowlifes as the Hon Ms PULFORD views them.

Get enough together and its not the mega thousands apiece if its just a lone or a few and dont tell me these pollies dont run petrified at spending mega bulk in court costs.

Remember the Greys won the judgement, even before Baird did his about spin.

I have a friend is one of those in the class action against be chucked off the pending Badgerys Creek airport. they know the drill for what needs to be done to get one up and running, maybe a crowdfunding appeal ???? Incidently the cheeky buggers are still living there.

I sure know I would be donating

This is morphing into a war of them or us. make no mistake. no matter how they like to sugar coat its only going to affect :eek: :eek: puppy farmers, oops now hasnt there been a word exchange? puppy factories? :eek: :eek: :eek: now imagine matted doggy photo to jerk out all those tears. (anyone spot the matted doggie that was cleaned up by a groomer recently, one dog househould?)

but surely NOOOOOOOOOOO! only puppy farmer/factories have matted doggies, get rid of them and the world is the long coat doggies oyster, no matts heaven.

WHAT? No reality checks permitted?

Registered breeders cannot argue restriction of trade in one breath and argue they should not be treated like a commercial enterprise in the next.

the pet shops can in spades

pretty rich to tell us that selling a puppy bred by a breeder will have poor outcome for the puppy and the buyer.

BUT its fine for rescue pups and dogs?

thats like telling Harvey Norman you can only stock Westinghouse and no other brand, THAT certainly is restriction of trade

Then feel free to argue that to the politicians. Given one of the objections to this Bill's amendments is Dogs Vic's members are not a business it is not an argument that should be made about them.

Free trade and consumer law isn't just about business. You are a consumer whether you own a business or not and therefore covered by australian consumer law. As a consumer we have a right to free access to a product of our choice without the availability being manipulated or the price being inflated due to lack of supply. Breeders whether they be hobbyists or businesses are suppliers.

[witheverythingiam]

272 written submissions, and none were even called for!!! http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/eic/article/3171

Also the MAV has released a statement: http://www.mav.asn.au/News/Pages/unworkable-puppy-farm-laws-need-to-be-halted-24nov16.aspx

I am actually for the first time positive about this thing. We have not won yet in having the whole thing scrapped, but we are closer!

[The Spotted Devil]

272 written submissions, and none were even called for!!! http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/eic/article/3171

Also the MAV has released a statement: http://www.mav.asn.au/News/Pages/unworkable-puppy-farm-laws-need-to-be-halted-24nov16.aspx

I am actually for the first time positive about this thing. We have not won yet in having the whole thing scrapped, but we are closer!

And there's plenty more that haven't been listed either!

[Steve]

Committee recommends withdrawal of Domestic Animals Bill

The Victorian Parliament’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee has recommended the withdrawal of proposed legislation to further regulate the breeding and sale of dogs and cats in Victoria.

To take its place, the Committee has recommended that the Victorian Government immediately establish a stakeholder group of industry, municipal and community representatives to consult on the drafting of a new Bill.

The Committee’s report tabled in Parliament today makes 18 recommendations on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016.

The Committee found that consultation with relevant stakeholders was inadequate and the Bill reflects this.

“While there was agreement amongst all stakeholders that unethical breeders should be shut down, the significant lack of consultation undermined the development of the Bill,” Committee Chair Joshua Morris said.

“If implemented, the Bill will lead to a reduction in the supply of pet dogs in Victoria, particularly popular cross-breed dogs,” Mr Morris said.

“It may also lead to a significant reduction in the supply of livestock working dogs, with consequences for farmers and the agriculture industry.”

Another key recommendation is that the government establish a more robust standards based approach to the health and welfare of dogs in commercial breeding establishments.

The Committee’s report follows a series of public hearings with key stakeholders.

“The message is clear that a new Bill is needed and that it must address the inadequacies of the existing Bill,” Mr Morris said.

“There are significant concerns that provisions in the existing Bill will lead to the decline of the industry in Victoria and will have unintended consequences that will be detrimental to animal welfare.

“A proper consultation process for a new Bill can help to address the concerns that were raised with the Committee during its inquiry.”

The report is available from the Committee’s website.

Media queries

For media queries: Committee Secretary, Lilian Topic, on 0417322053

Issued: 6 December 2016

[tdierikx]

Pretty comprehensive summary of how NOT to go about introducing new legislation... lol!

T.

[Kirislin]

and they get paid a fortune why?

[Lhok]

Animals Aus and Oscar's law fb feeds are angry. They intend to try and pressure the gov to not back down. This isn't going anywhere.

--Lhok

[The Spotted Devil]

The government has no choice. They don't have the numbers in the Upper House. The Independents understand how flawed this legislation is. The thing is if they hadn't backed the ethical breeders into a corner the ACTUAL puppy farm and pet shop legislation would have passed with barely a whimper. No one likes a puppy farm. But poorly written legislation is no way to fix it.

[asal]

The government has no choice. They don't have the numbers in the Upper House. The Independents understand how flawed this legislation is. The thing is if they hadn't backed the ethical breeders into a corner the ACTUAL puppy farm and pet shop legislation would have passed with barely a whimper. No one likes a puppy farm. But poorly written legislation is no way to fix it.

To those who contributed to its existence, they do not see that its poorly written, thank goodness they put what they did, so finally the scales were ripped off the sheep being led to the slaughter and they finally realised, that to OL, AR and RSPCA they are all considered to be puppy farmers. Until then everyone was happy to eliminate puppy farmers never thinking they would be considered to be just that.

They have been amendment by amendment forced to comply to changes that in effect make them fit the parameters of a puppy farm, why? because to AR, OL and the RSPCA if you breed a female, even JUST ONE female, to them, YOU! ARE A PUPPY FARM.

Finally because they were so close to realising the dream they put exactly that in their proposed legislation, one female alone made you a puppy farm, as the commission found the max of 10 was picked because it had "the vibe". nothing else to justify the figure.

FINALLY they had their eyes opened, here's hoping they remember the lesson.

As for the chances of them remembering and staying alert, and actually working together to prevent being ambushed again, I sure hope it is better than it has been until now.

You are not dealing with reasonable people, you are dealing with fanatic's, very smart, very cunning and VERY DEDICATED. FANATICS.

Their brief? the elimination of domestic pets. As the inquiry into the RSPCA proved they are a PETA clone now, PETA was infiltrating them in the 19990's obviously this has been accomplished we even have one now sitting as the Minister for Agriculture, make no mistake about that, read her words if you doubt this, don't read them with rose coloured glasses or you will miss understanding her.

This work began in the 1970's, its been slow by generation standards but they are so close to winning now, this setback must have them seething with frustration. She certainly let it slip during the inquiry commission.

Edited December 6, 2016 by asal

[asal]

Pretty comprehensive summary of how NOT to go about introducing new legislation... lol!

T.

not time for laughing.

they have learned a lesson, it will be back to stealth mode again for AR, OL n co. Remember that.

How long will it be remembered the attack was not just against dog breeders? Those with cats and birds were going to go down as well.

Will all three be legislated against in one hit in future?

I doubt that mistake will be made a second time.

future legislation will be divided in their targets so only one will rise to defend itself and the AR, PETA(and its clones, and OL lot will hope none of the other potential targets will rally to the defense of the sole target.

Edited December 6, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

We need to look closely at what OL and Animals Australia had to say in their submission. This to me clearly demonstrates their ignorance on what people who breed dogs actually do and how they really do raise their puppies.

They have some crazy ideas that if a breeder has 6 dogs regardless of the dog's sizes, regardless of the size of the home, regardless of the breeders resources, regardless of whether the breeder has the ability to be with the dogs all day every day etc regardless of how many litters they may have to whelp at the same time etc etc that all breeders will simply have all of their dogs in their home, living within the family home as if they were children. They constantly describe the terrible sin of allowing dogs to sleep in tin sheds even though some of those tin sheds which we used to call kennels are equipped better and are more comfortable than many people in live in. They seem to either live in fantasy land or they have only been talking to people who breed dogs under a narrow set of variables. Again I say there is a vast difference between 6 toy breed dogs and 6 giant breed dogs.

Can you imagine ducking in for a cuppa with a breeder who has two or three litters in their home which are a breed that has a dozen in a litter and are a few weeks old if they really do have them all running all over their family homes? During the whelping of a large breed it can look like a murder scene, and puppies being weaned and on the move turn into little poo factories. They have worms and other bugs that are not real posh in carpets and family living areas too. There isn't much point in having a bunch of puppies locked in side a house for hours every day whilst the breeder goes to work and only being let out of the crates long enough to clean up either even if the breeder only owns two dogs. In many shires you cant keep more than 2 dogs within 15 metres of a dwelling to stop people having a bunch of puppies under foot in family homes. 60 giant breed puppies and 6 adult giant breed in a family home and none sleeping outside "in tin sheds" ??????

You cant expect them to get the limitations on a breeding gene pools, selecting for traits, health and temperament and how a breeder is much more tempted to use a dog which they would have preferred not to use if they had a greater choice or that some people prefer a purebred puppy over a rescue dog but what their submission told me was they are basing much of what they think happens in every breeders home who owns 6 dogs or less on a very small sample and they are living in la la land as far as reality is concerned. You cant base this on numbers because there are so many variables in the ability for a breeder to get it right.

Two parliamentary enquiries now in two states have found that there is no correlation to welfare and numbers and reality is dogs all over Australia live as outside dogs and sleep under the house, or anywhere in the yard they can find shelter, riddled with fleas and fed poor diets with no vet treatments and poo never picked up,water bowls never cleaned and just as all owners are not equal, all families are not equal and all breeders are not equal. There are some families I met along the way where I reckon if how they treat their children counted I certainly wouldn't want to see a dog living as part of the family in the family home let alone raise a litter of puppies as part of their family.

[Sheridan]

And it's very clear OL and AA (and the RSPCA to some extent) have very fixed ideas, will not change their minds, and cannot understand a reasoned, logical point of view. Breeders are all bad no matter what. That's it. That's their position.

[Steve]

And it's very clear OL and AA (and the RSPCA to some extent) have very fixed ideas, will not change their minds, and cannot understand a reasoned, logical point of view. Breeders are all bad no matter what. That's it. That's their position.

Yes, and Vicdogs members need to be very aware that OL ,AA and AL all very active and very well resourced in Victoria use some filthy tricks to make a point and the big point they are focused on making between now and when this is all sorted is that Vicdogs members are pondscum , keep their dogs in rotten conditions to make a better case to ensure no exemptions will be given and that there should be no self management. Keep your campfires low, stay off the track and be protective of your privacy and your dogs.

[asal]

posted on fb

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/815846467724/the-feed-december-6

Perfect summation of the problem "animals are not ours to use, not ours to use for financial gain"

so unless you give your puppies away, you will never be under Peta, AR or OL radar.

How many think that bleating they do not sell their puppies for financial gain makes them a better person?

Cracks me up, who is prepared to go to work for nothing, the person who wants a pet , be it an office worker, a plumber, a doctor, a nurse, a laborer every single one of them expects a fair days pay for a fair days work. yet thanks to Peta, the breeder of the puppy they want is pond scum if they think they may receive a profit from the sale.

Listening to a group at a show, it amazed me how many feel they need to prove they spend more raising their puppies than they get for them. How sad they are falling for this, the hours you put in to raise a litter you should be entitled to a decent return, instead of apologising for asking a fair price for your work. It takes a lot of work to raise a litter of puppies.

As the one who put up the link, said, "This needs to be watched by anyone that has livestock, pets or an interest in animals. Also people who think they have a right to tell other HOW to live/eat etc."

Edited December 7, 2016 by asal

[asal]

Cannot remember who put up this link

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/SCEI/Domestic_Animals_/EIC_58-06_Report_Text_only.pdf

this from the AVA is gold, has been said so often by so many but no one in government or other breeder for that matter seem to understand this?

found on page 17

The AVA stated to the Committee:

If the code of practice was being adhered to now, we would have no problems. But councils

just do not have the resources to monitor and enforce the code of practice now. The only

thing that this legislation is going to do, with the capping, is drive out professionals. You

are going to get more micro backyard breeders, who are going to be harder to detect.

43

Dated 6/12/16 doesn't look promising

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/statement-on-puppy-farms/

Edited December 8, 2016 by asal