Victorian Gov To Introduce New Breeding Laws

[Lhok]

I think the jaw dropping thing that I read is that they agree that the the legislation as it stands with the DAB which they are pushing everyone to get will cease to be valid once the number of allowable dogs drops to ten. They then go on to say they will need the legislation to reflect what they want which is what I thought this legislation is suppose to be.

There is also the mention that the things that dog breeders have been upset about will be amended in the rework of the legislation but again there is no time frames or costings just a sit and wait which isn't good enough.

I'm shaking my head at how that this stuff got so far its scary.

--Lhok

[Steve]

I think the jaw dropping thing that I read is that they agree that the the legislation as it stands with the DAB which they are pushing everyone to get will cease to be valid once the number of allowable dogs drops to ten. They then go on to say they will need the legislation to reflect what they want which is what I thought this legislation is suppose to be.

There is also the mention that the things that dog breeders have been upset about will be amended in the rework of the legislation but again there is no time frames or costings just a sit and wait which isn't good enough.

I'm shaking my head at how that this stuff got so far its scary.

--Lhok

Its the level of ignorance that amazes me. You would think that OL after doing what they do would know stuff they either just don't know or they lie about.

Its the expectation that they can just wave some wand and have governments in people's lounge rooms, removing their base rights,preventing them from earning money,telling them what dogs they should and should not own and buy and there wont be opposition to it or huge wash back !

They say in one breath we want puppies bred in people's homes raised as part of the family but having to have a DAB means that no one can have them in their lounge rooms. Why didn't they know this and if it is about changing the requirements for a DAB then why wasn't that part of the amendments? Even if they take away the DAB and replace it with a permit why would anyone be O.K. about having to have the council or RSPCA in their homes to own a fertile dog. Clearly the aim is to make it so hard for everyone that no one can be bothered and those who dont make money out of it will chuck it in quicker than those who are making money. At every turn less and less breed dogs and people who want to own a fertile dog are treated as if they are criminals and animal abusers and need permission for such a silly basic right form government? Its pathetic.

It looks like they have just taken the draft of the pilot program that was bought in on the gold coast and not clicked that the permit and codes they had there was not the same as was involved in Victoria. And the pilot program was a failure. No one turned up and applied for their permit and the only way anyone breeding or owning a fertile dog was pinged was if someone dobbed them in just as it always had been without the extra money. This stuff costs the Tax payers millions of dollars - for what - to catch out low risk people who own a fertile dog????? That takes resources away form looking at the larger ones and enforcing the laws now.

OL are talking up a storm as if its their legislation, as if they have a clear pipeline through to the minister and that Vicdogs are negotiating WITH them [OL] before they were talking to the government when the second reading went ahead. What sort of government consults with animal rights and drafts legislation that suits the loonies without hearing from the stake holders.

[Steve]

Parliamentary Inquiry into the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms & Pet Shops) Bill 2016

(REPORT FROM TULLY WILLIAMS)

G'day everyone,

I just thought I would try to keep you all up to date on the developments in the changes the Labour government (in particular the agriculture minister Jaala Pulford and premier Daniel Andrews) are planning on passing.

Due to the substantial outcry from all quarters in Victoria, a Parliamentary Inquiry was set up to investigate the likely effects the amendments would have.

Yesterday (Tue 15th Nov) four representatives from the working dog associations appeared before the inquiry at parliament house, and made our presentation and answered questions. 45 minutes was allotted to make our points and answer questions. The four representatives were Rod Cavanagh, Jean Moir, Joe Spicer and myself.

We were the second last group to give evidence at 3.15pm, and by this time the committee of inquiry (made up of 8 MP's from Liberal 3, Labour 3, Greens 1 and Shooters Fishing Farmers Party 1) appeared very much convinced already from all the previous evidence (over 2 days of inquiry) of the absurdity of the bill and the disastrous effects it would have, and even more so after our allotted time.

Bill Scott (who has been doing a great deal of work on fighting this bill also, Nancy Withers is another who has been working tirelessly on it) and myself arrived at 9am and sat through all the days evidence which was quite interesting. There was quite a crowd there listening also, as this was a public hearing at parliament house. I estimate about 80 spectators, although the numbers did decline later in the day.

A list of those giving evidence can be found below, and other information including transcripts of the hearing as they become available.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/eic/inquiries/article/3173

Dr. Liz Walker, CEO of the RSPCA, took quite a grilling from the committee over various points, and was obviously uncomfortable and squirming in her seat over many of the questions. She is big on "transparency" for breeders, obviously not so big on it where her own organization is concerned if her reticence in answering some of the questions is anything to go by. Some questions that stood out were:

Does the RSPCA stand to make a lot of money from these changes, which will create a lot more work and attract a lot of funding for the RSPCA. After a fair bit of umming and ahhing Dr. Walker replied that she hadn't given it any thought. Colleen Hartland the greens member did ask Dr. Walker to get back to them with an accounting of their funding over the past 5 years and how it has been spent. No doubt a fair proportion is spent on what the RSPCA calls "education" which could better be termed "propoganda". It is interesting to see the WA RSPCA being caught using doctored images in its "education" campaigns. You may want to share the following article:http://www.perthnow.com.au/…/981ed42960cb9277a87648f6bf279a…

Does the RSCPA endorse OSCAR'S Law? Once again after a fair bit of uncomfortable squirming due to the fact that the RSPCA admitted they do work in with OSCAR's law quite a bit, (despite the fact that OSCAR's Law has broken many laws and has said they plan to continue breaking them; I would have thought that makes RSPCA an accomplice...), Dr. Walker replied with a clear "No" they do not endorse Oscars Law. (It is quite amazing how organisations like Oscars Law or Animals Australian break the law, get a slap on the wrist, and continue to break the law and even openly proclaim that they plan on continuing to break the law, and yet they think breeders should follow the law... go figure).

Is there any scientific evidence that the number of bitches a breeder has (this bill will put an absolute cap of 10 bitches for any breeder) is correlated with welfare standards? Dr. Walker's answer was that "No" there isn't any evidence. A previous parliamentary inquiry in NSW was quoted which found evidence of the opposite, that there is in fact no link. And this was after Dr. Walker had been at pains to point out that the RSPCA is an "evidence based" organization, obviously only when it suits them.

The Australian Veterinary Association gave evidence also very scathing of the proposed bill. When asked directly why they thought the RSPCA is pushing a 10 bitch limit when there is not scientific evidence (as the RSPCA had previously admitted), the AVA replied that they believed it was the simplicity of being able to prosecute. Count up the number of bitches a breeder has (at this point the president actually counted to 10 on his fingers, 1,2,3...), they are fine, if they count to 11, they can prosecute, even though there is no link between numbers and welfare. The RSPCA again admitted that there are big breeders with excellent welfare standards, and people with one dog with poor standards.

One final point the committee appeared quite astounded at, was that NO-ONE (except the RSPCA) was consulted. The almost absolute lack of any consultation genuinely appeared to amaze the inquiry. Not even the Australian Veterinary Association was consulted, even though they had been seeking such a meeting with the minister over the issue since last January.

The RSPCA also made a worrying point that next year they are planning to expand to engage many VOLUNTEER inspectors extra to their paid staff. One can only imagine the type of person this will attract - no doubt more animal liberation type zealots the like of Debra Tranter (of Oscars law) who are willing to run into people in their cars, break laws, etc.

Personally I find it quite disturbing that an obviously biased animal activist organisation like RSPCA is involved in enforcement. In my view this role should be taken away from the RSPCA. Only government should have that role. These functions would be much better administered by a government department.

What happens now?

The inquiry will publish the transcripts of the inquiry on the website (see above link). They will report their findings back to the upper house on December 6th. From there it is anyone's guess. The ag minister Jaala Pulford may choose to ignore it and go ahead anyway, or changes may be made, only time will tell.

In the mean time, I had a meeting with my local Labour Minister Jacinta Allen last week who I have found (now and in the past when working on the previous code of practice) to be very level headed and a common sense type of person. Talking to her she was quite amazed at some of the effects this bill will have. She is going to try to arrange a meeting for us with the Jaala Pulford, and also with the Department where hopefully we can put our case directly.

What can you do?

As I said above, the minister can choose to listen to the results of the inquiry and their recommendations, or not. In order to pressure her into actually taking notice of the facts, instead of disregarding the likely effects altogether, we need public pressure to continue. I suggest continuing to contact upper house MP's (MLC's) and labour members, and also publicizing the inquiry results as much as possible. Please circulate this email as widely as possible if you can, and feel free to share it on facebook etc.

Regards

Tully.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Steve

[asal]

Finally, the figures of why puppy farms and breeders need to be stopped contributing to the influx of dogs into their kennels. 287 less dogs would have needed to be rehomed.

"Last year, RSPCA Victoria rehomed 4200 dogs of all breeds, shapes and sizes from our 11 animal care centres across Victoria, and GRV needs to be realistic about the market for rehoming greyhounds in Victoria.

Around 7.9% (287) of the dogs and cats surrendered last financial year came from breeders or those involved in the greyhound racing industry."

Would it then stand to reason that 7.9% of the dogs euthanised would have also came from "breeders or those involved in the greyhound racing industry."

Now I begin to understand why it is believed this 7.9% which can be eliminated or reduced as much as possible , since they are traceable needs to be done, don't you think?

Quoted from link from this thread. http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/267866-rspca-victoria-seeking-information/

"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.”

RSPCA Victoria is keen to partner with Government and the companion animal industry – including breeders – to educate the community about how to find pets that have been bred in the best possible conditions. The Smart Puppy and Dog Buyers Guide provides useful information for people wanting to purchase a puppy.

“Put simply, potential pet owners should visit the place where the puppy was born; meet the mother dog (and father too if he’s around) to make sure they’re happy and healthy; and check the breeder provides a high standard of care and living conditions for all of their dogs."

What a nice happy feel good press release to be found below the first quote I copied if you get to it.

What happened to breeders have to have been inspected and pass before they can breed? now every joe public can demand access?

no mention of the dangers of letting anyone who could have been in contact with kennel cough, parvo or distemper having to be allowed to inspect your dogs and property to ascertain if they pass muster though. Even though the mother is vaccinated the puppies can still catch all or any prior to being old enough to vaccinate. A breeder should have the right to say no when puppies are very young, but hey how would anyone know that from reading the above?

Aren't we lucky, non volunteered, but drafted anyway, guinea pigs for the worlds first grand experiment. Yet she made no mention of it at the inquiry? WONDER WHY?

Edited November 16, 2016 by asal

[Lhok]

Oh wow I didn't know that the minister could over rule the findings and go ahead with the legislation anyway.

that is scary.

--Lhok

[asal]

Oh wow I didn't know that the minister could over rule the findings and go ahead with the legislation anyway.

that is scary.

--Lhok

in some quarters this can create what is termed "learned helplessness" which is what the dog fraternity is on a steep learning curve unless it can pull a cat, ooop's, DOG out of the bag.

"learned helplessness

nounPsychiatry

noun: learned helplessness

a condition in which a person suffers from a sense of powerlessness, arising from a traumatic event or persistent failure to succeed. It is thought to be one of the underlying causes of depression. "

Edited November 16, 2016 by asal

[The Spotted Devil]

Oh wow I didn't know that the minister could over rule the findings and go ahead with the legislation anyway.

that is scary.

--Lhok

Oh absolutely. Which is why we are recommending that anyone who is affected to keep making a noise. It has been left to a relatively small number because people don't understand the outcomes.

[Lhok]

Oh wow I didn't know that the minister could over rule the findings and go ahead with the legislation anyway.

that is scary.

--Lhok

Oh absolutely. Which is why we are recommending that anyone who is affected to keep making a noise. It has been left to a relatively small number because people don't understand the outcomes.

Then unfortunately I think it will be a done deal due to the trumpeting of the minister about the new legislation.

I hope I am wrong.

--Lhok

[Sheridan]

Pulford maligned Dogs Vic breeders today as not being up to scratch, apparently. Indicates she really has it in for them.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Sheridan

[bridgie_cat]

"Hobby dog breeders ‘falling well short’ of welfare standards

Tom Minear, State Political Reporter, Herald Sun

33 minutes ago

Subscriber only

RECREATIONAL dog breeders will not have to register as businesses after the State Government moved to make last-minute changes to new laws intended to stamp out puppy farms.

Hobby breeders will also get an extra year to become compliant with animal welfare standards as part of amendments announced by Agriculture Minister Jaala Pulford.

Dogs Victoria, which represents about 10,000 breeders of purebred dogs, had slammed the government’s legislation as unworkable and unfair.

Ms Pulford told a parliamentary inquiry today that the changes would require breeders “to become compliant with a code to which they should already be compliant”.

“(They are) working furiously to get their house in order,” she said.

“But they’re falling well short of where they’re supposed to be right now.”

To allay concerns raised by Dogs Victoria, Ms Pulford said a new category for recreational breeders would be introduced as part of a new central registration scheme.

Those breeders would be given until April 2018 to get their operations up to scratch.

But Dogs Victoria policy officer Dr Terri MacDonald said the “11th hour attempt” may not be enough to “patch up” the legislation.

“Dogs Victoria agrees that animal welfare is the priority,” she said.

“(But the) solution is in the enforcement of current regulations and laws rather than applying another blanket of additional regulations and then leaving it to already under-resourced councils to apply.”

[email protected]"

hate to read such a misleading article

[dragonwoman]

Oh wow I didn't know that the minister could over rule the findings and go ahead with the legislation anyway.

that is scary.

--Lhok

She has apparently spoken of introducing an amended Bill next week, without waiting for the findings of the Inquiry, am told she can, but it will end up blocked in the Upper House where Labour does not have a majority

[Steve]

"Hobby dog breeders 'falling well short' of welfare standards

Tom Minear, State Political Reporter, Herald Sun

33 minutes ago

Subscriber only

RECREATIONAL dog breeders will not have to register as businesses after the State Government moved to make last-minute changes to new laws intended to stamp out puppy farms.

Hobby breeders will also get an extra year to become compliant with animal welfare standards as part of amendments announced by Agriculture Minister Jaala Pulford.

Dogs Victoria, which represents about 10,000 breeders of purebred dogs, had slammed the government's legislation as unworkable and unfair.

Ms Pulford told a parliamentary inquiry today that the changes would require breeders "to become compliant with a code to which they should already be compliant".

"(They are) working furiously to get their house in order," she said.

"But they're falling well short of where they're supposed to be right now."

To allay concerns raised by Dogs Victoria, Ms Pulford said a new category for recreational breeders would be introduced as part of a new central registration scheme.

Those breeders would be given until April 2018 to get their operations up to scratch.

But Dogs Victoria policy officer Dr Terri MacDonald said the "11th hour attempt" may not be enough to "patch up" the legislation.

"Dogs Victoria agrees that animal welfare is the priority," she said.

"(But the) solution is in the enforcement of current regulations and laws rather than applying another blanket of additional regulations and then leaving it to already under-resourced councils to apply."

[email protected]"

hate to read such a misleading article

How did she get this job? Every time she opens her mouth she sounds like Oscars Law.

[asal]

"Hobby dog breeders 'falling well short' of welfare standards

Tom Minear, State Political Reporter, Herald Sun

33 minutes ago

Subscriber only

RECREATIONAL dog breeders will not have to register as businesses after the State Government moved to make last-minute changes to new laws intended to stamp out puppy farms.

Hobby breeders will also get an extra year to become compliant with animal welfare standards as part of amendments announced by Agriculture Minister Jaala Pulford.

Dogs Victoria, which represents about 10,000 breeders of purebred dogs, had slammed the government's legislation as unworkable and unfair.

Ms Pulford told a parliamentary inquiry today that the changes would require breeders "to become compliant with a code to which they should already be compliant".

"(They are) working furiously to get their house in order," she said.

"But they're falling well short of where they're supposed to be right now."

To allay concerns raised by Dogs Victoria, Ms Pulford said a new category for recreational breeders would be introduced as part of a new central registration scheme.

Those breeders would be given until April 2018 to get their operations up to scratch.

But Dogs Victoria policy officer Dr Terri MacDonald said the "11th hour attempt" may not be enough to "patch up" the legislation.

"Dogs Victoria agrees that animal welfare is the priority," she said.

"(But the) solution is in the enforcement of current regulations and laws rather than applying another blanket of additional regulations and then leaving it to already under-resourced councils to apply."

[email protected]"

hate to read such a misleading article

How did she get this job? Every time she opens her mouth she sounds like Oscars Law.

whats the odd's on her being a member?

How does that saying go? "If it quacks like a duck?"

Edited November 16, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

"Hobby dog breeders 'falling well short' of welfare standards

Tom Minear, State Political Reporter, Herald Sun

33 minutes ago

Subscriber only

RECREATIONAL dog breeders will not have to register as businesses after the State Government moved to make last-minute changes to new laws intended to stamp out puppy farms.

Hobby breeders will also get an extra year to become compliant with animal welfare standards as part of amendments announced by Agriculture Minister Jaala Pulford.

Dogs Victoria, which represents about 10,000 breeders of purebred dogs, had slammed the government's legislation as unworkable and unfair.

Ms Pulford told a parliamentary inquiry today that the changes would require breeders "to become compliant with a code to which they should already be compliant".

"(They are) working furiously to get their house in order," she said.

"But they're falling well short of where they're supposed to be right now."

To allay concerns raised by Dogs Victoria, Ms Pulford said a new category for recreational breeders would be introduced as part of a new central registration scheme.

Those breeders would be given until April 2018 to get their operations up to scratch.

But Dogs Victoria policy officer Dr Terri MacDonald said the "11th hour attempt" may not be enough to "patch up" the legislation.

"Dogs Victoria agrees that animal welfare is the priority," she said.

"(But the) solution is in the enforcement of current regulations and laws rather than applying another blanket of additional regulations and then leaving it to already under-resourced councils to apply."

[email protected]"

hate to read such a misleading article

How did she get this job? Every time she opens her mouth she sounds like Oscars Law.

whats the odd's on her being a member?

How does that saying go? "If it quacks like a duck?"

It smells fishier than her just being a member.

[The Spotted Devil]

Very disingenuous comments from the Minister. Under the current legislation DV members can have up to 9 fertile bitches and need to adhere to the CoP for the Keeping of Dogs and Cats. This is the VAST majority of DV breeders. So we DON'T come under the CoP for Rearing and Breeding. If you're not a member of an AO then this CoP kicks in when you have 4 fertile females. But this is what they are expecting us to adhere to if this goes through unamended and we have one fertile bitch. Read the CoP. It is one of the most absurd things I've ever read for a hobby breeder. You need Standard Operating Procedures for every activity, you need someone at the premises 24/7, you need to disinfect dog beds weekly (well that's my bed then), stud dogs over 6 have to get clearance from a vet...I mean WTAF.

Cats, dogs, birds, rescue, obedience clubs all with more red tape that will do nothing for animal welfare.

The MAV rep nailed it - a dog's breakfast.

Edited November 16, 2016 by The Spotted Devil

[The Spotted Devil]

“Decisions shouldn’t be made in the shadows, communities should always be consulted and the powers of the Parliament and the Government should never be abused.” (Victorian Labor Platform 2014)

http://purebreddogs.org.au

#amendthebill

#danielandrews

#jaalapulford

#makeitaboutwelfare

#workingdogs

[asal]

“Decisions shouldn’t be made in the shadows, communities should always be consulted and the powers of the Parliament and the Government should never be abused.” (Victorian Labor Platform 2014)

http://purebreddogs.org.au

#amendthebill

#danielandrews

#jaalapulford

#makeitaboutwelfare

#workingdogs

Australians need to remember, the elected faces we see do not run this country, the power brokers do. Have you forgotten what happened to Rudd when he thought as Prime Minister he made the decisions, Abbot tried the same thing and he too was deposed and replaced with a more biddable candidate.

the only time the exhaulted take notice of the masses is if a decision has created unrest and they might not be relected, Bairds turnaround over shutting down the greyhounds is a shining example. Unless a large number threaten their power they have no interest in the opinion of the great unwashed as they so obvioulsy think of the voters.

they genuflect to the AR mob because they are polished at convincing them they are the spokespeople for the majority of the votes they need. Until somehow they learn the silent majority who don't make a move until they are personally affected do not back the AR's their influence will not be curtailed.

They wave a photo of a matted, malnourished dog and SCREAM a puppy farmer did this, the masses are appalled and back the destruction of puppy farms, without ever realising the plan is their own elimination too. They Show photos of the horrific practice of using a live animal and the masses forget even the report said this was done by a few, and the AR people have whipped up enough that few seem to remember innocent 80% are going down too. Thats 8 out of ten being held accountable for the behaviour of 2?

What puzzles me no end, is Photos of children traumatized by pedophiles, nor Photos of the women bashed or killed by domestic violence does not seem to elicit the same degree of response? Even the perpetrators are not held to be guilty until proven innocent, nor are the rest of the population held to be as guilty for not reporting the abuse, quite strange

Edited November 16, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

My link

Update

[tdierikx]

My link

Update

Doesn't address the "myths" at all...

T.

[The Spotted Devil]

Yes - the department's slides from the hearing. Same problems, different name.

Based on what I heard, I am very much looking forward to the transcripts. Also worth checking out the other presentations.

Funny how the legislation sweeps up birds, cats, dogs, rescue, foster carers, obedience clubs, pet shops and puppy farms and yet the focus of the presentation is on Dogs Victoria breeders who account for 17% of puppies.

Edited November 17, 2016 by The Spotted Devil