Victorian Gov To Introduce New Breeding Laws

[RuralPug]

My link

Update

It seems pretty clear what amendments to the Bill will be introduced on the 22nd, judging from this.

Time to fight it in the Upper House.

[The Spotted Devil]

We definitely are :D

[asal]

We definitely are :D

is it just me who thinks they held the inquiry to show they are prepared to listen to concerns. but that it was all just a public relations scam? to appease the masses so they hope wont get a backlash like baird did?

[Papillon Kisses]

I was a bit disappointed in the Dogs Vic presentation based on the slides. Seemed lackluster.

[Lhok]

We definitely are :D

is it just me who thinks they held the inquiry to show they are prepared to listen to concerns. but that it was all just a public relations scam? to appease the masses so they hope wont get a backlash like baird did?

Wouldn't it be worse for them if they held public consultation and didn't listen then especially if it all goes pear shaped.

--Lhok

[asal]

We definitely are :D

is it just me who thinks they held the inquiry to show they are prepared to listen to concerns. but that it was all just a public relations scam? to appease the masses so they hope wont get a backlash like baird did?

Wouldn't it be worse for them if they held public consultation and didn't listen then especially if it all goes pear shaped.

--Lhok

by pushing the date for compliance back to 2018 the fat wont be hitting the fan for two years instead of now is that before or after the next election?

[dragonwoman]

I was a bit disappointed in the Dogs Vic presentation based on the slides. Seemed lackluster.

The presentation had to be limited to time, a lengthy written submission was put in before the enquiry started and the important part will be the transcript when it comes online.............that is the main bit of an enquiry

[dragonwoman]

We definitely are :D

is it just me who thinks they held the inquiry to show they are prepared to listen to concerns. but that it was all just a public relations scam? to appease the masses so they hope wont get a backlash like baird did?

There are two "theys", the lower house has a govt majority so the Bill passed easily, the upper house does not have a majority, they have more greens, minor party and independent members and it is the upper house which is holding the inquiry.............the issue has become a political one............I don't believe this inquiry is "going through the motions", they are investigating flawed legislation based on incorrect premises in some aspects, and written without proper consultation of all affected

[The Spotted Devil]

We definitely are :D

is it just me who thinks they held the inquiry to show they are prepared to listen to concerns. but that it was all just a public relations scam? to appease the masses so they hope wont get a backlash like baird did?

There are two "theys", the lower house has a govt majority so the Bill passed easily, the upper house does not have a majority, they have more greens, minor party and independent members and it is the upper house which is holding the inquiry.............the issue has become a political one............I don't believe this inquiry is "going through the motions", they are investigating flawed legislation based on incorrect premises in some aspects, and written without proper consultation of all affected

Yes. On all counts.

[asal]

We definitely are :D

is it just me who thinks they held the inquiry to show they are prepared to listen to concerns. but that it was all just a public relations scam? to appease the masses so they hope wont get a backlash like baird did?

There are two "theys", the lower house has a govt majority so the Bill passed easily, the upper house does not have a majority, they have more greens, minor party and independent members and it is the upper house which is holding the inquiry.............the issue has become a political one............I don't believe this inquiry is "going through the motions", they are investigating flawed legislation based on incorrect premises in some aspects, and written without proper consultation of all affected

Yes. On all counts.

is there the faintest chance what I notice was not said by Walker at the hearing will what she put on the net page ever get to be seen and read by these people in parliament, is there anyway to ensure they do see it?" admitting this is one huge experiment never done anywhere else in the world and the AVA, the pet shops and those who actually breed dogs know this is going to make all involved with dogs and probably cats as well to go belly up in fast and disastrous order?

“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. (my words, limited is double speak for as she says up first, never been done so NO REASEARCH will they realise this means no one has a clue?)

“Setting a limit will allow us to start benchmarking welfare outcomes in Victoria.”

Edited November 18, 2016 by asal

[Sheridan]

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.

Has Pulford had a bad experience with a Dogs Vic breeder, I wonder?

[dragonwoman]

“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. (my words, limited is double speak for as she says up first, never been done so NO REASEARCH will they realise this means no one has a clue?)

“Setting a limit will allow us to start benchmarking welfare outcomes in Victoria.”

Well I did hear someone remark that it had to be 10 because after that they would run out of fingers...............

Edited November 18, 2016 by dragonwoman

[The Spotted Devil]

Feel free to cross post on FB or wherever...

Now might be a good time for the #nothappydan Labor government to stop just making stuff up and #amendthebill

It was about destroying the model of puppy farms, not about creating more red tape and heartache for ethical breeders.

A dog's breakfast just about sums it up.

http://purebreddogs.org.au

2014- Pre election - Labor says puppy farm crackdown, 10 only bitches and 5 litter limit. The backdown on the 5 litter limit is what hurt the Lib/Nats the most. We joined the protest on that.

2015 - post election. Labor restored 5 litter limit and says their 10 bitch limit is coming as per their promise.

2016 - Labor introduces bill with 10 bitch limit for puppy farms and 1 bitch limit for any other breeder, claiming it was their election promise. Any other breeder was never mentioned until this bill. It was never an election promise. Also in the bill are Foster carers, rescues, working dogs, obedience clubs, working dogs, cats and birds

You have been fooled by the deceptively named Domestic Animal Amendement (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) 2016. It is much, much more than that.

#dumpthebilldan

Purebred Dogs Victoria #amendthebill

#brokenpromisedan

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-04/puppy-farms3a-victorian-opposition-announces-further-crackdown/5790676

[Steve]

Debra tranter tells us in her testimony that there are less puppies being bred by big commercial breeders so this proves that there is less demand for them - so why do we need legislation when the last amendments to the bill have only been around for about 12 months and appear to be working?

Mind you I don't agree with her conclusions but its her position and doesn't show any need to have more laws introduced. Its a typical example of how they will snatch at anything and try to back up their hair brained ideas under the guise of animal welfare.

Clearly something has already happened to get rid of illegal puppy farms because there are none left - even the terminology has changed from puppy farms to puppy factories.

The fairy land stuff she says about what breeders do and how this amendment will make puppies be reared in a home environment is just so full of assumptions and a twisted view of the real world and what will be required of breeders who won't be able to dedicate their lives to what they do but will have to work and spend less time and energy on their dogs and puppies. The variables between breed differences, breeder resources and abilities is not even spoken of or in the mix. 10 large breed girls can give you up to 200 puppies a year .When large breed girls whelp it can look like a murder scene, They usually all come in around the same time and a couple of litters of large breed puppies is a truck load of poo - but they will be raised in the home? As if.

That presentation from Banksia park shows they are doing more for their dogs and puppies than many small breeders do so why would they want them to shut down and encourage people to work out ways to not get caught and fly under the radar?

The things of note to take from this are if you are a breeder don't let anyone know where you are or how many dogs you have. Don't let anyone attend your property, don't keep any of your' older dogs and don't rehome any older dogs but have them PTS by your vet.

The RSPCA take the right to assess whether a dog is rehomed or whether it is more kind to the dog to have it PTS due to its health or temperament or history but if the breeder makes that decision its wastage and cruel.

[dragonwoman]

Clearly something has already happened to get rid of illegal puppy farms because there are none left - even the terminology has changed from puppy farms to puppy factories.

I have heard that Wellington Shire (East Gippsland) says they have closed 14 puppy farms, there were big volume breeders down there, surely that would have an effect on statistics?

[Steve]

Clearly something has already happened to get rid of illegal puppy farms because there are none left - even the terminology has changed from puppy farms to puppy factories.

I have heard that Wellington Shire (East Gippsland) says they have closed 14 puppy farms, there were big volume breeders down there, surely that would have an effect on statistics?

Probably if there were any statistics .wellington Shire couldn't even tell me [ and I have it in writing] what I would need to do to be able to breed dogs in their shire ."Every case was taken on a case by case consideration" In other words it's potentially corrupt.

[Steve]

Get a look at this!

My link

[witheverythingiam]

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

[asal]

Get a look at this!

My link

10. pet shops can provide poor environments for puppies and kittens;

but a perfect environment for rescue puppies and kittens?

11. pet shops encourage impulse buying, which can lead to irresponsible ownership or an increase in unwanted animals;

But doesn't happen when its a rescue sold?

12. pet shops provide market access for illegal breeders;

umm I was asking a pet shop owner that very question, The one with the oodles, they have to have the details of anyone who they buy a puppy from so suprise, suprise, complete disclosure of where the pet came from?

13. online dog and cat advertisements are failing to meet the legislative requirements

14. enforcement of online and print advertising is sporadic;

15. it is expensive for foster carers to register their foster animals with local council;

16. foster carers currently supply large numbers of kittens to pet shops;

17. some public sales of animals should be able to occur under certain conditions; and finally

18. unregulated public sales of birds create welfare problems.

The department developed multiple policy options for addressing these concerns. Policy options must be balanced — that is, they must consider both sides of the argument — achieve the desired outcome, be cost effective and be practical.

what a simply awesomely balanced dogs breakfast. Well the inquiry was just what it looked like it may be, let the disgusting witches/bitches/breeders/pet shops get their concernes aired and then we can say they have had their chance to submit their evidence then free to ignore everything said.

THE GRAND EXPERIMENT IS ON TRACK!

abiet a delay of 12 months, small sacrifice for the beginning of the NEW ORDER.

Wonder a little what part of, "we will go broke, if we can only sell rescues." Didn't compute that once closed they cease to sell anything not even rescues? But then we are dealing with genius who can see the BIG PICTURE. Whatever that is?

Edited November 21, 2016 by asal

[Lhok]

Anyone else reading the link Steve put up and go when they read this bit? Seems like the chair is a reasonable sort willing to be open minded but seriously when you have a minister who just openly accuses them of being bias and then the bolded bit I really hope level heads prevail.

The CHAIR — I suggest to you that this bill really is more about ideology than about achieving animal welfare outcomes. We have heard from group after group after group, from expert after expert, that the perverse

outcome of this bill is going to be that animal welfare is actually going to go downhill in the state of Victoria

rather than being enhanced. Where is the evidence that this bill is going to enhance animal welfare in Victoria at

all?

Ms PULFORD — As the Chair of the committee, it sounds a bit like you have already made up your mind.

The CHAIR — I am always open-minded, Minister — always.

Ms PULFORD— Well, it sounds a little bit like you have already made up your mind.

Mr ONDARCHIE— Sounds like you have already made up your mind too, Minister.

Ms PULFORD — I would question your capacity to properly consider the evidence that we have just

presented.

Mr ONDARCHIE — We have listened to other people — that is the point.

--Lhok