Victorian Gov To Introduce New Breeding Laws

[The Spotted Devil]

You'd think so but that would be a big fat no.

(sorry - in reply to Steve)

Edited October 18, 2016 by The Spotted Devil

[Rebanne]

Rural City of Wangaratta says:

Animal Business Registration

The Act requires that all Animal Business Premises must be registered annually. A domestic animal business is defined as:

an animal shelter

pet shops

enterprise that is run for profit which carries any of the following

Breeding of dogs or cats

The rearing, training or boarding of dogs and cats

I bolded the interesting bit

[Willem]

that's an interesting position paper from the AVA wrt mandatory de-sexing: http://www.naiaonline.org/uploads/WhitePapers/Mandatory_Desexing_Statement_Dec071.pdf

quote:

Unfortunately, this apparently simple solution has failed where it has been tried, including in Australia and

will fail if introduced more widely

.

Mandatory desexing is easy to call for and appears, on the surface, to be a logical solution to high euthanasia levels in shelters and pounds. Theoretical modelling and real-world evidence however,

strongly suggests that the logic is fundamentally flawed.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Willem

[moosmum]

that's an interesting position paper from the AVA wrt mandatory de-sexing: http://www.naiaonline.org/uploads/WhitePapers/Mandatory_Desexing_Statement_Dec071.pdf

quote:

Unfortunately, this apparently simple solution has failed where it has been tried, including in Australia and

will fail if introduced more widely

.

Mandatory desexing is easy to call for and appears, on the surface, to be a logical solution to high euthanasia levels in shelters and pounds. Theoretical modelling and real-world evidence however,

strongly suggests that the logic is fundamentally flawed.

Haven't read that, But I think it fails for the same reason most of these so called solutions do.... You are not promoting an expectation that people respond to the challenges of dog ownership. You are not promoting responsibility.

Instead you are trying to create an environment where people aren't going to be challenged with that responsibility.

There is no EXPECTATION of responsibility.

So you try to make it a condition of your environment that to own a dog it must be desexed. Under those conditions, Its not a demonstration of responsible dog ownership, Its taking away responsibility.

Edited October 18, 2016 by moosmum

[dragonwoman]

Rural City of Wangaratta says:

Animal Business Registration

The Act requires that all Animal Business Premises must be registered annually. A domestic animal business is defined as:

an animal shelter

pet shops

enterprise that is run for profit which carries any of the following

Breeding of dogs or cats

The rearing, training or boarding of dogs and cats

I bolded the interesting bit

Might interest all to know that some councils have in recent years decided DV affiliated obedience clubs are DABs and have hounded for payment of $500 or so a year, one council backed down........Minister gave incorrect response to DV on issue and DV does not care about supporting their affiliate....maybe they will now they are in deep stuff!!

[Kirislin]

Rural City of Wangaratta says:

Animal Business Registration

The Act requires that all Animal Business Premises must be registered annually. A domestic animal business is defined as:

an animal shelter

pet shops

enterprise that is run for profit which carries any of the following

Breeding of dogs or cats

The rearing, training or boarding of dogs and cats

I bolded the interesting bit

"run for profit". That might be our saviour, I dont know any dog breeders who breed for profit.

[jemappelle]

Not sure if this has already been posted but this petition has just come up in my Facebook feed through a pedigree cat group. There is someone working on the cat version as I post this:

https://www.change.org/p/mr-andrews-victorian-parliment-save-the-purebred-dog-breeds-from-extinction?recruiter=612843470&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

[Linda K]

As we live on a farm, yes we have a policy to cover damage to the fences etc, and a bog part of that is the public liability in case someone visiting is injured, or a horse gets out onto the road. It is over $1500 a year. So the costs of even being a DAB could be several thousand before one has even had one puppy or kitten

[Diva]

Rural City of Wangaratta says:

Animal Business Registration

The Act requires that all Animal Business Premises must be registered annually. A domestic animal business is defined as:

an animal shelter

pet shops

enterprise that is run for profit which carries any of the following

Breeding of dogs or cats

The rearing, training or boarding of dogs and cats

I bolded the interesting bit

"run for profit". That might be our saviour, I dont know any dog breeders who breed for profit.

They only have to amend the definition

[The Spotted Devil]

This is the official petition link by MP Neale Burgess to stop the bill. Please share this far and wide across Victoria. We need as many voters as possible to use this petition by next week to allow it to be tabled in Parliament. This does not choose what should then be done but asks Parliament to stop the current bill and get a working committee together to work on a better proposed model, this has not been done to date. If we are granted that working committee then the people get to have their say. Please also note that no online petition or activity has to be raised in Parliament. If you print and sign this petition, returning directly to Minister Neale Burgess then your vote will be tabled in Parliament next Tuesday through to Thursday (potentially longer but ideally by next week) and it will make your opinion count.

http://www.nealeburgess.com.au/ethical_dog_breeders_petition

what we actually need MOST are trained professionals - Trainers, Behaviourists, Vets, Nurses..... anyone who believes that our dogs should continue to be raised in the family home.

[asal]

Will the Federal and State Government canine breeding programs have exemptions? Do they already in ACT?

'Exemptions' are not not going to save anyone. They are temporary at best.

Exemptions don't prevent people doing the wrong thing.

If you promote a standardized environment as the only 'correct' method of breeding and raising dogs, any one taking advantage of exemption will not be doing the the right thing. Sooner or later it will be noticed. You have changed the expectation.

Only being held to COMMON expectation reduces the incidence of failure.

There is nothing common to our expectations ATM > Our expectation depend on what 'group' you are aligned with. Those aren't favorable to groups you aren't aligned with. So outsiders won't look for the benefits of a group that doesn't do anything for them personaly, they will hold that group responsible for its lowest common denominator.

If you won't be part of what people share in common, you won't meet common expectations.

The K.Cs are not aligned with 'dog breeders' and owners. They are aligned with Pedigrees.

The Difference of K.Cs could be accepted as part of diversity in practice.

But if they won't practice an acceptance of diversity themselves, they will be rejected or destroy their own purpose.

This process gains momentum and theres not much time left. Expectations are almost destroyed.

Police, Guide dogs for the visually disabled, Customs breeding centre?

Meeting at Bulla tomorrow night will be interesting.

If you legislate things be done a certain way to be correct, then yes. Its an environmental 'Standard'.

If everyone must do things this way, then they will come to expect that is the only way they should be done.

You have created a common expectation. EVERY ONE will be held to that expectation, eventualy. Its accepted as a condition of keeping dogs.

what gets me is the assumption only the breeders of registered pedigree dogs should be allowed, there are still recognised breeds and I suspect some in progress of evolution whose owners should have the right to continue.

the Jack Russel was not an ankc breed until relatively recently despite it being known for many many decades, as for the Coolie (around Tarana n Bathurst most are called German Coolies) they have been an aussie breed for beyond my lifetime just because they do not have a studbook or an ankc listing does not make them any less to their rights to exist and continue.

People should still have the right to keep and breed whatever type of dog they wish, it has been so for thousands of years, why let the AR nutters and the new kid on the block, the ankc which only came into being how long ago? and still accepting "new" breeds that have been known for generations.

The show scene didnt create any of the breeds, people around the world created them. like it or lump it the show scene has morphed many beyond recognition to those bred them as early as the 50's and 60's. Not just the dog breeds, my uncle had Persian Cats, there were cat shows in the 50's and hang on to your hat you who were not alive then. They had faces, they had a muzzle, their eyes were half the size of the gargoyles that grace a cat show today. They could actually breathe without drooling and snoring, their eyes didn't look like they might fall out of their face. they didnt have tear streaks running down their faces and they didn't have wrinkled folds for the tears to stagnate in and get sticky and yuky as we see too often now, the standard actually used the words "plesant expression" that was deleted in the 90's when the gargoyles make that obsolete, I know because my friend fought valiantly to prevent its removal but failed.

Those like my friend who wish to still breed their pets with functional tear ducts, nostrils and muzzles long enough the owner can keep its tongue in its mouth should have the RIGHT to do so. who knows, some day the registered pedigree world might finally decide they need a gene pool to reintroduce the faces, eyes, tearducts and functions muzzles back onto the squished's. you never know?

people should have the right to still keep and breed what they want, dogs and cats with faces if they want and not have to belong to a club or registry .

not everyone wants a flat faced version of the show scene today.

the livestock industry, (probably next on the elimination hit list) yes has stud books for a plethora of breeds, but livestock owners also like to create their own or cross with various breeds to suit their purpose and their properties.

All dogs lovers need to start communicating, not just the PUREBREED REGISTERED people. ALL who have their dogs be it registered or unregistered should have their right to decide what they want to have. Although I just remembered this is a forum for pedigree breeders only isnt it.

the Australian Stumpy Tailed cattledog, was in the end bred into a dead end in the ANKC because only one breeder was left. If it were not for the huge gene pool of unregistered but equally loved stumpy's out there, the drive to find and appendix register dogs from that gene pool the breed would have been lost to source unrelated genetics.

the assumption that unregistered, un papered pedigreed (many breeders out west of the divide still have their records, I know the breeders of the Coolies ive seen can rattle off their ancestors names just as fast as any ankc registered dog ) automatically means mongrel needs to be amended before its too late.

even the chap who created the first labradoodle believed in what he was doing at the time. time will tell if the incredible mix of oodles going into the recipe will one day discover an emerging type some day.

all the talk of anti discrimination laws being applied to people really needs to be applied to dogs and their owners too or am I drawing too long a bow ?

Edited October 19, 2016 by asal

[moosmum]

Nope. Not too long a bow at all.

Its essential if we are going to KEEP pedigree dogs. Or any credibility.

Edited October 19, 2016 by moosmum

[Magnolia]

Did anyone here go to the meeting at the Bulla Dog Park ? If so, would you mind reporting what was discussed as I'm sure there will be many like me

who couldn't go but would like to be updated?

[The Spotted Devil]

I know. Me too. Had planned to go on Monday. Nothing on FB that I can find.

Edited October 19, 2016 by The Spotted Devil

[JRG]

I went but did not stay long

What did I learn?

1. the department thinks that it is easier to register ALL dog breeders because then anyone not registered is illegal by default

2..that you do NOT have to use the super kennels you have to build, your dogs can still live in the house - but you have to build them anyway.

3. that it was probably not a good idea to call it a DAB because the term business has connotations not envisaged in this legislation

not much else.but then I left before the meeting to decide on an action plan which was due to take place after the dept staff left.

sorry

[JRG]

apologies my computer does not want to play this morning!

Edited October 19, 2016 by JRG

[JRG]

gremlins!

Edited October 19, 2016 by JRG

[Magnolia]

This whole thing is just totally ridiculous! Typical of what one would expect from bureaucrats meddling in territory they are ignorant of!

This is just another example of Government not listening to people or canvassing the ideas of those effected by legislation made without wider consultation.

No decent Dog breeder wants to see Puppy Farmers thriving by ill-treatment and lack of care and hygiene of any animal - there is definitely need for legislation to bring

an end to these practices... but why should those of us trying to do the right thing be penalised???

This is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The breeders I am fortunate enough to know, are genuine lovers of their chosen breed and as well as upholding sound practices and high standards, they are providing a service

both to the breed and to those who want pets.

I hope everyone will take that petition and get it signed by as many people as possible. Whether the Government takes notice or not is another issue!

[moosmum]

I don't think legislation is the answer to puppy mills either.

Informing people of the practices that contribute to best results, and explaining how and why they work are. Allowing people to take responsibility for their own choices.

Puppy mills aren't the govts. responsibility. They are the responsibility of people who know the problems. If there are so few who understand whats involved or at stake, thats the fault of those who do. For failing to demonstrate the value of what they do.

You can't dictate people choices. They will buy from sources that best meet their needs. They can't responsibly do that if they have no understanding of the processes involved, or the species they are dealing with.

Teach the value of BETTER practices, and better welfare results will follow.

Stop this focus on what we don't like and show case what we do like and why.

Start focusing on the VALUE of dogs, and and not the costs and failures.

If we have microchipping and registration details we have accountability. We have legislation for prosecuting cruelty cases. You can never legislate every detail that constitutes cruelty. Its easier to recognize when an animal is being deprived of its needs than it is to detail every step to meet them, because that depends on the individual, and it depends on the environment you have to work in.

The way things work atm is like handing a baby to woman whos been in a coma since birth and wondering why shes not a responsible mother.

Edited October 20, 2016 by moosmum

[The Spotted Devil]

The problem is, in part, that the legislators think that getting a DAB is a simple process. But they forget that councils interpret the DAB through their own local laws, hence the variation in annual fees - from $300 to $3000 - a requirement for an ABN, some that want $10 million public liability and others that have strict planning and zoning restrictions. Multiple councils are saying they will NOT be giving out DABs. They have no idea what is going on with the amendment. They too have been completely blindsided by this new requirement.