Victorian Gov To Introduce New Breeding Laws

[Magnolia]

I believe Dogs Vic should come out and explain to its members what is happening and keep us up to date.

Surely they have a responsibility to at least do this much! And don't they stand to lose if the proposed legislation takes effect??

Will dog owners discover there is little point in belonging to an organisation that has little or no value for them?

Is there any response from The Veterinary Association?? Surely they face potential losses as well. After an initial round of desexing

there will be far fewer dogs = far fewer procedures = less money for them.

Too many questions not being answered.

[Steve]

Nope. Not too long a bow at all.

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

Those that are pushing this movement are not interested in the pedigree - they are only interested in dividing and conquering.

What we should have spotted and what we all should be protesting about and sending out petitions for is for people who own an entire dog is to not have to surrender their base human rights. Hansard tells us that they have moved through and admitted what some of the rights are that they want to take off dog breeders.

The right to privacy, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to free enjoyment of our property, the right to be able to purchase a product of our choice from an easily accessible source, the right to free trade, the right to not have our property taken from us without due process, etc. This isnt made up - its in hansard as part of the plan.

THIS is the biggest issue that everyone who owns a dog that they want to breed, whether that be one or one hundred, whether they own a purebred or cross bred, registered or unregistered ,whether they want to source a puppy from a breeder or a pet shop are the real issues. They dont just want to limit numbers, take away exemptions make everyone have a licence They want to leave dog breeders with less rights than a pedophile.

breeders should be able to have the same human rights as any other person who lives in this country because it is THIS they are trying to take way from them. Even if the number limitation does not fly and I don't believe it will, even if Vicdogs get their exemptions back and I dont believe they will, even if they change requirements for a DAB or change the codes it still leaves the fact that a person who is a dog breeder has their rights removed if these part of this bill are not removed.

[Steve]

I believe Dogs Vic should come out and explain to its members what is happening and keep us up to date.

Surely they have a responsibility to at least do this much! And don't they stand to lose if the proposed legislation takes effect??

Will dog owners discover there is little point in belonging to an organisation that has little or no value for them?

Is there any response from The Veterinary Association?? Surely they face potential losses as well. After an initial round of desexing

there will be far fewer dogs = far fewer procedures = less money for them.

Too many questions not being answered.

I just saw a flyer Vicdogs have just sent out to their members after their meeting last night. Looks to me that any members who have more than ten dogs are thrown under the bus and that they have given up on exemptions and no mention of a loss of basic rights.

You can see the trade off as now they are saying if you have fertile dogs and don't intend to have a litter in a calendar year from April to April that you wont need a DAB - that protects those who show but don't breed. That's not what the bill said.

[asal]

Nope. Not too long a bow at all.

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

Those that are pushing this movement are not interested in the pedigree - they are only interested in dividing and conquering.

What we should have spotted and what we all should be protesting about and sending out petitions for is for people who own an entire dog is to not have to surrender their base human rights. Hansard tells us that they have moved through and admitted what some of the rights are that they want to take off dog breeders.

The right to privacy, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to free enjoyment of our property, the right to be able to purchase a product of our choice from an easily accessible source, the right to free trade, the right to not have our property taken from us without due process, etc. This isnt made up - its in hansard as part of the plan.

THIS is the biggest issue that everyone who owns a dog that they want to breed, whether that be one or one hundred, whether they own a purebred or cross bred, registered or unregistered ,whether they want to source a puppy from a breeder or a pet shop are the real issues. They dont just want to limit numbers, take away exemptions make everyone have a licence They want to leave dog breeders with less rights than a pedophile.

breeders should be able to have the same human rights as any other person who lives in this country because it is THIS they are trying to take way from them. Even if the number limitation does not fly and I don't believe it will, even if Vicdogs get their exemptions back and I dont believe they will, even if they change requirements for a DAB or change the codes it still leaves the fact that a person who is a dog breeder has their rights removed if these part of this bill are not removed.

THIS

is what the general pet owing public have no clue is happening.

how on earth can we get it into the press and the TV screens of this nation? the AR nutters get free air time with their bodies smeared in fake blood and wrapped in plastic.

we the pet owning MAJORITY have no public face or campaign going, never have

[asal]

talking to a friend this afternoon, her opinion is nothing is going to happen until all rights are lost as happened to the greyhound owners and maybe then someone will take the state to the courts for restriction of trade n maybe then when its taken that far some thing might be achieved?

mabye the members of the so far inert kcc's might need to start lobbying their esecutive ?

I remember the massive money dogs nsw racked up some time ago to in a court case against a dust up with a elected member of the board access to the records on the excuse I heard anyway," she was wasting staff time"? think it was the board member who took it to court, but it does show the executive will take to the courts if pressed

I believe dogs nsw does put the front that it now is representing all dog owners of the state as it accepts all dogs in some sections of its activities aside from the breed rings now

Edited October 20, 2016 by asal

[DogsAndTheMob]

The potential impact of this law worries me. I'm no economist, but I think simple economic theory states that supply always increases to meet demand. If the law makes it difficult for responsible breeders to supply would-be pet owners, will suppliers from less regulated countries try to make a profit from the market? If so, will Australia's quarantine protections withstand attack in the international courts? Or will free-trade agreements trump quarantine law?

Read this link: http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/01/06/avoiding-buying-illegally-imported-pet-dogs.aspx

"A much-needed crackdown on U.S. businesses like puppy mills that breed pets purely for profit and without regard for the health and well-being of the animals, is having an unintended consequence.

Another often unscrupulous business, the importation of puppies from countries with fewer breeding restrictions, is stepping in to answer U.S. consumer demand for purebred and cross-bred puppies."

And from this link: https://globalhealthvet.com/2014/10/31/dog-imports-into-the-united-states/

The sale of puppies is a big market in countries like the US, and that has driven some people to establish intensive puppy breeding operations (puppy mills) to quickly supply the increasing demand in specific dog breeds. Doing this in countries with limited regulation regarding small animals allows this industry to escape some of the oversight that exists in the US in regards to pet health and welfare. In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regulates importations of dogs and cats and these animals should not be imported from rabies-endemic countries until one month after they receive their rabies vaccination (given at 3 months of age). This puts the animals at a minimum of 4 months of age until they can be shipped to the US. Unfortunately, puppies younger than 3 months can be sold at a much higher price (sometimes thousands of dollars per dog) and some importers have falsified the dogs’ documents to state that they are 4 month old in order to comply with import requirements, when in fact they are much younger.

[bluedeer]

More dogs from close and unregulated countries that are rabies free will come into Australia once laws like this come into effect throughout the country but until then more pups from other states will be just be sold into victoria where the prices will be higher. Supply and Demand.

The problem with hoping that we keep our exempt status as an applicable organisation is that it is at best a stay of execution and no long term plan. Governments like simple solutions to complex problems because it is easier to sell to the public and win votes from those who know nothing about the topic or the unintended consequences of the proposed new rules etc. Sooner or later when the next DV breeder is caught doing the wrong thing, we will lose the exemption.

The most logical solution would be to amend the code to allow breeders straight forward application to be a domestic animal business to be handled by a state department rather than the 72 local councils with their own rules, regs and interpretation of the law. or at least a clear and simple checklist that can be met by the fertile dog owner for automatic granting of a dab after property inspection to ensure the dogs have at least a general level of care.

This would allow transparency and trace ability while still giving the state government a one size fits all system without the loopholes. I for one would rather this, than sending out another giant flashing beacon to all the shoddy backyarders to flock to Dogs Victoria to be exempt from being inspected etc I'm not sure how others feel?

[moosmum]

Nope. Not too long a bow at all.

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

Those that are pushing this movement are not interested in the pedigree - they are only interested in dividing and conquering.

What we should have spotted and what we all should be protesting about and sending out petitions for is for people who own an entire dog is to not have to surrender their base human rights. Hansard tells us that they have moved through and admitted what some of the rights are that they want to take off dog breeders.

The right to privacy, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to free enjoyment of our property, the right to be able to purchase a product of our choice from an easily accessible source, the right to free trade, the right to not have our property taken from us without due process, etc. This isnt made up - its in hansard as part of the plan.

THIS is the biggest issue that everyone who owns a dog that they want to breed, whether that be one or one hundred, whether they own a purebred or cross bred, registered or unregistered ,whether they want to source a puppy from a breeder or a pet shop are the real issues. They dont just want to limit numbers, take away exemptions make everyone have a licence They want to leave dog breeders with less rights than a pedophile.

breeders should be able to have the same human rights as any other person who lives in this country because it is THIS they are trying to take way from them. Even if the number limitation does not fly and I don't believe it will, even if Vicdogs get their exemptions back and I dont believe they will, even if they change requirements for a DAB or change the codes it still leaves the fact that a person who is a dog breeder has their rights removed if these part of this bill are not removed.

Of course they don't care if they are pedigree or not. They are DOGS. It seems its only the pedigree people who have trouble understanding that.

Dogs ACT has on their web site 'We do not recognize or encourage breeding between different breeds".

Before pedigrees, a breed or type was still a breed or type with out a pedigree to 'recognize' it. There would be no breeds with out a recognition of those dogs to start with. So there in writing is a statement that the foundations and environment of pedigrees, the dogs that gave gave rise to the standards are not recognized. Its the pedigree and its standard that is recognized. Not the dogs. Not the species.

They recognize Pedigrees and the standards that define them. They recognize the environmental standards of a K.C pedigree that defines their membership. Then wonder how to encourage those members to accept changes to the very standards that define them as breeders!

They depend on the K.Cs, the environment that sustains them as breeders, to address any demands for them with out a need for PERSONAL responsibility, Because their adherence to its standards is what DEFINES their identity as breeders. They can't address the demands of the environment because they only recognize the K.C environment as the one that sustains them. Their own tiny portion of it. They don't need any thing else.

Seems they are just finding that K.C identity/environment is not enough if it can't adapt to the demands of the environment that supports the K.C Identity. Its got nothing of value to to offer if DOGS aren't valued universaly.

Edited October 21, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

The potential impact of this law worries me. I'm no economist, but I think simple economic theory states that supply always increases to meet demand. If the law makes it difficult for responsible breeders to supply would-be pet owners, will suppliers from less regulated countries try to make a profit from the market? If so, will Australia's quarantine protections withstand attack in the international courts? Or will free-trade agreements trump quarantine law?

Read this link: http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/01/06/avoiding-buying-illegally-imported-pet-dogs.aspx

"A much-needed crackdown on U.S. businesses like puppy mills that breed pets purely for profit and without regard for the health and well-being of the animals, is having an unintended consequence.

Another often unscrupulous business, the importation of puppies from countries with fewer breeding restrictions, is stepping in to answer U.S. consumer demand for purebred and cross-bred puppies."

And from this link: https://globalhealthvet.com/2014/10/31/dog-imports-into-the-united-states/

The sale of puppies is a big market in countries like the US, and that has driven some people to establish intensive puppy breeding operations (puppy mills) to quickly supply the increasing demand in specific dog breeds. Doing this in countries with limited regulation regarding small animals allows this industry to escape some of the oversight that exists in the US in regards to pet health and welfare. In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regulates importations of dogs and cats and these animals should not be imported from rabies-endemic countries until one month after they receive their rabies vaccination (given at 3 months of age). This puts the animals at a minimum of 4 months of age until they can be shipped to the US. Unfortunately, puppies younger than 3 months can be sold at a much higher price (sometimes thousands of dollars per dog) and some importers have falsified the dogs’ documents to state that they are 4 month old in order to comply with import requirements, when in fact they are much younger.

You will have more people driven to either produce or source dogs under illegal conditions with no over sight or expectation of basic decent practice. ( as long as there any value placed on the product that could sustainably be produced under such conditions) And no type of mentorship to encourage or teach the practices that bring results that CAN be valued . There will also be reduced mentorship for those able to meet demand legaly. Even the expertise of those will be more limited over time. Their breadth of experience and knowledge of their subject is limmited.

The overall quality and reliability of the product drops again dramaticaly with even less of value to support over time. The cost to the community of supporting dogs, the species, becomes overwhelmingly the focus.

You can't keep pushing for the govt. to tackle this problem or that one concerning dogs, then complain when its clear people don't understand the subject and do it wrong, or in ways that impact on you.

If they don't understand DOGS then its because those who promote DOGS aren't doing a very good job. If thats not the job of the K.Cs, who else has any authority on the subject? According to the various K.Cs, No one they will recognize.

Edited October 21, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

Agreed - perhaps its time for a Dog Breeders Union.

[moosmum]

Agreed - perhaps its time for a Dog Breeders Union.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now.

[Magnolia]

Dogs Vic. representatives to meet with the Minister on Monday.

Meeting at KCC Park (Skye) Tuesday 25th Oct @ 7.30pm. Be there if you can!

Bring your membership card.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Magnolia

[Magnolia]

From Dogs Vic website...

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS

A meeting to update members on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farm and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 will be held on Tuesday 25 October 2016 at KCC Park, 655 Westernport Hwy, Skye at 7.30pm in rooms one and two.

An update will also be provided on the recent meeting with the Ministers Office and the Domestic Animal Unit

If you have any specific questions in relation to the bill please email [email protected] with Subject : AMENDMENT TO LEGISLATION and we will endeavor to obtain answers prior to the meeting.

[Steve]

Agreed - perhaps its time for a Dog Breeders Union.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now.

We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable.

Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms.

Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights.

Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats.

[asal]

Agreed - perhaps its time for a Dog Breeders Union.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now.

We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable.

Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms.

Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights.

Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats.

I dont know how it is to be done, but breeders and reproduction specalist vets really need to get together and brainstorm how to put together an effective package of information explaining the realities of breeding , genetics and optional breeding ages and management of the female canine. What the AR pushed for and the CC's agreed to was not best practice.

[Magnolia]

FROM DOGS VIC.

Members News

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS

Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farm and Pet Shops) Bill 2016

The meeting on Wednesday at Bulla regarding the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farm and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 was attended by in excess of 500 concerned members. DOGS Victoria President Wayne

Fleming addressed the meeting explaining the conversations and meetings that had taken place since being advised of the Bill on Wednesday October 12. These included a meeting with the Minister’s staff and the Domestic Animal Unit and a conversation yesterday between our President and the Minister for

Agriculture Jaala Pulford MP. This resulted in attendance at the meeting by Government representatives and the Domestic Animal Unit enabling members to ask questions and express their apprehension around the proposed Bill.

While there was some acknowledgement of member concerns, Management Committee believe that it’s imperative that members continue to make their voices heard on this issue.

The most effective way is to contact your local member via phone, email or letter.

If you don’t know who your local member is or need contact details click on the link below and search the categories under Members of Parliament on the right hand side

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au

To help in expressing your concerns three template letters have been placed on the DOGS Victoria

website. Please be aware that these will be ignored if a number of exactly the same letter are received so please make changes and personalise them to you situation, particularly during the opening paragraph.

Below is the link to the letter template

http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/MembersArea/LatestNews.aspx

Finally Management Committee wish to thank everyone for getting behind this important issue and

encourage everyone to maintain the pressure and keep up the fight.

Meeting at KCC Park

The President of DOGS Victoria, Wayne Fleming has a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture, Jaala Pulford MP on Monday night.

To ensure that members receive the most up to date information, the meeting at KCC Park on Monday night October 24, has been transferred to Tuesday October 25.

The meeting will be in the Lyndhurst Rooms at 7.30pm at KCC Park, 655 Westernport Hwy, Skye.

Members are requested to bring their membership cards.

[moosmum]

Agreed - perhaps its time for a Dog Breeders Union.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now.

We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable.

Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms.

Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights.

Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats.

They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized.

They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs.

They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized.

If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results.

If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement.

You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders?

Edited October 21, 2016 by moosmum

[asal]

Agreed - perhaps its time for a Dog Breeders Union.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now.

We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable.

Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms.

Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights.

Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats.

They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized.

They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs.

They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized.

If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results.

If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement.

You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders?

Actually ALL dog owners need to stand and be counted, I had mine as pets all my life, My Dads dog Blue guarded my cot when I was born and I never went anywhere alone, he was always beside me, it was not until I was nearly 30 I actually bred a litter. All dog owners should have the right to decide if they only want to have theirs as a pet or if they may one day decide to keep their dogs line going. Our politicians want to take that right away.

There is not a dog born today that is not the legacy of those who loved and bred its parents and ancestors before it. AR want to break that chain from the past to the future.

Edited October 21, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

I have a 4 month old beagle baby here which - what a disgusting thought- I intend to have a litter or two with her.

As I watch her run and play and sleep at my feet I cant help but smile. I know that every single ancestor she has was bred by me,held by me, loved by me,appreciated for their qualities for 21 generations.

Ive served my apprenticeship made some mistakes and I don't expect that many will get what it really does take to consistently breed dogs generation after generation that enrich people's lives, that don't need to see a vet every other month and live until their mid teens [some older]

there are lots of things Ive done in my life I look back on and wish I hadn't done or that I had done differently but Im proud of what Ive done and learned with my dogs and it saddens me that the over regulation has taken away the ability of those who come behind me to know how great it feels.

[Magnolia]

Well said! :)