Dogs NSW sabotages NSW Animal WelfareTaskforce recommendations……..

Dogs NSW is an integral member of the NSW Animal Welfare Taskforce.
The Taskforce is chaired by the Member for Charlestown, Mr Andrew Cornwell MP, and consists of representatives of the following organisations, invited by the Ministers to participate:
  • ·    Animal Welfare League NSW (AWL NSW),
  • ·    Australian Companion Animal Council (ACAC),
  • ·    Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers (AILGR),
  • ·    Australian Veterinary Association (AVA),
  • ·    Cat Protection Society of NSW (CPS),
  • ·    Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA),
  • ·    Dogs NSW,
  • ·    Pet Industry Association Australia (PIAA), and
  • ·    Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW (RSPCA).
Representatives of the Division and DPI also participate on the Taskforce.”

 The Taskforce public discussion paper was released earlier this month.. It contained several recommendations in the form of “Options”.

 “Option 1   Introduce a breeder licensing system

Key findings

There  are  effective  regulatory  mechanisms  in  NSW  to  prosecute  unethical breeders, including “puppy farmers”. However, enforcement relies on complaints from the community.

Some animal welfare agencies and industry bodies have indicated their support for the introduction of breeder licensing as a means to further strengthen the regulation of companion animal breeding practices and there is a move towards such licensing in other jurisdictions.

 A breeder licensing system could be developed to improve consistency in the regulation of cat and dog breeders by providing a “welfare tick of approval” with the aim of ensuring that breeders are ethical sellers. Licence requirements could be based on the enforceable standards of the Animal Welfare Code of Practice – Breeding Dogs and Cats. However, this system could be complemented by updating the  existing  guidelines  contained  within  the  Code  of  Practice  to  enforceable standards (see Option 2).”

 

All  good so far ……..so imagine our surprise ( actually, that’s a fib, we weren’t surprised at all) when we received the following information:

Around the 24th May, Dogs NSW circulated the following message to members, along with a discussion paper. This was the message:

“Please find attached important information from Dogs NSW President, Mr Tom Couchman, on behalf of the Board of Directors, in relation to the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce Discussion Paper.
It is very important that Dogs NSW Breeders and Members register an objection to Option 1 contained within this Discussion Paper.
This information will also be uploaded to our website and Facebook page and you are asked to cross post this email to ensure that as many Members as possible are fully aware of the existence of the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce Discussion Paper and are afforded an opportunity to submit their comments.
Thank you.
Regards
Christine Davis
DOGS NSW CEO”

 Further, the following text was set out in the Dogs NSW Discussion paper:

…..“The  Taskforce  proposal  has  the  potential  to  add  a  further  tier  of  registration  on  Dogs  NSW  Breeders  which would undoubtedly bring with it unnecessary and unjustifiable further regulation and costs. Dogs

NSW Members need to be one voice in opposing it.

 T L Couchman 

President Dogs NSW “

 The Dogs NSW full discussion paper is available click here…

 DRP Comment:

Dogs NSW attempt to influence its members to oppose the Option for Breeder licencing contained in the Taskforce recommendation – a recommendation Dogs NSW itself proposed as a member of the Taskforce – is unethical and immoral.

We are not surprised. Dogs NSW have constantly sought to subvert any attempts to create change in the circumstance which results in many thousands of dogs in NSW killed in council and private pounds and shelters. They have never come up with any constructive strategies to stop the problem. They will do anything to avoid any strategy that impacts on their ability to continue breeding their animals.

Breeders as a collective are responsible for animals coming into the world. It doesn’t matter whether they are ethical breeders, backyard breeders, puppy farmers, mums and dads having just one litter…all are collectively responsible for excessive numbers animals entering the pet market. If Dogs NSW want to protect their member’s interests, why don’t they take steps to slow down or stop breeding from all the other breeder sources??? Ans: because they are just not interested…..

Actions you can take:

Write to NSW Minister for Local Government and North Coast, Hon. Don Page at:

office@page.minister.nsw.gov.au

Express your feelings on the actions of Dogs NSW in this matter.

Express your concerns that the majority of members of the Taskforce have vested interests in ensuring that their business interests are not impacted by any changes to animal welfare practices.

Do it today.

Dogs NSW claim in their paper that they are already well regulated ( ie “we are not the problem…it’s someone else…”). If you have any information of instances where their “regulations”are not enforced or clearl y failed, please post them in the comments section below

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Dogs NSW sabotages NSW Animal WelfareTaskforce recommendations……..

  1. Cathryn Levvey May 26, 2012 / 12:16 am

    This sort of corruption must be stopped or our companion animals face a grim future.

  2. Janet May 31, 2012 / 1:32 am

    How exactly do registered breeders differ from byb’s and puppy farmers, except they filled in a form and registered with an organisation with vested interests in keeping those puppies churning out?

    Why propose the option then inform all their members to oppose it? More fruitloops!

  3. Deathrowpets May 31, 2012 / 10:38 pm

    Thanks Janet – now fixed!!

  4. Lisa J Ryan June 1, 2012 / 1:53 pm

    I don’t know why Dogs NSW (the org) would propose the option then inform all their members to oppose it.

    Dogs NSW membership consists of more than just registered breeders, There are also trainers, owners and operators of breeding facilities, groomers etc as members. Dogs NSW members who are show exhibitors and breeders do, (not all but the majority), have different views with dogs than BYB’s and PF’s. Dogs NSW while far from perfect, do have a Code of Ethics which members must adhere to which is in addition to all the normal standards that pet owners, BYB’s and PF’s must adhere to. This includes health screening and testing which does have a direct impact on ‘welfare’.

    There are many members from Dogs NSW and other state kennel control groups who are involved with rescue and advocacy and not all ‘members’ should be lumped into the same basket. Nor should assumptions be made that Dogs NSW members are the same as BYB’s and PF’s or that what Dogs NSW (the org) says represents all Dogs members.

    In all organisations there is good and bad and this is the case with Dogs NSW as well. In many instances however where ‘campaigns’ or change is possible members are never advised – the organisation simply takes a position and claims to be ‘representing’ their members. There will be many Dogs NSW members who hold different views to the Dogs NSW spokespeople and I believe members should be advised so they can also become educated and a voice.

  5. Deathrowpets June 1, 2012 / 6:15 pm

    Lisa, I took your advice and posted this blog on the Dogs NSW fbook page

  6. Geoff Birkbeck June 2, 2012 / 1:07 pm

    This is a prime example of Licensing and Regulation of the animal welfare industry needs to be applied.

    There is no need for just one group to have overriding control. This breeds (pardon the pun) nepatism and corruption.

    Being a member of a single focused group that does not conduct background or probility checks does not confirm legitimacy. Nor does self regulation.

  7. Yvette laurel August 25, 2013 / 6:14 pm

    Don’t trust anything Lisa Ryan says. Ask about the living conditions of her own and foster dogs and why the RSPCA visited her rented premises in Alexandra. She had a questionable lifestyle in Victoria. Many of her former foster carers are owed hundreds and thousands of dollars. Lisa Ryan is morally bankrupt.

  8. Yvette laurel August 25, 2013 / 6:19 pm

    The photos held up at A Young Council meeting showed dogs living in better conditions than that she was providing for her own and foster dogs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s