Category Archives: Dogs and Politics

07/23/13

Voiceless Lecture Series

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending a lecture with Antoine Goetschel, an individual described as ‘The World’s Top Animal Lawyer’ and a writer of a number of books.

Antoine travelled the country delivering this lecture, courtesy of Voiceless. Voiceless is an organisation that campaigns for changes in animal welfare legislation based on science. They believe that, while public opinion may catalyst change, science challenges industry and provides evidence for that change.

Antoine was enjoyable to listen to. Below is a summary of his lecture.

 

A horse drawn tram: Who is looking out for this Clydesdale's welfare?

A horse drawn tram: Who is looking out for this Clydesdale’s welfare?

 

Why Does Animal Welfare Matter?

Antoine wants to throw out the idea that “we should protect animals because they can suffer”.  While of course we want to prevent animal suffering, our concern for animal welfare should extend to their inherent value for who they are, and not just the state of what they could be in inappropriate conditions.

How we treat animals is, what Antoine called, a “barometer for human friendliness” and that treating animals well is “making our life more consistent” with the way we treat people.

Basically, Antoine argued that the dignity of creatures should be acknowledged beyond protecting them from suffering and pain, and has links to how people treat one another.

 

Legislation is ‘The Solution’ to Ensuring Animal Welfare

Antoine said that “If you do not know the goal, every path is wrong”.  For ensuring animal welfare, Antoine argues that the goal should be to create legislation that ensures animal welfare.

While we all have personal ethics, these are personal opinion and mean nothing to law makers.  That is, ethics are not binding.  However, laws are binding.  You are either complying with the law, or you’re not, and it doesn’t matter what your opinion on the law is – it doesn’t matter. It’s the law.  Science is key in informing such laws.

Antoine made the audience laugh with the saying, “Dogs bark, cats meow, and farmers complain”.  While farmers  and others will oppose legislation, when it’s based on science and then made law, they don’t have many choices but to comply.

Legislation ‘secures animal interests’, but it is a long term goal that needs to be created in small pieces that slowly ‘chip away’.  For example, our long term goal may be to ban experiments on animals, but first we could put it on a permit system, or require supervision, before increasing degrees of legislation that further restrict and then eventually prohibit the use of animals in experiments.

There are many countries leading the way, like Switerzland and Germany, who have placed animal welfare is in their constitution, thereby obligating laws ensuring that animal welfare is upheld.

Antoine also made a case for uniform animal welfare law.  For example, a national Animal Welfare Act or a national definition for ‘free range eggs’.  These laws should be ‘copy and pasted’, and not redefined overtime. On an aside, Antoine mentioned that it’s the state’s job to police animal welfare – not charity groups like the RSPCA.

Unless we make animal welfare law, we’re just asking, “Please be nice to animals”.

 

Animals Aren’t Objects

Currently, most law recognises animals as objects that can be owned as property. However, clearly, animals are more than merely objects.  Equally clearly, animals aren’t human, either.

Animal law campaigners argue that there should be a third category that recognises that animals are special.

This ‘third category’ is important when thinking about animals as part of the family, in divorce, or lost and found, or renting. For example, landlords cannot evict people from their premises for adding to their family – and this should include animal children. I instantly thought of how the world would look if pounds/shelters didn’t euthanise animals for being ‘lost’ and ‘unclaimed’ or even holding animals under ransom for impound fees, but instead worked like police in returning animals to their homes, or acted like child services to help improve home living conditions for pets.

However, there is no doubt that humans should be protected from animals that are dangerous.  Owners (or their insurance) should be held responsible for dangerous dogs.

 

A Voice for Animals

Antoine argued that because animals have no one ‘standing up to them’, they are abused, neglected, or simply killed.  He argued that there needs to be a voice for animals, an animal advocate, to stand up for the rights of animals.  These animal advocates would have a role in the media, and also in court.

In court, people who abuse animals can defend themselves, but animals cannot. In this way, legal proceedings are already tilted to the benefit of animal abusers.  More people need to be punished for their crimes against animals, and authorities need a greater motivation to press charges.

This animal advocate would give voice, legimitacy, publicity to animal causes. If we have these individuals appear on TV, standing up for animals, animal abuse feels more serious.

Currently, animals do not have ‘rights’, in the eyes of the law, but giving animals a voice is a good first step before animal rights are recognised in legislation.

 

Summary

  • Animals matter
  • We need to move away from ‘anti cruelty’ and into ‘pro dignitiy’
  • Animals are beyond objects, but aren’t human
  • Giving animals a voice in procedures is a good start to animal rights
  • Make society more human and animal friendly
  • “No body is for cruelty! We are all against cruelty.”

 

My Thoughts and Interpretations

Antoine was a powerful speaker, and it was hard not to agree with him.  Significantly, I strongly agree that simply ‘preventing animals from suffering’ is not enough and we should instead require particular forms of animal welfare (such as enrichment).  To me, it’s like comparing the ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts’ to that of the ‘Animal Welfare Acts’ – their aims are similar, but their powerful difference in execution is significant. (A further comparison between these pieces of legislation can be seen here.)

In regard to dog welfare, however, particularly dog breeding legislation, I am not sure what the appropriate legislation actually is.  I have criticised dog breeder legislation a lot (see Victorian, NSW, QLD, and SA legislation critiques), and mostly the problem is they try to improve animal welfare by putting restrictions on pen sizes.  As someone who loves and uses crates, I fear that crates (arguably: good for animal welfare) will be effectively criminalised by such legislation.  Furthermore, they try to make generic legislation (e.g. the bitch should be able to escape her puppies at all times) without regard to individual animals or their needs, nor compensation to these needs.

Concerningly, Antoine used the term ‘chip away’ for legislation which makes small improvements over time.  Do those who argue for animal welfare legislation, as applicable to breeders, want to chip breeders away all together?  Some vocal groups, like Animals Australia, have already stated that they reject breeding of companion animals, so there must be others with motives similar.  Indeed, in a recent SA report, politician Susan Close said that she wanted less companion animals to be born. It worries me that legitimate and responsible breeders may find new legislation overwhelming and cease to breed. Responsible and ethical breeding has a place, and we have as much of an obligation to ensure that it continues as we do in ensuring unethical breeding ceases.

Despite thinking about this issue extensively since attending this lecture, I still can’t help but think my post on “What is the answer? (to puppy farms)” really gets at the crux of the issue. Basically, here I propose that breeders should be obligated to care for their puppies for life, especially if they end up in a shelter or pound.  The idea is that breeders would only breed with the ongoing welfare of that puppy in mind.

Regulating dog breeding may be worthwhile in some way, but I am yet to see a proposal that I can get behind.

 

 

More on this lecture series:

Antoine Goestchel – The Animal Voice (video).

Securing animal interests through law (audio).

The Animal Voice: Ensuring Interest Through Law (PDF).

 

Links of interest:

Animal Justice Party

07/10/13

Select Committee SA replicates faulty animal welfare legislation

In January, I blogged about the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare, including my submission to the committee. Recently, the committee has published their report, in which my submission is listed number 118 (out of a total of 168 submissions).

You can download the full 64 page document from the Parliament SA site.

To say I am disappointed in the Select Committee’s findings would be an understatement.  When the submission processed asked writers to provide evidence for their recommendations (i.e. “The information you provide as evidence should be factual and capable of being substantiated.”), I was anticipating a research-based report from the committee.

Sadly, a evidence-based-approach was only required from the writers, and not by the committee itself.

They don’t even keep this government ‘public opinion’ approach a secret, saying:

Companion Animal Issues have become more prevalent in recent years, with most states and territories amending existing legislation and regulations or creating new ones that reflect the concerns shown within the greater community towards the health and welfare of their beloved pets.

That is, the Select Committee acknowledge legislation and regulation change based on ‘public concern’ instead of evidence of that legislation or regulation making improvements or fixing problems.

Well, that’s a flawed approach, isn’t it? Shouldn’t it based on science and evidence that show methods for improving health and welfare? Why would be just do what the public wants when it may not actually see the improvements that we seek?

They committee has made a number of recommendations that are problematic. I will begin to dissect them here.

 

The Issues with Microchipping

The Select Committee praises Victorian and Tasmanian legislation, where dogs must be microchipped in order to be registered. They also praise NSW legislation where animals must be microchipped before sale and before 12 weeks.  The rationale is that such legislation would see more pets reunited with their owners if they become lost.

However, they provide no evidence that this legislation is effective at improving animal welfare.  The only evidence produced by the Select Committee regarding this Victorian legislation was the support from the RSPCA and the Victorian government. That’s not evidence, guys. That’s spin.

While I support microchipping and to an extent this law, enforcement is hugely lacking.  In NSW, just look at Broken Hill Pound or Tamworth Regional Pound or Renbury Farm to see the number of dogs that get impounded into shelters without microchips, despite it being mandatory in the state.  How are so many litters being sold or transferred unchipped? Where is the policing?

The Committee wants all dogs and cats to be microchipped in the hopes that lost pets can return home more readily. However, they neglect to specify the requirements that shelters, pounds, and vets would have regarding microchpping and identifying pets as they come in. Currently, there is no legal obligation for any individual to check a microchip on animal impoundment. This is a huge flaw in state legislation and it needs to be addressed.

 

The Issues of Breeder Licensing

All the legislation I’ve been criticising on this blog seems to be praised by the Select Committee.  They like Victorian legislation (where a certain number of entire dogs requires an individual to be registered as a ‘business’), but I have critiqued the new proposed legislation here, and for it’s lack of evidence here.  The Select Committee seems to praise the findings made by the NSW Companion Animal Task Force, which I have already criticised here.  The Committee also looked at the Gold Coast scheme, which I have criticised as “Clean and Kennelled“.

The basic recurrent theme in all this is it provides little lee-way for people to raise puppies in home environments, only in disinfected kennel blocks. This is detrimental to dog welfare.

The rationale behind breeder licensing is that if breeders are licensed, then codes of conduct legislation concerning animal welfare can be upheld.  The Committee wants a code like the NSW one in SA.  The Select Committee says such legislation “Will ensure a better and enforceable welfare standard for breeding companion animals.”  However, while it may provide an enforceable standard, that doesn’t make it better than the current standard (Animal Welfare Act) that applies to all animals (not just breeding animals). Furthermore, having an enforceable standard doesn’t mean it will be enforced.

It fails to realise that individuals who are ‘puppy farms’ already fail to comply to the Animal Welfare Act, and so are unlikely to sign up to a breeder scheme.  I’d pay money to see the puppy farmer that says, “Well, I’ve been neglecting my responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act for years, but now that this breeder scheme has come in, I guess I better sign up.”

The RSPCA admits that puppy farms are hard to police because animals are often kept inside sheds.  How is breeder licensing going to fix this?  The Select Committee thinks such legislation will mean consumers can be more confident in their purchases. Again, only if it’s enforced… And the RSPCA already said it’s too hard to know where puppy farms are… So sorry, how? Isn’t it better to just recommend that anyone purchasing a puppy visit the home/environment the puppy is raised and use their own discretion?

The Select Committee describes how the RSPCA supports a breeder licensing scheme. Well, of course they do, it deflects public attention away from their own failings. There’s probably financial perks in it for them, too (as undoubtedly they would be enforcing such legislation).

The Select Committee quotes how the D&CMB supports a breeder licensing scheme.  Well, of course they do, they’re really into desexing, and a breeder licensing scheme is a means to get more of that. There’s probably a little bit of financial incentives there, too. (Dog registration profits have to partially go to the D&CMB, so why wouldn’t the breeder registrations go there, too?)

Of the bodies quoted, the AWL is the only one that seemed to indicate that they understand where puppies come from (i.e. backyard breeders).  Unfortunately, the Committee doesn’t heed this, and instead makes an incredibly heinous suggestion:

The committee recommends the scheme contemplate the inclusion of provisions for temporary licences to cover owners whose animals incidentally become pregnant, or who wish to breed one time only, and consider a sliding scale of fees to reflect the varying scale of breeding operations.

That is, if you’re a backyard breeder, you can get a temporary license and all is dandy. Sorry, I’ll link it again: Puppies come from backyard breedeers.

The Committee also suggest that working dogs would be exempt from a breeding license scheme. I am confused as to how working dogs should not be raised in ethical ways. I also assume that greyhounds may also be exempt from this legislation.

So, in summary, the Committee believes that a breeder licensing scheme “Will enable proper identification of breeders and should discourage disreputable breeders.” How will having a licesnsing scheme discourage disreputable breeders?  Firstly, if breeders are being disreptuable, what about the new legislation will cause them to become reputable?  Secondly, if puppy farms are hiding in sheds, how will new legislation discourage them from continuing to hide puppies in sheds? Thirdly, reputable breeders rarely make money from breeding, and if their finances are already tight, isn’t it conceivable that that reputable breeders will also be discouraged from breeding?

Apparently, that’s not an issue for this Committee.  Susan Close made it clear that the recommendations in the report were “aimed at decreasing the number of dogs and cats being born”.  That is, it seems the Committee had an ulterior motive: This report isn’t about improving companion animal welfare, its about decreasing companion animal breeding.  In this light, all the recommendations made make sense.

 

Enforcement is Lacking of the Animal Welfare Act

The Select Committee are proposing changes to The Animal Welfare Act, The SA Code of Practice For the Care and Management of Animals in Pet Trade, and The Dog and Cat Management Act.

But, if they want to make sure that that cruel practices do not continue, why don’t they just enforce the Animal Welfare Act?  It has always been cruel to keep bitches and puppies in excrement and to not exercise them. And it’s also illegal. If law enforcement (i.e. the RSPCA) is already failing to pursue breeches of this legislation, what use is a breeder code?

Screenshot from pg 19 of the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare in SA, showing ill treatment of animals

A section of page 19 from the report, which illustrates poor living conditions. The top right impact (of a bitch with puppies in a white kennel block) does not seem to indicate any obvious cruelty (though the image quality is poor). Further, it seems the bottom images show sighthound type dogs (black and white dogs pictured), which aren’t typical ‘puppy farm’ dogs. I am skeptical that these images come from a puppy farm. Regardless, all these images are clearly neglectful and inappropriate, and that’s why the Animal Welfare Act doesn’t permit them.


Issues of Criminalising Disadvantaged

When making legislation that makes microchipping and desexing compulsory, little attention is given to those who are disadvantaged financially.  We know that most individuals who can afford to microchip and desex their pets do so.  Many people who have entire or unidentified animals simply can’t afford the service.

If we create legislation that mandates identification and sterilisation, we run the risk of making criminals out of people who are already highly disadvantaged.

Indeed, we already have issues surrounding dog registration.  Dogs in South Australia must be registered by 3 months of age, and councils then enforce this registration, and can issue fines for non compliance.  The Committee says:

If the dog is not registered, the return of the animal to its owner will be accompanied by a liability on the owner to pay a fine for permitting the dog to wander at large, another fine for not registering the dog and a further impounding fee. It is very possible that exposure to this sort of cumulative penalty results in some wanted pets not being reclaimed.

This matter-of-fact assessment is presented with no alternative.  That is, what’s the alternative? We could remove the section of the Dog and Cat Management Act that allows pets to be held at ransom, or there may be other alternatives.  The Committee’s failure to comment in this regard indicates that they seem to consider that pets being held hostage is reasonable.  How is that for the benefit of animal welfare?

If we are introducing laws mandating microchipping and desexing, then these services, at the very least, need to be more accessible to people in disadvantaged situations. Subsidised and mobile services would be a great start.

 

Blaming the Irresponsible Public for Animal Surrenders

The Committee blames people (the ‘irresponsible public’) for making bad choices, saying:

A secondary issue is that there appears to be an unsatisfactory/inappropriate sale of animals in too many cases. The very numbers of dogs and cats abandoned or surrendered to shelters is strong evidence for the failings of animal sourcing. The reasons given(source) for such surrendering make it very clear that many of these animals should never have been purchased in the first place.

The Committee again doesn’t provide appropriate evidence for this assertion.  Firstly, that source is wrong. That is, the link provided by the committee is wrong. It doesn’t show reasons for surrendering or relinquishing pets. Indeed, the word ‘surrender’ and ‘relinquish’ don’t appear in the report anywhere, let along on page 12 and 13 (as referenced in the Select Committee report).

Even if reasons for relinquishment were on that report, using a RSPCA annual report to substantiate that ‘reasons given for surrendering’ is flawed.  The RSPCA is a charity that keeps pretty good records, but that doesn’t mean that what they produce is research based. In my submission, I provided three researched references that specifically looked at animal relinquishment in my submission – this paper by John et al. and this one from Salman et al., and this one from Marston et al.. Why would the committee choose to look at the RSPCA’s annual report instead of published research?

According to the sources I references, animals are relinquished because their owners are moving, that they feel they can’t care for the pet (sometimes because they’re unwell), because a relationship breaks down, because they have too many pets and council won’t allow them to keep all their pets, or other issues. It’s pretty harsh to suggest that these people “failed” and “should never had… purchased [pets] in the first place”.

What about making rental properties more accessible for pet owners? 15 submissions made this suggestion, but it was not addressed.

Mandatory cooling off periods for pet shop purchased animals was suggested, with shelters and breeders being exempt.  The motive is to reduce ‘impulse purchases’, but the downside is that it means that pets have to spend longer in pet shops (an environment not good for puppy development). Is it in the animal’s best welfare to spend an extra two days (or whatever the period may be) in a pet shop? Nope. So why legislate to require animals to spend longer in pet shops?

The logic behind this this, according to the committee, is that a cooling off period “Should result in a decrease in animals surrendered or abandoned, and ultimately in a reduction in euthanasia rates”.  There’s a false idea that pets netering shetlers come from pet shops and ‘impulsive purchases’.  In reality, most pets entering shelters come from a ‘friend’ or from a shelter (source).

Susan Close then blames the community, the irresponsible public,

But we know that laws can only do so much – how the community treats their animals, and steps up and takes responsibility for de-sexing them, micro-chipping them so they can be found if they are lost, and doesn’t feed unwanted animals they are not taking full responsibility for, will ultimately determine if we are to see the rates of abandoned, abused, dumped and feral dogs and cats decline.

So individual responsibility is the reason animals are put down. Um. I am pretty sure that me and many other pet owners don’t have lethabarb in their homes.

 

Euthanasia: The public’s fault

The Committee’s report is slathered with anti-community messages, blaming ‘the irresponsible public’ for euthanasia happening in shelters.  The report says:

The most recent data from the RSPCA (2011/2012) revealed that the euthanasia rates for dogs and cats in their South Australian shelters were 21% and 54%, respectively. These unacceptable euthanasia rates are the result of several factors, but two of the major causes are a lack of traceability, and unwise purchase of animals

What nonsense!

Animals are being killed in pounds because pounds are killing them.

If a pet can’t be returned home, the next option isn’t to kill them.

If people are being ‘unwise in purchasing animals’, the next option isn’t to kill them.

The assumption is that if a animal is lost or surrendered to a shelter that it must be euthanised. This is not the case. Animals can be rehomed. It’s a revoutionary idea, but pets can actually leave shelters via means other than body bag.

 

Weak Recommendations for Facilities Killing Pets

We know that the ‘no kill equation‘, and all its associated programs, can reduce shelter killing to less than 10%. There are a number of no kill communities (like those listed on Out the Front Door) that are using the no kill equation to practically eliminate shelter euthanasia.  9 of the submissions received advocated the no kill or ‘getting to zero’ models.

One of the many no kill programs is ‘proactive redemptions’, where shelters and pounds try everything they can to get pets home.  This can be listing the pets image online, reviewing lost ads in the paper, having convenient viewing times, and so forth, just to get people to find their pets again and get it out of the facility.  We know that the more pets that go home mean less pets that have to be rehomed (or euthanised).

Considering this, it’s upsetting that the Committee made this one small recommendation:

Urge councils to use the “Found Pets” initiative to facilitate the return of dogs to their owners.

While it’s nice to ‘urge’ councils to use the Found Pets initiative, we should really expect and indeed legislate for shelters to make these proactive steps to ensure pets are redeemed. It seems unfair to put legislation on breeders on how they can keep and breed their animals, but then allow councils, shelters and pounds to recklessly kill animals – that is, these facilities have no obligation to find the animal’s past home, or find them a new home, before injecting them with lethabarb.

The Select Committee invited individuals and organisations to comment on issues related to companion animal welfare in section ‘F’, and many chose the opportunity to talk about shelter reform.  For example:

  • 25 submissions suggested more collection and publication of statistics from councils and shelters,
  • 16 submissions thought that ‘big’ and ‘little’ shelters needed to work together,
  • 16 submissions advocated trap-neuter-release, and
  • 9 submissions advocated for ‘Oreo’s Law’.

Out of these recommendations by the public, not one was addressed, and instead the Committee chose a meek little ‘maybe you’d like to use this app if you want to’ approach. We should be obligating that shelters and pounds do the best for animal welfare through legislation, and not just ‘urge’ them to.

 

Cat Stuff

This is a dog blog, so I don’t want to go into too much detail regarding the failings of the Select Committee in regard to its recommendations on cat welfare, but here is a quick summarised list:

  • The Select Committee seems to advocate WA legislation, which has been significantly criticised by the Saving Pets blog.
  • The Committee also seemed to be happy about Mitcham Council’s ‘successful cat registration’ scheme, but that’s not what the Saving Pets Blog calls it… Read more on Mitcham Councils ‘successful’ cat regsitration.
  • They seem to adopt a bit of a flawed approach, in that they firstly recognise that “increasing the demands on people who already acknowledge ownership of cats is unlikely to have a significant impact on those that have no owner”, but then go on to suggest cats be registered.
  • They want to councils to pay more attention to cat management and be obligated to submit reports about their cat management, but presumably that will just be able killing cats in the council, as no alternatives to trap-and-kill methods were suggested.

 

Other Stuff

The Committee want every breeder/pet shops/shelter to have a Cert II in Animal Studies. While it doesn’t seem onerous, I worry about the implications on pounds/shelters who are already overstretched with time and resources.

The Committee takes heed of the Dog and Cat Management Board’s stupid “Desex dogs to stop bites” campaign.

The Select Committee quotes the D&CMB saying they want to “shift” the last 33% of entire dogs into desexed dogs, by implementing legislation that makes desexing mandatory.  Mandatory desexing is not desirable.

While I don’t object to the Committee wanting all dogs and cats wormed, vaccinated and microchippped before sale, it’s another piece of legislation that is difficult to enforce.

 

The Good Stuff

I’m happy to give credit to good ideas:

  • The Committee supports continued relationships between shelters/rescues and pet shops. An excellent idea.
  • The Committee also recommends that breeder details be linked to their microchip (an idea I suggested way back in 2010). So obviously I like this idea too.

It’s disappointing that this is all I got from 64 pages…

 

In Conclusion

The Committee wants to make microchipping compulsory, which is not bad in itself, but has no suggestions on how this would be enforced nor accompanying legislation on how impounding facilities would be obligated to check chips on incoming animals.

The Committee suggests a breeder licensing scheme despite there being no evidence that such a scheme reduces euthanisa in shelters.  Predominately, they want such a scheme to fund the enforcement of new breeder legislation, which is flawed as it practically obligates dogs and puppies to exist in concrete runs.

The Committee ignores the failure of the RSPCA to adequately enforce the Animal Welfare Act.

The Committee ignores the fact that most people cannot afford to microchip and/or desex their pets, and so requiring these steps through legislation would essentially make criminals out of the already disadvantaged.

The Committee calls people who surrender pets to shelters as ‘irresponsible’ despite evidence to the contrary, showing animals relinquished to shelters are often for reasons outside of impulsive buying.

The Committee fails to acknowledge that euthanasia occurs in shelters because shelters euthanise animals, instead attributing blame to external sources.

The Committee does not acknowledge the no-kill philosophies recommended in submissions.

All in all, the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare provides no evidence for the recommendations that they make, and overall disregard the submissions made by the public. What a futile process. Hello status quo.

 

Links of Interest:

See the Hansard.

Microchips appearing in advertisements is legislation in Victoria, but not without problems. Read more: Discussion on DOL.

06/3/13

Where do puppies come from?

First there was Oscar’s Law, who have vilified the pet store trade, calling their producers ‘puppy mills’, and calling for people to adopt animals from shelters and rescues instead.

The RSPCA joined in, with “Close Puppy Factories” and PetRescue with “Where do puppies come from?“.

And the flow on affect was the sin of breeding dogs, with breeders as a whole being criticised, being called ‘greeders’, crucified for any profit they make from puppy sales.

The government had to act, bringing in codes that make dogs ‘Clean and Kennelled‘, which legitimises the practice of keeping dogs on concrete for sanitisation reasons.

And while the production of puppies in puppy farms is objectionable, does it really deserve this much attention?

Where do puppies really come from?

After a lot of research, the best estimate I could get is that there are approximately 450,000 dogs and puppies sold in Australia each year (source: ACAC paper 2009 PDF).

After even more research, I began to see where all these dogs and puppies were coming from. A complete list of sources is at the end of this post, but below is a table showing a breakdown of the numbers.

Table of Dog Sales in Australia

So the question Where do puppies come from? is best answered with We don’t know.

And that’s really case. If the 450,000 number is correct, then we have almost 250,000 dogs a year coming from an unknown source.

Let me put that in a graphic for you:

Graph showing where dogs and puppies come from in Australia.

 

 

So who are these unknown breeders of the undocumented sales?

 

Backyard Breeders

While ‘backyard breeder’ is a generic and undescriptive term, it is probably the most likely producers of the majority of Australian dogs.  Backyard breeders are people who occassionally breed (accidentally or deliberately) the dogs they happen to have in the backyard, either motivated by profit or romantic ideals (i.e. “every bitch should have a litter” or “the kids should see the miracle of birth”).  These sales are unrecorded.  Puppies often go to ‘friends’ or ‘friends of friends’ or they’re advertised in classifieds and given to whoever shows up with a few green bills. These dogs can be of any breed or cross, especially when accidental.

 

Working Dog Breed

By ‘working dogs’, I mean dogs bred for working stock like cattle or sheep.  While there are a few working dog registries, I had trouble finding the actual numbers of registrations (but I’m very happy to be informed!). These dogs are deliberately bred for their herding instincts, and are typically sold to working homes (such as other farmers who need stock dogs). These dogs are typical border collie, kelpie, huntaway or similar types.

 

Pig Dogs

‘Pig dogs’ are bred for hunting wild boar in Australia, and their ferocity and size are important factors in these breedings. Pig dogs are probably far-less common than the BYB and working dog bred types, and there’s probably some overlap between BYBers and pig dog breeders.  These dogs are generally large crossbreeds, commonly large bull breeds crossed with sighthounds or scenthounds.

 

Camp Dogs

Many of Australia’s indigenous people live on settlements with a number free ranging dogs.  Though these dogs are often owned (that is, there is normally a person or a family that identify a number of dogs as ‘theirs’), they are often unconfined and freely breed with one another.  Some of these dogs get rehomed through rescue groups like Desert Dogs, and some get desexed on site through groups like AMRRIC.  Camp dogs are often smooth-coated dogs with large prick ears, but not always. They are true mixed breeds which do not look like any breed in particular and come in a variety of colours, types, and sizes.

 

Flaws in the Data

While every attempt has been made to make this analysis as accurate as possible, some of the data used is inevitably flawed.

The figure of 450,000 dogs and puppies sold in Australia annually is an estimate.  It is unclear if this is only dogs and puppies sold (so if it does not include ‘give aways’ or dogs that stay in the same home from whelping to death).  I have also seen this figure of 450,000 quoted as being just the number of puppies sold in the country annually, and not inclusive of adult dogs.  I have used this number in the broadest sense – that it includes puppies and dogs, sold and given away.

The rescue sales are hard to conceptualise. Though many rescues use PetRescue for rehoming, not all do.  Those that do don’t necessarily list all animals available on PetRescue. It’s possible that PetRescue data duplicates some of the rehoming by the other rescue groups listed. So, all the rescue stats, from PetRescue and others, are sketchy at best. This especially true considering many groups do not publish their statistics.

While all dogs bred by ANKC breeders out of ANKC dogs must be registered, that doesn’t mean that they all are. The number of dogs bred by ANKC breeders is probably higher (but not much) than that listed.

I tampered with the greyhounds figure a bit. While national registrations are put at about 13,000, we know that many greyhounds aren’t registered.  If we work on greyhounds having an average litter size of 6.5, then the figure of 20,000 is a lot more conceivable. (The figure of 13,000 has the average greyhound litter size of 4!)

I just wanted to acknowledge that my data is probably partly inaccurate, but I don’t doubt the overall conclusions I have reached from this data. That is, while some bits may be a little bit off, the whole thing is probably not a lot off.

 

So what does this mean?

By far the biggest producer of dogs are unknown.  We can speculate that they are the backyard breeders, the working dog breeders, the pig dog hunters, or the free ranging dogs on indigenous camps, but without more extensive research we can’t really work out who is our biggest dog-sellers, except that it is likely to be one of these groups.

But it raises the question: If we are concerned about the breeding and sale of dogs in Australia, are registered breeders and pet shops really the people that we need to be going after?

 

Further reading:

How puppy mills contribute to killing in our pounds (conclusion: they don’t).

The National Animal Interest Alliance produces similar statistics, but for the USA – most puppies come from ‘amateur’ or ‘mixed breed’ breeders.

Why getting pets out of pet shops doesn’t stop puppy farmers

 

 

References: Continue reading →

05/12/13

Breeding and Rearing Code in Victoria – Email Submission

Less than 12 hours to go to get your online submissions and email submissions in! Commenting online or email animal.welfare@dpi.vic.gov.au (open in email client) if you’re looking to do the same) with your feedback on the proposed code.

To Whom It May Concern,

 

Re: Breeding and Rearing Code Review and Public Content

 

Whilst I understand that the proposed Breeding and Rearing Code has come about due to public concern regarding the welfare of breeding animals in large breeding establishments, and I support motions to improve the welfare of all animals, I am deeply worried by the unscientific nature of this proposed Code.  Significantly,

1)   The Code includes only 18 references.

A Code such as that proposed should be far more thoroughly researched before reaching a consultation stage.  Instead, this Code uses 16 papers on a variety of companion animal topics, some which are not even peer reviewed, to reach a conclusion.  There needs to be far greater review of the available literature to reach recommendations on further regulation.  This review should include articles covering the welfare of breeding animals in a number of contexts, in a variety of breeds and species, while also considering the success of regulation in achieving welfare outcomes in similar circumstances.  None of these areas are covered in any of the references currently included for the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS).  Without more research, the proposed Code may be ill positioned to improve animal welfare in Victoria.

2)   The significance of the paper by Kustritz (2012) is exaggerated, and its interpretation is erroneous.

The review paper written by Kustritz (2012) seems to be the basis of many of the conditions surrounding breeding animals in the proposed Code.  However, this is only a review paper.  This means that this paper reviews other literature, and is not research in itself.  Therefore, calling it ‘scientific research’ (as claimed in the RIS) is erroneous.  Furthermore, this review paper has not been peer reviewed (and therefore has no quality control measures) and this paper also has only ever been published in Canine Theriogenology, which is owned by Ms Kustritz herself.  In addition, this paper warns against regulation, saying “There is little literature to support many of the recommendations made by veterinarians regarding management of breeding dogs. This limits our ability to guide legislators uniformly and may result in inappropriate legislation or legal findings”.  That is, Kustritz recommends against the very actions that have been undertaken when writing the proposed Code.  Whilst the paper by Kustritz is a starting point when considering the welfare of breeding dogs, it is not scientific, it is not peer reviewed, it is not independently published, and it recommends in its own text that it not be used in creating regulation.  Considering this, it should not be used as the crux of the proposed Code, as it currently is.

Additionally, the paper is often erroneously quoted within the RIS.  This raises huge concerns about the validity of the research process undertaken in formulating the Code.  For example, the RIS claims that the critical age recommended is for the general health of the bitch.  However, the Kustritz paper makes no claims of this nature.  Critical age is based solely on bitch productivity and not the welfare of the bitch.   Similarly, the RIS claims “Scientific Research [sic] recommends that… bitches should not produce more than five litters”.  But the Kustritz paper does not say this at all, instead uses two articles on two breeds of dogs to indicate that productivity decreases after five litters.  That is, scientific research shows that productivity decreases after five litters, but not that bitches should not be bred after five litters, and certainly does not make claims on bitch welfare.  In these two instances, the RIS is misleading.

However, there are also claims in the RIS that are completely false, such as “the research recommends male dogs are not bred… beyond critical age”, when in reality, Kustritz (and others) do not recommend a critical age for stud dog use at all.  Another false claim made in the RIS is “The justification behind these recommendations includes… the general health of the bitch and the increased risk to both bitch and male dog of reproductive failure and diseases such as cancers of the reproductive tract, urethra and bladder.”  Nowhere in the Kustritz paper does she link breeding of animals to cancer formation.  That is, dogs that are bred are not more likely to develop cancer.  Many of the claims in the RIS are erroneous, misleading, and should be immediately rectified, and these changes should then be reflected in the Code to show breeding standards that are actually recommended in scientific research.

3)   The paper references nothing on cats.

There is a huge paucity in the literature referenced regarding cats and their welfare.  Indeed, the term ‘cat’ and ‘feline’ does not appear in any of the reference paper titles.  In fact, there are more papers referenced from a pig journal than there are articles on cats.  It is inconceivable that the proposed Code could ever make recommendations on cat welfare without using references actually pertaining to cats.  This is a huge oversight and it reflects the lacking process in developing the proposed Code, especially in regard to the recommendations made on breeding cat welfare.

Due to these clear inaccuracies in the RIS’s interpretation of the limited references, I argue that the proposed Code is not significantly informed to accomplish the desirable welfare goals.  Potentially, this Code could therefore be a huge waste of government resources.  Thus, I do not support this Code until it can be more comprehensively supported by academic literature.  I argue that relevant literature needs to be comprehensively reviewed in order to create an informed code that accurately reflects current animal welfare understandings, including its regulation.  To do any less is to potentially compromise the credibility and impact of significant animal welfare legislation.

 

Sincerely,

Get your submission in NOW! Less than 12 hours to go! And if you’re looking for another submission to formulate some ideas, here is what Victoria Dog Rescue had to say.

Go go go! Do something!

05/9/13

Breeding and Rearing Code in Victoria – Online Submission

Commenting on the Victorian Breeding and Rearing Code was an exhausting process! Indeed, I am still in the process of writing a response to email to the DPI. (There email is animal.welfare@dpi.vic.gov.au (open in email client) if you’re looking to do the same.)

I wrote about the problems with the proposed code yesterday.

Making an online submission is a very intensive process, but I am very concerned that others may be ‘put off’ from placing a submission because of the process! Please don’t! Below I have included my submission which may help you form your own.  Each response is limited to 1000 characters (due to the nature of the online form). You are welcome to use the entirety or bits of this response in your own.

 

1. Introduction

I believe that all Options, A-E, are unlikely to meet the objectives outlined in the RIS.

The welfare of breeding dogs and cats (and their offspring) is governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. If the welfare of animals in breeding establishments is of concern, then the act should cover relevant penalties for these welfare breeches, or an Animal Welfare Act introduced.

The proposed code does not offer sufficient consumer protection from “poorly socialised puppies”. While the code makes some attempts to describe socialisation experiences, they are no where near adequate for developing ‘well socialised’ puppies during the critical socialisation period of 4 weeks to 16 weeks.

While I believe the cost of $14.75 is not unreasonable for consumers to absorb, it is unrealistic to say that paying such a cost would ‘ensure’ better practice. Any practice compromising the welfare of breeding animals should be dealt with under existing or new Acts.

 

1. Background

This proposed Code has come to fruition due to concerns about animal welfare. If this is the case, then why is the Code only focussed on the welfare of a very small group of fertile animals? Particularly, why does this proposed Code not apply to greyhound breeders? If the practices defined in the Code are best practice, then they should apply to all animals and not just a select few meeting the narrow scope of a ‘breeding establishment’.

The ‘microchip in advertisements’ amendment has simply seen animal-sellers list any microchip number in their advertisements instead of the microchip of the animal actually for sale.  Authorised officers are inefficient in enforcing microchip listings in advertisements, and also the permanent identification of animals before sale (as seen in the Domestic Animals Act), then I am pessimistic regarding authorised officers’ ability to enforce the complexities of this proposed Code.

 

2. The problem and the policy objective

Case Example 1 shows how Victorian animals are suffering due to a non-existent Animal Welfare Act.  Animals need an Act to ensure their welfare, and not simply prevent them from suffering cruelty.

However, the POCTAA does allow for individuals to be prosecuted in veterinary problems are not sought. Therefore, the common veterinary problems, as listed here, occur in violation of the Act and should be prosecuted as such.

This proposed Code is well advised to amend the process for selling unhealthy animals (i.e. they can be sold with a veterinary certificate), to make attempts to ensure the socialisation and handling of young animals, and become inclusive of small scale breeders with dogs living in home environments. (Though, in regard to the latter, the Code is still lacking in some ways.)

 

3. Identification of viable options

Considering the only reference regarding breeding animal health used in justifying the code is that written by Kustritz, I presume that by “scientific research” you are referring only to the work of Kustritz. If this is the case, the conclusions reached from the her review are hugely flawed.

Kustritz paper is not ‘scientific research’, it is a review of evidence, and it is not peer reviewed (i.e. it has no quality control measures undertaken before it was published). The paper explicitly states, “There is little literature to support many of the recommendations made by veterinarians regarding management of breeding dogs. This limits our ability to guide legislators uniformly and may result in inappropriate legislation or legal findings.”  The author themselves does not recommend that the review be used in guiding legislation. Using this paper to substantiate this code is a clear perversion of the conclusions made within the paper itself.

 

4. Assessment of costs and benefits

The costs and benefits of each option are only relevant if they are going to be sufficiently enforced.  The perceived benefits listed are optimistic, at best, of enforcement and compliance with the proposed Code.

 

6. Evaluation Strategy

This evaluation strategy uses indicators that apply to animals sourced from all breeders, including those exempt from the code.  This means that backyard breeders’, small scale ANKC breeders, and greyhound breeders all still able to produce and own unhealthy animals, and there will be consistent detection of ‘poor animal health’ and consistent consumer complaints.

 

7. References

There is shockingly little research described in this list of references, and very little on breeding dogs. Indeed, there is as many references on breeding dogs as there are papers published by a pig journal.  Furthermore, there is no reference listed for cats and their welfare.  For a Code that will have such significant and far reaching implications, it is important that it is substantiated by scientific evidence. Currently, it seems that the Code is more opinion than science based, which is hugely concerning for companion animals in the state.

 

2 (10). Euthanasia

This section is titled euthanasia, which is the destruction of animals that are injured or diseased. It concerns me that, at the end of this segment, there is a clause regarding rehoming animals, which seems to imply that euthanasia of surplus animals is permitted in the Code. This certainly does not seem to be in the best interest of animal welfare. Indeed, if a facility is producing animals that are ‘unsuitable’ to rehoming, then they are clearly housing, socialising and managing animals in a way that is not synonymous with their welfare.

 

3. Records

The record keeping process described within this section is excessive and burdensome for small businesses with few animals.

 

3 (3) c. Individual animal identification

This segment is irrelevant to small businesses who have animals in their house and yard, and not penned or caged.

 

4. Sale of animals

The requirement for animals to be sold with a complete health check signed by a veterinarian is perhaps the best element of this entire code. It should be a requirement for all animals sold, and not just those being sold with individuals who fall under this code.

The segment saying “Animals must not be sold before 8 weeks of age” should be “Animals must not permanently leave the business premises before 8 weeks of age, except upon veterinary advice”.

 

5 (1) Nutrition

These nutrition guidelines require dogs to be fed from a food receptacle, which does not seem to be in the best interest of animals considering the enrichment activities that animals could engage in if fed in alternative ways.  For example, if all meals were provided in enrichment activities such as being provided in “Kongs”, from boxes, with food hidden in their pens and exercise yards, then this would be more desirable in terms of animal welfare.  Indeed, I suggest that feeding simply from a food bowl is poor practice.

Though there is a risk of hydatids in offal, an internal parasite treatment regime close to eliminates this risk..

 

5 (2)(b) Dogs over 3 months of age

I strongly object to the proposal that a vet will be required to sign off on the behaviour/temperament of a dog to determine its suitability for breeding.  Performing assessments on behaviour is a highly controversial area as it is difficult to get an accurate picture of a dog’s behaviour in a limited window of time.  While a vet may be best in determining the health of an animal for breeding, the temperament and behaviour is best assessed by an owner who spends long periods of time with their animal and sees them on a daily basis and in a number of settings.

 

5 (3)(a) Heritable defects

Breeding healthy animals is important, but it is possible for animals affected by particular genetic disorders to not pass this condition on to their offspring, depending on the inheritance of that condition. For example, dogs affected with CEA can be bred to dogs clear of CEA (as shown by DNA tests), and produce dogs that are not symptomatic of CEA.  There are several conditions in dogs that are inherited in this way, and so dogs who have the disorder can produce healthy animals with careful mate selection.

Considering this phenomena, it is unclear why this Code requires affected animals to not be bred from. Animals should only not be bred from if they have an heritable defect that will be passed on to their children, and this can be controlled by mate selection, and so an affected animal can produce non-affected children.

 

5 (3)(b) Males

The requirement for stud dogs to not be used for more than 6 years at stud is one of the most heinous suggestions in this entire Code. This Code attempts to protect consumers from unhealthy animals, and part of this is having animals that stay healthy for a great number of years. The best resource for breeders in producing animals that are healthy is to use stud dogs that are healthy into their senior years. For this reason, many breeders use stud dogs who are 7 years old or older, hoping to be produce puppies with genes for longevity. Like human men, male dogs stay fertile for a great number of years and suffer no ill effects from copulating as a senior. There is no logical welfare reason to prohibit the use of older stud dogs and, indeed, to do so actually seems contradictory to the goals of the Code.

 

5 (3)(c) Females

These restrictions on breeding bitches, especially for large breed bitches, makes it very difficult for breeders to produce puppies. If you consider large breeds do not mature before 2 years, and may only cycle ever 1 year, then breeders are restricted to a maximum of 3 litters per bitch. This is further complicated by Dogs Victoria guidelines that restrict a bitch from being bred every season.  If the bitch in question is particularly desirable to parent, in terms of her health scores, or the genetic diversity she offers, this restrictive breeding code is even more heinous.

I think it is again important to note that the Code of Practice for the Operation of Greyhound Establishments put none of these restrictions on the breeding of greyhound bitches.  If these guidelines are in the interests of animal welfare, why do they not apply to all breeding bitches? Alternatively, if they are not in the interests of animal welfare, then why have they been included in the code at all?

 

5 (3)(d) Retirement

There are numerous negative health implications associated with desexing, and it should be no means be made mandatory for all retired breeding animals.

There should be no option for the euthanasia of animals that have been retired from breeding.  Business owners must be obligated to rehome any animals they no longer wish to have on their premises.

 

5 (3)(f) Whelping

Bitches that are pregnant are not sick and do not need to be isolated from other animals due to their pregnancy. Indeed, bitches, who are social creatures, may be stressed by being removed from their companions.

 

5 (4) (a) Exercise and enrichment

This table is a great starting point for the type of experience puppies and dogs should be receiving.  However, it should also include a requirement for puppies from 4-16 weeks of age to be taken off the premises and be exposed to many sights, sounds, and smells in ‘the real world’.  This could include things like exposure to traffic, to many different types of people, to noisy environments like busy shopping environments, and ‘day to day’ things like riding in a car.

 

5 (4) (b) Socialisation and handling

This table is a great starting point for the type of experiences puppies and dogs should be receiving.  However, puppies should be removed from littermates for short periods from 4 weeks of age to learn to be independent. From 4-16 weeks of age, puppies must interact with compatible adult dogs, not just ‘where practical’.

 

5 (5) (a) Disinfectant and hygiene

The use of disinfectant in this code is excessive for small or home breeders who have dogs living in their home.

 

5 (5) (c) Tethering

Considering that tethering of dogs is known to increase aggression, it should not be permitted in order to improve public safety.

 

5 (5) (d) Small businesses

While I like that this code acknowledges that dogs sleep inside in small businesses, steam cleaning of carpets every 6 months seems excessive and militant.

In regarding to whelping and lactating areas, some of the requirements are over prescriptive given the individual nature of bitches and the methods they choose to parent.

It should be up to the owner to determine if bitches should have space to remove herself from the puppies, as some bitches will choose to abandon their puppies if given too much space.

Furthermore, some bitches choose to co-parent litters, which reduces strain on each individual bitch and can aid in preventing some problems like milk fever. The Code in its current form would prevent such an event from occurring.

Additionally, providing a heat source should be on a case by case basis and dependent on the weather at the time.

 

5 (5) (e) Large businesses

Entire male and female dogs should be allowed to be housed and exercised together. Indeed, the most complimentary temperament pairings are normally mix sexes.

In regarding to whelping and lactating areas, some of the requirements are over prescriptive given the individual nature of bitches and the methods they choose to parent.

It should be up to the owner to determine if bitches should have space to remove herself from the puppies, as some bitches will choose to abandon their puppies if given too much space.

Furthermore, some bitches choose to co-parent litters, which reduces strain on each individual bitch and can aid in preventing some problems like milk fever. The Code in its current form would prevent such an event from occurring.

Additionally, providing a heat source should be on a case by case basis and dependent on the weather at the time.

Please take the time to submit your own comment. It is important this Code does not get through in its current format, and it will be dependent on public comment.