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.