Tag Archives: australian politics

05/25/15

My Say: Proposed Changes to the D&CMA

(This is post three in a series of four blog posts on proposed changes to dog laws in South Australia. Post One: Summary. Post Two: Breeder Code. Post Four: Mandatory Desexing.)

Submissions to the government’s proposed changes are due by the 26th June 2015.

In making a submission, you can do so by the YourSay website, or by:

Emailing: dogandcatreforms@sa.gov.au

Snail mailing:

Dog and Cat Reforms
Conservation and Land Management Branch
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources
GPO Box 1046
Adelaide 5001

The YourSay website has three documents for download:

Overview of Proposed Changes to the Dog and Cat Management Act

Frequently Asked Questions

Dog and Cat Management Act Amendment Bill

DogsSA produced a document which shows the amendments against current legislation, which is far easier to read. I recommend that you download the act with amendments inserted.

 

First, let’s consider the responses to the online survey. The questions are listed below, along with my responses to those questions. You’re welcome to use these responses as a guide in formulating your own.

Survey Question One

It is proposed that all dogs and cats are microchipped so that they can be returned if lost. The specific proposals are:

1. All existing and new dogs and cats will need to be microchipped by a prescribed age. It is proposed that this age be three months.

2. Penalties will be imposed for owning a un-microchipped dog or cat and for not keeping your details with a microchip registry current.

3. Regulations will specify who can implant microchips in South Australia (a veterinarian or an appropriately trained person).

Some individuals object to microchipping. The legislation should say ‘microchipped or tattooed’ or ‘un-microchipped or un-tattooed’, etc, to allow individuals to choose how they wish for their animals to permanently identified.

The penalties proposed for owning an un-microchipped animal ($2500!) is excessively burdensome, especially when this legislation is being applied retrospectively. Individuals should be allowed to continue to own animals un-microchipped if they are of an age that predates the legislation. As it currently stands, pet owners would need to get their animals microchiped when this legislation comes in, and that could cost individuals out of legally owning their animals. Potentially, this legislation would criminalise the behaviour of normal pet owners.

 

Survey Question Two

It is proposed that anyone who breeds dogs and cats for sale will need to register with the Dog and Cat Management Board or through an approved organisation to assist in managing dogs and cats and help consumers to be confident their pet has come from healthy and humane conditions. There may be a fee to register as a breeder. The specific proposals are:

1. Anyone who breeds a dog or cat for sale will be defined as a ‘breeder’

2. A breeder will need to include their breeder registration number in any advertisements that are placed for the sale of a dog or cat, including online sales.

3. Penalties will be imposed for failing to register as a breeder.

It is an overstatement to claim that a breeder registration scheme will ‘help consumers to be confident their pet has come from healthy and humane conditions’.

While I do not object to these suggestions on the surface, I am concerned that a fee for breeder registration may unfairly disadvantaged small-scale breeders who do not make a profit from breeding animals. Further, I am pessimistic that breeder registration will be appropriately policed considering the failure of councils to effectively enforce dog registration.

 

Survey Question Three

It is proposed to increase fines and penalties for dog attack offenses, nuisance barking and wandering dogs as well as all other existing offences.

The fee increases for dogs wandering at large are inordinate, with the maximum penalty being up to $2500. This is a hugely excessive fee to impose upon individuals who may have had their dog escape in unfortunate circumstances (storm damage to fencing, contractors leaving a gate open, or thieves allowing the dog to escape during a burglary). Further, these increase in fees are problematic when taking into consideration section 62 which requires people retrieving their dog after seizure to pay before getting the dog back. Many individuals may be priced-out of getting their animal returned to them, and hence the dog is left in a facility where they may be at risk of euthanasia. Section 62 urgently needs to be rectified so animals are not euthanised when there are owners who want to claim them, but do not have the finances to do so. An increase in fines and penalties further adds to the risk of animals being euthanised in this circumstance.

 

Survey Question Four

It is proposed to simplify the dog registration process by introducing the new category of ‘Standard dog’. This is a dog that has been both microchipped and desexed. Dog registration fees for a ‘Standard dog’ will be much less than for other dogs. The specific proposals are:

1. The registration category of ‘Standard Dog’ is introduced (a dog that is microchipped and desexed)

2. The registration rebate for a dog that has been trained will be removed.

No, I do not support the proposal that rebates for trained dogs will be removed. Statistically, we know animals who have undertaken training are less likely to end up in animal shelters. Therefore, a financial incentive to train a dog (in order to receive registration discounts) should be encouraged.

 

Survey Question Five

It is proposed to replace the terms ‘Disability Dog’, ‘Guide Dog’, and ‘Hearing Dog’ and replace them with the term ‘Assistance Dog’. This change makes the South Australian terminology consistent with the rest of Australia. The specific proposals are:

1. Remove the term ‘Disability Dog’ and similar terms in favour of the nationally consistent term ‘Assistance Dog’.

2. Provide Assistance Dogs in training with ‘public access rights’ when accompanied by an accredited trainer

3. Broaden the range of bodies that can accredit Assistance Dogs.

I support or ambivalent about these changes.

 

Survey Question Six

11. Do you have further comments on the amendments to the Dog and Cat Management Act?

While I support the general idea that all animals should be microchipped, I am alarmed that the changes to the Act do not necessitate an authorised person and a facility to scan for a microchip on all animals impounded, and animals that are received deceased (e.g. road kill animals). This section urgently needs attention to ensure that microchips are being scanned by facilities. Section 61 needs to be amended to list the procedures for an seized animals. This should include, at least, that the animal is scanned for a microchip:

  • On two separate occasions,
  • By two different staff members, and
  • Using two different scanning devices.

Further, section 61 then needs to legislate that facilities and authorised persons respond to a microchip number when it is identified. At a minimal level, the animal’s microchip number should be checked on government databases (NSW and Victorian registries) and private databases (such as CAR, AAR, Pet Register, etc). If the microchip has data associated with it, the facility or authorised person must use all forms of contact on the chip in order to contact the owner and allow them the opportunity to reclaim their pet. In the case of postal mail, the owner should be given two weeks to respond before the dog is officially owned by the facility. (That is, the period of 72 hours is extended.) Without necessitating facilities to search for and use data associated with microchips, then microchipping is useless. This section of the Act urgently needs to be reviewed.

Greyhounds like Hannah will still have to wear a muzzle in public spaces, unless their owners pay a fee to have them 'green collar assessed'. The lesser talked about breed specific legislation in the country!

Greyhounds like Hannah will still have to wear a muzzle in public spaces, unless their owners pay a fee to have them ‘green collar assessed’. The lesser talked about breed specific legislation in the country! (PS: Read more about adopting Hannah.)

I am incredibly troubled by the proposed inclusion of the section titled 61A (which allows a holding facility to desex and microchip an animal in their care). It is unclear why this section of the legislation has been included. It does not specify a time limit from seizure to surgery – hence, a person with a dog roaming at large for several hours could have their dog seized and desexed before being returned. This is a huge violation of the rights of the owner to keep their dog entire if they see fit. This section must be amended to at least specify that desexing can only occur 72 hours after impoundment.

The proposed changes to section 64C (regarding greyhound laws) create a double-negative, and this makes the legislation unclear. The proposed change is redundant, as it does not change the meaning of the law.

Section 74 has not been amended. This allows cats to be ‘destroyed’ if found over 1km from a residence. It is heinous that we legalise the killing of cats when they are known to wander for distances greater than 1km, hence allowing peoples pets to lawfully be destroyed by others. This section should simply be removed.

It seems remarkably unfair, unjust, and morbid that Section 64 allows facilities to charge people for destroying their seized animal, yet Section 54(1b)(b) states that the owners cannot seek compensation for the destruction of their pet.  Further, Section 62 also adds to owner distress in that they must pay to reclaim their pet. Facilities and authorised persons should bill individuals but not restrict their access to their pet. This means that animals leave pound environments sooner, which is beneficial to their physical and psychological health, plus it reducing issues of space-based euthanasia for the facility.

I have mild concerns that the regulations mentioned in 71(1)(c) may be excessively burdensome to small-scale breeders, but this is yet to be seen.

 

The YourSay website also invites individuals to write a letter to this department. While I have done this as well, my letter basically duplicates the details written above in survey question six.

 

02/1/15

Breeder Registration is Bollocks

It doesn’t take long for those involved in animal welfare circles to hear arguments for the implementation of breeder registration. Many advocates of breeder registration argue that such a scheme would cause some breeders to ‘reconsider’ breeding, and one less breeder is seemingly desirable to these animal advocates.

There seems to be a lot of faith and enthusiasm for such a scheme, despite breeder legislation never having been shown to achieve anything, that if affects ‘good’ and ‘bad’ breeders equally, impacts on rescues, and is difficult to police. Further, it seems to be targetting the mythical ‘overpopulation problem’, and not the actual issue of pound poor-performance.

So let’s address all the reasons why breeder registration is not the holy grail of animal welfare legislation.

 

No Evidence

There is no research that indicates that breeder registration reduces impounds/euthanasia, or improves the welfare of dogs in breeding establishments. For example, the Gold Coast Breeder Scheme is widely considered to be a flop, and has been discontinued. If there is no evidence that breeder legislation works, why would we be invest funds in establishing a scheme? Breeder legislation is a poorly qualified solution to animal impoundment, as much as BSL is a poor solution to dog bites.

It’s been tried before, and failed before, so why repeat the same mistakes?

 

Australian Shepherd puppies playing in a ball pit.

Decline in Ethical Breeders

The hallmark of most breeder registration schemes is a breeder having to pay in order to be ‘registered’.

The problem is that ethical breeders are (largely) not making money from their breeding, and therefore may not be in a financial position to pay for registration. Ethical breeders may choose to cease breeding due to expense. How do we ensure that responsible, ethical breeders are not discouraged from producing wonderful pets?

As most of these schemes require breeders to pay in order to be registered, what breeder registration effectively does is limit (legal) breeding to those who are making money from the practice. What I mean is: breeders who don’t make money are are probably the ‘ethical ones’, and are probably less likely to be able to afford registration. Are these the individuals we want to perturb from breeding?

Furthermore, there is those that breed dogs in working fields, like guide dogs, customs, and so forth. Any restriction on breeders would also cause more expense and process for those producing animals for these roles.

 

Unethical Breeders Unaffected

On the flip side of this, those who are most likely to be able to afford registration is puppy farmers themselves. Those running a business, profiting from the sale of puppies, are going to be able to afford registration, and continue breeding puppies.

If a breeder is raising puppies in conditions that are undesirable and outside of welfare codes, they are going to avoid registration, and simply remain unnoticed and unpoliced.

Or, alternatively, a breeder may pass all the codes as they meet physical levels of care, but they neglect the psychological well being of their dogs and puppies.

Basically: Unethical breeders are not going to be deterred by a breeder registration scheme.

 

Association with Code of Practice

Whenever breeder legislation is suggested, it tends to appear alongside a Code of Practice. A Code of Practice attempts to specify the way animals should be maintained. The biggest problem is that it effectively obligates breeders to keep their dogs in a kennel situation, which many would argue is in contradiction to the best interest of dogs. I discussed these problems in my article called Clean and Kennelled.

Basically, if you have a breeder registration scheme, it goes hand-in-hand with a prescribed approach to animal management and handling, which is counter intuitive to animal welfare goals.

 

Mandatory Desexing Overtones

Any breeder registration scheme has overtones of compulsory desexing for dogs. Not only are there legitimate reasons to keep dogs entire, mandatory desexing also has negative social factors. For example, mandatory desexing is often associated with increased surrenders (e.g. “I can’t afford to desex my dog, so I need to surrender it instead so I don’t become a law breaker”).

The Saving Pets blog does a good job of describing how mandatory desexing has never worked. Furthermore, I’ve blogged before about how mandatory desexing is hard to define (unless we desex everything and eradicate the species). Mandatory desexing is also often associated with early age desexing, which has its own welfare implications. And there’s evidence that making desexing mandatory increases surrenders, as people aren’t able to pay for the surgery and so are left with no other choice. And, on top of that, desexing is a medical procedure, which should be implemented by medical professionals based on the individual animal at hand – not policy makers.

Further, mandatory desexing seeks to categorise people who have an entire dog as ‘breeders’, when this may not be the case. That is, non-breeders may be forced to become breeders according to legislation in order to comply with the law.

 

Exclusions

Mandatory breeder registration often excludes key groups: ‘backyard breeders’, ‘working dog breeders’, and greyhound breeders. These breeders produce a lot of dogs and dogs that are, seemingly, more likely to end up in the pound system.

A dog is a dog. We can’t argue that breeder registration is for the welfare of dogs owned by a particular group of people. Legislation needs to apply to all dogs, or none at all.

And, when you make this breeder registration compulsory, you need to consider the impact on rescues.  As rescues occasionally take in pregnant dogs, they may be deemed as breeders, and may have to pay breeder registration too. The last thing we need is for rescues to be further out of pocket due to the introduction of unfounded legislation. I could list twenty things that rescue could be better suited to spend their funds on.

 

No Policing

I’ve blogged before about how many dog-related policies are not policed.  In South Australia, we have the Animal Welfare Act and the Dog and Cat Management Act. I see constant violations of both these acts as it currently stands. So what are we doing bringing in new legislation, when our existing legislation is under enforced?

Without enforcement, legislation is just tokensitic. Arguably, if our existing legislation was enforced, we wouldn’t need further legislation. Our existing legislation is pretty good legislation. If it’s not enforced, then puppy farms can flourish.

 

Poor Focus

My biggest rejection of this is that there isn’t a population problem. We don’t need to reduce the number of dogs in the world. Shelters need to market and promote animals in their care better. Breeder registration doesn’t have anything to do with shelter euthanasia rates.

While we’re busy spending all our time going after breeders, we will still be watching shelters killing a great number of dogs. While you might take issue with people breeding their dogs, I take bigger issue with shelters killing dogs in their community. What’s the greater problem here?

 

Further reading:

Just Stop Breeding Until the Pounds are Empty

Why I Don’t Want Oscar’s Law

The Fallacy of Mandatory Desexing

What is the answer? (To puppy farms)

Rescue Vs Breeders