Tag Archives: legislation

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.

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.

05/7/13

Breeding and Rearing Code Review in Victoria

It will soon be easier to be a gun dealer in Australia than a registered breeder. (source)

Just one of the comments made regarding the DPI’s current Breeding and Rearing Code Review, currently up for public comment.

Like other codes, this one has a big emphasis on running dogs in kennel environments, puts arbitury numerical values to determine animal welfare, and has elements of mandatory desexing. In other words: Legitimising big breeders at the expense of small breeders.

Screenshot of the DPI Victoria's website.

 

Missing the Problem

Code is for anyone with 3+ fertile bitches or queens if they’re not “registered members of an Applicable Organisation” or reigstered breeders with 10 or more fertile female dogs or cats. As a ‘registered member of an Applicable Organisation’, in some ways, I am grateful for the exemptions, but in other ways, they don’t really go far enough. Greyhound breeders and backyard breeders are exempt and, debatably, these are the breeders with the biggest ethical problems associated with them (read “Incentives to breed more greyhounds?!“).  Thousands of greys are killed each year for not making the grade, and then backyard breeders are untraceable and arguably contribute to the impounds of pounds (considering the abundance of staffy type dogs in pounds).

Further, this is complicated by the lose terminology. What do I have to do to have 3+ or 10 fertile bitches? Do they have to live with me? Or do I just have to own them? How is ‘fertile’ defined? Is it a bitch that is not desexed? Or a bitch who has had at least one heat cycle? Or a bitch that is less than 12 years old?

On one hand, it’s ‘good’ that the code only applies to certain groups.  But that then poses the question: If this code is really in the best interest of animal welfare, why doesn’t it apply to all breeders?

 

Getting Sexy with Vets

I don’t know who wrote this draft, but I’m pretty sure they must have a vested interest in vet profits! Vets need to sign off on everything in this review – from diet, vaccinations, and parasite control, to whether the dog is appropriate to be bred from, to a ‘health management plan’ and a retirement plan for the dog. What the! Surely the best person to make decisions for a dog is the owner of the dog.

Furthermore, for those who choose a more holistic method for raising dogs (raw diet, limited vaccination protocals, etc), then they will have close to no chance to raise dogs through the methods they choose, as close to no vets advocate raw diets or 7 yearly vaccination protocols. (Indeed, the code says dogs cannot be fed offal, fullstop.)

While vets might be initially excited about how this might translate into income, surely they are not the best judge for my dog’s temperament. For example, most vets indicate a dry/kibble diet, but my current litter have soft stools on dry, so they’ve been eating a raw diet with better stools. I had a puppy with a vaccination reaction at 7 weeks so I decided (against vet advice) to only give her one vaccination at 18 weeks instead of a series of puppy shots. Here I am making individual decisions based on my experience, and sometimes against vet advice, for the welfare interests of my dogs.

I spend hours every day with my dogs, so I am going to bet that my evaluations are a little more informed than the 15 minutes that a vet can spend with my animals during a consult.

 

Reeks of Mandatory Desexing

Like other schemes, this one has elements of mandatory desexing, saying things like: “All retired breeding animals must be desexed”. I’ve already talked about the fallacy of mandatory desexing and the fallout of mandatory desexing schemes.

 

You’re Running a Business

This is more a terminology issue, but I very much reject the use of the term ‘business’ to describe all dog breeding.  The term ‘business’ implies profits, and many ethical breeders do not make profits and so are not really a ‘business’.

Furthermore, this code defines ‘large’ or ‘small’ business based on how many ‘fertile’ animals you own. Shouldn’t a business’s size be determined by its profit, not its capital?

 

Restrictions on Breeding Ages

This code puts a limit on the maximum breeding age of a dog, and bitches can only have 5 litters or less in their lifetime. Both these decisions are hugely prohibitive.

Firstly, using old stud dogs is good! We need to breed healthy dogs with longevity, and there’s no better way to know if a dog is healthy and long lived that waiting for him to live a long time. In fact, I deliberately look for old dogs to use at stud for that very reason (read an old puppy announcement).

Additionally, if we have a bitch that is exceptional, particularly in health, then having 5 or more litters may be a good thing. For example, if we had a bitch with 0/0 elbows and 0/0 hips, then I’d love her to produce as many offspring as possible, especially if the breed average is 6/6 or 8/8. However, the maximum breeding ages listed are hugely prohibitive for large breed dogs, with 5 years being the maximum. Large breeds often don’t reach maturity until 3 years, and so, with this code, bitches are limited to only 2 ‘breedable years’, or 2 litters. As I mentioned, for an exceptional bitch, this is not many litters, and doesn’t leave much room for error – if she is mated and she misses, you then have 18 months to get all the puppies you can out of her.

 

Good: Some Interest in Socialisation

One of the good things about this code is that it is trying to mandate some socialisation and habituation with puppies, as seen in “Table 3” and “Table 4” in the document. Of course, it’s close to impossible to enforce this, but it’s nice to think someone is thinking about it.

The only downfalls is that puppies “must remain with mother & other litter mates until 6 weeks of age”. For those of you who read my ‘Puppies 2012 Series‘, you will know that my puppies get out and about (without their mother and litter mates) from 4 weeks of age, as that is when the critical socialisation window starts. Why would you legislate against this? Furthermore, the socialisation table describe doesn’t allow puppies to socialise with other dogs until they are 8 weeks old – again, meaning that a big chunk of their socialisation window is missed.

It’s nice to see some attention given to socialisation in this document, but it is still somewhat misguided, and pretty much impossible to enforce the good bits, even if we wanted to.

 

Lack of Privacy

Like other codes, ‘business’ must be recorded keeping nazis.  The concerning things is, this records must be available to authorised offices upon request, and must be given to council if the ‘business’ ceases.  This means that Joe-Blow the puppy buyer’s details will be available to certain parties on request and when the business ceases.  Where is the privacy in purchasing decisions? Why does the council, or even the authorised officers, need to know this kind of stuff?

 

Dogs in Clean Kennels Again

Okay, so there’s a good thing about the ‘small business’ and ‘large business’ thing: Large business is required to have pens or yards, while small business doesn’t have to. This is good – better than a lot of similiar legislation that requires pens full stop. Another good thing is this code mentions dogs that sleep inside the house, showing that it is possible for dogs to live in ways other than clean and kennelled.

But then there’s all the normal stuff which is keen on disinfectants and hand washing, even with visitors obligated to wash hands. Not too bad in a kennel environment but if my dogs are just hanging out in my yard, it’s not possible for me to disinfect the lawn.

 

Separate the Dogs, Again

At least! This code allows dogs to run together – an important psychological role for dogs, especially living in kennel environments.

And there are some common-sense regulation in this code: You can’t run dogs together that fight, and you can’t run different sexes together in there is a bitch coming in or in season.

Okay, maybe that’s about it. They ask for bitches to be separated from other dogs two weeks prior to whelping. Presumably, the logic is that the bitch may like ‘peace and quiet’ during this time.  In reality, bitches used to running with a group of dogs are likely to be more stressed by their segregation than anything else. Then, once she has puppies, she has to be able to ‘escape’ them if she chooses to. Theoretically, a nice idea, unless you have a bitch disinterested in mothering and her pups perish when she chooses to ‘escape’ them on a permanent basis.

If you are a ‘large business’, you can only exercise up to 4 compatible dogs together, and they must be in single sex groups. I’m not sure who wrote this code, but they obviously have had very little to do with dogs in the real world – mix sexes are generally more compatible, temperament wise, than single sex groups.

 

Policing?

A lot of the standards in this code are very hard to enforce. If you walk into a facility and the puppies aren’t having their socialisation, then they must’ve had their socialisation earlier that day (says the business proprietor). You walk into a facility and see that there is lamb fry in the fridge, and the proprietor says that’s for his dinner. How can you prove otherwise?

You walk into business and see dogs with red irritated paws from walking on a hard disinfected surface. The dog is receiving vet treatment, but can’t be moved to a different surface because of regulations required concrete and disinfectant. So the dog is obligated to spend a life of irritation due to regulation. But ‘the police’ can do nothing because all boxes are being checked.

(And, quietly, I’d say that ANKC registered breeders who have good records in terms of pedigrees, date of births, and so forth, and so are most likely to be ‘caught out’ if they do breedings out of line.)

 

Why Rescue Groups Should Care

When you have fertile animals come into your care, you will become a breeding establishment. You just need three or more fertile animals to become a ‘business’.  This means that rescues would have to have a vet sign off on everything too, you have to be record keeping nazis, dogs have to be kept in concreted kennels, and you can’t run animals of different sexes together (if you have more than 6). Being a rescue is not currently an exemption in this code. While arguing for exemption may be possible, I would still ask:  If this code is really in the best interest of animal welfare, why doesn’t it apply to all breeders?

 

Other Bits

Once I had a dream that I walked into the backyard and my stud dog, Chip, was mating two of my bitches at the same time. A very funny dream, which I thought was quite mythical – until this code came out saying “Male dogs must not mate with more than 1 female dog at a time”. Is there dogs out there that have a magical double-headed penis for performing two matings at the same tie? Is there so many out there that we need to legislate against their impressive copulation style?

The DPI has a pretty nifty idea with their own breeding training being recommended every 3 years. And by ‘nifty’ I mean good for fundraising.

The code requires, “Animals must not be sold before 8 weeks of age”. I’m guessing the code actually wants to say something like, “Animals must not permanently leave their place of whelping and rearing prior to 8 weeks of age”. A bit of an oversight, as many breeders take deposits and so ‘sell animals’ before 8 weeks of age.

The code specifies, “A heat source must be provided for puppies in/over their bedding”. The code doesn’t specify that, if the weather is 40C or higher, that this would be unnecessary.

 

What can you do?

Right now this legislation is only ‘okay’ because registered breeders are exempt (unless they have more than 10 dogs). But this exemption is very easy to remove. Indeed, I would suggest that the ‘animal righters’ are probably putting in proposals as we speak to have the exemptions removed.

I hope to make a more detailed post before the May 13th deadline, but in the meantime, you can click here to submit comments online.

If you need further inspiration when making a submission:

Read this page on Campaspe Working Dogs (for perspectives from working breeders)

Read this thread on DogzOnline (for perspectives from ‘show breeders’)

04/27/13

Companion Animal Taskforce in NSW – Feedback

Screenshot from Companion Animal TaskforceI actually think we have pretty good legislation in regard to companion animal welfare.  NSW is no exception – they have the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that is simple, but effective. You can’t be cruel to animals, you have to give them food, water and shelter, you have to give them vet treatment if they need it, you can’t just abandon them, you can’t fight them, you can’t sell dying animals.

Then there’s the Companion Animal Act. It requires that pets are idenitified with a microchip and collar and tag, registered, and keep those details up to date. Your dog can’t escape. You can’t have your dog offlead (except for off lead areas), and you can’t have your dogs near food areas or kid areas. Some breeds have to be muzzled (boo). Your dog can’t attack people or animals. You have to pick up your dog’s poo in public. And then what happens if you’re bad and you let this stuff happen.

All pretty simple stuff, but all stuff that makes total sense and is very easily enforceable.

But recently, across Australia, there has been justifiable concerns about the number of animals that are killed in pounds.  In SA, we are still waiting for the report from the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare (Dogs and Cats).  In NSW, they created the NSW Companion Animals Task force (brief summary of the process and players) and they had recently released a report to the Minister for Local Government and and the Minister for Primary Industries. (Oh, sorry, they went off course and made two reports, in fact, another on dangerous dog legislation.)

Basically, this is a big breeder crackdown. Somehow, the Taskforce is under the impression that breeder regulation will improve shelter euthanasia rates. However, the regulation allows backyard breeders to keep breeding with no penalty. They want their breeder’s code (which I has previously criticised) to be enforced from standards through to guidelines. They want anyone breeding to have Certificate II in Animal Studies.

The also say that a pet owner license system would “be onerous for cat and dog owners”, but it seems like this is a logical group to target when considering the shelter impound and euthanasia problem. Generally, owners surrender pets to shelters – not breeders.

Indeed, the Taskforce puts blame on breeders for the killing that pounds do.  The report is dismissive of no kill and no kill legislation, but this is the only way to stop shelters from killing our pets. The Taskforce fails to acknowledge any obligation on pound facilities to ensure animals in their care aren’t euthanised.

There’s some good bits. They want breeders to be linked to animals they breed through their microchip – something I suggested way back in 2010.  Rescued and desexed animals would also have cheaper registration fees – an excellent incentive to spur people to adopt.  The Taskforce wants to make it easier for people to rent with pets. A few good bits in an otherwise disappointing report.

Unfortunately, you can’t do much about it but fill in a form on their website. But you may as well, it doesn’t take very long: Fill in their feedback form. NOTE: You must fill this form in quickly after you load the page, otherwise your session will ‘expire’ and you will lose all your selections. Unfun!

At the end of the form, there’s a section where you can submit less than 2000 characters. I chose to focus on the most prominent issues in this field, as obviously space was limited!

This report neglects to note that animal shelters are where animal euthanasia actually takes place. Considering this, implementing legislation that obligates shelters to undertake best practice may be beneficial in reducing euthanasia rates.  This could include mandated strategies to increase reclaims, “Oreo’s Law”, or mandating minimum times for animals to be available for adoption.

When animals are reclaimed, this means they are not at risk of being euthanised. Shelters should be required to post impounded animal photos online, and there be a required process in using microchip information. Furthermore, they should be open at convenient times (for example, 8am-8pm) so working people can reclaim their pets.

“Oreo’s Law” would prevent shelters euthanizing animals where they have rescue group alternatives. In other words, pounds would only be able to destroy animals when it is really ‘the last option’.

Additionally, companion animal welfare would benefit if facilities were obligated to have animals available for adoption for a minimum period.  This means that ever animal is given a minimal period to be removed from the facility by another party, and so escape euthanasia.

If we were to determine that breeder-licensing scheme was in the best interest of animal welfare, then the code of practice’s standards and guidelines are not.  The code practically obligates animals to be raised in sterile conditions that are not conducive to the psychological interests of animals.  This is particularly true of puppies, which have a critical socialisation window where they are required to interact with a range of new stimuli to be well-adjusted adult dogs.  Ironically, ‘dangerous dogs’ are often dogs with inadequate socialisation experiences, which is what the code of practice practically obligates breeders to abide by.  Any breeder code needs to focus on breeders’ producing pets that are physically and psychologically sound, which is clearly lacking in the current code.

Obviously, there is a lot more that could be set, but space is paramount, and so focussing on the critical issues is most important.

We can only hope that all recommendations, particularly regarding the breeder code, don’t get through. It’s up to us to provide sensible feedback to inform their decisions. Lets hope that logic wins out.

 

Further Reading:

DogzOnline’s call to action

SavingPets has written on the Companion Animals Taskforce:
Same, Same & Not at All Different – on the Taskforce’s willingness for pounds to continue their killing
RSPCA NSW Announces Support for Companion Animals Task Force – on the unsurprising reaction from RSPCA

And what I have written on companion animal welfare legislation in the past:
Clean and Kenneled: The Future of Dog Breeding – on how the breeder code in NSW puts puppies in kennel environments
What is the Answer? (To puppy farms) – on microchipping being linked to breeders
My submission to the Select Committee on Companion Animals