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! (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.

05/9/15

My Say: Proposed Breeder Code of Practice SA

(This is post two in a series of four blog posts on proposed changes to dog laws in South Australia. Post One: Summary. Post Three: D&CMA. Post Four: Mandatory Desexing.)

Submissions on the Government’s proposed changes are due by the 29th of May 2015.

In making a submission, you can follow the online form through 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 provides a copy of the proposed Breeder Code of Practice and also a FAQ document. I have uploaded both of these documents to this blog, for historical purposes.

First, let’s consider the online survey. This online survey asks for your feedback on a number of questions, and then a field for further comments. Below, I have listed each question and the response I provided. You are welcome to use my responses in their entirety or in part. You may find it useful to consider these questions in advance and save your responses to a Word document or similar, to avoid the risk of losing them in case of website error.

Survey Question One

· Are the definitions used in the draft Breeding Code clear?

· Do you agree with having standards that set the minimum requirements and are legally enforceable?

· Do you agree with having guidelines that are above the minimum requirements (standards) and are not legally enforceable?

6. Do you support the proposed interpretation and definitions?

While the definitions of the Breeding Code are clear, I do not agree with the notion of a Breeding Code of Practice in the first instance. If the standards outlined in this document are genuinely in the best interest of animal welfare, then they should be applicable to all animals, not just those used for breeding.

Further, I do not agree with having guidelines that are not legally enforceable, as they are superfluous to the goals of the document. That is, it is illogical to introduce guidelines that are known to be not legally enforceable and an optional extra.

Additionally, even if the proposed Breeding Code was to ‘go ahead’, there are many proposed standards that are inappropriate. For example:

*In general, the standards require excessive record keeping. For example, it is incredibly burdensome to expect a small hobby breeder to have all the details listed, written and stored for 5 years, for every dog ever in their care. Additionally, the requirement for breeders to have an isolation area is inappropriate and burdensome to small hobby breeders.

*Standard 5.1.1.3 is vague and subjective, requiring animal housing to be designed in a way that facilitates ‘good health’ and ‘minimises risk of disease transmission’.

*Minimum sizes for dog housing prevent the use of crates as crates are below the minimal standards specified. Crates should not be banned as they help train appropriate toiletting, help animals learn to cope with transport (e.g. they learn to be crated prior to transport), and are often spaces that dogs enjoy and seek out.

*Standard 6.1.1.4 requires animals to be isolated from others in a number of circumstances that have no scientific basis. For example, bitches in season have to be isolated from other animals. There is no need for this to occur. Additionally, many bitches will co-parent litters (e.g. two bitches lactating for one litter), and this standard removes the ability for breeders to be allow bitches to co-parent in this way.

*Standard 6.3.1.6 requires bedding to be disinfected weekly. This is well beyond the normal practices of pet owners, and may actually cause resistant-bacteria to formulate in the animal’s environment.

*Standards that vary for droving or animals used for stock control weaken this legislation. If this is ‘best practice’, then it is best practice for all dogs, not just those used in pet settings.

*Standard 7.3.1.1 requires (uses the word “must”) animals to be euthanised if a vet suggests it, and includes behavioural reasons as a suitable reason for euthanasia.

*Standard 8.1.1.1 requires animals are not sold before 7 weeks, yet many breeders have waiting lists where puppies are sold before they are even conceived, born, and most times before 7 weeks. This acts as insurance for both breeder and puppy buyer.

*Standard 8.1.1.4 requires animals that have health issues are not sold – effectively requiring breeders to keep the animal, kill the animal, or give it away. Instead the section should, at the very least, be changed to “No animal suspected of suffering a significant illness, injury or disease (including congenital disease) must be sold without full disclosure of this condition to the purchaser.”.

*Standard 9.1.1.1 requires bitches are not bred on their first season. There is no scientific basis behind this claim. Bitches are normally fitter and more able to naturally whelp at a young age than an older age. It assumes that all bitches will have their first cycle before 12 months, which is not the case.

*Standard 9.1.1.6/7 requires bedding is changed daily for newborn animals, which could be unnecessarily stressful for a mother and litter.

*Standard 9.1.1.12 requires bitches be able to escape their young. This has obviously been written by an individual who has not whelped an animal that does not want to mother their offspring. If this was a requirement, puppies would die due to maternal neglect. Breeders should be able to manage dams and pups as they best see fit.

*Standard 9.1.1.13 means that puppies can’t begin socialisation/habituation outside the house before 7 weeks unless their mothers accompanies them. This is counter-intuitive to the psychological development of pups.

Survey Question Two

The draft Breeding Code proposes legally enforceable standards relating to the responsibilities and competency of staff. These include:

· the person in charge is responsible for compliance with the standards

· the person in charge attends the establishment with sufficient frequency to meet the requirements of the code

· the person in charge must be knowledgeable and competent to provide for the care of animals

· trainees and volunteers are supervised by experienced staff and adequately trained

· facilities are sufficiently staffed to meet the standards

7. Do you support the proposed standards for the responsibilities and competency of staff?

Requirements on what is ‘adequate training’ are vague. However, if there was required learning (e.g. a particular certificate) this would be unnecessarily financially burdensome for small hobby breeders and rescue facilities. The workings of this whole section need to be reconsidered.

Survey Question Three

The draft Breeding Code proposes legally enforceable standards for quality management systems. These include:

· a requirement to record information about each animal housed at the facility

· records must be retained for five years after the death or disposal of an animal

· staff must be able to access and present records for inspection

· documented program for the control of insects, external parasites and vertebrate pests at the facility

· documented procedure for swift removal of animals in the case of an emergency

8. Do you support the proposed standards for quality management systems?

These requirements are excessive for a small hobby breeder. To require a breeder to have this information recorded on paper will create a lot of work for breeders for little or no gain in terms of animal welfare. A visual is all that’s required to determine whether an animal is healthy or not, and paperwork is only useful to show a process for animals that are unhealthy.

Survey Question Four

The draft Breeding Code proposes legally enforceable standards for animal housing that include:

· requirements for shade, light, ventilation and security

· standards for animals that need to be kept in isolation

· minimum sizes for dog housing and cat housing

9. Do you support the proposed standards for animal housing?

The current proposed requirements practically ban the use of crates. Breeders need to be able to use crates to transport dogs and for assisting in toilet training. Crates are also used for animals after undergoing surgeries. The best way to allow an animal to become habituated to a crate is to use them in ‘everyday life’. Crates need to be legal.

Survey Question Five

The draft Breeding Code proposes legally enforceable standards for animal management that include:

· a daily 30 minutes minimum exercise requirement

· a requirement for environmental enrichment

· a requirement to provide a balanced and complete diet

· cleaning and disinfection standards

· transport standards

10. Do you support the disability dog regulation proposal?

I’m not sure that this question marries with the dot pointed list above. However, I mostly support the proposed standards around exercise and environmental enrichment. The proposed standards seems to use disinfectant excessively and some uses of disinfectant should perhaps be switched to guidelines instead of standards, or removed all together.

Survey Question Six

The draft Breeding Code proposes legally enforceable standards for animal health that include:

· require daily inspection of animals

· appropriate veterinary treatment must be provided for sick or injured animals

· euthanasia standard

11. Do you support the proposed standards for animal health?

Euthanasia should not be an option for dogs that are ‘impractical’ to train. Instead, owners should attempt to rehome the animal. Attempts to rehome animals should be part of the standards, not guidelines. Remove the use of the word ‘must’ in regard to veterinarian recommendations of euthanasia. Currently, the standards are written in a way that makes euthanasia permissive.

Survey Question Seven

The draft Breeding Code proposes legally enforceable standards for the transfer of ownership that include:

· puppies and kittens must not to be sold before they are seven weeks of age

· animals must be vaccinated prior to sale

· free information on the care of animals must be provided at the time of purchase

12. Do you support the proposed standards for transfer of ownership?

Support vaccinations of animals before sale and provision of free information. The information suggested in the guidelines is excessive and, if provided, is likely to not be read by the purchaser. Puppies and kittens should be able to be sold prior to 7 weeks, but shouldn’t leave to their new homes until 8 weeks. This would give consumers confidence (e.g. they are definitely getting an animal), and buyers reassurance (e.g. there is a home for their puppy/kitten at 8 weeks).

Survey Questions Eight

The draft Breeding Code proposes legally enforceable standards for the breeding and rearing that include:

· males and females must be physically and mentally fit, healthy and free of disease at the time of mating

· no intentional mating during the first oestrous cycle

· bitches must not have more than two litters in any 18 month period, unless approved in writing by a veterinarian

· queens must not have more than three litters in any two year period, unless approved in writing by a veterinarian

· a requirement to provide additional food and water in certain circumstances

13. Do you support the proposed standards for breeding and rearing?

Support all but ‘no intentional mating during the first oestrous cycle’. There is no scientific reason that bitches cannot be mated during the first season.

The second manner in which to respond to this draft code is by email submission. My own is written below, however, if you prefer, you can also download the PDF version.

To whom it may concern,

Re: Dog and Cat Reforms

I am writing in response to the Draft Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs and Cats in Breeding Facilities. Including in this response is a table, responding to each individual standard outlined in the proposed Code, the changes that are necessary, and the rationale for suggesting such a change.

It concerns me that this Code at times replicates legislation already seen in The Animal Welfare Act and The Dog and Cat Management Act (or its proposed changes). This complicates animal management in the state, for both those responsible for animals and those authorised persons responsible for upholding the legislation. Many of my recommendations are based on removing this duplication of legislation.

My other suggestions for changes are chiefly based upon removing undue burden for small hobby breeders, standards with no scientific basis, and the ease this document allows animals to be euthanised.

While I have responded to the Draft Code of Practice, it is important to note that the proposal of a breeder registration scheme problematic in itself. There is no evidence that breeder registration results in greater consumer confidence or satisfaction. There are risks that such legislation would cause a decline in ethical breeders (as they may be priced out of the scheme) while unethical breeders who produce many puppies for profit will be most suited to respond to the standards. Further, considering the authorised persons already inadequately enforce The Animal Welfare Act and The Dog and Cat Management Act, I have little faith that any new legislation will be adequately enforced.

Considering this, it would be best for no breeder registration scheme to be implemented. However, failing that, the standards at least need to be heavily reviewed in order to address the issues of duplication, impact on small breeders, lack of scientific rationale, and simplistic euthanasia procedures. Because of the number of problematic standards in this draft code, a second review process needs to be undertaken at the very least.

Regards,

Tegan Whalan

Current Proposed Standard	Proposed Change	Rationale
3.1.1 The person in charge of the facility is responsible for compliance with all Standards within this Code.	-	-
3.1.2 The person in charge of the facility must be aware of their responsibilities towards the animals in their care. Each day, a person must be in attendance with sufficient frequency to meet the requirements of this Code, and must be knowledgeable and competent to: • provide for the animals’ care and welfare • provide for the feeding and watering of the animals • take reasonable steps to protect animals from distress or injury caused by other animals or interference by people • clean and ensure proper hygiene in the facility • identify signs of common diseases of the animals kept.	-	-
3.1.3 Where trainees and volunteers are engaged by the facility they must work under the supervision of trained and experienced staff.	-	-
3.1.4 Facilities must engage sufficient staff to meet these Standards and ensure the welfare of the animals being kept.	Remove section.	Unnecessary. 3.1.1 states that the person in charge of the facility is responsible for complying with the code. Obviously, this involves employing staff to meet the requirements of the code.
4.1.1 The following information must be recorded for each animal that is housed at the facility: • a description which includes: » name » microchip number (if microchipped) » sex (including whether desexed) » breed » colour » the pedigree registration number (for purebred animals) of owned and leased animals » distinguishing features » any special medical and dietary requirements • the history of the animal which includes: » date of birth » the date of acquisition/arrival » vaccination status » details of preventative and veterinary treatment, for example routine husbandry procedures such as worming or parasite control » details of medical history » any genetic or other health testing undertaken • method of disposal of the animal which includes: » the date and details of the sale or give away » if animals are euthanised the date, reason and method for euthanasia » if the animal died, the date of death, whether or not a necropsy was performed and the cause of death (if known) • if the animal is leased: » the name, address and telephone number of the owner or lessee » the name and contact telephone number of the veterinary practitioner who normally attends the animal.	Remove section.	Record keeping outlined here is extensive and burdensome for a hobby breeder.
4.1.2 Information which details each litter bred must be recorded and must include: • the name and microchip number of both the dam and the sire (if microchipped) • the date of mating(s) • the date of whelping or queening • identification details for each animal within the litter including any abnormalities or deaths.	-	-
4.1.3 Records must be retained for no less than five years after the death or disposal of the animal and all staff must be able to produce the records at the request of an inspector under the Animal Welfare Act 1985.	Remove section.	Record keeping outlined here is extensive and burdensome for a hobby breeder.
4.1.4 The facility must have a documented program in place to control insects, external parasites (including fleas, lice, ticks) and vertebrate pests (for example rats or mice). This program must be kept at the facility and all staff must be able to produce or access it and must be familiar with its content.	4.1.4 The facility must have a documented program in place to control insects, external parasites (including fleas, lice, ticks) and vertebrate pests (for example rats or mice), if evidence of such parasites or pests are sighted. This program must be kept at the facility and all staff must be able to produce or access it and must be familiar with its content.	Unnecessary for facilities to have a documented program of parasite and pest control if the facility has never witnessed the parasites or pests.
4.1.5 Each facility must have a documented procedure for the swift removal of animals from the facility, in the case of emergency. This procedure must be kept at the facility and all staff must be able to produce or access it and must be familiar with its content.	Remove section.	Record keeping outlined here is extensive and burdensome for a hobby breeder.
5.1.1.1 Vehicles, caravans, portable crates and the crawl space under any dwelling must not be used as permanent housing.	Unsure.	Currently unclear what ‘permanent housing’ definition is.
5.1.1.2 Breeding facilities must have a clean and adequate water supply, sufficient to meet the daily requirements of the animals.	Remove section.	An individual is already in violation of the Animal Welfare Act if they fail to provide an animal with water.
5.1.1.3 Breeding facilities must be designed, constructed, serviced and maintained in a way that: • provides for the good health and wellbeing of the animals • minimises the risk of the transmission of infectious disease agents • minimises the risk of escape of animals • Minimises the risk of injury to animals and humans	Unsure.	Section is vague, subjective, and unenforceable.
5.1.1.4 Animals must be provided with protection from rain and wind, direct sunlight or other adverse weather conditions and must be provided with clean, dry, dedicated sleeping areas.	-	-
5.1.1.5 If a facility houses both dogs and cats, cat housing must be sufficiently distant or otherwise isolated from dog housing to minimise the stress to cats created by the sound, sight or smell of dogs.	-	-
5.1.1.6 Housing must meet the minimum sizes shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. These limits do not apply to animals being temporarily housed while undergoing treatment or being transported for a disease or injury.	5.1.1.6 Housing must meet the minimum sizes shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. These limits do not apply to animals being temporarily housed. (Section: “while undergoing treatment or being transported for a disease or injury” removed.)	As the code is currently written, crates have been banned. Crates are important for confining dogs for a number of purposes, and are often spaces that dogs deliberately seek out for rest. As dogs are often crated during medical treatment or transport, a familiarity with crates is important to minimize stress at these times. Crates need to be permitted and the only way to do this is to make changes to the housing sizes shown.
5.1.1.7 Animals: • must be provided with sleeping areas that have clean, hygienic, dry bedding, appropriate to the species and breed, sufficient for the number of animals held, and sufficient to insulate them from the floor • must not be in extended contact with wet floors • must not be kept exclusively on wire flooring.	-	-
5.1.1.8 Cats must be provided: • with a suitable box each in which to hide or sleep • a litter tray that is at least 1.2 times the length of the cat and that contains a sufficient depth of material such as commercial cat litter, sawdust, shavings, sand or shredded paper.	-	-
5.1.1.9 An area must either be available at the facility or at a veterinary hospital where animals can be kept in isolation. There must be documented and demonstrable biosecurity measures in place prior to use.	Remove section.	Excessive demands of small hobby breeders to have an isolation area, and it is excessive to require vets to provide written documentation of their availability of their facilities for isolation.
5.1.1.10 Animals known or suspected to be suffering from a significant infectious disease or severe injury must be taken directly to where they can be kept in isolation unless it is in the animal’s welfare to be housed with other animals and does not put the other animals at risk.	-	-
5.1.1.11 A cat isolation facility must be a sufficient distance or otherwise isolated from dog housing to minimise the stress created by the sound, sight or smell of dogs.	-	-
5.2.1.1 Housing must have a shaded area to escape direct exposure from the sun.	Remove section.	Already covered in 5.1.1.4.
5.2.1.2 Animals must be protected from extremes of temperature.	Remove section.	Already covered in 5.1.1.4.
5.2.1.3 The duration and intensity of artificial lighting, if used, must be as close as possible to natural conditions, sufficient to allow thorough inspection and observation of animals and must mimic the prevailing natural light cycles. Animals must be protected from excessive light that is generated from an external source.	-	-
5.2.1.4 Housing areas must sufficiently ventilated to maintain the health of the animals, while minimising undue draughts, odours and moisture condensation.	Unsure.	Section is vague, subjective, and unenforceable.
5.2.1.5 Air ventilation devices, if used, must have an air change rate sufficient to distribute fresh air evenly to all of the animal holding areas ; and must have a back-up system in case the system becomes inoperable.	-	-
5.3.1.1 The facility must be able to be reasonably secured to prevent access by unauthorised people.	-	-
5.3.1.2 Housing must be fitted with a secure closing device that cannot be opened by the animals held.	Remove section.	Covered by section 5.3.1.4.
5.3.1.3 Animals must not be able to escape except in circumstances that cannot reasonably be foreseen and guarded against.	-	-
5.3.1.4 Unauthorised people must not have access to animal holding areas unless under the supervision of a staff member.	-	-
5.3.1.5 All potential poisons and harmful substances, whether in storage or in use, must be kept out of reach of animals.	-	-
6.1.1.1 Each animal must be individually identified.	Remove section.	Covered by proposed changes to the Dog and Cat Management Act that requires all animals to be microchipped.
6.1.1.2 Appropriate measures must be implemented to minimise the risk of distress or injury caused by other animals. This includes supervising animals sharing an exercise area unless they are known to be compatible.	-	-
6.1.1.3 Animals must be protected from distress or injury caused by interference by people.	-	-
6.1.1.4 Animals that must be kept in isolation must be kept in a quiet, warm and dry area. In most instances, the following categories of animals must be isolated : • animals with dependent young • animals about to give birth • animals in season, where it is not the intention to breed • sick or injured animals.	Remove section.	Animals due to give birth should not be kept in isolation, but supervised by someone experienced in whelping/queening. Animals with dependent young may choose to co-parent litters, but requiring them to be in isolation prevents the benefits of co-parenting by effectively making the practice illegal. Dogs are social animals and should not be isolated from others of their species for 2-3 weeks because they are in season. There is no logical reason for these isolation requirements.
6.1.1.5 Animals that may be distressed by the presence of other dogs or cats, or another species (eg. sheep or cattle) must be housed in a manner that prevents visual contact and minimises or reduces their ability to smell the other animals.	-	-
6.1.1. Long haired animals must be groomed by brushing or clipping at a frequency which ensures that their health and comfort is maintained.	-	-
6.1.1.7 Adult animals must have the opportunity to exercise for at least 30 minutes daily, unless being treated for significant illness or injury. For dogs, this can be provided through training or work activities, or allowing the animal access to an exercise area to run freely, or by walking them on a lead.	Unsure.	It is unclear on how an exercise area differs from an area that the animal permanently resides.
6.1.1.8 Dogs must not be exercised in any way which may pose the risk of serious injury, for example attached to a motor vehicle, or unsupervised on a treadmill.	-	-
6.1.1.9 Animals must receive environmental enrichment, recognising the physiological status and special needs of differing ages and species, to ensure good psychological health.	Remove section.	Section is vague, subjective, and unenforceable.
6.1.1.10 Animals that are unable to feed themselves must only be kept if there are adequate facilities and expertise is available for artificial rearing.	Remove section.	Owners are already required to provide animals with “appropriate and adequate” food as per the Animal Welfare Act. Unnecessary to include it in this code.
6.2.1.1 Adequate cool, clean, palatable water to meet the physiological needs of the animal must be available at all times.	Remove section.	An individual is already in violation of the Animal Welfare Act if they fail to provide an animal with water.
6.2.1.2 Animals must receive a balanced and complete diet which allows them to maintain good health and growth. Food must be palatable and in a form appropriate to the age and medical condition of the animal.	Remove section.	Owners are already required to provide animals with “appropriate and adequate” food as per the Animal Welfare Act. Unnecessary to include it in this code.
6.2.1.3 Puppies and kittens under four months of age must be offered a sufficient quantity of a balanced and complete diet at least twice daily, unless receiving adequate maternal nutrition.	Remove section.	Owners are already required to provide animals with “appropriate and adequate” food as per the Animal Welfare Act. Unnecessary to include it in this code.
6.2.1.4 Animals that are co-housed with other animals must be monitored during feeding to ensure they all eat their own share.	Remove section.	Owners are already required to provide animals with “appropriate and adequate” food as per the Animal Welfare Act. Unnecessary to include it in this code.
6.2.1.5 Spoiled or stale food must be removed and disposed of promptly.	-	-
6.2.1.6 Food and water containers must be removed, cleaned and replaced immediately if noticed to be contaminated by urine, faeces, vomitus and the like.	Remove section.	Unenforceable, as an individually can simply claim that the reciprocal ‘wasn’t noticed’ to be contaiminated.
6.2.1.7 Food must be stored to prevent its deterioration or contamination	-	-
6.3.1.1 Areas housing animals within a facility must be cleaned at least once daily.	Unsure.	Section is vague. What does ‘clean’ extend to? Poop scooping, hosing, disinfectant, or others? How does this apply to home hobby-breeders who have dogs that run on porous surfaces?
6.3.1.2 Exercise areas must be maintained in a clean and healthy state and cleaned before new dogs are introduced to the area.	Unsure.	Section is vague. What does ‘clean’ extend to? Poop scooping, hosing, disinfectant, or others? How does this apply to home hobby-breeders who have dogs that run on porous surfaces?
6.3.1.3 Housing must be disinfected regularly.	Remove section.	Disinfecting regularly is likely to cause the development of resilient bacteria, and have no true purpose in maintaining cleanliness of a facility.
6.3.1.4 Housing, including exercise yards and bedding, which has housed an animal afflicted by an infectious disease must be disinfected and decontaminated with an appropriate product before a new animal is introduced (or the bedding discarded and replaced entirely).	-	-
6.3.1.5 Housing must be cleaned and disinfected before new animals are introduced or before whelping or kittening.	Remove section.	Disinfecting regularly is likely to cause the development of resilient bacteria, and have no true purpose in maintaining cleanliness of a facility.
6.3.1.6 Bedding must be cleaned or changed at least once daily if soiled, and disinfected at least weekly.	6.3.1.6 Bedding must be cleaned or changed at least once daily if soiled. (Removed section”, and disinfected at least weekly”.)	Disinfecting regularly is likely to cause the development of resilient bacteria, and have no true purpose in maintaining cleanliness of a facility.
6.3.1.7 Food preparation and storage areas, food and water containers and utensils and equipment used in the preparation and provision of food must be maintained in a hygienic state.	-	-
6.3.1.8 Collection drains must be cleaned daily.	Unsure.	If no collection drains are present at the facility, how may the owner of the facility meet this element of the code?
6.3.1.9 Litter trays must be checked, scooped and replenished daily	-	-
6.3.1.10 Litter trays must be changed, washed and disinfected before being allocated to a new cat.	-	-
6.3.1.11 Litter trays that are saturated with urine must be changed immediately.	-	-
6.4.1.1 All animals must be transported in a manner appropriate for their species, size and age. Incompatible animals must be physically separated during transport to prevent injury, harm or distress.	-	-
6.4.1.2 Animals must not be transported in the boot of a car.	-	-
6.4.1.3 Vehicles must have adequate ventilation and shade, sufficient to maintain good health and to avoid distress.	-	-
6.4.1.4 All vehicles used extensively for the purpose of transporting animals must be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected after use to minimise the possibility of transmission of infectious disease agents between consignments of animals. This does not apply to a vehicle used to transport a dog that is being used in the droving or tending of stock or is going to, or returning from, a place where it will be, or has been, so used.	Remove section.	Disinfecting regularly is likely to cause the development of resilient bacteria, and have no true purpose in maintaining cleanliness of a facility. Further, many vehicles are difficult to adequately clean/disinfect due to the upholstery. Additionally, dogs used for stock use should not be exempt from this section of the code.
6.4.1.5 The minimum exercise requirement of this Code (6.1.1.7) applies to transported dogs and cats.	-	-
7.1.1.1 All dogs and cats must be inspected at least once daily to monitor their health and wellbeing. The person who is inspecting must note all adverse observations, for example if an animal is: • not eating • not drinking (in the case of kittens/puppies drinking milk) • not defecating • not urinating • behaving abnormally • unable to move about freely • displaying an abnormal coat • showing any obvious signs of pain, injury, illness or distress • suffering any unexpected or rapid weight loss.	-	-
7.1.1.2 Any changes in health status must be promptly reported to the person in charge of the facility for appropriate action.	7.1.1.2 Any changes in health status must be promptly reported to the person in charge of the facility and action taken.	Changed from passive (‘appropriate action’) to assertive (‘and action taken’).
7.1.1.3 If there is evidence that whelping or kittening has commenced (e.g. straining or contracting) and there is no progress within two hours, the bitch or queen must be examined by a veterinary practitioner or other appropriate remedial action taken.	-	-
7.2.1.1 The person in charge of the facility must establish liaison with a veterinary practitioner who is able to attend to their animals and advise on disease prevention measures.	-	-
7.2.1.2 The contact details for the veterinary practitioner must be posted in a location which enables staff and visitors to see them.	-	-
7.2.1.3 Appropriate veterinary treatment must be provided for sick or injured animals.	-	-
7.2.1.4 Permission in writing must be obtained from the owner (or nominee if the animal is leased at the time of acceptance for breeding) authorising the provision of necessary veterinary treatment.	-	-
7.2.1.5 Dogs and puppies must be vaccinated against distemper, hepatitis and parvovirus in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations unless there is written advice from a veterinary practitioner not to do so.	Remove section.	There is significant debate regarding vaccination protocols in dogs. In particularly, The Australian Veterinary Association recommends tri-annual vaccination, yet many veterinarians current practice against the AVA’s recommendations. Due to the discrepancies between the AVA, practitioners, and the manufacturers, it seems folly to legislate one particular approach.
7.2.1.6 Cats and kittens must be vaccinated against feline infectious enteritis and feline respiratory disease in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations unless there is written advice from a veterinary practitioner not to do so.	Remove section.	There is significant debate regarding vaccination protocols in dogs. In particularly, The Australian Veterinary Association recommends tri-annual vaccination, yet many veterinarians current practice against the AVA’s recommendations. Due to the discrepancies between the AVA, practitioners, and the manufacturers, it seems folly to legislate one particular approach.
7.2.1.7 Animals known or suspected to be suffering from a significant infectious disease must not be used for breeding or be accepted for breeding under lease unless under written approval from a veterinary practitioner.	-	-
7.2.1.8 Internal and external parasites including fleas, lice, ticks, gastrointestinal worms and heartworm must be controlled through routine and preventative treatment as appropriate.	Remove section.	Already covered by 4.1.4.
7.3.1.1 If treatment to restore the physical and mental health of an animal while in the facility is impractical or unsuccessful, or if euthanasia is recommended by a veterinary practitioner, the animal must be euthanised.	7.3.1.1 If treatment to restore the physical and mental health of an animal while in the facility is impractical or unsuccessful, the animal should be moved to a facility where attendance to its physical and mental needs is attainable.	Owners should not be obligated to euthanise animals (“the animal must be euthanised”), nor should this approach be legitimized in the code.
7.3.1.2 Euthanasia must be conducted in an area that is separated from animal accommodation at the facility and must not be carried out in view of any other animals.	-	-
8.1.1.1 Puppies and kittens must not be sold before they are 7 weeks of age.	Unsure.	Animals are frequently sold before 7 weeks, but do not permanently vacate the premises before this time. Selling animals prior to 7 weeks means that both the buyer and seller has certainty about the puppy’s future, and this fore-planning should be encouraged, not out-lawed.
8.1.1.2 No animal must be sold unless vaccinated in compliance with the requirements of Section 7.2 of this Code.	8.1.1.2 No animal must be sold unless vaccinated. (Removed section: “in compliance with the requirements of Section 7.2 of this Code.”)	There is significant debate regarding vaccination protocols in dogs. In particularly, The Australian Veterinary Association recommends tri-annual vaccination, yet many veterinarians current practice against the AVA’s recommendations. Due to the discrepancies between the AVA, practitioners, and the manufacturers, it seems folly to legislate one particular approach.
8.1.1.3 All animals must be treated for internal and external parasites prior to sale.	-	-
8.1.1.4 No animal suspected of suffering a significant illness, injury or disease (including congenital diseases) must be sold.	8.1.1.4 No animal suspected of suffering a significant illness, injury or disease (including congenital diseases) must be sold unless the purchaser is provided with written details of its condition prior to sale.	As it is currently written, breeders are required to either keep or euthanise animals with illness, injury or disease. Steps should be made that reduce euthanasia, not increase it.
8.1.1.5 At the time of purchase, clients must be offered accurate written information at no charge that concerns the care of animals purchased.	-	-
9.1.1.1 Bitches and queens must not be intentionally mated during their first oestrous cycle.	Remove section.	There is no scientific evidence, anywhere, that suggests that breeding bitches on their first cycle is hazardous to the well being of their pups or the dam.
9.1.1.2 Males and females must be physically and mentally fit, healthy and free of disease at the time of mating.	-	-
9.1.1.3 During mating, breeding pairs must be isolated from other animals, and monitored by the person in charge or a competent member of staff.	-	-
9.1.1.4 Bitches and queens in the latter stages of pregnancy must be provided with additional food and water, at frequent intervals.	-	-
9.1.1.5 During birthing bitches and queens must be isolated from other animals and monitored by the person in charge or a competent member of staff on a regular basis to ensure that the birth proceeds in a normal manner.	-	-
9.1.1.6 Whelping bitches must be provided with a suitable whelping box, lined with clean bedding, which is changed daily.	9.1.1.6 Whelping bitches must be provided with a suitable whelping box, lined with clean bedding. (Section removed: “, which is changed daily.”)	Changing bedding daily can be stressful to a bitch and her pups.
9.1.1.7 Kittening queens must be provided with a covered kittening box, lined with clean bedding, which is changed daily.	Unsure.	Perhaps changing bedding daily is stressful for queens and her kittens, too.
9.1.1.8 Animals that are isolated must be provided with additional attention and socialisation to animal carers.	-	-
9.1.1.9 Bitches must not have more than two litters in any eighteen month period, unless with the written approval of a veterinary practitioner.	Remove section.	There is no scientific evidence that suggests that having more than two litters from a bitch in an eighteen month period is hazardous to the health of the bitch or to her pups.
9.1.1.10 Queens must not have more than three litters in any two year period, unless with the written approval of a veterinary practitioner	Unsure.	Perhaps there is no scientific evidence that multiple litters is hazardous to the health of queens and kits, either.
9.1.1.11 Lactating bitches and queens must be provided with additional food and water.	Remove section.	Already covered by 6.2.1.1 and
9.1.1.12 Lactating bitches and queens must be housed in such a manner that they are able to escape their young.	Remove section.	Some bitches (and presumably queens) are ‘bad mothers’ and may inadequately feed their young. If they are allowed an avenue to escape, they may not feed their young, and their young would perish. Breeders should be allowed to make choices based on the welfare of an individual bitch and her young.
9.1.1.13 Kittens or puppies must not be separated from their litter or their lactating mother until they are seven weeks of age, unless it is in the best interests of the puppy or kitten, or their mother.	Remove section.	It is always in the best interest for puppies to be extensively socialised from 4 weeks old, and independently to their mother and other pups. It is in a puppy’s best interest to be weaned well prior to 8 weeks, when they go to a new home.
9.1.1.14 Puppies and kittens must be monitored when first offered solid food to ensure that the food is acceptable and palatable.	Remove section.	Owners are already required to provide animals with “appropriate and adequate” food as per the Animal Welfare Act. Unnecessary to include it in this code.
9.1.1.15 Puppies and kittens must be observed to ensure they achieve a steady weight gain every week.	Remove section.	Owners are already required to provide animals with “appropriate and adequate” food as per the Animal Welfare Act. Unnecessary to include it in this code.

Please feel free to utilise my own submission in whatever way you feel just in preparing your own. I can only hope that this time the powers-that-be heed the submissions and make changes that are based on science and evidence, instead of public outcry.

Dogs SA’s response to the breeder code can be seen here.

Voluntary credit to Tableizer who made creating that massive table a whole lot easier.

05/2/15

My Say: South Australian Dog and Cat Reforms

It’s been brewing for a while. In January 2013 that I urged readers to make a submission to the Select Committee. They were looking for suggestions to ‘improve animal welfare’ and ‘reduce euthanasia in shelters’. It was July 2013 that they ignored all evidence-based suggestions and instead went with simply replicating faulty legislation as seen in other states.

Then it all went quiet, and I was optimistic that the whole stupidity had disappeared.

But in September last year, there were indications that legislation was in the works. A few news articles that gave glimpses of a story.

And then…

Last month, April 2015, we were given another opportunity to respond. This time, the legislation is written down, and they’re wanting feedback on the actual words. It’s great that they’re inviting feed back, but some of the choices are a bit concerning.

Each area will have its own blog post, but this blog post serves as a summary of the major points.

Submissions can be made through the Your Say website through the section on South Australia’s Dog and Cat Reforms.

There are two proposed areas for change:

A new Breeder Code of Practice (submissions required by 29th May 2015), and
Changes to the Dog and Cat Management Act (submissions required by 26th June 2015).

Further, there is a Citzens’ Jury on mandatory desexing.

A new Breeder Code of Practice (COP)

While this could’ve been disastrous, the COP proposed here is milder than that in other states (like Victoria). So breeders can take a much needed breath – at least for now.

The ‘good thing’ about this COP is that it does not discriminate on breeders based on arbitrary measures. It simply requires that anyone who breeds dogs or cats ‘for sale’ is required to register as a breeder. However, this is a little bit muddy. Do I have to register as a breeder if I sell a litter? If I have a litter that is born? If I have a bitch in whelp? When I attempt a mating? When I own an entire animal? This area is unclear.

Myrtle and Clover both lactated and mothered Myrtle’s litter of puppies.

The main issues are:

A lot of the standards and guidelines are incredibly burdensome for a small hobby breeder. This includes excessive record keeping.
The code practically prohibits the use of crates by breeders. Crates have many purposes. The way the COP is written, crates are smaller than the minimal size area that dogs can be kept in.
The COP requires animals to be isolated from each other, in situations that are excessive. For example, a bitch cannot raise a litter with another bitch (i.e. co-parent), as they must be isolated from other animals when with pups. Also, bitches who are in season must be separated from other animals – which is a 3 week period where a social animal is required to be by themselves.
Standards sometimes do not apply for people with droving or stock-working dogs. If these standards are necessary for best practice, then they must be true for all dogs. Suggesting that the physical and psychological needs of working dogs varies weakens this legislation.
A standard specifies that animals “must” (quote!) be euthanised on the recommendation of a vet.

For more details, see the complete blog post.

Changes to the Dog and Cat Management Act (D&CMA)

I was surprised to find I had more objections with these changes than the breeder code! They are:

Facilities are not required to check for a microchip in lost animals! 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 facilities carefully check animals for microchip, seek this microchip number on available databases, and action the contact details linked on the database. This section of the Act urgently needs to be reviewed.
They can desex your lost pet! I am incredibly troubled by the proposed inclusion that 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.
Requiring all animals to be microchipped. If a pet owner has a pet that is not microchipped, they will have to have it microchipped. The cost of doing so could be prohibitive and people may be forced to choose to relinquish their pets or live as criminals under the D&CMA. A grace period of two years may help to alleviate this problem.
The requirement of breeders to be registered. I’ve always maintained that breeder registration will not achieve the welfare aims many activists believe. That is, breeder registration is bollocks.

More details on these changes in this blog post.

I hope this gives you a basis to begin your submission, and hope to provide you more specific inclusions for your submissions in the coming days.

09/6/14

The SA Story (Again)

selectcommitteesa

After hearing the ‘results’ of the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare in SA, I was hugely disappointed in the process and the recommendations. However, I was pleased to hear nothing further about it (it came out July last year!).

Until now.

A few articles (one | two | three) have come out quoting Ian Hunter (politician), Tammy Franks (politician), Tim Vasuedeva (RSPCA CEO), Steven Marshall (politician), and Jay Weatherill (politician).

The hot ideas are compulsory desexing (or just desexing puppies in pet shops), a code of practice, and a breeder licensing scheme, with some extra legislation thrown in for good measure. It’s not a surprise that this is mostly bad news, considering the spurious nature of the original Select Committee report.

Compulsory Desexing

The articles seem to be looking at both compulsory desexing, and compulsory desexing of all dogs sold in pet shops. The narrator in the first article describes the community as ‘divided’.

Compulsory Desexing of Petshop Puppies

Tammy Franks, in particular, supports the suggestion that all puppies from pet shops should be desexed.

Tim Vasudeva, from the RSPCA, says, “We’ve been desexing puppies between 3-4 months for years and years and we haven’t had any problems.”

The first article claims that the government will look at compulsory desexing of dogs sold in pet shop in light of a Select Committee’s report. While the report made many poor recommendations, desexing of dogs in pet shops before sale was not one of them! False reporting!

The problem with this is: We are desexing very young puppies and there is evidence that there are harms associated with desexing when it is done at a young age. These harms go beyond anaesthetic risks and immediate recovery (which is what Tim is referring to) and is more about long term acquisition of health problems including cancer. (You can read a recent study on golden retrievers, or a recent study on vizslas to learn more about this.)

Further, what is the point of this suggested legislation? Why should all puppies be desexed before sale? Especially because of the long term health risks?

If you wanted to get me on side with this suggestion, I would be more inclined to support the sterilisation of puppies before sale (including tubal ligation and vasectomies, that aren’t known to have these long-term health outcomes). However, I’d still be asking what the point of this was – surely there’s bigger issues for us to be dealing with.

Compulsory Desexing of Everything

Tim Vasudeva, from the RSPCA, says that the AVA’s research shows that desexed dogs are 2.6 times less likely to bite. This is not true: the AVA refers to others’ research, using 23 year old data, which suggests desexed dogs are 2.6 times less likely to bite.

Tim Vasudeva spoke about how desexing could be beneficial – in reducing wandering and hormone-driven behaviours and said “At the very least I don’t think can hurt”. While there is actually a study that indicates that this is the case, it is one old study. Anecdotally, I know of plenty of people who have non-humpy non-pissing non-wandering dogs that are entire.

Ian Hunter says that “In the ACT, desexing is compulsory and has led to a 47% decrease in dog attacks. It’s also reduced the number of unwanted dogs being euthanised.” Despite a lot of research on my part, I couldn’t find any evidence that this is the case. Any clues on this appreciated! While there might be a correlation (I stress might), this doesn’t indicate a causation.

Code of Practice

All three articles talk about the government introducing a Code of Practice to target puppy farms and makes sure dogs are kept and born into healthy and humane conditions.

But a Code of Practice will affect everyone, not just puppy farms! Such codes produced around Australia have pretty much banned dogs from being kept inside or on grass. Are puppy farms defined as those with lots of dogs? Those breeding many litters? Those producing many puppies? Anyone that breeds full stop? A ‘puppy farm’ is hard to define, and so Codes of Practice affect everyone instead.

Further, dogs already have to be kept in a humane way! The Animal Welfare Acts and similar legislation across Australia requires it. Anyone who is allowing their dogs to get matted, or not have water, or have medical treatments denied, is guilty of an offence. We can get puppy farmers for that! Code of Practice not required!

Licensing Scheme

I was excited in article two where there was the suggestion that there would be no licensing scheme… Then article three suggested there would be. I’ve repeatedly made arguments against breeder licensing (the most elaborate being here), but basically:

1) Breeder licensing hasn’t been shown to do much (like the Gold Coast scheme) – it doesn’t reduce pound intakes for sure. And puppy farmers don’t make a habit of signing up.

2) Why would we introduce a new license scheme, when the Animal Welfare Acts are not currently enforced?

3) How do we ensure that responsible and ethical home ‘hobby breeders’ are not discouraged from breeding wonderful pets?

4) Often, breeder licensing excludes ‘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.

Other Matters

Tammy Franks wants shelters to reveal euthanasia rates publicly. I think this is great if shelters were to have such transparency.

Article two and three suggest that mandatory microchipping will come in, and be compulsory (presumably, hopefully, compulsory before sale). While I have no qualms with microchipping being mandatory, I look forward to the phone line that allows me to report in those selling animals without microchips illegally. I don’t look forward to my expensive phone bills from making such reports. What I’m saying is: I have no confidence that this legislation will be adequately enforced.

Interestingly, one article says that there will be a “requirement for pets to only be bought from registered breeders”. That would be interesting! No more RSPCA, AWL, rescue group sales. No more guide dog and assistant dog groups selling unsuitable animals. Does that mean private rehomings are no longer legal? Surely this must be some kind of error in reporting.

And still there’s continued bleating about a cooling off period, under the guise that it would “reduce impulse buying and cut the number of pets being abandoned or surrendered”. There is no evidence that this is the case! Firstly, it does not seem that pets acquired impulsively are at any greater risk of being surrendered than pets acquired with a lot of thought. Secondly, there is no evidence that a cooling off period would reduce abandonment of pets. I don’t know how this even gets attention!

How unfortunate that the Select Committee’s recommendations are now gaining media attention and potentially some momentum in SA.

I spent a great many hours researching and writing my 20 page submission to the Committee. When the Committee published its findings and suggestions, I was so angry that the recommendations made were based on an emotive community rather than evidence and science.

I had been peacefully thinking that the Select Committee was just a little media stunt, and that it was going to disappear. These recent media reports and troubling and upsetting.

It’s concerning that the Government is prepared to invest resources into plans with no evidence that they will have any impact on animal welfare.

It is just as concerning that the community is lapping it up.

Further reading:

Public Misconceptions

Is desexing a cult?

Companion Animal Taskforce in NSW – Feedback

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.

Blogging on all things dogs, particularly dog science and dog politics.

Tag Archives: sa

My Say: Proposed Changes to the D&CMA

My Say: Proposed Breeder Code of Practice SA

My Say: South Australian Dog and Cat Reforms

The SA Story (Again)

Select Committee SA replicates faulty animal welfare legislation