Currently, the South Australian government is seeking submissions on companion animal welfare (specifically dogs and cats). \u00a0That is, they want to know what legislation could be introduced to improve animal welfare and reduce euthanasia in shelters.<\/p>\n
You need to act before the 16th of January 2013.<\/strong><\/p>\n You can find more details on the submission process on the Parliament of SA website<\/a>.<\/p>\n Below, I am providing both a summary of my submission, and the body of my submission, too. Though I welcome individuals to write a submission and use mine for inspiration, I hope that you add your own personal touches to the submission, and don’t just take mine ‘word for word’. (Though I personally don’t have a problem if you do – it’s just less powerful if you do!)<\/p>\n If you’d like to download the submission, you easily can:\u00a0download selectcommittee.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n Update as of 16th January: <\/strong>This is the submission I actually made:\u00a0In Response to the Terms of Reference<\/a><\/p>\n Otherwise, below is the document practically copied and pasted into this blog entry: <\/p>\n Firstly, here is a summary of my submission.<\/p>\n ——<\/p>\n In Response to the Terms of Reference<\/strong><\/big><\/big><\/p>\n a) options for the regulation of welfare standards for breeding companion dogs and cats,<\/strong><\/big><\/p>\n Key points:<\/p>\n b) the adequacy of regulation of the source of companion dogs and cats for sale,<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n No comment. Key points:<\/p>\n d) the adequacy of the regulation of non-retail-shop trade in companion dogs and cats,<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n Key points:<\/p>\n f) any other relevant matters.<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n Key points:<\/p>\n ——<\/p>\n And here is the whole body of my submission. (Please excuse any minor typographical areas that are below. I am still in the process of writing this submission, but wanted to provide enough time for you to get your submission in!)<\/p>\n —— Re: More strict enforcement of current legislation<\/strong><\/p>\n There are too many stories of the RSPCA failing to act in light of information on Animal Welfare Act violations.\u00a0 The government needs to reassess whether the RSPCA is the most suitable use of their funding, and instead consider training police or council workers in animal welfare and enlisting them to enact welfare regulations.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Re: Mandatory Socialisation of Puppies and Kittens<\/strong><\/p>\n Socialisation has two benefits: It makes animals more \u2018liveable\u2019 and so less likely to be surrendered, and also reduces the risk of euthanasia if they do enter a shelter.<\/p>\n Many researchers have found that a large proportion of animals are surrendered for behavioural issues.\u00a0 Salman et al. (1998), in the USA, found that 28.8% of dogs were surrendered for behavioural issues, and 21.1% of cats.<\/p>\n Furthermore, being socialised is a risk factor for euthanasia when admitted to shelters.\u00a0 Marston et al. (2006), when studying cats admitting to Melbourne shelters, found that sociability by far had the greatest effect on their outcome \u2013 i.e. whether they were euthanised or adopted.<\/p>\n Research by Pluijmakers et al. (2010) and Scott & Fuller (1965) show that experiences from 3 weeks of age, in puppies, can change their behaviour.\u00a0 For this reason, it is important that individuals rearing puppies are commencing socialisation as soon as possible.\u00a0 Though interaction with people would be most desirable, substitutes like televisions (played within visual and audio range), toys in pens, and exposure to different surfaces are potential habituation approaches that could modify the behaviour of the puppy, for the better, long term. Re: Impacts on shelters<\/strong><\/p>\n Currently, the large Adelaide based shelters claim that there is a pet overpopulation problem that results in large euthanasia rates.\u00a0 That is, the population of pets they receive exceeds their holding capacity.\u00a0 One means to reduce the number of pets in their care is to adopt them, but a mandatory \u2018cooling off\u2019 period may mean that animals are required to spend longer periods of time in a shelter environment.\u00a0 Not only is this stressful for the animals held for longer periods (increasing risk of them becoming \u2018kennel crazy\u2019, as in Coleman et al. 2011), but it may also put further stress on shelters already straining on the number of animal impounds.\u00a0 That is, a mandatory cooling off period may require shelters to increase euthanasia as a result of lack of space.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Re: Puppies aren\u2019t unwanted<\/strong><\/p>\n Very few puppies are surrendered to shelters, and very few puppies are described as unwanted when surrendered, according to Marston et al. (2005) in research conducted in Melbourne shelters. \u00a0Only 10.2% of dogs entering the shelters were puppies.\u00a0 Furthermore, only 6.47% of dogs surrendered to the shelter were surrendered for the reason of \u201cunwanted pup\u201d.\u00a0 In this way, it seems unlikely that a cooling off period would alter the desirability of puppies. Re: Shelter intakes from \u2018friends\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n In New et al. (2000)\u2019s research, both cats and dogs that were acquired from a \u2018friend\u2019 were more likely to be surrendered to a shelter.\u00a0 This indicates that the non-retail-shop trade has a significant relationship to shelter surrender and euthanasia.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Re: Backyard breeders produce many pets<\/strong><\/p>\n Approximately 450,000 dogs are sold in Australia each year (ABC News).\u00a0 However, pet shop puppy sales are less than 70,000 pups per year (ABC News).\u00a0 Furthermore, the Australian National Kennel Club (the purebred dog register), had on average 63,465 puppies registered per year from 2009-2011 (ANKC website).\u00a0 This leaves over 300,000 dogs being sold from largely unregulated sources, such as \u2018backyard breeders\u2019. For this reason, it is clear that regulation in this area is highly desirable, considering the volume of animals produced.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Re: Free roaming cats are breeding<\/strong><\/p>\n Any regulation on non-retail-shop trade needs to adequacy address the breeding of free roaming cats.\u00a0 This will be further considered in section (f) of the terms of reference, looking at trap-neuter-release (TNR) strategies and their effectiveness.<\/p>\n One potential way to target free-roaming cats is through \u2018last litter funds\u2019.\u00a0 Marston et al. (2006) argued for this to be investigated when examining cat intakes into Melbourne shelters.\u00a0 Kitten season often sees two intake \u2018spikes\u2019, suggesting that many queens are producing two litters during breeding season.\u00a0 When individuals enter shelters to surrender a litter of kittens, that individual may act as an access point for desexing the mother cat.\u00a0 Kitten-only surrenders should lead to queens being targeted for desexing, instead of allowing for a second litter to be produced in the breeding season. Dog Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n Re: Dog registration<\/span><\/p>\n Dog registration has been an effective way to raise revenue for council\u2019s animal management.\u00a0 The Dog and Cat Management Act, who legislates the use of these funds, is a successful way to ensuring these funds are appropriately used.\u00a0 However, Councils and the Board are \u2018missing out\u2019 on funds as a result of individuals failing to register their pets.\u00a0 There needs to be stricter enforcement of this existing legislation to ensure that all dogs are registered, as per the Dog and Cat Management Act, to guarantee that optimum dog funds reach important animal management projects.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Re: Discounts for dog registration through puppy classes<\/span><\/p>\n There is no doubt that puppy classes are effective in terms of puppy and owner education (Seksel 2008).\u00a0 Furthermore, Duxbury et al. (2003) reported that puppies who attended puppy socialisation classes were more likely to be retained by their owners in adulthood.<\/p>\n According to Hugh Wirth, from the RSPCA Victoria, dogs are surrendered to shelters for behavioural problems such as destructiveness, barking, digging, fence jumping, escaping, anxiety, fear, dislike of people, inappropriate toileting, and attacks on other animals (Wirth n.d.).\u00a0 A study by Seksel et al. (1999) demonstrated that puppy class can be highly successful for training dogs basic commands.\u00a0 Lack of socialisation is associated with aggression and avoidance of people (Appleby et al. 2002), and so puppy classes seek to counteract this.\u00a0 Additionally, puppy classes provide a venue for new owners to be schooled on means of preventing all these potential problem behaviours.<\/p>\n These type of behavioural problems are often the result of dogs being surrendered in shelters.\u00a0 In New et al.\u2019s (2000) study, dogs surrendered to shelters were more bitey, less toilet broken, more likely to damage things in and out of the house, more hyperactive, and more noisey than other households studied.\u00a0 Again, all problems that could potentially be prevented through puppy school education.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Re: Discounts for desexing<\/span><\/p>\n Discount registrations for dogs that have been desexed is an excellent method to encourage desexing.\u00a0 It may be necessary to make these desexing discounts mandatory, and perhaps increase the difference between entire and desexed animal registrations, to provide more of an incentive for people to desex their dogs.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Re: Rescues and dog registration<\/span><\/p>\n Currently, all dogs over 12 weeks old and residing at a premises for 2 weeks or more are required to be registered.\u00a0 For small private rescues who use foster care networks to rehome dogs, this is a significant burden on their often limited finances.\u00a0 Furthermore, these small private shelters are assisting to reduce resource drain on the large shelters and deserve some recognition for these efforts.\u00a0 There should be some investigation on voiding or reducing registration rates for dogs that are in foster homes on a temporary basis.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Cat Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n Cat registration is not currently effective in South Australia, and seems to have little benefit.\u00a0 Though the government may benefit from revenue from cat registration fees, there are issues in compliance.\u00a0 Additionally, it becomes difficult to ascertain ownership of cats that spend some time outdoors.\u00a0 Another complication of cat registration is that individuals may choose to relinquish their pets to a shelter in lieu of paying registration fees, and so compound the shelter euthanasia problem (Williamson 2009).\u00a0 Even when states where registration is compulsory, very few cats wear their registration tags and so they are little help in reclaims (see Marston et al. 2006 that showed that 0.04% of cats admitted to Melbourne shelters studied wore a registration tag on intake).\u00a0 Additionally, in Melbourne shelters, 36.37% of owners, when surrendering a cat, stated that \u201ctoo many cats\u201d was the reason, with a further 5.78% stating \u201ccannot get council permit\u201d.\u00a0 Marlston et al. (2006) suggest that these reasons may be interconnected, and that council restrictions on cat numbers may have an influence on the relinquishment of cats to the shelters.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Micro chipping before sale<\/strong><\/p>\n Laws that require dogs and cats to be micro-chipped before sale would be a means of helping more pets return home.\u00a0 Additionally, micro-chipping allows a means to identify animals that may be involved in ownership disputes, or even identifying dangerous dogs and seeking legal action.<\/p>\n Unlike arguments against cat registration, requiring animals to be micro-chipped only before sale does not have the issues associated with animal relinquishment.\u00a0 It is only when animals are being sold or transferred that they are required to be \u2018chipped. There, of course, needs to be a clause to allow animals to transfer animals to rescue groups without penalty.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legislation on micro-chipping procedures<\/span><\/p>\n Microchips are worthless without procedures regarding their implantation, registration, scanning, and access to the database.<\/p>\n Firstly, there should be a limit of one microchip per animal (i.e. an animal should not be implanted with two \u2018chips).\u00a0 This requires implanters to scan animals for a microchip before implantation and, if a chip is found, the database holding the microchip data should be contacted for change of ownership, in lieu of a second microchip being implanted.<\/p>\n Currently in South Australia, microchips records are managed be private companies.\u00a0 This means that they have their individual policies in regard to registration and change of ownership, some of which are flawed.\u00a0 A government managed database, such as that seen in NSW, could be an excellent way to produce consistency in micro-chipping. This is also a means of revenue raising.\u00a0 This database needs to be accessible Australia wide, in case pets travel across state boarders when lost.<\/p>\n Again, there is no legislation governing the scanning of animals that may be lost.\u00a0 Indeed, the Dog and Cat Management Act does not even mention \u2018microchip\u2019 in any capacity.\u00a0 This desperately needs to be changed in order to improve owner reclaim rates.\u00a0 In the first instance, an animal management officer, collecting a dog in the field, should scan the dog for a microchip and attempt to return the animal to its owner, without admitting it to a shelter.\u00a0 Because microchips can migrate, and scanners can be \u2018temperamental\u2019, each impound facility should have two scanners that they run over the dog on two separate occasions, by two separate people, before it is determined that the animal is \u2018chipped or otherwise.<\/p>\n In the case that animals are microchipped, then all details on their microchip should be used in order to optimise reclaims.\u00a0 The phone numbers should be called, the postal address should be sent a letter, and the electoral role should be used to attempt to find the owner\u2019s new location.\u00a0 If animals get to go home, this means they are not at the shelter to suffer the fate of euthanasia.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Nomination of breeders on microchips<\/span><\/p>\n Breeders should be responsible for their animals for their lifetimes, not just up until sale. To nominate breeders on microchips would be useful for statistical purposes, at the very least.\u00a0 Marlston et al. (2006) suggested that locating breeders could be a step in reducing euthanasia rates in shelters.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Education regarding changing details on a microchip<\/span><\/p>\n Many people move house and neglect to update their pet\u2019s microchip details.\u00a0 Education needs to take place regarding this, to make sure that pet microchips stay up to date and ensure optimum reclaims.\u00a0 This type of education could be distributed in \u2018moving house\u2019 packs, like those distributed by Australia Post or electricity providers.\u00a0 Real Estate agents could also distribute microchip address change forms with new home purchases.\u00a0 These simple steps could be a great way to reduce pets ending up in shelters that are microchipped, but owners are not contactable.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Desexing is a medical procedure and should not be mandated<\/strong><\/p>\n While desexing is a common procedure, it is still a medical operation performed under anaesthetic by licensed veterinarians.\u00a0 There are numerous health effects associated with desexing, and not desexing (Sanborn 2007), and so the choice to spay or neuter a pet should be left to the discretion of vets and owners.<\/p>\n While New et al. (2000) noted that desexed pets were less likely to be surrendered to shelters, Marston et al. (2006) noted that over 90% of pet cats are desexed and so efforts to desex more pet cats is unlikely to reduce cat numbers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Promotion of early age desexing in cats<\/span><\/p>\n Despite desexing being an individual choice, many individuals believe their pet is \u2018too young\u2019 to be desexed (18% in a study by Byrd Subacz 2008).\u00a0 In reality, early age desexing (EAD) may be a viable means to prevent litters in cats before they are 6 months old. \u00a0While Marston et al. (2006) is pessimistic about the impact this would have on shelter admissions, it may have effects on free ranging and un-owned cats that do enter shelters.\u00a0 Regardless, Byrd Subacz (2008) and Marston et al. (2006) identifies that increased education on feline reproduction and fertility in cat owners is needed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Low cost cat desexing<\/span><\/p>\n While the majority of owned cats are desexed, the cost of desexing may be a significant barrier to cat desexing for the 10% whose cats are entire (Byrd Subacz 2008, Marston et al. 2006).\u00a0 Avenues to subsidise, reduce, or even standardise cat desexing may be a useful way of reducing pricing barriers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Desexing of semi-owned cats should be a target<\/span><\/p>\n Marston et al. (2006) concluded that most cats entering shelters are likely to be \u2018semi-owned\u2019 cats, and efforts should be made to desex these populations.\u00a0 The study indicated that further research is required into the psychology of community cat feeding, and what incentives could be used to encourage these \u2018semi owners\u2019 to desex the cats they are caring for.\u00a0 Marston et al. (2006) also suggested that a mobile desexing van may be a means to reach cats that are restricted by transport issues. Animal shelters need to be legislated in ways that reduce euthanasia.<\/strong><\/p>\n The terms of reference are targeting the source of companion animals, but neglect to note that animal shelters are actually the places where euthanasia takes place.\u00a0 Animal shelters are not obligated to euthanise animals, and instead implement policies that make the destruction of animals part of the facility\u2019s culture.\u00a0 Considering consistently high euthanasia rates at the two major metropolitan shelters in South Australia (the RSPCA SA at Lonsdale and the Animal Welfare League (AWL) at Wingfield), these facilities have shown their inability to make proactive changes to improve reclaiming and rehoming.\u00a0 In this way, implementing legislation that obligates shelters to undertake best practice may be beneficial in reducing euthanasia rates.<\/p>\n Mandatory strategies to increase reclaims<\/span><\/p>\n Many pet owners try to find their animals if they become lost or stray, but many pets aren\u2019t reunited with their owner.\u00a0 Shelters should be mandated to seek the pet\u2019s original owner \u2013 if one extra pet goes home this means that one pet is not at the shelter at risk of euthanasia.<\/p>\n There are a number of strategies that could be implemented to encourage pets to go home:<\/p>\n \u201cOreo\u2019s Law\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Currently, RSPCA SA and AWL SA refuse to work with private rescue groups.\u00a0 Countless animals could have been spared the fate of euthanasia if these major shelter groups had accepted offers of help from private rescue groups.\u00a0 It is clear that these large shelters are not prepared to, voluntarily, act in the best interest of their impounded animals.\u00a0 For this reason, \u201cOreo\u2019s Law\u201d, which obligates shelters to work with rescue groups when the alternative for that animal is euthanasia.\u00a0 That is, a shelter could not destroy an animal that had an individual or rescue group prepared to take custody of that animal.\u00a0 This is one of the recommendations in the Companion Animal Protection Act<\/em> (CAPA n.d.). \u00a0Winograd (2009 & 2012) estimates that over 60,000 animals in the New York Shelter could have been saved by this type of legislation.\u00a0 It has the possibility of saving pets in South Australia, too.<\/p>\n Mandated time for adoption<\/span><\/p>\n Like shelters are currently obligated to hold an animal for reclaim for 72 hours, they should also be obligated to hold an animal for adoption for a set period of time, instead of immediately euthanising animals after their time has lapsed. \u00a0CAPA (n.d.) recommends a minimum impound period of 5 days, where 2-3 days are set aside for reclaims, and 2 days set aside for adoption.\u00a0 Furthermore, shelters should be open for adoption for at least 6 hours, seven days a week (except on public holidays), as recommended in CAPA (n.d).\u00a0 These types of actions would allow more animals to reach new homes, and so not be destroyed in a shelter environment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Require all landlords and real estate agents to permit pets into residential properties with no penalty.<\/strong><\/p>\n Individuals who surrender pets to shelters are frequently forced to due to \u2018human housing issues\u2019 (Marston et al. 2005, Salman et al. 1998), including tenancy issues.\u00a0 Currently, landlords are able to discriminate against potential tenants on the basis of their pet ownership status.\u00a0 Clearly, this is a problematic approach where individuals are forced to surrender animals to shelters in order to find accommodation \u2013 or worse, individuals who chose to live homeless instead of surrender their pet.\u00a0 Undoubtedly, the status quo in residential tenancy is harmful to people and pets.\u00a0 Landlords and real estate agents should not be able to impose pet bans on properties due to the harmful animal welfare complications this brings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Temporary Boarding Options<\/strong><\/p>\n As an extension of the above, another option is for governments to subsidise temporary accommodation for pets when owners are in difficulty.\u00a0 This could be times where appropriate accommodation cannot be found (e.g. finding a landlord that will accept pets), or where individuals choose to move house to avoid domestic violence situations and need to take their animals with them, or even during natural disasters (Hunt et al. 2012). Currently, these kind of scenarios can lead to animal welfare concerns and potential surrender of animals to shelters, which may result in them being euthanised. RSPCA NSW (n.d.) runs a \u201cLiving Ruff\u201d program that provides temporary accommodation to pets when required.\u00a0 In Marston et al.\u2019s (2006) study of Melbourne animal shelters, she found that all cats that were admitted for \u201cowner support\u201d reasons were reclaimed, which illustrates the success of programs designed to keep pets with their families in difficult circumstances.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Implementation of Trap, Neuter, Release Programs (instead of admitting cats to shelters)<\/strong><\/p>\n Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR) is free-roaming-cat management method. Because many cats trapped in the community are not sociable enough with people (i.e. \u2018feral\u2019) to be adopted, they are instead desexed and returned to the community (Wolf n.d.).<\/p>\n While initially this method seems counter-intuitive to the goals of animal welfare and reducing euthanasia, evidence suggests this is not the case.\u00a0 Not only has this method proved to be effective in reducing free-roaming cat populations, it has also been illustrated to reduce euthanasia in shelters, increase adoptions in shelters, reducing rodent populations, and for less expenditure than traditional trap-kill models.<\/p>\n Trap-and-kill models have been in place for 30 years or more, to a huge amount of expense. However, it rarely results in eradication (Wolf n.d.).\u00a0 The few examples where cats have been eliminated from environments have mostly been small islands, where eradication was a costly and long-winded process (Wolf n.d.).<\/p>\n Benefits of TNR<\/span><\/p>\n TNR programs have continually lead to a decrease in free-ranging cat populations. For example:<\/p>\n TNR have often been hailed as more cost effective than traditional \u2018trap-and-kill\u2019 models.\u00a0 For example:<\/p>\n TNR often sees less cats entering shelters, and subsequently euthanised.\u00a0 Several studies have shown this:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Additionally, TNR seems to be associated with increased adoption (in places like Salt Lake City (Best Friends Animal Society 2012), Place County SPCA, and San Jose (Gonzales 2013)). Presumably, because less animals are admitted to a shelter, the ones that are in the shelter have more socialisation and training, and are more likely to find a home (Best Friends Animal Society 2012).<\/p>\n Response to arguments against TNR<\/span><\/p>\n However, despite TNR\u2019s demonstrated success in reducing shelter euthanasia and, indeed, the number of free ranging cats overall, a number of arguments are made against TNR.\u00a0 These are made on both the Homeless Cats SA website (2012) and the \u201cWho\u2019s For Cats\u201d website (2009) run by the Department of Primary Industries in Victoria, as well as the general public.<\/p>\n One argument against TNR is concerns for the welfare of the free-ranging cat population.\u00a0 All well-managed TNR programs allocate caretakers to feeding colonies, and this caretaker is responsible for monitoring the well being of the cats (Byrd Subacz 2008).\u00a0 However, many TNRed cats are in good condition, with similar weights and disease status as pet cats (Byrd Subacz 2008).\u00a0 Indeed, desexing itself increases cat-weights and reduces the spread of disease (Best Friends Animal Society 2012, Byrd Subacz 2008).\u00a0 Most cats entering Melbourne animal shelters are at optimum weight (Marston et al. 2006), and in a 11 year study in the USA which considered 103, 632 free roaming cats, less than 1% were found to be in such poor health that they needed to be euthanised (Best Friends Animal Society 2012b).\u00a0 Additionally, free roaming cats live reasonably long lives, with many cats living to six years or older (Best Friends Animal Society 2012).\u00a0 Furthermore, TNR has been associated with a 17% reduction in cat road kill in San Jose (Gonzales 2013).\u00a0 It seems, contrary to popular belief, TNR actually has a range of benefits to cat health.<\/p>\n Some express concerns for free roaming cats impacting on native wildlife.\u00a0 However, cats and native wildlife maintain a complex ecosystem, and it is hard to estimate the effects that cats have on wildlife populations.\u00a0 Potentially, removing a cat from ecosystems may see other non-native species flourish (Wolf 2010).\u00a0 This is especially true when we consider cats are known for mostly preying on rodents (Byrd Subacz 2008, Gonzales 2013).\u00a0 Indeed, in Boston, free-roaming-cats were used as a solution to a 25-year strong rat problem (Shelter Me Inc. n.d.).\u00a0 Furthermore, well-fed cats are less likely to catch and kill wildlife, and Neville & Remfry (1984, as cited by Byrd Subacz 2008) found that a TNR program in Londan Park \u201celiminated\u201d cat predation on waterfowl.\u00a0 While cats are likely to prey on some native wildlife, evidence suggests that they are more likely to prey on rodents.<\/p>\n Cats are also responsible for a range of nuisance behaviours in the community.\u00a0 However, when TNR is implemented, many of these behaviours are lessened as they are associated with breeding (Best Friends Animal Society 2012, Byrd Subacz 2008).\u00a0 Furthermore, cats roam less once neutered (Byrd Subacz 2008). Jacksonville, Florida found in 2007-2010 during a TNR program that their nuisance complaints decreased (Best Friends Animal Society 2012).<\/p>\n Thus, it seems that concerns regarding cat welfare, wildlife predation and nuisance behaviours are unsubstantiated and mostly disproven by current evidence.\u00a0 The benefits associated with TNR have been wildly demonstrated, globally, as a means of improving cat welfare outcomes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Education<\/strong><\/p>\n To prevent dog bites<\/span><\/p>\n The Dog and Cat Management Board (D&CMB) has proactively funded education to young children aimed at preventing dog bites, through the Delta Dog Safe Program and, more recently, the Responsible Pet Owners Program.\u00a0 Both of these are worthwhile programs, which may curb the number of dogs surrendered to shelters with bite histories and for euthanasia.\u00a0 However, child behaviours are only part of the dog bite problem, and investment should be increased in parent education.\u00a0 Though the D&CMB also provides parent education in the form of the \u201cWe Are Family Program\u201d, this program needs to be much more active and far-reaching in order to provide substantial impact.<\/p>\n To prevent animal breeding<\/span><\/p>\n Byrd Subacz (2008) and New et al. (2000) explained that many individuals who choose to surrender their animals to a shelter are not knowledgeable on animal reproduction.\u00a0 This means that pets in their care are at risk of reproduction-based conditions, and may also contribute to the population of pets through \u2018accidental\u2019 offspring.\u00a0\u00a0 There is a need for increased knowledge on animal reproduction in pet owners.\u00a0 Knowledge on companion animal reproduction also needs to span into desexing, especially early age desexing, particularly considering that many people consider their pet \u2018too young\u2019 to be desexed (Byrd Subacz 2008), which means that they are at risk of producing a litter before desexing takes place.<\/p>\n To increase understanding of reclaims<\/span><\/p>\n It is inevitable that, at times, some pets will become lost and owners will need to find them.\u00a0 However, many owners do not know the most efficient means of searching for a lost pet.\u00a0 They often will physically look for the pet themselves, and maybe put up posters, but often don\u2019t realise they should contact their local councils and the major animal holding facilities in the state.\u00a0 In order to ensure that more animals are reclaimed, and less subject to shelter euthanasia, education efforts need to be undertaken to the pet-owning public.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Establishing an independent regulatory body<\/strong><\/p>\n A recent report from Goodfellow (2012) illustrated the inadequacy in current animal welfare legislation creation.\u00a0 He says, “The current arrangements for animal welfare regulation do not represent an efficient and effective use of public funds… [and] also fail to serve the public interest in delivering independent and objective animal welfare science, and substantive laws which reflect government policy and community expectations.”\u00a0 Particularly, individuals concerned with agriculture and primary industries are at the forefront in establishing policy, despite having a clear conflict of interest by being invested in animal productivity.\u00a0 Goodfellow argues for the establishment of an independent regulatory body, a Commonwealth Office of Animal Welfare, which is not solely composed of individuals with vested commercial interests (such as vets and farmers), and that the current system lacks legitimacy, fairness and equality.\u00a0 In short, current animal welfare policy is commercialised and lacks input from animal welfare groups.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Improved record keeping by councils<\/strong><\/p>\n Currently, the Animal Welfare League of SA does not release its euthanasia statistics.\u00a0 Councils are also not forthcoming surrounding the number of animals they have impounded and the outcome for those animals.\u00a0 These statistics are vital in determining areas of weakness surrounding animal welfare, and for eliciting public discussion regarding shelter procedures.\u00a0 At this present time, it\u2019s uncertain what the true animal welfare situation is in South Australia.\u00a0 Transparency in shelter procedures is one of the recommendations from CAPA (n.d.), which also advocates for shelters to display these statistics publicly and make them known to individuals surrendering pets to facilities.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n ABC News 2012, ‘Pet industry collars dodgy puppy farms’, accessed from http:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/news\/2012-03-06\/pet-association-cracks-own-on-dodgy-breeders\/3871936<\/a>.<\/p>\n ANKC 2012, National Registration Statistics, accessed from http:\/\/www.ankc.org.au\/National-Registration-Statistics.aspx<\/a>.<\/p>\n Appleby DL, Bradshaw JW, & Casey RA (2002). Relationship between aggressive and avoidance behaviour by dogs and their experience in the first six months of life. The Veterinary record, 150<\/span> (14), 434-8 PMID: 11993972<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Byrd Subacz, K 2008, ‘Impact assessment of trap-neuter-return program on selected features of Auburn, Alabama feral cat colonies\u2019.<\/p>\n Coleman, P, Veleanu, H, Wolkov, SK (2011). It’s raining cats and dogs… Government lawyers take note: differential licensing laws generate revenue, reduce costs, protect citizens, and save lives Stetson Law Review, 40<\/span> (2)<\/span><\/p>\n Duxbury MM, Jackson JA, Line SW, & Anderson RK (2003). Evaluation of association between retention in the home and attendance at puppy socialization classes. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 223<\/span> (1), 61-6 PMID: 12839065<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Marston, L., Bennett, P., & Coleman, G. (2005). What Happens to Shelter Dogs? Part 2. Comparing Three Melbourne Welfare Shelters for Nonhuman Animals Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 8<\/span> (1), 25-45 DOI: 10.1207\/s15327604jaws0801_3<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Marston, L, Bennett, P & Toukhsati, S 2006, ‘Cat Admissions to Melbourne Shelters’, Monash University.<\/p>\n New, J., Salman, M., King, M., Scarlett, J., Kass, P., & Hutchison, J. (2000). Characteristics of Shelter-Relinquished Animals and Their Owners Compared With Animals and Their Owners in U.S. Pet-Owning Households Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3<\/span> (3), 179-201 DOI: 10.1207\/S15327604JAWS0303_1<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Pluijmakers, J., Appleby, D., & Bradshaw, J. (2010). Exposure to video images between 3 and 5 weeks of age decreases neophobia in domestic dogs Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 126<\/span> (1-2), 51-58 DOI: 10.1016\/j.applanim.2010.05.006<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Salman MD, New JG Jr, Scarlett JM, Kass PH, Ruch-Gallie R, & Hetts S (1998). Human and animal factors related to relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal shelters in the United States. Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS, 1<\/span> (3), 207-26 PMID: 16363966<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Sanborn, LJ 2007, ‘Long-term health risks and benefits associated with spay\/neutering dogs’, accessed from: http:\/\/www.naiaonline.org\/pdfs\/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n John Scott, & John Fuller (1967). Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog The American Biology Teacher, 29<\/span> (9), 756-756 DOI: 10.2307\/4441905<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Seksel, K., Mazurski, E., & Taylor, A. (1999). Puppy socialisation programs: short and long term behavioural effects Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 62<\/span> (4), 335-349 DOI: 10.1016\/S0168-1591(98)00232-9<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Seksel, K. (2008). Preventing Behavior Problems in Puppies and Kittens Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 38<\/span> (5), 971-982 DOI: 10.1016\/j.cvsm.2008.04.003<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Williamson 2009, ‘Compulsory cat registration sees kill rates Soar, accessed from: http:\/\/www.savingpets.com.au\/2009\/12\/compulsory-cat-registration-sees-kill-rates-soar\/<\/a><\/p>\n Wirth n.d., ‘Abandoned animals in Australia – not just dumped doggies and cast away kittens’ accessed from: http:\/\/www.daff.gov.au\/__data\/assets\/pdf_file\/0008\/1046393\/20-hugh-wirth.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n ——<\/p>\n You can find examples of submissions (which I don’t necessarily support all components of, but may help you in formulating your own submission):<\/p>\n Deathrow Pets<\/a> (very similar to this one as Paul (with my blessing) used mine as a base for writing his own)<\/p>\n The Paw Project created a submission<\/a> (focusses on no-kill processes in section f, not dissimilar to mine)<\/p>\n\n
\nc) the feasibility of a mandatory cooling off period between registering intent to purchase a companion dog or cat and taking possession of the animal,<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nIn Response to the Terms of Reference<\/big><\/big><\/strong>
\na) options for the regulation of welfare standards for breeding companion dogs and cats,<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nc) the feasibility of a mandatory cooling off period between registering intent to purchase a companion dog or cat and taking possession of the animal,<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nd) the adequacy of the regulation of non-retail-shop trade in companion dogs and cats,<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n
\ne) how the registration, micro chipping and desexing of companion animals may address these goals,<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n
\n(f) any other relevant matters.<\/big><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n