Rescuers In Victoria Say Letter Is A Death Warrant

[Steve]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/animal-r...1120-181z4.html

<H1 class="cN-headingPage prepend-5 span-11 last">Animal rescuers say letter is a death warrant </H1>

Mark Russell

November 21, 2010 Puppy love: Jenny Allen, of Hoppers Crossing, adopted 12-month-old Aysha after seeing the three-legged terrier on the PetRescue website. "This little girl has brought so much joy to my life," she said. Photo: Ken Irwin

COUNCILS have stopped handing over cats and dogs on death row to rescue groups following a bureaucratic decree that animal lovers say will lead to the unnecessary killing of abandoned pets.

The Department of Primary Industry's Bureau of Animal Welfare has sent a bulletin to councils warning them about dealing with unregistered rescue groups.

The bureau wants each volunteer rescue group to be registered with the local council as an animal shelter and to operate under the code of practice for the management of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds.

Volunteer rescue groups, who claim they save more than 1000 animals a year from death row in pounds and official shelters, say the move is bureaucratic, heavy-handed and discriminatory.

Dog Rescue Association of Victoria president Trisha Taylor said volunteers take unwanted dogs and cats into their own homes and spend time and money rehabilitating them so they can be rehomed. They did not want to have to turn their homes into animal shelters and report to the bureau.

''The rules for shelters are onerous and intended for multiple dog situations,'' Ms Taylor said. ''This is no different than you taking an extra dog into your home and having to declare yourself an animal shelter, with the bureau coming to check you meet the code's standards.''

She said volunteers did not put the rescued cats or dogs in cages, but treated them as pets until they were adopted out.

She said the bureau wanted to either gain control over rescue groups or shut them down - a move that would force up the kill rate of abandoned animals.

An estimated 250,000 dogs and cats are killed each year in Australia, but three-legged terrier Aysha escaped the noose.

Jenny Allen, of Hoppers Crossing, fell in love with 12-month-old Aysha when she saw her photo on the PetRescue website.

''She was so beautiful and this little girl has brought so much joy to my life,'' Ms Allen said. ''She runs, jumps, and does everything a four-legged dog can do and it's just ridiculous to think she was about to be put down because she has only three legs. If these volunteer rescue groups are shut down, it's going to be a very sad day.''

Ms Taylor said the bureau's bulletin was being interpreted by local councils to mean they could not release dogs and cats to rescue groups.

She has written to Premier John Brumby asking him to clarify the legislation. ''No pound or shelter should be able to kill a dog or cat that a rescue group can save,'' she said. ''Why is the bureau not welcoming us?''

The bureau's Steven Moore said councils needed to be made aware that the aim of the Domestic Animals Act was to promote responsible pet ownership, animal welfare and the protection of the environment.

Mr Moore said councils could not hand over a dog or a cat to an animal shelter, foster carer or rescue group without ensuring they had the facilities to provide the necessary veterinary care.

In a letter to Ms Taylor, he said: ''The legislative issue is to meet the requirements of the act, not prevent people like you assisting councils with the rehousing of physically healthy and behaviourally sound dogs and cats.''

Ms Taylor, however, said rescue groups operated under strict rules and stringent rehoming practices, and that the bureau should be advising councils and pounds that the groups have the right to rescue any animal that would otherwise be killed.

[Steve]

If they have to register as a shelter rather than a rescue - that will change everything for them. legislation in Victoria relating to what you can and cant do as a shelter will see lots of animals go without.

You see this is how they work.

They propose laws whcih will afect those who are shelters. No one really kicks up much because they are not shelters and they think it will only affect the big shelters which are already known as shelters- pass the legislation and them wammo - you're it.

chuck in a bit of new laws to make sure you can be policed and its all over.

[mita]

Goodness!

Funny thing is that I found, only yesterday, the Bureau of Animal Welfare in Victoria & wondered what they actually did. And what it meant for people & their animals in their real lives. Now I know. Doesn't seem to have much of a clue about how rescue operates & how it's done so, for a long time, in cooperation with pounds. There's been no major problem the Bureau's needed to wade in and fix. I could be very wrong, but it sounds like someone is making up work to do....at a desk.

Edited November 21, 2010 by mita

[asal]

seems a similar problem in nsw. down the coast i was visiting my sister in law. she is very upset. some months ago a stray cat hid under their house. they thought it was a feral and requested a cat trap. once caught she discovered it was a somewhat aged but obviously very much loved and well trained cat.

extremely affectionate and trained to lead even?

the ranger insisted she must surrender the cat, not wait for its owner to come looking. she asked could she apply to adopt it if the owner was not found. it would have cost them nothing at the shelter, it was already desexed and chipped, turned out the owners address was no longer current and whereabouts unknown.

did she get to buy and rehome the cat? no they refused to release him to her on the grounds he was too old and killed him.

she is still devestated and feels if she hadnt called and asked for the loan of the trap a healthy loving cat would still be alived and she would have loved him till the day he died she said he was amazing. and still misses him even though she only had him for one day.

is there a rspca at shoalhaven? dont know who it was who refused to give him a second chance

[Steve]

Goodness!

Funny thing is that I found, only yesterday, the Bureau of Animal Welfare in Victoria & wondered what they actually did. And what it meant for people & their animals in their real lives. Now I know. Doesn't seem to have much of a clue about how rescue operates & how it's done so, for a long time, in cooperation with pounds. There's been no major problem the Bureau's needed to wade in and fix. I could be very wrong, but it sounds like someone is making up work to do....at a desk.

Not quite - rescue so far have been reluctant to think they too would be under the gun as breeders have been but this has been on the agenda for at least 3 years that I am aware of . It was One of the issues discussed at the RSPCA round table but put aside for the purposes of that discussion as a separate issue to puppy farming but not just in Victoria but everywhere there are definitely moves afoot to stop private rescue.

When rescue began yelling for tougher laws and cheered when Brumby announced that would happen they didnt consider that if the RSPCA has greater power to police planning laws as well as POCTAA that this would be their battle too.

[mita]

I'm getting the mental tremors every time I read something re the animal laws or administration of them...in Victoria. There's always some measure of overkill (interesting choice of word). Have you seen that Bureau's web page? Very, very heavyweight! It made me think....but what does this mean for people & their animals, everyday?

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/L...A256EDD0082EDF1

I'll take matters state by state, re laws, attitudes & priorities. Here in Qld the RSPCA includes reputable rescues as one of their recommendations for dog buyers (& for purebreds, find a responsible breeder). Their aim is to get their own 'inmates' fostered out in private homes, just as traditional rescue does. Best thing for companion animals.

Edited November 21, 2010 by mita

[Steve]

I'm getting the mental tremors every time I read something re the animal laws or administration of them...in Victoria. There's always some measure of overkill (interesting choice of word). Have you seen that Bureau's web page? Very, very heavyweight! It made me think....but what does this mean for people & their animals, everyday?

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/L...A256EDD0082EDF1

I'll take matters state by state, re laws, attitudes & priorities. Here in Qld the RSPCA includes reputable rescues as one of their recommendations for dog buyers (& for purebreds, find a responsible breeder). Their aim is to get their own 'inmates' fostered out in private homes, just as traditional rescue does. Best thing for companion animals.

However, reputable means people who have incorporated and who have to comply with planning laws. No matter where you live if you are running a business from home whether that is non profit or not you have to apply for a permit and comply with planning laws.

To date these planning laws and mandatory codes are policed by councils except in NSW.

[shortstep]

Be careful what you wish for you may just get it.

[Winterpaws]

Victoria just seems so backward in their companion animal laws. I'd never consider moving there!

(Sorry Victorians! I was born there!)

[Steve]

Victoria just seems so backward in their companion animal laws. I'd never consider moving there!

(Sorry Victorians! I was born there!)

I dont think its going to be confined to Victoria - there is a push on Australia wide for this.

In NSW it was this exact situation which has seen at least 3 rescues which I am aware of having to shut down. I believe save a shep was one of them.

the new laws promised in Victoria to control puppy farmers by making them comply with planning laws will also apply to rescue just as they do in NSW.

Albury dog rescue people and Radar have felt this sting too.

[Little Gifts]

That really pisses me off! If local councils or the RSPCA were managing the issue then there would be no need for private shelters or rescue groups whether they are registered or not. Rescue groups spring up in response to need, not because the people involved have nothing better to do with themselves. People put all the spare money and time they have into trying to give these dogs (and cats) a chance to live without expecting anything in return.

I find it offensive that the focus has been shifted from why all these dogs need to be rescued to the people who choose to rescue them.

Shame on you Vic government.

[Sheridan]

Victoria plays the blinder blame game yet again.

[Steve]

Actually its been pretty well orchestrated - You have to give them credit for being able to pull it off.

Get them begging for tougher laws and make them go to work for you banging a drum demanding more power to the RSPCA and tougher planning laws

then slam dunk em with the same laws they were asking for . You get puppy farmers, anyone who breeds a litter and anyone who rescues a dog. Tell me again - how does this stop one dog from suffering??

[shortstep]

Actually its been pretty well orchestrated - You have to give them credit for being able to pull it off.

Get them begging for tougher laws and make them go to work for you banging a drum demanding more power to the RSPCA and tougher planning laws

then slam dunk em with the same laws they were asking for . You get puppy farmers, anyone who breeds a litter and anyone who rescues a dog. Tell me again - how does this stop one dog from suffering??

Have any people who rescue in Vic (here on DOL) had any comment on this topic? Maybe they support it and wanted it to happen?

Edited November 21, 2010 by shortstep

[Aphra]

Have any people who rescue in Vic (here on DOL) had any comment on this topic? Maybe they support it and wanted it to happen?

Thing is, there is no way any private rescues would be able to comply with the DPI's regulations for pounds and shelters because the legislation is written for a completely different set of circumstances and assumes a whole lot of infrastructure and populations which rescue groups don't have and don't want to have. It's a bit like having legislation to manage apples and then trying to apply it to potatoes ... they might all end up in your fridge, but the that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

There was a proposed change to the current legislation earlier this year which attempted to define rescue groups and was worded in such a way as to make rescue almost impossible. I'm not sure who leaked the draft, but clearly not all members of the DPI's Animal Welfare Committee are in favour of the heavy handed approach.

While I don't always agree with Steve (respectfully disagree quite often ) in this case I think she's spot on. I don't agree with the proposed Oscar's Law for a number of reasons, including the ones Steve has mentioned. Given the DPI's record on companion animal welfare in Victoria to date, I simply can't understand why we'd have any trust at all in any legislation they write. This is the same people who gave us the recent dangerous dog legislation which is a nice example of knee jerk, pointless legislation.

Many Victorian pounds, particularly in remote and rural areas are desperate to work with rescue. The people who run pounds, by and large, don't like killing healthy animals and will do as much as they possibly can to save lives. The fact that they are hindered by antiquated legislation and an antiquated mind set shames Victoria.

I think the letter to Councils is more about power and control than animal welfare.

[Steve]

Have any people who rescue in Vic (here on DOL) had any comment on this topic? Maybe they support it and wanted it to happen?

Thing is, there is no way any private rescues would be able to comply with the DPI's regulations for pounds and shelters because the legislation is written for a completely different set of circumstances and assumes a whole lot of infrastructure and populations which rescue groups don't have and don't want to have. It's a bit like having legislation to manage apples and then trying to apply it to potatoes ... they might all end up in your fridge, but the that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

There was a proposed change to the current legislation earlier this year which attempted to define rescue groups and was worded in such a way as to make rescue almost impossible. I'm not sure who leaked the draft, but clearly not all members of the DPI's Animal Welfare Committee are in favour of the heavy handed approach.

While I don't always agree with Steve (respectfully disagree quite often ;) ) in this case I think she's spot on. I don't agree with the proposed Oscar's Law for a number of reasons, including the ones Steve has mentioned. Given the DPI's record on companion animal welfare in Victoria to date, I simply can't understand why we'd have any trust at all in any legislation they write. This is the same people who gave us the recent dangerous dog legislation which is a nice example of knee jerk, pointless legislation.

Many Victorian pounds, particularly in remote and rural areas are desperate to work with rescue. The people who run pounds, by and large, don't like killing healthy animals and will do as much as they possibly can to save lives. The fact that they are hindered by antiquated legislation and an antiquated mind set shames Victoria.

I think the letter to Councils is more about power and control than animal welfare.

On that recent legislation - I was watching it for the rescue issues and was then told it was on hold and didnt really go back to check because even though I didnt agree with what they had on the table at that time it didnt impact on any of our members because they werent pounds or shelters . From memory there was things like foster carers not being able to take orphaned animals and a foster carer only being able to keep a foster animal for around 4 weeks.

Im more interested now because if the definition of a shelter is changed then that will affect lots of our members - so did that go anywhere and if not is it gone for good?

[Annie99]

RESPONSE FROM JOE HELPER (thought you might be interested)

Dear

The law in the Code of Practice for the management of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds is more than 20 years old so its important that this year we decided to review the Code so we could take the necessary steps to ensure the great work that animal foster carers do can continue.

This review of the Code will be presented to the next Agriculture Minister after the election. What we will do if re-elected is make sure that foster carers are recognised under a new Code and no longer have to be registered as a domestic animal business.

It will mean foster carers can continue doing their great work but also include minimum standards to ensure all animals are protected.

Labor will also end the 28-day holding rule that currently exists in shelters and pounds that means animals are euthanased when there could be an opportunity to find them a new home.

Instead of a time limit, it will move to a case-by-case individual assessment basis and we're confident that this will mean more animals find new homes and less animals are euthanased.

This is all part of a comprehensive package that Labor has put forward to protect animals and this can be found by visiting http://www.vic.alp.org.au/news-events-medi...animal-welface/

Joe Helper

Minister for Agriculture

[Steve]

Do not vote for Labour. Do not vote for Labour.

[Sheridan]

Do not vote for Labour. Do not vote for Labour.

And note where your preferences go because a vote for minor parties may as well be a vote for Labor.